By Patrick Brogan
By now, most people are familiar with the alleged Russian hack story during the American Presidential Election. The story goes that Russian intelligence, at the behest of President Vladimir Putin, hacked into the DNC servers and then gave the information over to Wikileaks in the hope that this would cost the Democrats the election and Donald Trump would get elected.
The Democrats were very clear on who was to blame. The media constantly brought up the Russian hack story and even the US intelligence community said this is what happened. James Comey told a Senate Committee investigating the hacks that Russia was behind it. Then, a hacker called Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it. This seemed to back up the Russian angle of the story. There is only one problem; there was never any evidence to back up this narrative.
Lee Camp on Redacted Tonight made a number of interesting points in relation to this story. The video is below. Before we go on any further, it must be pointed out that Camp’s show is on RT, as in Russia Today. However, what he says stands up under scrutiny. He said there was no hack of the DNC server. At all. The evidence points to this one being an inside job. He quotes an article in The Nation that used Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) as sources. These are made up of “forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialled” and was founded after the Weapons of Mass Destruction debacle that led up to the Iraq War. It’s not the first time the media has picked up on this, but Camp’s arguments are far more compelling.
Or the lack thereof, really. What VIPS found was that “There was no hack of the DNC system on July 5th last year – not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak – a download executed locally with a … portable data-storage device.” And what was that scientific evidence? Camp goes on to say that the download speed of 38 m/s is impossible for internet transfers, the time stamps are for an Eastern time zone in the States, the NSA still hasn’t provided proof and they certainly would have by now if it existed and Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting.
So, it certainly wasn’t a hack. This was a leak that was done in person and certainly makes Russian involvement very unlikely. And this has long been doubted by some, The Intercept being one. In fact, Glenn Greenwald correctly pointed out that the corporate media are guilty of spreading “fake news” by their own criteria. Just as I started to write this article a video popped up in my news feed on Facebook;
So, if it was a leak rather than a hack, it was likely to be a DNC insider. Do we have any candidates? Well, numerous websites have said it was Seth Rich, a man who was murdered after a supposed mugging went wrong. The theory goes it was the authorities that murdered him because of his betrayal of the Democratic Party. This sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but there are important factors that must be considered. Julian Assange offered a cash reward for any information on his murder. This, to my knowledge, is the only time he or Wikileaks have ever offered such a reward. Is this because Seth was the man that gave Wikileaks the DNC data?
There are a number of factors that don’t add up in his murder. This is summed up brilliantly in this video by Really Graceful;
There has probably never been a text book murder in real life. Every case has its own nuisances and elements unique to that crime. However, there is certainly enough issues to raise alarms bells about Seth’s murder and warrant further investigation. When this is added to the fact the DNC data was a leak and not a hack and Seth Rich theoretically could have been behind it, it is intriguing if not a slight leap in rationale. Anyway, both of these stories will undoubtedly continue and we will keep you up to date on information as we get it.
For more, subscribe to thenavigatormedia.com, or check out our social media accounts;