Is the Russian hacking claim a Democrat lie?

What if the Democrat Party’s claims that Russia hacked their emails is a lie, based on nothing other than intentionally incomplete information supplied by the DNC? Would that be troubling to you?

Well, Mark Bradman (aka “Sundance”) at the conservative treehouse thinks so.  And he has an interesting, maybe compelling, basis for feeling this way.

Here is a key portion of Bradman’s latest commentary, which explains his reasoning:

Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.  When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission.  Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.

Yes, that is correct.  The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a “draft” report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted… and that redacted draft is the “last version of the report produced”; meaning, there are no unredacted & final versions.


This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.

The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…

…and used the claim therein as an official position….

…which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.

Think about that for a few minutes.

 Did that grab your attention? It certainly grabbed mine.

I suggest you click here, read Mr. Bradman’s entire piece, and then decide for yourself whether it holds any water…

… and then wonder why mainstream media could not have found this information, using its undoubtedly far greater resources to do so than Mark Bradford ever could hope for….

… or, far worse, whether they did find it, and just declined to tell us.

1 Comment

  • The only new info here is about the report being marked ‘draft’. Everything else has been known since the beginning. I have commented on it many times myself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *