Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson wonders why the FBI did not choose to seize the DNC’s servers last year after Democrats said they were hacked by the Russians. She notes that permission is not a requirement for such matters of national security.
If Democratic National Committee DNC had turned its server(s) over for FBI exam after alleged Russia hacking of emails, I wonder what would have been found. Why didn't FBI didn't just take servers if national security were at stake? Permission not needed for matters so important.
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 28, 2017
Recall that the FBI said in January that the DNC refused to grant direct access to the hacked servers.
FBI says DNC refused direct access to its hacked servers, inhibiting its investigation https://t.co/gd8vL96XTE
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 6, 2017
The Justice Department was being run by Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch at the time that all of this took place, and the FBI was headed up by James Comey.
Fair questions https://t.co/IhzkIzM2vl
— soncharm (@soncharm) October 29, 2017
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) October 29, 2017
Surely Adam Schiff is working eagerly to haul Comey in to provide testimony on this.
Recommended
Democrat Privilege. https://t.co/OKYf0TZTO4
— Ammosexual Deetz (@tahDeetz) October 29, 2017
Heh.
Yes! This is KEY. They sure don't have a problem seizing servers & computers from everyone else! https://t.co/MeKLb25V6F
— Linda Lee White (@LindaLeeWhite) October 29, 2017
https://twitter.com/ChristophHeer52/status/924391241328005122
The Democrats’ refusal to be completely transparent concerning their hacks has left the door open for many questions like this.
Related:
‘Incredible’! Sharyl Attkisson helps dump COLD water on claims of scandal-free Obama admin
OUCH! Sharyl Attkisson shames media for Russia coverage, ‘missing’ serious Obama allegations
Join the conversation as a VIP Member