Updated,
5.5.19:
Confirmation that the NSA could have evidence of a leak, if there was one. In fact, if the NSA had this information, it would be proof positive of a Russian hack. There was no such proof, meaning that there was no hack.
In addition, there is other evidence that shows that it was copied on to a storage device. All of that in this
linked article.
4.30.19:
6:30 am:
Of course, tech experts said that the emails weren't hacked for the past year and a half at least. This can potentially be documented in
more ways than one. The speed of the transfer was too high for a hack, for one thing. The evidence could be stronger for a leak than a hack, which
raises the question of Seth Rich's murder.
Why? Well, if there was a "collusion" amongst the Democrats to murder Rich and to keep the hack claim alive, then Rich had to die, and this had to be kept a secret.
I mean, if you can
sell conspiracy as "collusion", then why can't the shoe go on the other foot?
5:30 am:
An additional comment here:
If the NSA picks up
everything, and the hack's existence would leave a
trace without a doubt, then somebody at the NSA knows that the email hack claim is true or false without much of a doubt.
In other words, somebody at the NSA knows if the DNC claims are a fraud, or if they are truthful.
Likewise, somebody could contradict the Mueller Report if the emails really were hacked. That means that the NSA is in a position to undermine the report and the
entire Mueller probe could be exposed as a fraud providing that the hack wasn't a hack.
4.29.19:
An angle that I haven't heard before. This two year old (
more than two years actually ) article says that the NSA would have the evidence of a hack, if there was one. Since the Mueller Report didn't refer to any NSA evidence, then it must be a leak, not a hack. Yet, the Mueller crew insists that the emails were hacked.
Furthermore, the report of the alleged hack was in July 2016. The investigation into "conspiracy sold through the media as collusion" had been ongoing long before that.
What was the predicate for the investigation? Seems like I read something about the time of Horowitz's report last year what it was, but I don't recall.
Anyway, here's the link to the editorial in the Baltimore Sun, of all places. That is, it is from Baltimore, a city in a deep blue state.
3:44 pm:
It looks like the investigation began before Trump got the nomination.
 |
| Trump clinched nomination late May 2016, so it had to be earlier than this. |
4:04 pm:
McCabe said last year that it was the PapaD affair that started the investigation. That would have been in
March 2016 at the earliest. But there may have been an abuse of the NSA intercepts that started the whole thing. This would have definitely been a no-no. The rest is supposedly a cover for doing what they were supposed to be doing in the first place.
Admiral Rogers got the NSA abuses stopped during the transition.
