1 Aug 2017 7:35 am
Because they want to keep the "hack" narrative alive.Misty » 31 Jul 2017 11:52 pm » wrote: Maybe because it never happened.
I don't remember ever hearing that they denied being hacked so I Googled 'DNC denied being hacked' and came up empty.
They did however deny the FBI access to their hacked server.
If it wasn't a hack job a study of the DNC server would show no signs of a hack.
The Baltimore Sun:
"Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network."
"Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace."
"Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened."
There may be multiple reasons why the DNC will not turn over their server...
#1 Damning information against the DNC.
#2 A forensic study of the server would determine if it was hacked.
#3 If it turns out there are no electronic traces of hacking then it means the DNC was hiding a non-hacking situation.
#4 That leaves one other possibility...the contents of the DNC server were leaked.
#5 Now Seth Rich is dead.