One of the least pursued stories in the mainstream media has been the denial of Donna Brazile that she sent the controversial email leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked at the CNN presidential downhill. Of course the easiest way to confirm that story is to ask the recipient campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri who is readily available to the media. However, reporters have not pressed Palmieri. In the meantime, Brazile gave a rambling denial of the story that would normally trigger a feeding frenzy. In addition, some techies have posted a research that they say strongly support claims of authenticity, but the response of the media has been crickets.
Here is Brazile’s denial:
Brazile claimed that the emails were “doctored” and the information is “false.” She further claimed that reporters like Kelly who asked about the scandal are like “thieves” — something that would normally prompt a backlash. The claim that this is “falsified information” can be confirmed by producing the actual email and questioning Palmieri but reporters have either not asked or the Clinton campaign has refused to answer.
Tech blog Errata Security has claimed that the email was verified using an everyday verification program. It relied on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) which was used by HillaryClinton.com, to verify emails to recipients and avoid spam filters. By looking at the DKIM “key” to the receiver to verify the sender, the site insists that the email hasn’t been tampered with. Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham said that if the emails were altered in any way, the software would have declared the email unverified.
I am no techie, but the important question is why this story is not being pursued since it involves not only a question of rigging this events by the media in favor of Clinton but also involves the question of whether the head of the DNC lied in response to the story. Perhaps the start could be with asking the Clinton for the original email and asking Palmieri? The New York Times covered the story but simply mentions Palmieri without any indication of any attempt to confirm one or the other account from a known witness. Instead, the newspaper simply reports the controversy rather than try to confirm the truth.