On Thursday, retired FBI agent James Gagliano asked why the DNC is resisting to surrender its compromised servers if they were truly the victim of a hack.

Gagliano also said it’s unheard of for the US Govt to take the word of a “private forensics company” [Crowdstrike] at trial.

The retired FBI agent also asked why isn’t the FBI rigorously investigating the Clinton camp’s Ukrainian collusion/connections?

Round one: What is difficult to reconcile. If played straight, why didn’t: 1) FBI/DOJ compel DNC to turn over compromised server? 2) Investigate, as rigorously, Clinton campaign’s Ukraine connections? 3) If Trump campaign’s “peripherals” compromised, not Trump, why not read-in Sr Ldrs?

TRENDING: BREAKING: 'At Least 10 Shots' Reportedly Fired at Police By Louisville Black Lives Matter Rioters — UPDATE... At Least Two Officers Shot (VIDEOS)

What is difficult to reconcile. If played straight, why didn’t: 1) FBI/DOJ compel DNC to turn over compromised server? 2) Investigate, as rigorously, Clinton campaign’s Ukraine connections? 3) If Trump campaign’s “peripherals” compromised, not Trump, why not read-in Sr Ldrs? — James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Round two: Why the resistance to surrender the servers for forensic examination?

Confirmed, by DHS/DNI, successful phishing attack by Russia, hostile state actor, on DNC (also John Podesta’s email account) — so how are those materials not central pieces of national security investigation, & why would there be resistance to surrender for forensic examination? — James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Gagliano then asked, “When was last time you ever heard of the USG taking the word of a “private forensics company” at trial? Or in this instance, in a matter of senstive NatSec implications? Have no problem w/outside entity doing their own forensics harvesting. But not allowing FBI to review? Um, ok.”

When was last time you ever heard of the USG taking the word of a “private forensics company” at trial? Or in this instance, in a matter of senstive NatSec implications? Have no problem w/outside entity doing their own forensics harvesting. But not allowing FBI to review? Um, ok. — James A. Gagliano (@JamesAGagliano) May 31, 2018

Former White House spox Ari Fleischer reacted to James Gagliano:

This from a retired FBI special agent. https://t.co/HdYSNxgmTJ — Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 31, 2018

Your periodic reminder that the DNC refused to turn over its “hacked” servers to the FBI. Yes, the entire “Trump-Russia” timeline relies on primary attribution analysis (which even Crowdstrike admits is shoddy) from a 3rd party contractor, not the US govt.https://t.co/9dDwMpHOKP — Jordan Schachtel (@JordanSchachtel) May 31, 2018

The answer is we have NEVER seen anything like this. The government sill has not done a forensic inspection of the crime scene [DNC servers] yet the taxpayers have forked out millions of dollars to pay for a special counsel to ‘investigate.’

A special counsel was appointed to investigate ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ without naming a crime.

We still don’t even have proof the DNC servers were hacked, and if hacked, by whom?