One of the Russia investigation transcripts (reluctantly) released by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Thursday was the testimony of CrowdStrike’s CEO Shaun Henry. CrowdStrike is the American computer security company that performed a forensic examination on the DNC’s server after they claimed they’d been hacked in 2016. CrowdStrike determined that the server had been hacked by the Russians and issued a report stating their conclusions.

Oddly, the DNC had refused to allow the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security to conduct their own analysis of the server. The FBI was forced to accept the report from CrowdStrike.

Whenever this issue is raised, Democrats assert that this issue has been settled. The Russians hacked the DNC’s servers to help Trump win the election. Case closed. Anyone who questions this conclusion is labeled as a conspiracy theorist.

Both FBI Director James Comey and Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson testified before Congress about the DNC’s refusal to allow their forensic teams anywhere near their server.

At that time, a senior FBI official told The Hill: “The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise . . . This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.”

Because the entire Trump/Russia hoax begins with the hacking of the DNC server, we cannot afford to take their word for it.

Here is a brief summary of the story.

1.  The DNC’s server was hacked.

2.  WikiLeaks announced they had obtained and planned to release emails that were damaging to Clinton.

3.  The DNC hired a private contractor, CrowdStrike, to examine their server. They concluded that the Russians were responsible.

4.  The DNC refused to allow the FBI or Homeland Security anywhere near their server. The FBI accepted CrowdStrike’s unverified and redacted report, even passing it on to the Mueller team.

5.  The New York Times wrote an article supporting the DNC’s version of the story. The FBI leaked information to bolster this narrative and the Times ran a second story.

6.  The DNC version of events was repeated so frequently and with such conviction that ultimately, it became accepted as the truth.

7.  The DNC not only deflected criticism of the content of the emails, but they managed to put out the narrative that the Russians were trying to help Trump win the election. This planted the first seeds of the Trump/Russian collusion narrative. The DNC had turned a negative into a positive.

Podcast Host and political writer Aaron Maté has followed this story closely. He read Henry’s transcript and discovered some interesting information. Here’s what he found (Scroll down for actual tweets.):

Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry’s testimony. Henry is asked when “the Russians” exfiltrated the data from DNC. Henry: “We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”

More from Crowdstrike’s Shaun Henry: “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

This takes me back to the qualified, ambiguous Mueller language I highlighted in my @RCInvestigates report “Crowdstrikeout.” The attribution of DNC hacking to Russia is tentative & appears at least partly based on inference, not hard evidence.

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU “officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments.” Perhaps they weren’t sure, because Crowdstrike wasn’t either.

Henry: “Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn’t see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.”

There’s a quote from Assange — maybe someone can find it, I can’t rn — saying that it’s possible that many different actors, including state actors, got inside the DNC system, but that doesn’t mean they actually stole (aka exfiltrated) the emails Wikileaks later released.

To be clear, Crowdstrike says it believes Russians hacked into DNC. But it admits to not having direct evidence that Russians actually exfiltrated the emails from DNC. This would track w/ what Assange has said: Russia may have hacked DNC, but they didn’t provide stolen emails.

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry:

More from Crowdstrike's Shaun Henry: "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left." (https://t.co/1mQJBgBMbw) pic.twitter.com/7cmVN4RjSE

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 8, 2020

Recall that the Mueller report, in recounting the alleged Russian theft of emails, added the qualifier that the GRU "officers *appear* to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments." Perhaps they weren't sure, because Crowdstrike wasn't either. https://t.co/xyBIUdUS9J pic.twitter.com/eXgPtNSXAr

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 8, 2020

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry: pic.twitter.com/UCGSyO2rLt

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 8, 2020