And here we go again with more questions about the DNC hack/leak that played an instrumental role in Hillary Clinton never seeing the inside of the Oval Office.

A few days ago, The New York Times ran a story about “a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now become a witness for the F.B.I.” He is apparently the author of malware The Times says was used by Russian hackers during the infamous hack that led to the demise of Hillary’s campaign and the firing of former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

It’s important to note that this man — who goes by the handle “Profexer” — is neither under arrest nor is he knowingly complicit in any alleged hacking the Russians may have done. But he’s the newest wrinkle in an increasingly complicated story about just exactly what happened back in July of 2016.

All of this comes on the heels, of course, of the now infamous report from The Nation that the DNC hack may have actually been a leak from the inside — and, worse, dressed up to look like a Russian hack.

Since that report was released, The Washington Post, The Hill and The Nation herself have joined The Times in reporting that the hacking story is the correct story and the leaking story is a loser.

And to prove it, they’re getting really technical. Everything from whether or not the metadata can be accurately traced back to the actual date of the hack to whether or not the DNC had the network speed to match the metadata signatures is being discussed. The latter is particularly interesting because knowing what the DNC was capable of as far as network speed would almost completely clear up much of the confusion but, as The Hill notes, “The DNC would not provide details about its upload speeds in July of 2016.”

Equally interesting is that The Nation is apparently reviewing their initial report because they are embarrassed that they may be aligning with outlets that support President Trump:

The Washington Post reports that writers at The Nation have become concerned with a pro-Moscow tone at the traditionally progressive magazine.

“I just felt that for some reason, we are too heavily invested in the defense of Putin and all his works,” columnist Katha Pollitt told The Post.

“These are our friends now? The Washington Times, Breitbart, Seth Rich truthers and Donald Trump Jr.? Give me a break. It’s very upsetting to me. It’s embarrassing.”

It’s important to remember: the major intelligence agencies are still in agreement that the Russians hacked the DNC. They have not changed their position and, at this point, there’s no reason to think they should. But this story is getting more tangled by the day. Perhaps the DNC could help by turning over any equipment or data to aid the investigation. Surely they want this solved as quickly as possible.