Do "New House Documents Sow Further Doubt That Russia Hacked the DNC?" Nope. This article goes off the rails in the very first paragraph, which blatantly contradicts the actual testimony that Russia's Fancy Bear compromised multiple systems, including email.
cc: @ZellaQuixote
cc: @ZellaQuixote
The article makes a big deal about evidence that Fancy Bear exfiltrated the emails later released by Wikileaks being "circumstantial". All this appears to mean is that Crowdstrike didn't record the data exfiltration as it happened and instead relied on other forensic evidence.
Finally, the author attempts to claim that the use of the word "exfiltration" is ambiguous and might actually refer to the emails being leaked rather than hacked. The witness himself dismisses this leak-not-a-hack conspiracy theory as "just not plausible.
(here's a link to the complete transcript, for those wishing to read more themselves)
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/…
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/…
Unsurprisingly, a rogue's gallery of the usual propagandists have been running around Twitter breathlessly peddling this latest heap of technical ignorance to their audiences a though it actually meant something.
