In your linked article:
Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):
“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC’ we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.’ and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:
“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”
On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that
“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.”
So, your article is lying along with me since that's exactly what I've stated, right? Do you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence? After asserting publicly Kremlin culpability, in testimony Henry softened to not just circumstantial evidence of who might have exfiltrated data, but circumstantial evidence it was exfiltrated at all. That means the data could have been exported locally, onsite, using a usb thumb-drive.
To date, we're simply to take FBI's & Mueller's word that the Mueller report is anything but circumstantial or "indicator" evidence. Again, it doesn't mean Russia didn't but it also doesn't mean the data was exfiltrated - electronically exported - either. Why did the DNC refuse to allow FBI forensic examination of all - ANY - of the drives and network history? According to Henry, just two drive images were shared with them.
Frankly, I don't consider Assage less credible in the matter than FBI and he's held the Wikileaks release had nothing to do with Russian entities. Paired with Henry's testimony and FBI's fabrications from whole cloth - including illegally obtained FISA warrants and unpredicated investigations - this could have been an inside job with nothing more than a $50 USB drive, used both to protect the DNC/Clinton and bolster a false Russia narrative.
