More like Mn arguing with Wapo/the failing NYT/Politico, I mean AI, which uses the term "artificial" to describe it's 'intelligence'.
Shawn Henry, Crowdstrike CEO, in his appearance before the House Committee on Intelligence after the FBI asked for servers on multiple occasions but never got them ( good luck if you try that 
) .......
"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."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"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."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
AI ? Yep, it got swiped.
AI Overview
The quotes you provided are from the sworn congressional testimony of Shawn Henry, the President of Cybersecurity Services and Chief Security Officer at CrowdStrike.
Henry was testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in December 2017 regarding the cybersecurity incident and data breach at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016.
The central point of Henry's quoted statements was a technical distinction about the nature of forensic evidence:
Circumstantial Evidence: CrowdStrike found substantial "indicators of exfiltration". This included evidence that the hackers (attributed by U.S. intelligence agencies to Russian military intelligence, the GRU) had compressed gigabytes of DNC data into archives, staged it for removal, destroyed logs, and used encrypted tunnels to move data to GRU-leased servers off the network.
Direct Evidence: Henry clarified that his firm did not have a continuous monitoring "sensor in place that saw data leave" the network in real-time or within the DNC environment itself, which is typical for external incident response cases.
Conclusion: When asked if he could "unequivocally say" whether data was exfiltrated based purely on the DNC server data CrowdStrike analyzed, he said he could not, as they didn't have the content of the encrypted traffic. He maintained the belief that the data left based on the strong circumstantial indicators.
This nuance in his testimony has often been highlighted by critics and skeptics of the official narrative to question whether the DNC data was definitively stolen by Russia. However, U.S. intelligence community assessments, the Mueller Report, and subsequent trials (such as the Klyushin case) used additional evidence obtained via warrants from third parties (like Apple and cloud server providers) to confirm the data did reach external destinations controlled by Russian intelligence officers. †************
They didn't actually see the Russki burglar enter and exit the house. However, they could see contents of the house had been rummaged through and the Russki's finger prints were all over the place. They also had the Russki's foot prints entering and exiting.
They did not actually see the Russki take anything from the house. However, they found belongings from the house in the Russki's car and storage shed.
RecentTRANSFER PORTAL 2026 by Reacher
TOTTM 2026 by ILLINICHIEF
WTF happened to the WTF h... by ThePAMan
Total Members: 142