One of the key pieces of evidence Democrats keep trolling out to “prove” that Russia “hacked the election” and manipulated it in favor of President Donald Trump took a major hit recently.
Voice of America reported last week:
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
It also explained the relevance of these new developments:
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by “Fancy Bear,” a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
Here’s the really fishy part. CrowdStrike is the only organization that has investigated the hacking of the DNC’s computer network. It refused to allow the FBI to have access to its systems to independently verify CrowdStrike’s assessment, and ultimately was forced to accept that report as a matter of fact in its own investigation of “Russiagate.”
But if this key piece of evidence was largely fabricated, how much veracity can you put into any of CrowdStrike’s other claims? {eoa}
