I lean towards accepting details proffered by reputable sources that have never been acceptably refuted.
https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2020-05-04-Shawn_Henry-MTR_Redacted.pdf
page 31-32: Mr Schiff: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier. Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?
Mr. Henry: I do. I have to just think about it. I do know. I mean, it’s in our report that I think the committee has.
Mr. Schiff: And, to the best of your recollection, when would that have been? (Answer: No, I cannot actually give you a date)
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We do not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.
Mr. Schiff: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place?
Mr. Henry: Again, it’s in the report. I believe – I believe it was April of 2016. I’m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it’s in the report.
Mr. Schiff. It provides in the report on 2016, April 22, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.
Mr. Henry: Yes sir. So that, again, staged for, which, I mean, there’s not – the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see the 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.
