Claims that Russia Was "Defnintely" Behind Election Hacking Relies Almost Entirely on Report Commissioned by Democrats From Private (and Partisan) Firm; That Firm Seems to Be Walking Back Its Claims

From Hot Air, Jeff Dunetz reports that the security firm "Crowdstrike" is withdrawing the report that the FBI relied so much upon.

Quoting VOA:

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.

Tucker Carlson had on a professor who's an expert on Russia last night to debunk the claim that it has been "proven" Russia meddled in our election. I didn't catch his name on the show; I just prayed "Don't be Stephen Cohen, Don't be Stephen Cohen," because he's a rather notorious Russian apologist who thinks Russia is pretty much innocent of everything.

Well, alas, it turns out the professor Carlson was interviewing was in fact Stephen Cohen.

Nonetheless, Cohen's claims here are factual in nature, not so much argumentative, and it seems to me that factual claims must be met with factual rebuttals, not questions about the biases of the person offering those claims.

And I'm not aware of anyone even contesting his factual claims.

Why was afirm permitted to conduct the analysis which the US government then adopted as its own, exactly?

Would that have something to do with the fact that the DNC wouldn't permit the FBI to conduct its own forensic examination?