He uses the terms "old" and "current" to describe the hacks. The "old" RNC was hacked. The "current" RNC was not. We have no idea what those terms mean or why the data collected from the "old" RNC wasn't leaked.

In my ignorance, I assumed those words meant the same thing they mean in everyday English language conversation. If one had to guess, the "old" RNC might have been the one that never imagined Trump would kick their asses to the curb, while the "current" one might be the one that Trump hired after he did that? Which would be more likely to have dirt on Trump?

As I said above, however, we're really in the dark when we're reading tea leaves of nuance in testimony about an open investigation, by an effectively independent civil servant who has given directly-misleading testimony within the last year.