[daxorid]

> Claims like this require hard evidence

This is an interesting take. The CIA/FBI/GCHQ have provided precisely zero evidence to the public on their various, and extensive, list of claims that Russia did bad thing X.

Why is the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist to prove a negative assertion, and not on the intelligence services - many of whom have a storied history of making things up - to prove a positive assertion?

[slabity]

I did not say the intelligence services do not have any burden of proof. Their claims absolutely require evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. I'd say they even require harder evidence because of the history you mention.

You can say their claims are unsubstantiated, or if they have provided evidence then you can provide counterarguments against it. But accusations like 'intelligence propaganda' need proof as well.