[ci5er]

I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references)

Re: Assange - yes - he is quite circumspect.

[nl]

I don't get this at all.

All the evidence points to it being the Russians, Putin himself said it might have been "patriotically minded" Russians, all US intel agencies say it was the Russians, all non-US agencies say it was the Russians.

And you claim to be baffled as to why people say it was the Russians?

Maybe it wasn't, but it's not exactly baffling why people say it is. There are no real counter theories at all - the only counter claims sort of say "Deep State" but nothing else.

[somesortofsystm]

What evidence? Press reports about intelligence agencies is not evidence.

Where is the direct, observable, undeniable evidence?

If you don't have it, then don't keep parroting the nonsense.

[nl]

a) My argument wasn't that it is correct, it is that it isn't baffling that people say it.

b) What kind of evidence wouldn't you deny?

[somesortofsystm]

Any actual evidence at all would suffice. The word of America's criminal intelligence agencies does not.

[nl]

I'll take that on good faith then. This is a reasonable that lays it out nicely: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian...