It's a huge deal, and I hope more info comes out soon.

I'm sure I'm gonna come off as a nut here, but for the life of me, I can't see anything in any of the documents that I would call proof. I don't think it's impossible or even improbable that the Russians hacked the DNC, and obviously they propogandize as much as possible.

But to point to the evidence of propoganda, and try to equate it to evidence of the DNC hack? Strange.

In fact, since this story first emerged, the only attempt at evidence I've seen that the Russians hacked the DNC is that it lines up with their motives, and could potentially have been done by methods they were capable of. The statement this post is about, as well as this one (https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf) do provide motive and opportunity. However, motive and opportunity do not suffice to prove guilt. They are necessary conditions, but not sufficient.

Honestly, I trust that the FBI, CIA, and so on have this right, and that they wouldn't be so confident without the proof, but I can't understand why they haven't released it.

If anybody saw something I didn't, please correct me.