....
Irrelevant. It's a strawman argument, Russians or no Russians. So your argument isn't one.
Again, as in so many other examples, the story in this case is that the intelligence indicates that. Once again there's a crucial distinction between the news that "X happened" and the news that "Entity A says X happened" or in this case "entity A says it has seen indications that this happened". I don't know what it is that's elusive about that distinction.
Extreme example: Son of Sam told police he was taking orders from a dog. That doesn't mean Son of Sam was actually taking orders from a dog --- it means exactly what it says, that Son of Sam said he was taking orders from a dog. A dog giving orders is not a fact. That Son of Sam made the claim, IS.
In this case if intelligence indicates Russian hacking. the desire to not-believe it is not sufficient grounds to suppress it as "fake news". If definitive evidence of the hacking itself is not present, then that's in the future if the hacking itself is to become a real event. But the fact that intelligence has those indicators isn't "fake news".
Again "fake news" is completely contrived, like the three million Amish. Doesn't apply here.
Intelligence indicates it
could be the Russians. . . but then, it
could be a myriad of any others as well.
Precisely, and that is what the corporate news, including NPR is doing. They are claiming Entity A says X happened when they say that Russians have spread fake stories or hacked the election. They won't offer solid proof. Nobody in the intelligence agencies will.
Nobody tells you who entity A is. Gee, I wonder why?
US officials: Putin personally involved in US election hack
Fake news.
It's a crap lie put out by partisans at the CIA, they even tell you that in the story.
Can't you read?
Here's the guy behind the partisan attack.
Get a clue.
A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security's Jeh Johnson
It's all bullshit, partisan motivated and FAKE NEWS.
What evidence do you have that it's fake news?
That's not how this works skipper.
You have to have evidence that this isn't some politically motivated attack upon American's freedom of Press, or on the legitimacy of the election.
Otherwise, it's a non-story. I've already proved that the source for your aritcle that you posted from CNBC is partisan, and more than likely bunk. I have kept repeating to you and Pogo ad nauseum, WHY won't any of these MSM sources reveal WHO is behind these accusations. The only thing I get back from you two is "unnamed source in the CIA, or the CIA."
The reason they won't reveal the name of the accuser, is for this very reason.
That is not how we do things in the United States. In this nation, you are supposed to know the name of the person leveling these accusations, and how they made this "assessment." As of yet, we have gotten neither.
All we have gotten since October is the same thing, ad nauseum, like a skipping record. If you are at all intellectually curious, this should make you curious, raise your hackles, and make you doubtful.
You don't care, you just swallow the bullshit they are feeding you b/c you hate Trump so much.
Listen, I don't trust him either. What I don't trust more? Folks trying to destroy the freedom in the Constitution.
Vanessa Otero @vlotero 
TinyTachyon @tinytachyon 
