Correll, post: 16249446
They have stated that they don't have hard evidence.
Where?
But spineless Trump believes Assange and Putin's version without one lick of evidence and you parrot him.
Everywhere.
2016 United States election interference by Russia - Wikipedia
"In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the
Department of Homeland Security and the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement on Russian influence on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
[3][4][5] The statement expressed confidence Russia interfered in the election by stealing emails from politicians and U.S. groups and publicizing the information."
Expressed confidence"? That's not the terminology you use when you have hard evidence.
"The CIA told U.S. Senators it was strongly apparent Russia's intentions were to help Trump.
[83]"
Strongly apparent? THat's opinion.
"said post-election intelligence led officials to believe
Vladimir Putin personally controlled the operation.
[13][90][91] They said Putin's motives started as a
feud against Hillary Clinton, and grew into a desire to foment global distrust of the U.S.
[13][90][91] They said the operation needed approval by top Russian officials, as Putin maintained absolute contro"
Obviously subjective analysis, not evidence.
"and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."
Citing consensus is what you do, when you can't cite evidence.
"On December 29, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a Joint Analysis Report titled "GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity".
[68] It gave new "technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities."
[98][99]
The report included
malware samples and other technical details as evidence that the Russian government had hacked the Democratic National Committee.
[100] Alongside the report, DHS "released an extensive list of
Internet Protocol addresses, computer files, malware code and other 'signatures' that it said the Russian hackers have used."
["
Malware samples? Malware is software. Once out there it can be found and used by ANYONE.
If that was presented as "evidence" they have shit.
And "other technical details"? That don't even measure up to the malware level of being named? LOL!!!
"An article in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung discussed the difficulty of proof in matters of cybersecurity. Multiple security experts told the paper that evidence provided by the Joint Analysis Report was weak, and did not provide proof of Russian culpability. One analyst told the
Süddeutsche Zeitung that US intelligence services could be keeping some information secret to protect their sources and analysis methods. It also notes that the comments of some providers of cybersecurity services may be overstated due to self-promotion.
[76] An article in
Ars Technica cited some cybersecurity commentators who expressed concerns about the report.
[101] ZDNet noted that the PHP malware included in the JAR is "an out-of-date, web-shell hacking tool," which—according to Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security—is "used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world."
[102] Other experts cited by
Fortune called the Grizzly Steppe report “poorly done” and “fatally flawed,” whereas journalist
Matt Taibbi writing in
Rolling Stone called it “an element of salesmanship.”
[103][104] A commentary in
The Daily Beast recounted that the report "was widely criticized by cybersecurity experts for being little more than a hodge-podge of random Internet Protocol addresses and code names for hacker gangs suspected of having ties to Moscow."
Donald J. Trump 
