The theory that Putin hacked the Democrats to get Donald Trump elected.
There's zero proof that Russia is behind the leaks, but Dems still peddle this myth. Hillary Clinton even went as far as threatening Russia with military intervention over the emails. And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it.
> "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...
The Director of National Intelligence is capable of mistakes, and their saying it does not necessarily mean it's true. But the statement was absolutely unambiguous. And yet, on a google search for "Podesta email DNI-DHS statement", I found lots of sites lying outright about the content of the statement:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-... http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/11/01/hillarys-russian-hack-... http://www.wuc-news.com/2016/10/no-hillary-17-us-intelligenc...
That is far from proof. I might be a good reason to suspect but it's far from proof.
>Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company.
How do the differentiate an attack originating from a Russian server from an attack Russian Attack? How do they know they aren't just being used?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john...
Like I said, not conclusive, but I wonder what definite evidence you're likely to have with intelligence agencies. Point taken, though.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/29/cozy-bear...
AFAICT, this is itself a propaganda myth of the right (its a radical distortion of Clinton's suggestion that cyberattacks should be met with a range of political, economic, and military responses like any other attacks -- an announcement which was fairly similar in content, including the four identified adversaries, the Pentagon's own most recently announced cyberwar strategy, which predates the emails.
> And there's still zero proof Russia had anything to do with it.
There is nonzero public evidence backing the conclusion of various cybersecurity firms that particular previously identified Russian actors were involved, a conclusion which predated and whose data likely provided a key input to the intelligence community determination (which may or may not also have additional all no public evidence backing it, which you wouldn't expect to be published.)
The western intelligence community has converged on the conclusion that the Russian government was involved and staked their reputation on that conclusion. So, unless you just don't trust your government at all, it's likely to be true.
Though if you have any other credible source, please share it.
Not really. There was a decent amount of dissent in the western intel community on Iraqi WMDs (pretty much everyone not in the "coalition of the willing" and even some within it), it's just that the Bush administration purposefully ignored the dissenters.
>Though if you have any other credible source, please share it.
If you don't believe the intelligence community can ever be trusted again after Iraq, I don't think there's any source could be enough for you. If the authorities on the subject are in on the conspiracy, then any proof could be just another layer on the conspiracy, right? Turtles all the way down.
Suffice to say, this doesn't seem like a reasonable perspective to me.
Of course one might insist it's a conspiracy by the Director of National intelligence but that just makes the claim even less reasonable.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-pr...