Those are good points and I generally agree with your probability assessment and with the utter subjectivity (and un-knowability of the motive with the currentl

Those are good points and I generally agree with your probability assessment and with the utter subjectivity (and un-knowability of the motive with the currently available information). The biggest current unknowns in my opinion are: - Why did the HRC campaign decide to circumvent normal channels and make immediate accusations of Russian involvement? - Why did Clapper wait until today to make an official statement? Why did he make an official statement at all? One thing I've noticed about information campaigns is that they often seem to rely upon the human tendency to replace AND with THEREFORE when news is released piecemeal. Hence, Server hacked AND campaign blames Russia AND Clapper blames Russia AND _______ AND ________ AND ________ ... These disparate facts will seemingly turn causal and will be attributable to specific protagonists as the campaign develops. Since HRC's team is essentially setting the agenda for the data points we've received so far, I am expecting there to be a punchline, or some causal narrative we're going to be asked to believe at some point in the future.