"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises (1) of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations (2)" 1. Covers any timeframe. "Recent" does not mean anything. It could refer to attacks 10+ years ago. 2.1 The first assertion is Russia has directed attacks. This is then a list of things that have been targeted. Point 1. then can refer to any in this list. It is highly plausible that Russia has targeted private or public US citizens, or institutions "recently" for any number of reasons. 2.2 Which political organisation is it referring to? This could be any number, why not explicitly name DNC if this is what they are referring to? >If you're not able to explain what you mean, can you at least think of an alternative wording that would be unambiguous? "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the compromise of the DNC and Podesta systems that resulted in the leaks currently being reported on." Essentially. If an example can be produced which is fully in line with these statements, which is not "Russia behind DNC hack" then it is not an assertion of this fact. Edit: >Also, why would legalese be necessary here? What court is the US government worried about? Because if the DNC/Podesta hacks turn out not to be directed/carried out by Russia, an insider leak for example, then credibility of the group plummets.