> The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? The point I was trying to make is th

> The first part of your comment doesn't make sense. What does diplomatic saber rattling have to do with arresting people? The point I was trying to make is that if you accept any statement without proof then they can also easily feed you any narrative they desire to advance an agenda. You could argue that the DHS would never lie to the public, for me that's a bit hard to believe after the NSA scandal. > It has no duty to protect a foreign government. So why would it release the evidence? The reason I say they need to show hard evidence is because it's virtually impossible to track down the true source of a professional hacking attempt. So far all they have shown is that some Ukrainian hacking tools were used that anybody can get. > Compromising the DNC during elections is attacking the Democratic election process. If somebody's goal was to be a whistleblower why would they strategically release information timed to disrupt an election? They did not compromise the DNC elections, they released info on what actually transpired during the DNC elections. The election itself went on undisrupted. Saying that releasing information to the public during election time is compromising democracy is kind of like saying that releasing information about a product compromises my purchasing process. If we define releasing information on parties during election a horrible act of messing with democracy, where we need to go after the perpetrators, then I need to ask: why aren't the same people going after the person who leaked the ~10 year old Trump audio tape?