Schneier seems to focus a lot on a "smoking gun" type of evidence, which the US intelligence community probably does have and it doesn't have an incentive to pu

Schneier seems to focus a lot on a "smoking gun" type of evidence, which the US intelligence community probably does have and it doesn't have an incentive to publicize. Intentionally or not it appears he spreads doubt that Russia was in fact involved. However the leaking of the documents was done so sloppily there was a significant circumstantial evidence that private parties have used to conclude that it was done by Russians or the Russian government. Arstechnica can see some of the obvious signs that don't require any specialized training: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc... Schneier mentions "techniques go back to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" - well, identifying motives is one of them and Kremlin definitely has an interest of doing something like that and has done it before.