Ok let's go: > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article

Ok let's go: > https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-... Oh wait, they are just quoting WaPo and CrowdStrike. > https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi... Quoting CrowdStrike and committee "officials" NYT Will surely have some good evidence: > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hacke... "... the party and cybersecurity firm claim". Oh must be another cyber security firm. Ah nope, CrowdStrike again. I think I'll stop here. Right so 100 sources are just quoting each other. Spreading a lie and quoting it many times over times over doesn't make it any more true. It makes for a nice PR campaign for sure. I think at this point you're going to need to address the sources and find where the evidence is.