>> _Russian intelligence_ has concluded that Klyushin, 41, _has_ access to documents relating to a Russian campaign to hack Democratic Party servers during the

>> _Russian intelligence_ has concluded that Klyushin, 41, _has_ access to documents relating to a Russian campaign to hack Democratic Party servers during the 2016 U.S. election. These documents, _they say_, establish the hacking was led by a team in Russia’s GRU military intelligence that U.S. cybersecurity companies have dubbed “Fancy Bear” or APT28. Such a cache _would_ provide the U.S. for the _first time_ with detailed documentary evidence of the _alleged_ Russian efforts to influence the election, according to _these people_. (emphasis mine) So I gather they mean other countries' russian divisions of their intelligence groups believe this about the guy, the existence of such documents, his continued access to them, and the involvement of russian military intelligence. Call me when they actually have verified material in hand, it otherwise continues to be speculation. Put another way, "We think he may have or have had access to documents which we think may provide proof of [this theory]. BTW we're also indicting him on massive multi-million dollar insider trading charges which he can plea down if he tells us [things]." That's a long way from "we have proof of this theory", which I think is how the theory is often presented - as fact. Speculation about the existence of evidence is not evidence. I'm still not convinced the "inside leak" theory wasn't just as likely.