I may be misunderstanding this; can you help me out and be specific about what you mean by DNC email leaks? If we’re talking about the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, it s

I may be misunderstanding this; can you help me out and be specific about what you mean by DNC email leaks? If we’re talking about the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, it seems relevant to note that in October of 2016, the US intelligence community stated that they were confident that Russia was involved. Mueller also indicted 12 Russian nationals on related charges. There is currently a fair bit of evidence that yes, the Guccifer leaks were Russian based. Now, perhaps your objection is that media outlets reported this prior to those findings. For politically charged questions like these, I’d recommend that you still include the post-facto findings I reference, since otherwise your audience could wind up with the understanding that our knowledge about the hacks is limited to the reporting you mention. Back to the question of “auditors” — let’s once again be specific. The DNC hired CrowdStrike to investigate the hack. Their initial response and follow ups are here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... CrowdStrike used stronger words than “likely.” Some of them: “We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR.” “At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.” The report does not go into detail on methods, for obvious reasons. But that is the statement of a company that is positive about identifications. It is reasonable for a news agency to report that CrowdStrike was certain. It’s harder for me to track down whatever NPR article you mean. I’m open to a specific reference here! In the meantime, though: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-penetrate-democratic-national-committee-steal-trump-research https://www.npr.org/2016/06/14/482029912/russian-hackers-pen... The first paragraph states the Russian source as fact, but the remainder of the article is very clear that CrowdStrike is the source. It links to this WaPo article: 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... The first paragraph specifies “according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.” So… if I’m right about the hack you mean, I think you’ve chosen a bad example of media gullibility.