Here's a pretty good comment on the topic from r/conspiracy that breaks down the differences and importance of hacks vs leaks with russia's supposed involvement in each instance. We're getting a lot of #fakenews headlines that just lump ALL leaks/hacks and russia together.
Obama Under "Intense Pressure" To Release Evidence Proving Russians Hacked The Election: 'The Administration has provided exactly zero documentation, but that has not stopped the media machine from parroting the claims and repeating it ad nauseam, in hopes the repetition will make it factual' • /r/conspiracy
Regarding whether the Russians are responsible for hacking the DNC, leaking emails, and thereby affecting the election, what often gets lost in these discussions is that there is a distinction between the claims:
- The Russians hacked the DNC. This is a claim that is likely to be true and there is substantial evidence to support this claim or at least the claim that the Russians had probed the DNC servers. What is often neglected, however, is that high-profile targets of interest like the DNC servers are subject to hacking attempts from various sources routinely.
- The information that the Russians supposedly hacked is the source of the leak to Wikileaks. If we’re being honest and explicit, this is the claim that really matters in substantiating claims that “Russian hacking interfered with the election.” There is no clear evidence showing a line from Russian hacking to Wikileaks.
In addition, there is an alternative and conflicting account from Julian Assange and Craig Murray—that the source of the leaks was not Russia. Now, it is reasonable to be skeptical of all claims, but in a case offering two directly contradictory claims, one needs to evaluate who has the greater claim to the truth. Assange is in a direct position to know who the leaker was; the CIA is not. And who has the greater general claim to integrity and credibility, Assange or the CIA? If one is judging by what is more likely, the answer is clear.
The CIA's Absence of Conviction - Craig Murray
And regarding the supposedly “definitive” CrowdStrike analysis, there too there is no firm evidence it was the Russians. Specifically, 1. it only purports to show the fingerprints of a group whose allegiance has been imputed to Russia but is hardly confirmed, 2. it does not rule out the possibility of spoofing or otherwise misdirecting attribution of the hacking, 3. it does not establish the connection from hack to the leak to Wikileaks.
The Russian Bear Uses a Keyboard - Craig Murray
Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough
CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House • /r/PoliticalDiscussion
Finally, all of my comment up until this point pertains to the DNC leak because it is the one that has actually been most often discussed in the media and the one for which at least some analysis and evidence has been presented showing a Russian connection (i.e. the inconclusive CrowdStrike analysis). But what about Podesta's email? Which leak actually had the larger impact on the general election? I doubt anyone would argue that the DNC leak had a larger impact than the Podesta leak. For those of us paying attention during the election period, this is obvious—the
daily revelations, big and small, added a tension to the election and cast a massive dark cloud over the Clinton campaign in a way that was far more immediate than the DNC leaks, a relatively distant memory. And has there been
any evidence that firmly links the hacking of Podesta's email to the Russians? We know that Podesta was the target of a phishing attack, and we also know that he lost his phone and that his password was in one of his emails. The fact is, you don't need to assume that sophisticated hacking techniques or state resources were in any way necessary to explain the leak of his emails. Trying to blame the leak of Podesta's emails on the Russians with this context of information and without any additional evidence from those making the claims reeks of manufactured political bullshit.