> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact

Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference:

1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government?

2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software?

3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack? If not, how do you believe the DNC hacked?

4. Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? (keep in mind that the Democratic party has recently been far more anti-Russia than the Republican Party, so the evidence I have suggests that Democratic foreign policy would be more aggressive towards Russia than Republican. Obama, Trump, and Biden's actual foreign policy actions, e.g. in Syria, support this hypothesis)

5. Do you believe the account in [0] is reliable? If not, what is your explanation of what occurred, and what evidence do you use to reach your conclusion?

6. Do you believe that this[1] highly redacted senate report is evidence? That is, do you put believe that anything can be inferred from the fact that US intelligence services believe that this attack was undertaken by Russia, and have presented that conclusion (and, presumably, some evidence supporting this conclusion) to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Related does it hold any value to you that no one on the SIC has denied that this hack was Russian-originated (and in fact a number of Repulbican members have agreed that he hack was done by Russian state actors)?

Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions, you must have some belief that is most likely, even if none is held with much confidence, please provide that belief.

> An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof.

My claim is that based on the evidence we have, the most likely explanation is that the attack was undertaken by Russia. What about this is "extraordinary"? If you mean the broader claim, "Russia did a successful cyberattack against the US", I again don't see what is extraordinary about that claim.

> A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations.

I'm confused, I'm not making any claim about the any president. I'm making claims about a cyberattack.

I'm unclear what about "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" is a dangerous claim. I'd make the same claim, in general, about the US. I'm quite confident that the US undertakes cyber-espionage against Russia too. I just don't have any particular examples at hand, but if you cited one, I wouldn't consider it "dangerous".

> The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known.

I'm confused, I'm referencing an[0] indictment by Robert Muller against the named GRU agents accused of carrying out the attack in question. There's no journalists involved at all.

[0]: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

[1]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...