Obama-Voter Althouse Trashes Intelligence Consenus re Russian Hacking

It's simply amazing that an [U.S. Intelligence Community] assertion this weak has become a fact that must be taken as true. I'd ask who benefits from shutting that door?

The part that seems the most absurd is the assumption "based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." When was it ever established that private hackers can't do things on a big scope and wouldn't target what is sensitive? And what exactly was so big about what was done here? Why are "senior-most officials" so special when it comes to computer hacking? 

We're told what happened in this case is like what happened in other cases because the same "methods and motivations" are present. Even if we assume the "methods and motivations" are so special that they indicate a unique source, did we know in those prior cases who the unique source was?  

This statement has been used to impose an indisputable fact on us, but it's so weak on its face. A lot of people must really want that fact to be true. Why — of all whose reputation was bundled into the creation of this fact — has no one come forward to cast doubt on it or pick it apart? The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why.

Althouse Blog