I only skimmed the first link but I think I got enough of what they are trying to say to make some comments.
First no news agency big or small has access to anywhere near the level of detail necessary to make strong conclusions about the nature of the hacks or who carried them out.
We basically have to go on the word of our intelligence community which has all the information we don't. While the main stream media peppers in speculation for its viewers the crux of their reporting that Russia is the culprit is purely based off of statements from the intelligence community who are the only people qualified or capable of making such a judgment.
Have they been wrong in the past? Of course, but they are still our only experts and no one of any note is doubting their core claim even among the congressional intelligence committees. I know it can be hard to no be completely cynical and assume all the elites in politics and intelligence are just lying assholes. But I don't think the reality is that bad yet. There are still mostly good people doing the best they can in these groups. The US system isn't perfect but unlike the fully corrupt and dishonest system in Russia that has grown out of the wreckage of the collapse of communism, the US is still filled with leaders who think they are trying to do the right thing most of the time and a media still largely independent and reliable in their presentation of facts.
The article is basically speculating that the DNC somehow colluded with the intelligence community in order to leak damaging information about themselves to implicate Russia, to gain something?
Doesn't that sound like a huge stretch? That is an incredible complicated and risky plan. Just look at the DNCs arrogance, up until the final votes were tallied they had no reason to believe Trump had any chance of winning. Why go through the trouble of leaking damaging information about their own candidate to increase the odds of winning an election everyone believed they already had in the bag?
First we don't need a reason to turn popular opinion against Russia further. No one, except for Trump, see's Russia as anything but a dangerous adversary on either side of the aisle.
Second the leaks were some of the only major dirt on Clinton in the campaign. No campaign would risk releasing such damaging information. In fact it is highly probable those leaks and the manner in which the FBI handled them play a role in Clinton's loss given the narrow margin by which she lost key states.
Third, look at how the FBI handled this. They did great public harm to Hillary's campaign. When this article is implying something that basically would require the FBI to be working with the DNC to hide the fact that the evidence doesn't point to Russia hacking the DNC. In that case you would think they would keep their mouth shut and not directly harm Hillary's campaign.
Finally even if the evidence the article discusses were 100% conclusive that a DNC computer on US soil was directly accessed to obtain the information, the most logical conclusion wouldn't be that the DNC manufactured this crazy scheme to hurt Russia and Trump. The most likely explanation would be that someone unwittingly allowed their computer to be directly accessed and hacked or inadvertently transferred the information in a more direct fashion than over the internet. Its also possible that someone was flipped and coerced in some way for the information.
Most hacks involve some form of social engineering so it wouldn't be surprise if this didn't necessarily involve remote access and download like we always see in the movies. Real hacking isn't always so quick and sexy.
There is no doubt the mainstream media and Democrats are putting spin on this whole thing to try to counter all the damage done. And the mainstream media is doubling down because their viewers and their new casters hate Trump. But that doesn't mean that this incredibly unlikely and illogical scenario went down.
