"Russia" is a Logic Test.

Who hacked the US political infrastructure? Russia, of course. By deduction, the odds are highest that Russia was the culprit.

You can play the game of finding a plausible, alternative explanation, but it most likely fails Occam's Razor. Does this mean that all plausible alternatives are necessarily implausible? No, but it means that you've been forced to make far more unproven assumptions than the primary conclusion and therefore, you're offering a weaker substitute.

Saying that the "US has pulled out its Russian card" does not disprove the deductive reasoning that was first laid out by security researchers who initially investigated the DNC breach, and in fact is usually a red herring. The allegation of using a "Russian card" is itself fraught with counter-bias -- your implicit bias.

Suggesting that a lack of public proof is itself reason to distrust the conclusion, requires an assumption that, because the proof is not public it, therefore, does not exist. Yet, we have seen bits and pieces of it, whether from security researchers or hints as to the source of the evidence.

Downplaying the action by citing the false equivalence of "we do it, too", also does not reduce the importance of the conclusion.

Pointing to whatever Julian Assange is saying, is beyond pointless. Long before his Wikileaks began leaking DNC emails, I identified his naivete and simplistic idealism as a sign of immaturity and weak logic -- he is, and always will be, a useful idiot. Any utterance from his lips carries the weight of being both uninformed and self-centered.

Sure, I could be wrong about everything.

But I've previously said on the record that Guccifer was lying when he told Fox News that he'd hacked the Clinton server, by pointing to the odd assortment of tools that he'd highlighted, none of which were useful in hacking the Clinton server from overseas. We thus learned that, in fact, by his own admission to the FBI, Guccifer was lying.

And I've previously written about how Guccifer 2.0 is obviously not a single person by citing the method of communication, the timing, details about their language syntax, and false leads. We've recently discovered that security researchers are convinced that Guccifer 2.0 is not who he says he is.

I trust the security researchers who have built up long histories of the means and methods of the different hacking groups. I've read some of their white papers.

Doubters have tortured explanations.