I am not even a computer person, if you know what I mean, but even I understand the difference between a leak and a hack.
Sure - one retrieves internal data from a willing source, one from an unwilling. That being said - again - the two are not mutually contradictory. Podesta, for example, seems to have fallen prey to a SpearPhishing email (that, and his password was apparently "P@ssword". Egads.) that granted an intruder (a "hacker") access to his emails.
As Binney has noted, if it had been a hack, the NSA would be able to demonstrate the paths taken by the hackers. As the NSA has not come forth with any such evidence, one should assume there was no hack, considering the pattern of behavior of Washington these days--allegations galore, but not one scintilla of evidence or proof.
.....no... not necessarily. Firstly, the NSA not declassifying classified information does not mean that they do not have it.
Secondly, NSA information is typically integrated into CIA products. Theoretically the DNI has ownership of the PDB process, but as a practical matter, the CIA takes lead on it. I wouldn't make the argument that the CIA Assessment (Which the DNI, who oversees the NSA, agrees with, btw, as does the FBI) does not include NSA reporting unless I had that particular product in my hand, and was able to see the citations. I would be *extremely surprised* to find that such was the case.
Thirdly, once you expose a TTP in the SIGINT realm, you destroy it's usefulness. Declassifying "this is how we find Russian hackers trying to invade our system" simply makes Russian hackers better at invading our system, and possibly ruins current collection operations against them. The NSA is (understandably) extremely reluctant to do this, and so letting their reporting conclusions flow through the CIA would be a natural institutional decision for them.
On the other hand, several people associated with WikiLeaks have claimed it was a disgruntled DNC person. Considering the momentum Bernie had among young people, and how the DNC screwed him royally, it is most plausible that the information was leaked from the inside, not hacked from the outside.
Again, you are treating two plausible pathways for information to flow to WikiLeaks as though somehow they were mutually exclusive. This makes no better sense than an assertion that, because I use the internet, I cannot learn by reading books.
The CIA, now joined by the FBI and DNI, argue that they have good reason to believe that the Russians deliberately interfered with our election process as part of a broader IO campaign against the United States, and that one of those objectives was to boost Trump by harming Hillary (probably they saw it more as delegitimizing Hillary before she became POTUS, but the resulting actions are the same in a zero-sum competition). Plausible action being reported on by generally trustworthy sources in accordance with known Russian intent, capability, and TTPs makes this a likely occurrence. Similarly, Plausible reporting by a questionable source in accordance with known Progressive angst about the abuses of the DNC make a leak a likely occurrence. The two are not mutually contradictory.
So, the US can assert its Monroe Doctrine as it pleases, but the Russians are not allowed to do the same? Isn't that hypocrisy?
1. Whattaboutism is a form of the logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque.
2. The Monroe Doctrine was a doctrine demanding non-interference from outside powers - it was an inherently anticolonial document (if imperialist in the sense that it intended to enforce anti-colonialism over a hemisphere). The Russian approach is quite the opposite - it opposes outside influence in the countries that are near it only as a stepping stone to domination of those countries itself. Ask the populace of Estonia the difference between a partnership with the US and a partnership with Russia - they will quickly educate you on the difference. Russia does not own the countries who are geographically close to it, but it thinks it does.
3. If it
were a matter of competing Dominance-Based Imperialisms (and I am not saying that it is, thought plenty of Realists would argue with me (ironically, thereby undercutting one of their own central claims, but that's a different rant)), then it wouldn't be hypocrisy at all, but simple assertion of the national and ideological interests of the portion of the world more dedicated to Liberal notions of self-government, individual liberty, and liberalized economic structures.
