The 2016 United States Presidential Election

I would note that it also relies on McAfee being familiar with the actual evidence - which is mostly still classified. The Crowdstrike blog entry I linked earlier gives a rather different impression - and Crowdstrike actually did investigate the hack.

And what makes you think the McAfee has seen the actual report ?Or that the details he lists would have been classified anyway ?I had my doubts about his claims - I suspected that he was cherry-picking at best - and it seems that those doubts have been confirmed.

At this point I believe that McAfee was talking only about the identification of "Guccifer 2.0" as a Russian - and not about the evidence that the Russians actually hacked the DNC. "Guccifer 2.0" released information from the hacks but does not have to be a member of either of the teams that actually extracted the information.
Some more, [url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-38610402]The evidence for the latter is rather better. Again, Crowdstrike, the FBI and the CIA all agree on the two groups responsible, identified by their methods.

The Guccifer 2.0 hacker, who leaked the material stolen from the DNC - has been identified - as a GRU agent. Ars Technica