see, when i look at this "evidence", i'm left to conclude that it couldn't possibly be the russians, because they wouldn't make errors like this. the cyrillic thing is especially obvious.

if it was the russians, they would have covered their tracks far better than this.

rather, what this "evidence" tells me is that somebody set the situation up to blame it on the russians - and didn't try very hard, either. probably because they knew they were creating a media mirage, and weren't intending it to stand up to scrutiny. we're supposed to obey.

so, who are the real suspects if you rule out the russians? who could do this the way it's been done?

outside of the cia, the only really serious possibility is mossad. and, would the cia cover for mossad? this is a stretch. it's obscure, in my opinion, but not impossible. i think it's obvious that netanyahu would prefer the republicans over the democrats.
 
the null hypothesis has to remain that it was cia. that's occam's razor. that's the simplest, most obvious explanation. you can gather evidence for or against this, from there.

but, if this is what you're presenting? i would take it as evidence that somebody wants you to think it's the russians, rather than that it's actually the russians. and that would all but rule the russians out.

this is why they want you to obey authority.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/