Because unlike most of the memers in this forum, you try to source your discussions in solid evidence and you actually try and do research to back up your points. Miyagi and Rhyaldrin are constitutionally incapable of making an intelligent point and mostly resort to memes and hot air to discuss things. I'll try and engage you a little more.

To be brief, however, Glenn Greenwald dropped this article 11 days ago, critical of the Washington Post's article. Since then, multiple other intelligence organizations, not merely the "untrustworthy CIA" but everything from the FBI to the Director of National Intelligence to the NSA have all come out in support of this conclusion.

Furthermore, there's a lot of independent evidence outside of these intelligence organizations. For example, three of the most prominent cybersecurity organizations in the US have done investigations on the hacks and concluded that they were state-linked actors in Russian intelligence. Though NbM supposedly works in InfoSecurity, he's repeatedly refused to comment on these reports or explain why some of his biggest and most prestigious peers appear to disagree with his conclusions:

Crowdstrike:

[www.crowdstrike.com]

[www.crowdstrike.com]

ThreatConnect on Guccifer 2.0:

[www.threatconnect.com]

[www.threatconnect.com]

Secureworks on the hacks:

[www.secureworks.com]

You can see the evidence and methodology they use here. These accusations are NOT only sourced in vague "intelligence reports" by "anonymous officials", as Glenn Greenwald suggests. These are three independent cybersecurity companies, none of them partisan, each conducting their own investigation, and each coming to the same conclusion on their own. It seems ridiculous to me that there are people still trying to question this.