>>>What? I have to tell you I have doubts about the honesty of this conversation... You claimed in a previous post that FBI made these statements and I asked you to provide a source. You didn't. There is none at this point. Only an investigation to see whether hacking, probing, targeting was overwhelmingly done in the direction of the DNC/HRC. At this point, the premise of that investigation has more merit than what I get from your argumentation here.

It is disappointing to see that what I meant is not what transpires from the paragraph that you abbreviated above. Be that as it may, I apologize for getting carried away when asking for the FBI statements.

>
>I have no obligation to do basic research for you and it's not an interesting discussion if you show little sign of researching your own declarations while demanding proof of the basics.

No, you don't, and I was not asking you for providing basic research. I did mine (and I posted references, too). I asked for the sources of the accusations, since it would have been a waste of time to keep talking about it, if FBI did not concur. It is an important aspect if FBI is supporting these claims since it implies that there should be evidence backing the claim, rather than just a CIA narrative. However, I don't think that is changing the essence of my logic... if you can take another look at it.
To clarify a possible misunderstanding: I asked for the source showing that FBI made statements regarding *RNC hacking*, that would have gone along with the CIA narrative in that matter. Still have not found any, and your link below shows something that we all knew all along

>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html
>
>While we're at it, your own prior citation answers most of your own questions if you read it in full.

I did, and did not see any allusions to the "hacked Rep dirt" that you thought was crucial in determining their claim.

>I agree there's little value in this sort of "argumentation." Argument is about determining who is right; discussion is about determining what is right. I'm only interested in discussion, so lets leave it there.

Sure. Though I hope that at some point you would go back to my previous post and, if you can ignore what bothered you, try to understand what I meant when evaluating the weight of your reasoning.

Update:* Here is a paragraph from the article above that highlights an important aspect:
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior...