All of your articles are from 2016 and 2017, meaning they predate the indictments and muller report.
Why do you cite older and less extensive reporting as though it debunks more recent and more thorough investigation?
> Furthermore, IP addresses change constantly
Yes, and if this was the only evidence, you'd maybe have a point. But, the collection of evidence is:
- a russian-state associated IP was used to
- deploy software developed by the Russian government
- to steal data that would be beneficial to Russia if published
- and was ultimately published via channels known to be associated with Russia (I'm not talking strictly WikiLeaks here, but also how they got the data)
For each of these bullet points, there are multiple pieces of supporting data.
Your alternative explanation is what, exactly? A random ukranian group hacking for the lulz successfully stole this info and either did it so well that the us thought it was actually Russia, or the us lied and claimed it was Russia. That lulzy group proceeded to publish the data via russian-appearing channels or Russia then stole the data from the hackers to publish it. And said group never took credit, even though "we tricked the CIA" is about as much cyber hacker cred as you can get.
I apply Occam's razor. What's your excuse?
Keep in mind, I can apply exactly your logic and say that appearing amateurish is good operational practice for a state actor as it will make it more likey for people to claim that the attacker wasn't a state actor. That's the problem with unfalsifiable claims like yours, I can simply invent a better conspiracy, so to speak.