Clipboard error, my mistake. Here is the background link I meant to be there. Still, "pretty well known?" Perhaps you meant "It was attributed without evidence early in the campaign..." Or possibly "If we accept that Russian intelligence makes sure to brag openly about their responsibility for attacks within the attacks themselves, then..." Unless you've got evidence that hasn't been produced publicly as far as I know, what you're offering here is nth-hand hearsay. Unconventional unwisdom. Scapegoating of convenient enemies meant to distract from revelations about the truth of what's gone on in the course of this campaign.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, someone Russian had given the material to Wikileaks. Do you mean to claim the leaks themselves are unreal or illegal to read or treasonous to see?