No -- there is no known hard, undeniable fact-based reality on this, at least not as far as I know; if there is, I'd be happy to have someone show me.
At the moment, there is no hard, undeniable proof either way -- there is the statement of some that they believe it's probably all driven by Russia and that Assange and Trump are Russian agents, and there's the statements from others that are more skeptical that it's necessarily all centered around Russia. There is going to be interpretation here. I'm willing to discuss the points where my interpretations come into play, and you're clearly not.
The "proof" that you're insisting must be taken as inscrutable truth that Assange is a Russian agent and that the election's integrity was compromised is a) the cable TV network Russia Today broadcast a show that featured Assange; and b) an op-ed from Seth Rich's parents that states they'd really like it if you didn't imply that Rich was Assange's source, because they really don't think he would've been Assange's source.
There's a reason I replied to not-you -- you're making yourself look silly here.
Ah, so you are repeating the talking point that unless intel agencies role out all their evidence of what they say, completely burning sources and methods for future use, their claims (no matter how logical and rational) aren't valid. Or (even worse) they are no better than the claims of Wikileaks or RT holding up conspiracies theories that don't even make sense.
Evidence was presented behind closed doors, of which even the hardcore Trump loyalists didn't argue against. This is your proof, but again you aren't asking in good faith. No amount of "hard, undeniable fact-based reality" would ever convince people that already made up their mind.
In summary, you are asking for something you know not to be possible (complete disclosure), to confirm something you already decided wasn't true.
Snowden did that too. "If you have the evidence show it" know ing damn well they can't do that. And idiots lap it up.
Your "We can't know either way" both sides arguments are actually worse than lying. It promotes the idea that no representative government is possible because no truth is possible. The Kremlin loves this idea, because that rational is how they stay in power. And you are promoting this uncertainty, it's unclear if you realize your useful idiot status or not. I promise you the enemies of democracy don't care.
At the moment, there is no hard, undeniable proof either way -- there is the statement of some that they believe it's probably all driven by Russia and that Assange and Trump are Russian agents, and there's the statements from others that are more skeptical that it's necessarily all centered around Russia. There is going to be interpretation here. I'm willing to discuss the points where my interpretations come into play, and you're clearly not.
The "proof" that you're insisting must be taken as inscrutable truth that Assange is a Russian agent and that the election's integrity was compromised is a) the cable TV network Russia Today broadcast a show that featured Assange; and b) an op-ed from Seth Rich's parents that states they'd really like it if you didn't imply that Rich was Assange's source, because they really don't think he would've been Assange's source.
There's a reason I replied to not-you -- you're making yourself look silly here.