The CIA told us the hack was committed by Russia.
I have no doubt the Russians engaged in hacking. However, it was made clear that so did other persons some of who were initially claimed to be US and some foreign. It's well known and not illegal that the Russians and most other countries in the world have opinions about our elections and seek to influence them, or did you miss the anti-Trump European press?
The question is, what hacking is it that you are referring to? The media deliberately conflates disparate events in order to feed a misleading narrative. Are you talking about the DNC server hack? Evidence exists the DNC server was subject to leaks as well as hacks, and the US government admitted it never had access to the servers themselves. So it would be very interesting if you think you can accept a conclusion about who did that hacking.
Are you talking about the Podesta "hack"? By all accounts he fell prey to a simplistic phishing scam that literally anyone could have produced. All parties have admitted that Russian signatures of a hack can be spoofed, including by the US government. Was it a Russian- I tend to think yes - directly working for government - much more doubtful.
Or are you talking about other hacks, where again the Russians don't seem to have been the only ones trying to do so, just the only ones we want to talk about.
Deliberately conflating "hacks" that had no impact on the election into a conversation to play on the outrage some feel for the damage that was truly caused by Podesta falling for a phishing scam and the DNC records maybe being leaked mabye being hacked, is dubious.
Certainly claiming that proof of the general means the specific has been proven is false logic. Particularly so when the specific claims are far more dubious.
You keep implying that the CIA was lying.
Did I? The CIA is paid to form conclusions. They may believe them, maybe even in good faith.
Were they wrong when they thought Iraq had WMD? Were they acting honorably when they engaged in targeted assasinations and rendition? Does it bother you that the government illegally surveils the American people and it took Snowden's leaks to break through the lies? I'm not seeing why anyone should take them at their word when they don't establish the facts.
What is the reasoning behind YOUR innuendo, Seriati?
If a party asserts a claim that requires three axioms to be true and can't establish any of the axioms, it's not innuendo to state they haven't proven a claim.