Consortium News Exclusive: Despite mainstream media acceptance, the U.S. intelligence community s assessment on alleged Russian  hacking  still lacks hard public evidence, a case of  trust-us  by politicized spy agencies, writes Robert Parry.By Robert ParryRepeating an accusation over and over again is not evidence that the accused is guilty, no matter how much  confidence  the accuser asserts about the conclusion. Nor is it evidence just to suggest that someone has a motive for doing something. Many conspiracy theories are built on the notion of  cui bono    who benefits   without following up the supposed motive with facts.But that is essentially what the U.S. intelligence community has done regarding the dangerous accusation that Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated a covert information campaign to influence the outcome of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election in favor of Republican Donald Trump.Just a day after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper [image, left] vowed to go to the greatest possible lengths to supply the public with the evidence behind the accusations, his office released a 25-page report that contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton s campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks.The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information   built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.But the case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word  assesses    as in the U.S. intelligence community  assesses  that Russia is guilty   suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak,  assesses  often means  guesses. The DNI report admits as much, saying,  Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents. But the report s assessment is more than just a reasonable judgment based on a body of incomplete information. It is tendentious in that it only lays out the case for believing in Russia s guilt, not reasons for doubting that guilt.A Risky BetFor instance, while it is true that many Russian officials, including President Putin, considered Clinton to be a threat to worsen the already frayed relationship between the two nuclear superpowers, the report ignores the downside for Russia trying to interfere with the U.S. election campaign and then failing to stop Clinton, which looked like the most likely outcome until Election Night.If Russia had accessed the DNC and Podesta emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication, Putin would have to think that the National Security Agency, with its exceptional ability to track electronic communications around the world, might well have detected the maneuver and would have informed Clinton.So, on top of Clinton s well-known hawkishness, Putin would have risked handing the expected incoming president a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. Historically, Russia has been very circumspect in such situations, usually holding its intelligence collections for internal purposes only, not sharing them with the public.While it is conceivable that Putin decided to take this extraordinary risk in this case   despite the widely held view that Clinton was a shoo-in to defeat Trump   an objective report would have examined this counter argument for him not doing so.But the DNI report was not driven by a desire to be evenhanded; it is, in effect, a prosecutor s brief, albeit one that lacks any real evidence that the accused is guilty. Further undercutting the credibility of the DNI report is that it includes a seven-page appendix, dating from 2012, that is an argumentative attack on RT, the Russian government-backed television network, which is accused of portraying  the US electoral process as undemocratic. The proof for that accusation includes RT s articles on  voting machine vulnerabilities  although virtually every major U.S. news organizations has run similar stories, including some during the last campaign on the feasibility of Russia hacking into the actual voting process, something that even U.S. intelligence says didn t happen.The reports adds that further undermining Americans  faith in the U.S. democratic process, RT broadcast, hosted and advertised third-party candidate debates.  Apparently, the DNI s point is that showing Americans that there are choices beyond the two big parties is somehow seditious. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a  sham,  the report said. Yet, polls have shown that large numbers of Americans would prefer more choices than the usual two candidates and, indeed, most Western democracies have multiple parties, So, the implicit RT criticism of the U.S. political process is certainly not out of the ordinary.The report also takes RT to task for covering the Occupy Wall Street movement and for reporting on the environmental dangers from  fracking,  topics cited as further proof that the Russian government was using RT to weaken U.S. public support for Washington s policies (although, again, these are topics of genuine public interest).Behind the CurtainThough it s impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency s eavesdropping capabilities say Washington s lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said,  With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on  circumstantial evidence,  when it has NSA s vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA s capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking. For instance, that s the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA s technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments Continue this article at Consortium NewsREAD MORE  RUSSIAN HACK  NEWS AT: 21WIRE Russia Files