Actually, it looks like you’re new to the Web as well, as an underline is part of the standard way a browser presents a link unless it’s been overridden in the style-sheet.
You’re also clearly unfamiliar with systems, as anybody who was familiar would have realized more than a year ago (←link) how full of holes the whole Russia narrative is. They wouldn’t need to rely on experts for that much, and reading such experts (←link) they would be able to judge their expositions on technical merits rather than wishful thinking.
I disagree with Ms Johnstone that there’s no evidence of a break-in at the DNC, CrowdStrike provides good evidence of two break-ins (←link), although their (admittedly tentative) conclusions that they came from the Russian FSB and GRU have been solidly questioned by experts (←link).
But even if the DNC break-ins had been by the FSB and GRU, and even if the leaks had been from hacked data, there’s no evidence that they came from either the FSB or GRU hack, as I pointed out in December 2016 (←link, duplicate of above), based on earlier discussions elsewhere.
The displayed incompetence (←link) of the band of conspirators posing as the “Intelligence Community” has been solidly displayed in their December release, to which the January release (←link) added nothing (←link), therefor nothing any of them says on this subject can be believed at this stage.
I realize that, given your own total ignorance on this subject, you’re stuck with trying to judge dueling experts (and no, I don’t claim to be expert). Sorry, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
But your efforts to obfuscate, and waste people’s time answering your clueless referrals to “experts” who have a proven track record of lying and incompetence certainly justify Ms Johnstone’s consideration of not bothering with you.
(BTW, you might consider that failing to prove one side of a “binary” argument doesn’t mean you’ve proven the other. Almost all of the positive assertions on both sides of this story are totally unwarranted. IOW nobody knows.)