FireEye has provided their own evidence[1]. BBC has strong editorial guidelines for dealing with evidence from third-parties[2]. You, however, have provided nothing but conjecture and redirection.

Can you substantiate your claim? If not, it’s fair to classify your comments as obvious attempts to gaslight HN’s readers.

1: https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Gh... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accurac...

Literally there is ZERO evidence in the report. It's all pathetic nonsense "ghostwriting" about a few accounts upvoting each other on some blogs. The company and others have every incentive to blame these pathetic "ghostwriting" nonsense on Russia to make profit and be relevant. They have no reason whatsover to not do that. Even mentioning that they have no clear evidence against Russia means bad for their business.

They need to update their response book, at this point it becomes too predictable