"They didn't identify him because just as journalists protect their sources they do the same from what I understand"
Journalists protect their sources, but the good ones also get confirmation - they don't just take what's being said at face value because they know they can be played in order to promote an agenda. We've seen examples of how bad it can go when a reporter does that, and then has to retract the story. When someone with questionable credibility just announces to the world that he knows what happened, but can't or won't provide proof, no journalist worth his salt is going to take him seriously - show me the proof, off the record if necessary, or tell your story walking.
"Occam's razor does not necessarily apply in the way you are attempting to apply it in this situation. As I stated in the OP, Russia hacking does not automatically mean that Russia, and no one other than them, could have also had access to the information, nor does it mean that Russia hacked therefore, only Russia could have given the information to WikiLeaks. "
It doesn't automatically mean that Russia was the source of the leaks, but given the convoluted and unprovable story this guy is trying to tell, it's the more likely explanation - which is what Occam's razor is all about. |
