One should probably consult a lawyer on legal questions. Likewise, lawyers should probably consult nerds on technical questions. I point this out because of this crappy Lawfare post. It's on the right side of the debate (FBI's evidence pointing to North Korea is bad), but it's still crap.
For example, it says: "One hears a lot in cybersecurity circles that the government has “solved” the attribution problem". That's not true, you hear the opposite among cybersecurity experts. I suspect he gets this wrong because he's not talking about technical experts, but government circles. What government types in Washington D.C. say about cybersecurity is wholly divorced from reality -- you really ought to consult technical people.
He then says: "it is at least possible that some other nation is spoofing a North Korean attack". This is moronic, accepting most of the FBI's premise that a nation state sponsored the attack, and that we are only looking for which nation state this might be. In reality, the Sony hack is well within the capabilities of teenagers. The evidence is solid that Sony had essentially no internal security -- it required no special sophistication by the hacker. Anybody could've done this.
He then talks about the FBI "admitting that it knew about the tools and signatures that North Korea used in past attacks and exploitations and yet still was either unwilling or unable to stop the attack on Sony". Just because The Phantom leaves behind his signature glove in his cat burglaries doesn't mean police can stop him robbing the Pink Panther diamond. It's perfectly reasonable to find similarities in computer viruses without that information being helpful in stopping future viruses. This is one of those things that seems only plausible to those completely ignorant of technology, which is why you ought to consult a techy first to see if you are off-base.
He then says "There are many, many steps the government will need to take to keep our networks more secure". That's a political line by fascists, like "government needs to keep the trains running on time". Neither is a particular need; both are justifications for police states. A cyber police states is not the appropriate response to the Sony hack.
In summary, while this Lawfare post appears to be on my side (not enough North Korea evidence), it's actually on the opposite side. It accepts all the basic premises by the government but only disagrees with them on one point. In actuality, much more is wrong with the government's argument than the lack of evidence.