I've rarely heard an argument from anyone that manipulating people, influencing election outcomes etc via social media is bad. It's bad because the Russians are doing it to them - it's okay if they are doing it to others. The same goes for military invasions under false pretenses, corrupting politicians, large scale spying and whatever else you can think off. Very few people have a moral problem with the actions, they have a "hey, this doesn't benefit me" problem.

Not too long ago, we (America) were bragging about our ability to influence foreign elections[1]. Everyone seems to conveniently forget that whenever Russian "meddling" comes up these days.

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

Does Time magazine represent America in this comment?

Are you just picking on a technicality here or do you genuinely believe that the vast majority of the executive would/should feel it's wrong for the US to meddle in foreign elections?

I think it is a stretch to claim that an article from Time magazine about how four American political consultants helped Boris Yeltson win an election is the same as state-sponsored election hacking and interference. I also don't see how this article is equivalent to the entire US "bragging" about anything.

One involves multiple crimes being committed at state-scale (DNC hack [1], RNC hack [2], identity fraud [3]) the other was a consulting contract.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-t... [2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-russian-hackers-had-rnc... [3] https://www.wired.com/story/russian-trolls-identity-theft-mu...

Yes, along with the rest of American media is how America is represented to non Americans.

If you think about it, media is also largely how America is represented to Americans themselves.

Think of the typical American's mental model of America (and the rest of the world) - where does the actual content of the model we hold in our brain come from? A mixture of personal experiences, conversations, TV, internet, books, as well as the brain itself - automatically (and without our knowledge) filling gaps, adding color and detail, based on a complex set of heuristic processes that we barely understand.

Take the Russia hacking the election meme for example - next time you read someone making an assertion one way or another, ask them what the source of their information is, the conclusive and specific physical evidence that proves their belief. In my experience, at best, you will get a link to an x00 page report filled with allegations, you won't even be able to get a vague description of any specific details that was conclusively proven, because that isn't stored in their mental model. (edit: or, as seen in this very thread when others have asked such a question, "evidence" that is not even remotely conclusive, but believed without question, as well as examples of historic non-conclusive evidence planting. In my experience, no amount of demonstration of this happening will ever change people's thinking on the matter - most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation - it just feels too real to not believe it, and this is why propaganda is so easy and effective.)

In the linked story, it appears the FBI agent is trying to plant this meme into the minds of 8chan users, hoping it will take root and spread organically there as easily as it has in the broad public.

==Take the Russia hacking the election meme for example==

Isn't it possible that you are the one falling victim to the exact type of thinking you describe? You admit yourself that propaganda is easy and effective. Have you explored that possibility?

==most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation==

The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?

It most definitely is a possibility, and your type of thinking is exactly what we need more of.

I assure you I have and continue to explore the possibility, which is why I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen. Alas, despite no shortage of such people, I have yet to encounter one who is willing and able to provide anything beyond a link to an x00 page report full of allegations.

> The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?

Apologies if I have given that impression, it was definitely not my intent. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people who make strong and specific assertions, but are unable to provide any strong, specific evidence. I have not formed any final conclusions, but the longer this drags on, and the more specific claims I read in the news that are not backed by supporting evidence, it seems fairly reasonable to suspect that the story is not true, if not actually faked (as we now know the Iraq WMD story was faked). I have no particular theory on what the underlying motive might be if this is the case.

If you know of anything I've overlooked, please post here so we can all become more informed.

This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself. One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying?

Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.

==I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen.==

Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.

>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous?

Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?

>Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch?

Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.

It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.

==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.==

And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs.

==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?==

Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign.

==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.==

And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning?

You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable.

==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. ==

Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.

> You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable.

Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?

I am delayed for a flight and only have mobile access right now. Not the best place to respond to such a detailed question, but I’ll try.

The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room.

That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council [4] [5]. This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump.

If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia).

Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alpero...

[3] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi...

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-r...

Impressive, I shall review.

> The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof.

I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).

Especially considering:

- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper  

    https://www.thelocal.de/20160223/nsa-eavesdropped-on-merkels-intimate-conversations

- The dishonest reporting we've been reading in the Russian Hacker news for several years now (claims that the Twitter accounts are known to be Russian, when Twitter itself said no such thing) - when I catch someone lying, the trustworthiness of their stories based on "confidential" sources and claims decreases. Does this seem unreasonable?

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War (see any familiar names in there??)

- This: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mu...

The United States Government has a long history of lying.

Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.

Look at some of these pictures:

https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/iraq-war-bodies?mediatype=...

You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?

Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.

Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.

EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

There are court documents in the Papdopoulus, Manafort, Gates, Cohen, Stone and Flynn cases. Have you read the court filings to see the evidence? How much of the Mueller Report have you read?

==I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).==

Again, this justification could be used to back up any belief when it comes to government. It is a convenient way to brush off all the lying, obstruction, indictments and convictions as some mere conspiracy. Blanket cynicism (and whataboutism) isn't a valid replacement for actual analysis. That we have hacked other countries doesn't change the facts of what Trump and his campaign did. They are entirely different cases that can be discussed on their own.

==Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.==

Odd that you say this as we are sending more soldiers to the Middle East [1]. What about the 1,000 soldiers and military activities happening in Niger under his leadership [2]? The bombings (often of civilians) in Yemen [3]? Attacking a Syrian airfield [4]? Did you see hard evidence that Iran bombed the oil tanker [5]?

In making these decisions, Trump is using the same intelligence community that you and he both say is corrupt and untrustworthy [6]. It makes it appear that he only wants to discredit them when it affects him (Russia investigation) personally.

None of this even gets into the obstruction of justice, felonies related to campaign finance, numerous campaign officials in prison or under indictment, or taking Putin's side over our own intelligence agencies in Helsinki. This gives us a view into the type of person Trump is and the company he keeps. You have decided to support that, which is your choice. I don't agree with your attempts to blame it on Democrats, the media or the intelligence committee. Just own it.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/us-additional-troops...

[2] https://www.thedailybeast.com/senators-are-stunned-to-discov...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middlee...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-...

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DU6kCyqDOM

[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

> This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth.

By thought process I assume you're referring to listening to the various claims and rumors, and attempting to compare them versus factually confirmable evidence, keeping one's eyes open for misleading weasel language that may be intended to cause readers to form incorrect conclusions? If so, then yes, but I'm curious why you've chosen to associate it with 3 well known "conspiracy theories" that didn't do a very good job of this, rather than the far more plentiful and boring examples where it is used successfully in every day life across a wide variety of activities. Any additional clarity you can provide is appreciated as it may help me to better understand the truth.

> Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself.

I agree, you do indeed have to work with what life provides. What you don't have to do though, is believe everything you're told without question (especially when we have examples where we have been lied to, in some cases resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people), or form conclusions without concrete supporting evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, I feel perfectly comfortable with a stance of "I don't know".

> One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying?

This is an excellent question, and I have no answer to it. That behavior, if proven and described in a completely factual matter (as opposed to a casual, "story-telling" manner that might result in those who are less vigilant about the truth forming a factually incorrect conclusion - again, see the Iraq WMD story), should be in some way attached to the overall stance of "inconclusive", as it provides additional information that could be used to kind of swing the "what seems more likely based on what we know" needle to one side or the other.

> Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.

I have absolutely no idea. Do you believe this proves guilt of the overall story?

> Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury?

I have not.

> They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence.

Is this what we are being asked to do here, except not in a court room but more so something of a "trial by social media" type of situation (something that's quite common recently)? If so, I believe that should be stated explicitly. I kind of get the feeling a narrative is being spun, and I personally don't care for that sort of behavior from public officials and the media, but this is just a personal preference, it seems to be very popular with a lot of people.

> One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.

Oh ok, well this makes more sense then. I have repeatedly read in the media (and told, explicitly or implicitly, in forum discussions) that specific evidence has been provided that demonstrates specific guilt.

Maybe, for the sake of efficiency and clarity of communication (because there seems to be an awful lot of disagreement on what's true), could you restate, in explicit words, whether or not specific, concrete and conclusive evidence has been released on this matter? And whether this is only an opinion, or if it is based on the reading of an official and explicit statement (again, in a "non-story-telling" manner) that this is the current, official state of the publicly released evidence, so that I could read the actual text and judge for myself?

And just so my sentiments are clear, I'd like to explicitly state that I appreciate your taking serious interest in this story. Too many people take democracy for granted these days.

American media runs the ideological spectrum (Mother Jones to The Atlantic to National Review to Fox News). They aren’t a unified voice, so that representation would include contradicting messages.

It seems like people just choose the one that helps their strawman and labels that as “AMERICA”.

> American media runs the ideological spectrum

Very few of them are openly against using the military, cultural, economic power the US has to force others to bend to their will. They may disagree on what direction to push others in, but they agree that they have the right (or even duty) to push them. Which is totally understandable.

Very few people see themselves as villains, pretty much everybody wants to make the world a better place. What "better" means and how to get there, that's where they part ways.

The Jacobin has always been a fan of calling out US imperialism.

Sure, I'm not claiming that the US media landscape is unified and doesn't include any dissenting voices. It's just that the super majority mostly agrees on the fundamentals, even if they don't on the details. The same is true for most politicians as well.

I don't believe that it's very different in other countries, it's just a lot less visible, because most countries don't have the same amount of power.

That's what I was raised to believe as a child in America. Time Magazine is right up there with apple pie.

Trying to skew media (elections, opinions, policy) of other countries is something many (most? all?) governments did for centuries. And those activities were not particularly well hidden from citizens.

I think earlier (30+ years ago), most of the rank and file citizens were isolated from such influence and few who were exposed to it, e.g. those doing business abroad, were immunized (by privilege, counter-propaganda or a feeling of a gun at their backs).

I think current manipulation efforts makes elites panic only because those efforts can reach most of the country which makes old countermeasures ineffective. My 2c (I grew up in what is seen today as a totalitarian state).

It’s fundamentally different for a hyperpower to do this versus a failed superpower. There is no comparison and as an American it’s in our best interest to utilize our cultural and military hegemony for the best of our interests.

So yes, you’re right but I don’t see it as a bad thing at all.

> it’s in our best interest to utilize our cultural and military hegemony for the best of our interests

It is one thing to (through analysis) arrive at the conclusion that people and states don't live up to the ideals of the Golden Rule [0]. It is quite another thing to openly support the idea that the rich and powerful should use their power to further their own interests at the expense of others. Suffice to say that the latter puts you on a different trajectory than the collective body of religious and political thinking since time immemorial, western and eastern alike. Just sayin'.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

> So yes, you’re right but I don’t see it as a bad thing at all.

Of course not, that's my point. You'll rarely hear those in power complain about the possibility to abuse power to oppress others ;)

The mentality of bullies. The US really needs history to teach its people some lessons of humanity. Luck may turn away and smile on other countries, and experience more of these times and the people as a whole may start to learn.

Sure they both fall under the category "trying to influence someone through social media". But so does a press release put out over Facebook, and lot of other completely innocuous actions.

If we found out the FBI was systematically spending lots of money to influence our elections people would be pissed.

This comment seems to be ignoring the long and recurring history of the FBI and other government agencies in subverting, persecuting and destroying the lives of those who were peaceful members of left leaning political parties, basically anyone who identified as a communist or socialist... or who knew anyone who identified that way. Or actually, anyone whose political ideals contradicted American corporate interests. That includes in our country and other countries.

This is not to mention the more controversial reality of the close collaboration between US intelligence agencies and the entertainment and education industries.

Yes. Let's not forget that for a good portion of the 20th century the FBI not only explicitly worked against equality and ecology, but also explicitly funded fascist millitants, and domestic terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Strzok and Paige sound familiar at all? I think I'm spelling those right.

> If

The issue from the US side has also been that they're per-se doing it. Otherwise the US Senate wouldn't have imposed sanctions on Russia in (among other things) response to the 2016 election interference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

But remember kids, "the russians" interfered with the elction.

Except in the fact that they did as proved by multiple intelligence agencies (including the Dutch) and multiple infosec security companies?

During Iraq we offered evidence, including from international sources, proving beyond any doubt that Iraq was developing WMD. We even had published video of "mobile biological weapon laboratories" and information from informants who were literally working on these exact things but secretly feeding us intelligence.

As you [hopefully] know now - it was all fake. There was no WMD, there were no mobile biological weapon labs, there was nothing. The evidence was all fake. The footage we claimed was bio weapons labs was of trailers that produced hydrogen for usage in conventional artillery (as Iraq said all along). Even after we invaded and knew the labs were benign we constantly lied. Rather than repeat our neverending stream of lies, Wiki has them nicely cataloged here [1]. Our ultra secret inside source who revealed his remarkable tale after achieving refugee status in Germany, was actually a Taxi driver in Iraq who knew nothing and had no connection to the government whatsoever, but was apparently a great con man - or, more likely, was an idiot we knew was lying but gave us more "evidence" we could use to achieve the goal of starting a war we wanted.

And this was not just American intelligence. This was American, British, German, and more. Intelligence agencies pursue their own goals and will happily lie, fake, and manipulate people and society to achieve them. We're now aiming for war with Iran. At the same time that Japan's prime minister decides to visit Iran, Iran in an unprecedented act decides to attack a Japanese tanker? Look, our five-eyes intelligence agencies are here to give you all the hot evidence for something that makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet conveniently gives the US absolutely every thing it could possibly want. Amazing isn't it?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory#Disc...?

Iraq did once have WMDs, namely poison gas that it used against tens of thousands of Iranian civilians... with the help of the CIA.

Today, many Americans have never even heard of the Iran-Iraq War. Those that have often never heard anything other than unsubstantiated American propaganda, particularly the American accusation that Iran was using poison gas against Iraq. An accusation for which there has never been any evidence.

When it comes to the American government and international affairs, any position less than reserved skepticism is totally irresponsible.

I'm watching this viciously accurate post get silently downvoted into oblivion.

The US intelligence agencies that - like here - fake evidence to further their own agenda as well as their friendly foreign colleagues? Must be true then i guess.

And as for a infosec company: showing that you found some russian IP or some strings originating from a Windows OS with ru_ru locale is not "evidence". It's making a educated guess at best. In fact, if you read thru some leaked NSA manuals on Wikileaks, the US intelligence agencies specifially teach their tech people how to use such techniques to plant false tracks.

You’re effectively projecting your own version of reality right now. The Dutch had security camera footage.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...

All of this was documented in the Mueller report, the GRU indictments and the Stone indictment.

It's all nonsense. The intelligence agencies are lying to you.

https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...

literally NONE of the arguments brought up in that post contradict the facts. Who gives a fuck about how the US government feels towards Edward Snowden? How does that prove that the Dutch are lying? It makes zero goddamn sense.

I'm not sure what post you're reading - but every single one of the arguments in the post contradict a pivotal 'fact' in the anti-Russian, xenophobic propaganda effort.

Can you be more specific with your criticism?

1. the hackers were in a university building, and Snowden told us that university buildings are bugged

So what?

2. The Dutch told the US about it as it was happening

This is not news. We already know that the US covered up Russian hacking as it was happening at Mitch McConnell's insistence.

3. Mueller's prime objective isn't Trump collusion, it's Russian hacking

What the hell does that have to do with Dutch intelligence?

4. Anonymous sources

The fact that the newspaper doesn't print names doesn't mean that the newspaper doesn't know who their sources are.

5. The Mother Jones article uses the word "attack" instead of "exploit", and Dutch intelligence has connections with the NSA

So fucking what?

6. The public won't get to see the evidence

Yeah, that's how intelligence investigations work, and that's why we give security clearances to politicians.

7. The article mentions MH-17

So fucking what?

8. The article uses dramatic language in a few paragraphs

So fucking what?

9. The russians used spear phishing attacks so it's all fakenews because it's not sophisticated

lolwut?

10. The article says the intelligence agencies worked together but Snowden said they spied on each other

So fucking what?

1) As the article suggests - in order to believe the US story, we have to simultaneously believe that the Russians are the most incompetent actors imaginable. Read the article - take it up with the author if you, for some reason, still believe the US narrative.

2) It is certainly relevant that the US is 'covering up' Russian hacking (read: US hacking, masked as Russian)

3) The article was focused on the conflation of the hacking / collusion narratives. Relax.

4) Obviously, but in the modern era 'anonymous sources' is largely synonymous with 'establishment propagandists'

5) Don't be disingenuous. The article discusses the specific differences between the two well-defined concepts, and raises the issue that one is not the other, and misrepresenting what actually happened is suspicious: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/computer_netw...

6) That's how they work. It's not how they ought to work.

7) The Dawson article is explicitly about how the narrative takes shape and is pushed. The MH-17 reference is discussed and the issue is discussed in the comments underneath the article.

8) See above. Dawson's article is about propaganda tactics, not hacking.

9) See above. You're ignoring the entire thrust of the article, which is about how various issues and concepts become conflated into one sprawling incoherent mess that has so many internal inconsistencies you have to ignore obvious red flags in order to believe it.

10) The whole investigation is around electoral interference. Dawson's point is that the US routinely interferes in elections - and we actually have concrete, verifiable evidence proving it. We don't need to rely on an idiotic 'special counsel' to spend a few years discovering nothing and producing a pointless report.

It sounds to me like you and the author have already decided on the conclusion, you'e made up your minds that whatever is the opposite of what an intelligence agency says is the truth, and are grasping at straws to justify that belief.

Nobody ever said the russians are genius master hackers, only that their operation is large and well funded and they're not particularly concerned about hiding it.

The fact that Mitch McConnel wants to keep his Russian connections secret does not disprove those russian connections.

You clearly haven't actually read the mueller report if you think it's "discovering nothing" and "pointless". It's free, you can read it today.

Security camera footage of people walking in a hallway.

This article is taking about general hacks targeting

1) the DNC 2) the state department 3) the white house

sometime in the time of mid-late 2014. Just to be clear: i have no doubt that they tried to hack these organizations. Now, wheres the election interference? Apartently they were caught early on, the FBI and other agencies knew about it. So wheres the interference in the election? The DNC leaks on Wikileaks? There is 0 hard evidence that the origin of that leak was russian intelligence. Friendly reminder: John Podesta used "password" as the password for his account. It could have literaly been a 12 year old kid from Armenia, who knows.