FBI agent accidentally reveals own 8chan posts

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.

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.

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.