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.