Ewent, you stated that, "the RNC by Trump's own admission in the 2nd campaign debate, 'donated $100 million,' to his campaign." You seem to be implying that this money came from Putin/Russia. If came from the RNC (Republican National Committee), what manner of mental gymnastics (or auditory hallucination) leads you to believe that the money came from Putin/Russia. A link would also be helpful.
In what manner specifically did the Republican Party "build a wall around Trump to 'protect themselves'." That's a rather vague statement. Got a link?
Can you give specific examples of actions taken by Repubicans to "shove Russian meddling in the elections under the rug?"
You post is fuzzy and nonsensical--and fact-free.
Randy, you state that the dossier "contained info about Flynn and other Trump cronies meetings with the Russians." The notion that there is something wrong or even remotely irregular about the officials and diplomats of one government speaking with the officials and diplomats of another government is mistaken. Actually, that's their job.
Maybe you can give me some kind of explanation for this bizarre belief. Something you heard someone say several times today, perhaps?
They were discussing it on CNN today, Sharon. The dossier wasn't used to start the Russian investigation. Flynn had already caused suspicion by his contacts with Russian officials.The buffoon Trump made it serious by firing Comey.
Just why did so many of Trump's cronies and family members hide or forget about their meeting with the Russians if there was nothing there, Sharon? Make it semi believable at least!
"Just why did so many of Trump's cronies and family members hide or forget about their meeting with the Russians if there was nothing there..."
You keep saying things like this as if it means there IS something there. It doesn't - that you can't (or won't) come up with answers does not mean anything at all (except maybe that you won't make an effort to answer your own "what ifs"). What WILL mean something was there is when it is found, not when imagination (or lack thereof) tells some people that there was without ever knowing if it is true or not.
Okay Dan, you explain all the lies then! And please make it plausible if you're going to try to run interference for someone else.
Or do you simply believe they all "forgot" they met with the Russians when they filled out the forms? If so, I've got some swampland around the Okefenokee I wanta sell you.
There was nothing whatsoever that was suspicious about Flynn's contacts with Russian officials. This was normal everyday diplomacy. I already provided a link and quotes above on this, but I will repeat them.
ames Kunstler's summary of the original accusations against Mike Flynn:
"This is what it comes down to: General Mike Flynn, designated National Security Advisor, conferred with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak after the 2016 election about two pressing matters: a vote in the UN orchestrated against Israel, and sanctions imposed against Russia by outgoing President Obama on December 28, two weeks before the inauguration. Both these matters could be viewed as bits of mischief designed deliberately to create foreign policy problems for the incoming administration.
"Flynn’s discussions with Ambassador Kislyak amounted to what are called 'back channel talks.' These informal, probing communications occur all the time and everywhere in American foreign policy, especially the transitional months every four or eight years when a new president comes in. They are necessarily secret because they concern issues of high sensitivity. Every incoming presidential staff in my lifetime (going back to Dwight Eisenhower) has conducted back-channel talks with foreign diplomats in order to directly assess where things stand, minus public posturing and bloviating.
"And so that is what Mike Flynn did, as incoming National Security Advisor, after an eight-year run of worsening relations with Russia under Obama that Trump publicly pledged to improve." http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/what-now-3/
You have to provide me with examples of Trump's cronies and family members "hiding or forgetting" meeting with Russians, for me to address this. Was criminal or seditious activity alleged? There's nothing suspicious or irregular about ANYONE talking to or meeting with or doing business with Russians. Or at least not unless they are engaging in criminal activity, such as accepting bribes from Russia to sell them 20% of the US's uranium or something.
Your link to the Nation's article states, "Data-transfer speeds across networks and the Internet measured in megabits per second (or megabytes per second) can easily achieve rates that greatly exceed the cited reference in the VIPS memo of 1,976 megabytes in 87 seconds (∼22.71 megabytes per second or ∼181.7 megabits per second), and well beyond 50 megabytes, depending on the capacity of the network and the method of access to that network. Speeds across the network vary greatly, and sustained write speeds copied out to local devices are often quite a bit slower."
The Nation does not give any basis for the assertion that these high download speeds are possible--and admit that "The third-party analysis of the “Guccifer 2.0' claims (including from Adam Carter and the Forensicator) analyzed in the VIPS memo directly contradict [the hacking] conclusion."
Here's what Forensicator and other analysts have to say about that:
23 meg data transfer, transocean does not exist of 2 gig in 87 seconds. It does not exist locally, maybe now it does in certain point to point nodes only, but not through an IP."The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.What is the maximum achievable speed?
Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack.
Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.”
Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new … -dnc-hack/
So basically, the Nation pulled the claim that such speeds are possible out of their ass, while forensic analysts have conclusively shown that this is not true.
The Nation article you cited then goes on to make one of the more risible comments I've heard in a long time: "However, this VIPS memo could have easily raised the necessary and critical questions without resorting to law-of-physics." Geez! The NERVE of Binney, bringing the laws of physics into this discussion! He should be ashamed! He didn't have to do THAT!
The author does ask one question that seems relevant. "It’s equally plausible that the cited July 5, 2016, event was carried out on a server separate from the DNC or elsewhere, and with data previously copied, transferred, or even exfiltrated from the DNC."
William Binney, Skip Folden, Ed Loomis, Ray McGovern, and Kirk Wiebe responded to this: "Yes, the claimed “hack” could have been done on a secondary computer (not “server”), but in either case had to come originally from the DNC server. This has no effect on the transfer rate, which precluded a “hack”—a point the authors of the dissenting memo keep missing."
They further state that, "This is correct, but has no bearing on the conclusions. Direct access was required in either case, whether the alleged “hack” occurred on the DNC server or on a copy made earlier by a person with direct access."
Independent research into the metadata associated with the July 5, 2016, cyber-event that was blamed on “Russian hacking” shows that what actually took place was a copy onto an external storage device, and that the copy took place on the East Coast of the United States by someone with physical access to the DNC server or computers.
If you'll scroll down a bit in the link you provided, you can see the heading Why This Is Important, by William Binney, Skip Folden, Ed Loomis, Ray McGovern, and Kirk Wiebe, in which they respond to these and other objections to their analysis.
To be fair, still further down the page in this same article by the Nation, there is the heading, Independent Review of Reporting and Analysis on the 2016 Compromise of the DNC Computer Network.
The basic thrust of their criticism seems to be that quite a bit of critical information is missing from the metadata, and he goes on to describe some fairly convoluted ways of achieving the high speed of the download.
The answers to just about all of these questions could be obtained by an FBI examination of the DNC's server.
Unfortunately, the FBI never examined the DNC's server. This is mighty peculiar. As William Binney observes, "Most curiously, the FBI did not have access to the DNC computers to do its own forensics, even though prominent politicians were calling the alleged Russian hack “an act of war.”
Further, James Comey, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated that, "The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied." The DNC told BuzzFeed in a statement published last week that the FBI never requested access to its servers after they were breached. But a senior law enforcement official disputed that characterization the following day. “The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
Binney also notes that, "For more than a year, we have been pointing out that any data acquired by a hack would have had to come across the Internet. The blanket coverage of the Internet by the NSA, its UK counterpart GCHQ, and others would be able to produce copies of that data and show where the data originated and where it went. But US intelligence has produced no evidence that hacking by Russia led to it acquiring the DNC e-mails and passing them on to WikiLeaks."
In other words, the FBI should be able to produce unassailable proof in this matter, yet they have not.
More juicy--and somewhat related--IT stuff: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12- … ars-docket
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Donald Trump, as late as January 1, 2017, has refused to acknowledge what most everybody, Democrats and Republicans (less Trump supporters) alike know to be true ... Vladimir Putin is behind the arguably successful attack on America's democracy by swaying American voters to vote for Trump rather...
by ptosis 3 weeks ago
Putin denied interfering in the 2016 president election and Trump accepted his denial. Putin said, “I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.”Trump took the word of the Russian autocrat over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security...
by Randy Godwin 3 years ago
Despite yesterday's warning from Robert Mueller about the Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators blocked a voter securitybill from coming to the floor. They're afraid of Trump so much they believe passing such a needed bill will make Trump angry. So much for the integrity...
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Today in Helsinki, President Trump sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin against the U.S. Intelligence services, basically stating that he believed there wasn't any interference by Russia in the U.S. elections and believing President Putin over his own intelligence agencies.This comes after a...
by Randy Godwin 4 years ago
Donnie can no longer deny--I'm sorry, shouldn't deny--the Russians meddled in our election. A 37 page indictment listed ways and means the Russians used social media, Paypal, and an American to set up bank accounts and spent over a million dollars a month in their successful quest to hurt Clinton...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 5 years ago
How could Nikki Haley be tricked into addressing an international issue that didn't exist? She talked to them for 22 minutes. ...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|