monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

This is the future if the "progressives" ever get power.

I'm not sure you even watched the video, from that asinine comment.

Really, it's time to move on.

How many times do Trump supporters have to look at the same pictures of HRC anyway?

Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!" Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. He went on to question why US law enforcement agencies weren't investigating other perceived influences on the election, which he has repeatedly said was rigged for his opponent Hillary Clinton.

"Where is the DNC Server, and why didn't Shady James Comey and the now disgraced FBI agents take and closely examine it? Why isn't Hillary/Russia being looked at? So many questions, so much corruption!" he wrote.

The President's tweet was sent roughly a half hour before the White House announced that the two leaders will meet on July 16 in Helsinki, Finland, where they will "discuss relations between the United States and Russia and a range of national security issues."

Trump's summit with Putin is likely to draw criticism from the US President's domestic critics, who accuse him of currying favor with Putin.
Speaking in Moscow on Wednesday, US national security adviser John Bolton said Trump would likely raise the election meddling issue during his sit-down with Putin. Bolton himself addressed it during his own meeting with Putin this week.

And he brushed aside suggestions that a Trump-Putin meeting would amount to conciliation from a President who intelligence agencies assess was favored by the Russian government.

"I think a lot of people have said or implied over time that a meeting between President Trump and President Putin somehow proves some nexus between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, which is complete nonsense," Bolton said in Moscow.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted during a CNN interview this weekend that Trump takes election meddling seriously.

"Make no mistake, President Trump agrees Russia interfering in our election is something they simply cannot do," Pompeo said, referring to the midterm elections. "I don't think he would take any umbrage with that."

"Make no mistake, President Trump agrees Russia interfering in our election is something they simply cannot do," Pompeo said, referring to the midterm elections. "I don't think he would take any umbrage with that."

As I have posted before, a group comprised of a good number of former government cyber and security experts has concluded that the DNC emails could not possibly have been stolen over the internet. That had to have been downloaded by an insider.

They were not "hacked," they were "leaked."

That post was for you, Rev.

This is a disturbing, quite unpopular fact among most people here

Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don't Buy the Russia Story

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary.

VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials.

Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names. But their findings and doubts are only being aired by non-mainstream publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation. The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.

The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers. They found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second...

Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic. However, as Forensicator has pointed out, the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.

On July 24, 2017, VIPS released another memorandum which also argued that the DNC was not hacked, this time based on a forensic analysis conducted by the anonymous entity "Forensicator" with whom they communicated via retired IBM employee Skip Folden. This analysis was based on DNC files released by Guccifer 2.0.[11] According to Patrick Lawrence's article in The Nation, the memorandum argued that the metadata in these files were altered to add Russian fingerprints, and that file transfer rate reportedly proved they were transferred locally.[12] Brian Feldman, writing in the New York Magazine, criticized the report for relying on "the 'metadata' of 'locked files' that only [Forensicator] had access to" pointing out that these phrases were meaningless. Feldman described the claims in Patrick Lawrence's article as "too incoherent to even debunk" and criticized its use of "techno-gibberish".[13]

According to John Hultquist of FireEye: "The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims." Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, pointed out that the VIPS theory "assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer" but overlooks the likelihood that the files were copied several times before they were leaked, potentially creating new metadata each time. Barger's comments were echoed by other cyber-security experts.[14] The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires "the target server ... to be physically on site in the building": "If the files were stored remotely 'in the cloud,' then the same criticism of 'it is not possible to get those speeds' would come into play." In sum: "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved."[15]

Feldman described the claims in Patrick Lawrence's article as "too incoherent to even debunk" and criticized its use of "techno-gibberish".

The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it.