is this the same russian meddling that 99% of the OG trumptards denied for 2+ years, despite a mountain of evidence supporting it?
Russian Collusion and Russian meddling, 2 different things.
The collusion has definitely been dismantled. Did Trump and co interact with Russians? Yep, but not to the level that was being portrayed by the media. The Dossier, Manafort, all that is crap.
As for interference, I personally think the proven actions of the Clintons and the DNC did way more damage, and they aren’t even a foreign entity!
Foreign money and influence will always be present in our elections. Soviet, Israeli, the Saudis, Chinese, lots of foreign interests at stake. The whole Russia focus had a very specific function, it wasn’t achieved, it backfired, and now has become a grotesque monster consuming our media and dividing people.
well, this is a completely useless post that does not answer my question.
99% may be an exaggeration, but only by individual percentage points. the vast, vast majority of the OG trump crew denied flat out that the russian government was behind the wikileaks releases, that they coordinated and carried out an organized, top down social media disinformation campaign, and that they did so in direct support of the trump campaign. all of which was spelled out in excruciating detail in the mueller report (you know, the one the OP didn't read).
i just want to be clear that the meddling that the OG is disingenuously talking about is the same meddling he has been denying all along.
William Binney, top NSA veteran has widely disputed the Russians were behind the DNC hack. His credentials dwarf yours, so I tend to go with his assessment. Others in that circle are mixed on that one, so I can’t 100% buy that one.
Binney says the download speed looks more like it was put on a flash drive than it was downloaded. Also, to this day the CIA has never had access to that server, protocol was broken, a private company was allowed access to it first. Not at all the way a definitive answer is reached.
Was he the guy that claimed connection speeds were too slow for it to be possible?
If so, he's a fucking idiot. My personal credentials in the telecommunications industry dwarf his - and that's more relevant for knowing if a data speed is available. I've got experience with (either directly working for or contracted by) AT&T, Verizon, Froniter, Mediacom, and even for a short time when DirecTV tried to resell a DSL product. They were available for some time before I left Verizon - which was roughly 6 years before the hack happened.
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the “last modified” time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the DNC files on WikiLeaks’ site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number—2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks — not electronically via a hack.