Trump was asked whether anyone on his protection detail received ANY communications that a suspicious person, or potential threat, existed prior to him taking the stage.

He said No -- if there had been one, he would have been delayed going on until the situation was secure.

The vid shows the pic of the guy on the SS agents phone.  Maybe not everyone had time to check their phones, I mean how often do you see the actual detail on their phones while protecting their principal.  So, it's plausible that he asked the SS next to him and was told no due to the agent not checking his/her phone.

Dan Bongino (retired SS who protected POTUS) went over this and showed the clip.

The vid shows the pic of the guy on the SS agents phone.  Maybe not everyone had time to check their phones, I mean how often do you see the actual detail on their phones while protecting their principal.  So, it's plausible that he asked the SS next to him and was told no due to the agent not checking his/her phone.

Dan Bongino (retired SS who protected POTUS) went over this and showed the clip.

if they are using cell phones which have to be taken out and looked at vs. radios with earwigs to stay in constant communication, whoever decided that was a good SOP should be fired immediately.  Why would you require agents to take their eyes off the crowd in order to check their texts?

Guarantee the phones  would be set to vibrate so the noise won't disrupt the event.

This is correct, what I'm getting at is will this be used to ban collapable stocks?

No, it's being used to ban "assault weapons."  These "weapons of war" are why politicians aren't safe.  These firearms make the Secret Service's job harder.

If you watch the hearing video, the first few democrats used their time to blame easy access to firearms and no ban on AR-15s and campaign for stricter gun laws.

No, it's being used to ban "assault weapons."  These "weapons of war" are why politicians aren't safe.  These firearms make the Secret Service's job harder.

If you watch the hearing video, the first few democrats used their time to blame easy access to firearms and no ban on AR-15s and campaign for stricter gun laws.

IMO, for the FBI director to specifically mention a collapsible stock is BS.  Many AR's have them and they don't collapse that much as 1 can conceal the rifle in a t-shirt and long pants..  This is assuming a SBR wasn't used and a 16 inch barrel was used.  What would make more sense would be if he stated folding stock.

The DNC will use his testimony to try to ban this item.

Some of you may have seen the music video about "the roof," but if you did not here it is.

He was caught on video RUNNING across the roof top in plain view of everyone.

Worst security detail ever


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-video-emerges-shooter-running-across-roof-trump-speaking

He was caught on video RUNNING across the roof top in plain view of everyone.

Worst security detail ever


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-video-emerges-shooter-running-across-roof-trump-speaking

Unless the video comes with a forensic stamp of authenticity, i have to take any video, audio or photographic "evidence" with a grain of salt.

Too easy to create realistic fakes these days.

i'm not saying it's not real.  i'm just saying it might not be.

Unless the video comes with a forensic stamp of authenticity, i have to take any video, audio or photographic "evidence" with a grain of salt.

Too easy to create realistic fakes these days.

i'm not saying it's not real.  i'm just saying it might not be.

At this point anything that has a forensic stamp of authenticity is probably altered

At this point anything that has a forensic stamp of authenticity is probably altered

Maybe, but at least you have someone you can hold accountable for declaring it unaltered.

"Some guy sharing it on social media" has no clue where the things he shares originated nor if they were altered.

Maybe, but at least you have someone you can hold accountable for declaring it unaltered.

"Some guy sharing it on social media" has no clue where the things he shares originated nor if they were altered.

Hold accountable? Thanks for the laugh. 

After everything we've been through so far I trust a random guy on social media far more than a government infested with maniacs who have no problem with killing presidents.

Hold accountable? Thanks for the laugh. 

After everything we've been through so far I trust a random guy on social media far more than a government infested with maniacs who have no problem with killing presidents.

I never said government authority.  I said "forensic stamp of authenticity."

Any private individual or company with the technical tools and skills to authenticate digital media can publish the what, how and why of whether the media is unaltered.

Simple example: a watermark.  Digital watermarks on video are used to protect digital video.  It's added during recording by the equipment.  Many media outlets require these watermarks on equipment they issue to videographers to prevent them from selling footage they shot for the company using their cameras.  Since it's added at time of creation, it can be verified with software.  Superimposed watermarks added after shooting the video doesn't pass the test.

if you have a video with metadata showing the file was created 5 days after the event, that's a good indication it's fake as well.  Most video today is created digitally on phones or cameras.  There's no need to render it like you did for analog recordings.  So, even if the file shows a timestamp later than the event because it was copied to a storage device, the metadata would still show when it was created.  If it's altered, the metadata would normally change, too, unless someone tried to go into the file and alter the metadata.    if they didn't use the altered video to fool people, the metadata is probably intact.  So, when others share it as real, it's simple to show it's not.

Many other ways to tell if the media was altered.  It all depends on how much effort the creator puts into concealing that it's fake.  None of the methods i know of can evade every forensic tool.

I never said government authority.  I said "forensic stamp of authenticity."

Any private individual or company with the technical tools and skills to authenticate digital media can publish the what, how and why of whether the media is unaltered.

Simple example: a watermark.  Digital watermarks on video are used to protect digital video.  It's added during recording by the equipment.  Many media outlets require these watermarks on equipment they issue to videographers to prevent them from selling footage they shot for the company using their cameras.  Since it's added at time of creation, it can be verified with software.  Superimposed watermarks added after shooting the video doesn't pass the test.

if you have a video with metadata showing the file was created 5 days after the event, that's a good indication it's fake as well.  Most video today is created digitally on phones or cameras.  There's no need to render it like you did for analog recordings.  So, even if the file shows a timestamp later than the event because it was copied to a storage device, the metadata would still show when it was created.  If it's altered, the metadata would normally change, too, unless someone tried to go into the file and alter the metadata.    if they didn't use the altered video to fool people, the metadata is probably intact.  So, when others share it as real, it's simple to show it's not.

Many other ways to tell if the media was altered.  It all depends on how much effort the creator puts into concealing that it's fake.  None of the methods i know of can evade every forensic tool.

Gotcha. Is there somewhere that people regularly publish the results?

Gotcha. Is there somewhere that people regularly publish the results?

It's not a public service.  People who created the tools want to get paid, and so do the people who buy and use them.

it's a service often contracted for criminal or civil trials in order to prove or disprove the authenticity of audio or visual evidence.

As a hobbyist, anyone can get some basic tools especially if you have enough experience at the bit and byte level, but unless you have access to the original media, it's tough to authenticate a copy of a copy after it's become part of someone's vlog video and gone through social media upload filters.

For my own sanity, i simply take it all with a grain of salt, especially with AI and deep fake technology doing what it can to trick us.

It's not a public service.  People who created the tools want to get paid, and so do the people who buy and use them.

it's a service often contracted for criminal or civil trials in order to prove or disprove the authenticity of audio or visual evidence.

As a hobbyist, anyone can get some basic tools especially if you have enough experience at the bit and byte level, but unless you have access to the original media, it's tough to authenticate a copy of a copy after it's become part of someone's vlog video and gone through social media upload filters.

For my own sanity, i simply take it all with a grain of salt, especially with AI and deep fake technology doing what it can to trick us.

Looks like you have no way of verifying the certainty that you demand. Disappointing but not totally unexpected.

However I can provide some certainty using a very simple rule of thumb...

If it makes the government look bad, it's probably true!

Looks like you have no way of verifying the certainty that you demand. Disappointing but not totally unexpected.

However I can provide some certainty using a very simple rule of thumb...

If it makes the government look bad, it's probably true!

The problem is it only takes a couple of fake videos that make the government look bad to ruin your confidence in that theory.

The problem is it only takes a couple of fake videos that make the government look bad to ruin your confidence in that theory.

Now is a good time to figure out which side you are on if you don't want to end up in an internment camp.