Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Just gimme the facts, Ma'am!' | Main | Your Monday Funnies: 31.10.16 »

Sunday, 30 October 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ed Balls: trick or treatment?

I read somewhere that the Clinton emails on Abedin's laptop were in a folder called "Lifeinsurance". Possible clue there?

Ed Balls: Reminds me of an chimney sweeper.

Second, I can't help wondering if it will be her best (ex?)friend, Huma Abedin who does jail-time for her

It certainly is a possibility.

Susan McDougal served prison time for Bill and Hillary Clinton as a result of the failed Whitewater real estate venture in the 1980s.

We did some clicking around last night and settled on "Death in Paradise" on PBS. A young English DI found himself disillusioned and next thing you know, poof! he is fetched up on a nice Caribbean island. I tried to keep an eye on the baseball game but could see how it was going to end and didn't want to watch. I didn't see Mr. Balls or I may have paused.

Here is a bit of info on Susan McDougal.

Baseball was a wise choice, Whiters!

I like DiP, if only for the scenery and the lady sgt. Mind you, it's obviously a dangerous place to live, the murder rate is up there with Oxford and Midsummer whatsit.

BOE, you have a keen eye for beauty! I noticed her thoroughly and thought about saying so but my wife is right over there and can sometimes hear what I type...

"Uproar in Gentlemen's clubs"? Reminds me of one of our favorite Lord Peter Wimsey stories titled "The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club" starring Ian Carmichael. A well done series and everyone's wardrobe stayed perfectly creased throughout, just like in real life...

David, congratulations for realizing the current "scandal" is about Huma Abedin, who will probably remain free, and not Clinton. The biggest loser will probably be James Comey. Here's the opinion of Bruce Udolf, who was part of Kenneth Starr's team that investigated Whitewater and so on:

"FBI Director James Comey screwed up big time"

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article111398437.html

I watched baseball too. The Cubs remain the most consistent team in the game. Ouch.

Sorry, Bob, but I could not finish Udolf's nonsense. In his first paragraph he claims that it is established practice not to indict a anyone running for office until the election is over. Odd then that he seems to have forgotten the late Lawrence Walsh who, despite having one indictment against Caspar Weinberger thrown out, issued another on the Friday before the election between Bush and Clinton - which Clinton duly won!

Also, I would like to know from under which law this practice of protecting politicians stems from?

How is this for a SoD style scenario? Abedin, knowing that the Clintons will throw her under the bus if things get tricky, has taken out some insurance. She has copied a load of interesting emails and kept them in a folder called "lifinsurane". For safety she has loaded this onto Weiner's laptop. Unfortunately, the FBI hit on Carlos Danger.

BOE, it's all so, so drool-inducing!

...and Carlos it seems is fully cooperating with the FBI. Full voluntary cooperation-no warrant needed.

The fat Owl of the Remove.
How have to be a certain age.

There's a backstory to Weiner's "fully cooperating" Whitewall. I'd be the first to acknowledge though, few people are aware the FBI carries on such an annual event ... allow me to introduce you to Operation Cross Country.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/fbis-annual-operation-cross-country-rescues-kids-from-sex-trade

Poor timing I'd describe Mr Weiner's current adventure ...

JK, I didn't know this myself. Though I do know that the I-95 corridor is a focus of law enforcement for all kinds of crime. If these things sometimes begin on the net, then "Carlos" may be a player and is desperate to keep his Wiener out of jail.

There's no reason Whitewall, I'd expect you would be aware. Thing about the op is, The Patriot Act's "Information-Sharing Across [Federal] Agencies" made it all possible.

And maybe now, Hillary's got one more vote she might consider "a mistake" ... difficult to, say at this point though. You'll be aware though my friend, 'ol JK while he might, post some things to a UK blog is, nonetheless careful to what he might post in the US?

Should such information get cross-posted Whitewall, you do appreciate the particulars?

I understand perfectly.

I wonder if the FBI chap was a little peeved at the way he has been treated. After all, he is a very important man, just like J Edgar Hoover. Now he is having his revenge.

"Rise, Sir Lewis!"

You jest Duffers. Please tell me you jest.

Next to the Clintons and the EU F! has to be one of the greatest rorts in history.

Bloody fingers - F1 not F!.

Sheesh.

A file or folder called "Life insurance", great stuff!

Aside from Huma and Weiner being in the do-do, what matters from HRC's perspective is: Do the 650,000 emails contain any of the 33,000 emails HRC deleted claiming they were personal, and were any of them actually work related and classified?

If some of the emails are work related, then HRC lied and attempted to pervert the course of justice.


If they were also classified, then she was actually let off for that with the "extremely careless" pronouncement.

However, if one of the deleted emails has the codes for launching the nukes into action as an attachment, or similar - and what emails would someone with HRC's personality likely delete? - then the FBI might feel obliged to reconsider the "extremely careless" outcome.

So I think HRC could still very much be on the hook.

SoD

"So I think HRC could still very much be on the hook."

Where I hope she will hang in perpetuity!

My Sunday viewing was the usual, ever excellent "Gladiators" with its glorious hark back to the '80's when life was simpler, women were hairier and everyone used make up. They at least were not yet safety aware enough to remove all the danger, as amply demonstrated by a 'Glad' and a contestant running into one another so hard that they knocked each other out.

Then it was onto "Humans" which suffered from the fact that the secret is now out. The Synths are taking on human consciousness, which was at the heart of the last series. One was on tenterhooks with series one, since the robots were programmed with the 3 laws, but appeared to be bypassing them. With this series, I suspect that we will have a usual spiral into the whole "What is it to be human?" debate, although we already have an easy answer. Since a robot is programmed not to kill, if a robot is charged with murder, it must mean that it must be recognised as human. Unfortunately, I think Charlie Brooker covers these ideas far better and more succinctly with his excellent "Black Mirror" series, which is passing to Netflicks, dang and blast it.

Ref Abedin and Wiener, both need to play their liar cards carefully.

If Adedin's original device - the one on which she was collecting HRC's emails one way or another - did not have a password, and, Weiner's home device on which these emails were found did not have a password, then both can blame each other. Because either of them could have popped a memory stick in one and copied the emails to the other while the other was out shopping / in the shower/ etc.

There is one little caveat here. When a file is copied to another device, it receives a piece of metadata for the date it was copied onto the other device. If that date is still intact, then both parties had better consider was either of them abroad / in hospital having a baby / i.e. no where near Weiner's device, on the date shown in the "I was copied here on this date" metadata field.

If either of the devices - Abedin's with the original emails, and Weiner's with the copies - was password protected, then the question is which who knew the passwords?

Say both devices had a password. Huma must have know the password to her device, and Weiner to his. So if both say they didn't know the password of the other, then someone's lying, otherwise the file could not have been copied by either of them. So it's one person's word against the other. And since you can't put both in prison because one would be innocent, so they're probably both off the hook here.

If either of them didn't have a password on their device, then it means the one who did have a password on their device was able to do the deed. But that doesn't mean the one who didn't have a password on their device and claims not to have known the password of the other, wasn't actually told the password of the other.

This is where Abedin appears to be in more trouble than Weiner.

If Abedin's device had a password and Weiner's didn't, then Weiner will claim he didn't know Abedin's password, and therefore couldn't have copied the emails. Abedin will then have to claim she did tell him, otherwise she will be the only one who could have copied the emails. But that would mean confessing to another security violation: Allowing access to state information to a non-authorized person.

If Abedin's device didn't have a password and Weiner's did, then Weiner will claim he told her his password, otherwise he would have been the only one who could have copied the emails. If Abedin denies she was told the password of Weiner's device, then she might still be done for not having a password on her device. But more likely, if it was not Abedin's responsibility to configure the password settings, then it was ultimately HRC's responsibility as the self-appointed IT Manager for the secrets of the USA. And since she was let off for this with the "extremely careless" slap on the wrist pronouncement, there's no further action.

So, in summary, the best cases for Abedin and Weiner are: -

(1)

- Both devices had no passwords
- Abedin wasn't responsible for password settings
- Abedin and Weiner were both in close enough proximity to Weiner's device at the time the emails were copied onto it (the metadata date-time the emails arrived on Weiner's device)

Or

(2)

- Abedin's machine had no password
- Abedin wasn't responsible for password settings
- Abedin and Weiner were both in close enough proximity to Weiner's device at the time the emails were copied onto it (the metadata date-time the emails arrived on Weiner's device)
- Weiner's device had a password
- Weiner claims Abedin knew it, and Abedin denies knowing it

That way, it's one word against another, and therefore no case against them. And HRC is blamed for not configuring the password which goes no where because she's already done her "time" for that. Everyone will be off all the hooks!

What's the likelihood that one or other of the above two will be the claim of the two concerned once the legal eagles and techies have advised them?

SoD

Dear Miss Mayfly, I may have to appoint you as my TV-watching director because I rove to and fro through the schedules and all I see is endless crap! Er, well, apart from the occasional Grand prix!

SoD, you should ready yourself for a job as an expert defence/prosecution witness. Could be a big earner!

On another subject, "the wheels of history" ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/30/uk-descendants-of-jewish-refugees-seek-german-citizenship-after-brexit-vote

Sorry, 'n' all that.

SoD

Well, SoD, it just goes to show that even the Jews have their fair share of idiots. Also, perhaps the virulent anti-Semitism emanating from the Labour party might have given some of them a push.

Mornin' SoD (well it is morning where I am).

(2) - Abedin wasn't responsible for password settings

http://www.cio.com/article/3115709/a-mystery-user-breached-an-email-account-on-clintons-server.html

... I *might* send you an email with an "to all appearances unrelated (in time, & etc" but you're a bright boy Loz ... well except for all that Brexit space aliens nonsense ... I'll have to *think about it tho, ask around if you know what I mean. But it ought be clear LE itself is pretty good at the stuff you're speculating about. Especially where Perverts & By Other Means are particularly convenient and simply lying about. 'Stingray' for instance ...

If Abedin was the staffer whose email account was accessed using Tor, but she didn't do it, then either a brute force attack got into her account (possible due to the way the server was configured), or her hubbie if he was tech savvy enough to use Tor (doesn't require great skills), or a friend of his who was tech savvy, could've accessed the email account and pulled Abedin's emails, and HRC's if Abedin had delegate access to HRC's mailbox, through Tor and back to an unknown destination. And thence onto Wiener's laptop in the "Life Insurance" folder.

The net effect is the same as if Weiner had sneaked onto Abedin's device with his memory stick, with the addition that whoever the tech-savvy friend was, if Weiner used a friend, he or she's probably got a copy of them too.

Jan 2013 was before HRC deleted the 33,000 emails, I think, so that pull should've got them.

What I'm not sure about is why the original hack didn't get the deleted emails. I mean the server was hacked before it was discovered that it was hacked, and it was only after that that HRC deleted her 33,000 emails. So the original hackers should have them too. (I'm assuming the Jan 2013 hack you linked to wasn't the original hack?)

So we might find on the day before the election, the original hackers dump the 33,000 deleted emails onto WikiLeaks, or, the FBI get there first!

But what's curious, is the wiki article on the hack ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

... says the FBI aren't saying whether they have the emails back already anyway from the backups done of the server by the IT company that supported it, and whether or not they include any non-personal, classified stuff. The IT company said they recoverable.

"As of May 2016, no answer had been provided to the public as to whether 31,000 emails deleted by Hillary Clinton as personal have been or could be recovered."

" Platte River Networks, the Denver-based firm that managed the Clinton server since 2013, said it had no knowledge of the server being wiped, and indicated that the emails that Clinton has said were deleted could likely be recovered."

So there are at least five possible sources who might dump the 33,000 deleted emails on WikiLeaks in the next 8 days: -

- Weiner's mate.

- Weiner himself - if he was sassy enough to copy them onto a memory stick as well as the laptop the Fed's have got.

- The Fed's using the original backups that the IT company gave them.

- The original Rooskie hackers.

- Abedin - if she was savvy and sassy enough to copy the emails somewhere before HRC instructed their deletion.

Nothing as secret as a state secret in the US, eh?!

And I bet there's some hard bargaining going on behind the scenes!

The plot sickens!

SoD

Oops, there's actually six sources-ish; the missing one is the Fed's could use the latest cache of emails from Weiner's machine, of course.

SoD

"Sickens" is right SoD.

& just fyi, Anytime anyone does a Wiki-Search anything HRC - check the date/time of the most recent edit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-hillary-clintons-wikipedia-editor-2015-5

Encyclopedia of Arkansas is particularly shifty too. Fortunately "we've" got screen-grabs (EofA) from all the monthly entries dating back to 2008.

The comments to this entry are closed.