No Russian Collusion? What now?

[Faun]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

 

[Rigby5]

That is totally and completely wrong.
The Clintons contend their servers were NEVER hacked.
There is no evidence they ever were.

It was the DNC servers that were hacked, which is way easier.
And that was BEFORE Trump said anything about hacking email servers.

There can be no proof in the Mueller investigation because the Mueller investigation never touched on the Clinton servers.
Since they are private, the Mueller investigation could never even look at them.

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

I am not confused at all.
It was someone else who claimed Hillary's email server was hacked and I was the one trying to point out that was the DNC that was hacked, not Hillary.

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense. You will be copying the file table as well as just raw data, so then will have extreme difficulty trying to even find files, much less read them.
But the point is it would be easy for people to avoid anything they wanted to delete when doing the copying.

If anyone at the FBI knew what was appropriate, they would be working for a computer company and not the FBI.

I said, ”Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI,” clearly speaking of the DNC’s servers, which had nothing at all to do with Hillary’s servers; to which you replied... ”yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.”

Yes, you are completely confused as “those copies” were not “missing over 30,000 email.” Again, those were copies of the DNC servers; while the 33,000 missing email were deleted from Hillary’s servers, not the DNC’s.

As far as your knowledge on hard drives, it really wasn’t necessary for you to exhibit sheer ignorance on the technology. You did get the size correct though, I’ll give you that. The destination drive must have at least as much storage capacity as the source drive, and ideally in this case, would be the same size, but that’s all you got right. And I expect a professional company as CrowdStrike, who are in that industry, know enough to know that.

This is not a 2 person conversation. There are other people claiming it was Hillary's email server that was hacked. And it was Hillary that would not allow the FBI to check for the missing emails or evidence of hacking. Hillary did give the FBI a copy of the drives, but that did not at all help in supplying the missing 30,000 emails.
Of course I was unaware the DNC had also supplied copies of their drives because that makes no sense. If you actually want to find deleted files of evidence of hacking, you need the original drives in the machine they were in at the time. You don't want copies, and copies are not going to do any good.
You don't want RAW bytes because they you have to carefully find and interpret the file allocation tables, and then follow their entries to find the actual sectors. That is very difficult these days because all drives use a virtualization scheme for sectors, so that they can map out bad ones, and implement drive encryption. It is not as simple as just looking at RAW bytes. The interpretation is very difficult unless you perfectly shadow it onto the exact same media, in size, brand, embedded firmware, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

No, if you read the charges, he destroyed emails. He committed identity theft to get passwords fraudulently. He was charged for doing damage, destroying information, and violating privacy by publishing them, not for just reading emails.

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

LOLOL

I showed you the very law which convicted a man for hacking someone’s email account on Yahoo! and here you are, still trying to deny it’s a crime.

The article very clearly said that the charges were for mostly for destroying files.
He was also charged with identity theft.

It doesn’t mater what he was charged with. He could have been charged with milking a cow, which is not illegal. Being charged wouldn’t show it’s a crime. Being convicted does.

And here’s the law again under which he was convicted...

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

... you’ll note, hopefully, that destroying files is not a required element of the section of that law. Merely accessing information from a protected computer without authorization is.

Furthermore, where the article spoke of destroying files — it meant the destruction of his own files as he tried to destroy evidence of his guilt from his own computer. For which he was convicted of obstruction of justice.

So you got that wrong too.

You still don't seem to understand English.
Access a private computer is one thing, but access email on a public server is something completely different.

As an example, consider employers monitoring employee emails.
{...
Answer:
There are two parts to your question: Is it possible for your employer to access your personal emails? And if so, is it legal for your employer to do so?

From a practical perspective, whether your employer has the ability to read your personal emails depends on how it monitors and tracks its computer system. However, chances are pretty good that your employer has the capability to access those messages. Even if you have to enter a personal password to get into your gmail account, it may well be captured by your employer's system.

From a legal perspective, though, the answer is less clear. Virtually every court to consider the issue has found that an employer may read emails employees send using the employer's company email system, even if the employee labels or considers those messages to be private. Many employers adopt written policies stating that work emails are not private and require employees to sign a form acknowledging their understanding of this state of affairs. Even without this extra step, however, courts have found in favor of the employer's right to monitor use of their own email systems.
...}

Can my employer read email from my personal account?

The principle is that emails leave copies on every computer they pass through, administrators need to be able to read these files, so the expectation of privacy on email does not or should not exist

 

[Rigby5]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

The reason the brand and version of the drive matter is that the mapping of virtual to physical sectors of the drive are dependent upon the embedded firmware scheme. You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades. The reasons for this include the ability to map out bad sectors, allow encryption, to allow RAID sort of distribution of sectors so that you can read the next sector off a different platter at the same time you read the previous sector, etc. Sectors used to originally be physical and sequential, but now are virtual and can be distributed for faster access vertically instead of sequentially. It all depends on brand, version, etc. Harddrives have their own processors and complex cache schemes. You would have to reverse engineer the entire scheme in order to read from RAW bytes. You could do that 30 years ago, but not any more.

 

[Faun]

Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI.

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

I am not confused at all.
It was someone else who claimed Hillary's email server was hacked and I was the one trying to point out that was the DNC that was hacked, not Hillary.

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense. You will be copying the file table as well as just raw data, so then will have extreme difficulty trying to even find files, much less read them.
But the point is it would be easy for people to avoid anything they wanted to delete when doing the copying.

If anyone at the FBI knew what was appropriate, they would be working for a computer company and not the FBI.

I said, ”Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI,” clearly speaking of the DNC’s servers, which had nothing at all to do with Hillary’s servers; to which you replied... ”yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.”

Yes, you are completely confused as “those copies” were not “missing over 30,000 email.” Again, those were copies of the DNC servers; while the 33,000 missing email were deleted from Hillary’s servers, not the DNC’s.

As far as your knowledge on hard drives, it really wasn’t necessary for you to exhibit sheer ignorance on the technology. You did get the size correct though, I’ll give you that. The destination drive must have at least as much storage capacity as the source drive, and ideally in this case, would be the same size, but that’s all you got right. And I expect a professional company as CrowdStrike, who are in that industry, know enough to know that.

This is not a 2 person conversation. There are other people claiming it was Hillary's email server that was hacked. And it was Hillary that would not allow the FBI to check for the missing emails or evidence of hacking. Hillary did give the FBI a copy of the drives, but that did not at all help in supplying the missing 30,000 emails.
Of course I was unaware the DNC had also supplied copies of their drives because that makes no sense. If you actually want to find deleted files of evidence of hacking, you need the original drives in the machine they were in at the time. You don't want copies, and copies are not going to do any good.
You don't want RAW bytes because they you have to carefully find and interpret the file allocation tables, and then follow their entries to find the actual sectors. That is very difficult these days because all drives use a virtualization scheme for sectors, so that they can map out bad ones, and implement drive encryption. It is not as simple as just looking at RAW bytes. The interpretation is very difficult unless you perfectly shadow it onto the exact same media, in size, brand, embedded firmware, etc.

And yet, despite your ignorance on the subject, the FBI found the copies an “acceptable substitute.” You’ve not convinced me you know more than they do. And yes, access to raw data is also vital in performing forensics on a hard drive as that is how to view data that was deleted after being sent to the “recycle bin.” Also, if you do a copy like that to a similar sized drive with the same cluster size on both and you plug that into the same OS as the source, the undeleted files and files marked for deletion can be read.

 

[Faun]

LOL

You keep going on about the charges while you ignore the convictions. Which of the two do you believe actually speak to whether or not a crime was committed? Indictments or convictions?

He wasn’t convicted of identity theft or wire fraud.

He was convicted on obstruction of justice and of “unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

A public email system is NOT private, and everyone has authorization to access all email because it is all public if it goes through the public internet.

In contrast, the State Department uses private servers that are off the internet, and you need to use something like VpN or other secure and private means of access to your console machine.

The courts have ruled that email on public servers is not private.

LOLOL

I showed you the very law which convicted a man for hacking someone’s email account on Yahoo! and here you are, still trying to deny it’s a crime.

The article very clearly said that the charges were for mostly for destroying files.
He was also charged with identity theft.

It doesn’t mater what he was charged with. He could have been charged with milking a cow, which is not illegal. Being charged wouldn’t show it’s a crime. Being convicted does.

And here’s the law again under which he was convicted...

18 U.S. Code § 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

(a) Whoever—
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(c) information from any protected computer;​

... you’ll note, hopefully, that destroying files is not a required element of the section of that law. Merely accessing information from a protected computer without authorization is.

Furthermore, where the article spoke of destroying files — it meant the destruction of his own files as he tried to destroy evidence of his guilt from his own computer. For which he was convicted of obstruction of justice.

So you got that wrong too.

You still don't seem to understand English.
Access a private computer is one thing, but access email on a public server is something completely different.

As an example, consider employers monitoring employee emails.
{...
Answer:
There are two parts to your question: Is it possible for your employer to access your personal emails? And if so, is it legal for your employer to do so?

From a practical perspective, whether your employer has the ability to read your personal emails depends on how it monitors and tracks its computer system. However, chances are pretty good that your employer has the capability to access those messages. Even if you have to enter a personal password to get into your gmail account, it may well be captured by your employer's system.

From a legal perspective, though, the answer is less clear. Virtually every court to consider the issue has found that an employer may read emails employees send using the employer's company email system, even if the employee labels or considers those messages to be private. Many employers adopt written policies stating that work emails are not private and require employees to sign a form acknowledging their understanding of this state of affairs. Even without this extra step, however, courts have found in favor of the employer's right to monitor use of their own email systems.
...}

Can my employer read email from my personal account?

The principle is that emails leave copies on every computer they pass through, administrators need to be able to read these files, so the expectation of privacy on email does not or should not exist

I see you’re back to making shit up. Admitting you’re wrong is beyond your character, is it?

Yahoo!’s servers are private. Just because they allow people to subscribe and gain access to some features like email, does not make them public. That is seriously fucked to think to assert that anyone is allowed to log onto their servers. The most Yahoo! offers is to log onto your own account which resides on their private and trust me, very protected servers. It’s like a private business. Like a bakery, for example. It’s open to the public and offers the public services. That doesn’t mean anyone from the public can legally reach into their cash drawer and take money. There are laws against that just like there are laws against accessing someone’s protected servers from unauthorized access.

“As an example, consider employers monitoring employee emails.”

It’s astonishing that you would actually try to use employer/employee access to a company’s emails in this discussion. All you just did by doing that is reveal yet again, you have absolutely no clue what’s being discussed as that bears zero relevance to this conversation.

Dave Kernell was neither an employee or employer of Sarah Palin. He has no relevance on whether or not an employer can read their employees’ emails.

The Russian hacker was neither an employee or employer of Hillary Clinton. They has no relevance on whether or not an employer can read their employees’ emails.

Pay attention, it really does help. We’re talking about the illegality of hacking into someone’s private and protected server(s). Not can an employer read their employees’ emails. Which of course they can because the company fucking owns the servers and the company gets to decide who can read whose email. It’s both mind-boggling and revealing that this is what you thought was a rational argument to support legally hacking someone’s email.

 

[iceberg]

And he let Russia out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Which is a sign of weakness not strength.

When someone commits a crime you don't get rid of the law he broke.

In this bizarre Trump world these people have chosen, you do...

" crime is not a crime..."

We need a mass Exorcism... cuz Satan is winning.... evil is winning .....

and the drana queens are on ludes n mushrooms.

 

[Faun]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

The reason the brand and version of the drive matter is that the mapping of virtual to physical sectors of the drive are dependent upon the embedded firmware scheme. You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades. The reasons for this include the ability to map out bad sectors, allow encryption, to allow RAID sort of distribution of sectors so that you can read the next sector off a different platter at the same time you read the previous sector, etc. Sectors used to originally be physical and sequential, but now are virtual and can be distributed for faster access vertically instead of sequentially. It all depends on brand, version, etc. Harddrives have their own processors and complex cache schemes. You would have to reverse engineer the entire scheme in order to read from RAW bytes. You could do that 30 years ago, but not any more.

“You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades.”

Thanks again for demonstrating for the forum that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

File allocation tables look at clusters, not sectors...

A sector is a fixed division of a track on a disk. And A cluster is a group of contiguous sectors and basic unit for FAT32 files. The FAT tables in FAT32 provide information about used clusters, reserved clusters, and free clusters. All clusters allocated for a file is organized by FAT tables in a linked list manner .

 

[Care4all]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

We have the best investigative cyber division in the world... next to maybe the Russians, who are well trained as well....

What are ya trying to do, impersonate Trump..telling us a bunch of grandiose crud about yourself? The BIGGEST, the Greatest.... the Bestest (sic)

and yes, they know a hell of a lot more than you.... and when they don't, they know who to go to in the private sector, that can help.


A copy of the servers affected is what they used and experts say, this is what is best to use, vs the original server.


Trump's Stupid ‘Where Is the DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained

Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box.

“To keep it simple, let’s say there’s only one server. CrowdStrike goes in, makes a complete image including a memory dump of everything that was in the memory of the server at the time, including traffic and connections at the time,” Rid said. “You have that image from the machine live in the network including its memory content, versus a server that someone physically carries into the FBI headquarters. It’s unplugged, so there’s no memory content because it’s powered down. That physical piece of hardware is less valuable for an investigation than the onsite image and data extraction from a machine that is up and running. The idea a physical server would add any value doesn’t make any sense.”

What Rid means is that after a hack, some of the evidence of who did it and how they did it may be fleeting. It could be in the server’s memory, the RAM, and not stored on its hard drive. (Hackers use “fileless” malware precisely for this reason.) To preserve evidence in cases like these, incident responders need to make an image—essentially a copy of the server in that exact same state at that exact same time—so they can look at it afterwards. Think about this like when investigators take pictures of the crime scene or victim.

Lesley Carhart, principal threat hunter at the cybersecurity firm Dragos, told Motherboard that physical servers are rarely seized in forensics investigations.

"For decades, it has been industry-standard forensic and digital evidence handling practice to conduct analysis on forensic images instead of original evidence," she said. "This decreases the risk of corruption or accidental modification of that evidence."

I asked Rid if he thought it was suspicious that the DNC did not hand over the actual server to the FBI, and he said “no, not at all.”

Also, the copy of the server hard drives is only step one in the process.... it doesn't tell you much, all the other legwork is where the prosecution/indictments come from....

“To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.”

And this is what they did to get this information on the Russian hacks


https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

 

[hadit]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in a true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

I guess those other million pages they are pouring over are clean as well. So far, anyone that has been with trump since 2012 has been arrested and either has been tried and convicted or awaiting trial. There are a few that Mueller hasn't approached yet but he will. The best thing for Trump and the good of the Nation is for Trump to do a Nixon. For you idjit cupcake rightwingfruitcakes, Nixon was impeached but the didn't have the votes in the senate to convict him. Plus, the charges, if brought today, would not have stood up legally. But, like Trump, Nixon was loosing it and on one special day, resigned.

Nixon wasn't impeached.

 

[Lesh]

Nixon wasn't impeached.

He resigned because he was told that Republicans in the Senate WOULD vote to impeach if he let it go that far.

Keep up

 

[Care4all]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in a true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

I guess those other million pages they are pouring over are clean as well. So far, anyone that has been with trump since 2012 has been arrested and either has been tried and convicted or awaiting trial. There are a few that Mueller hasn't approached yet but he will. The best thing for Trump and the good of the Nation is for Trump to do a Nixon. For you idjit cupcake rightwingfruitcakes, Nixon was impeached but the didn't have the votes in the senate to convict him. Plus, the charges, if brought today, would not have stood up legally. But, like Trump, Nixon was loosing it and on one special day, resigned.

FYI and as mentioned by a poster,

it was Clinton that was impeached but not enough votes in the Senate to convict him on the articles of impeachment...the indictments.

They drew up articles of Impeachment for Nixon, and he was told by the Republicans in the House and senate, that he would be impeached and the Senate would convict, so Nixon resigned.

He resigned and Ford, pardoned him for any crimes he committed, whatever they might be.

If Nixon had not resigned before impeachment, then President Ford would NOT have been able to PARDON him.... because in our constitution, it states the president has the power to PARDON,

EXCEPT, presidents can not pardon anyone that was Impeached, removed from office.

 

[LilOlLady]

• In the 773 days to yesterday, Trump has made 9,014 partly or wholly made-up statements according to the Washington Post
• He's started lying more and more frequently with each year of his presidency
• 104 came in one two-hour speech this weekend
• Donald Trump Has Reportedly Racked Up More Than 9,000 Lies Since Taking Office
  

 

[Care4all]

• In the 773 days to yesterday, Trump has made 9,014 partly or wholly made-up statements according to the Washington Post
• He's started lying more and more frequently with each year of his presidency
• 104 came in one two-hour speech this weekend
• Donald Trump Has Reportedly Racked Up More Than 9,000 Lies Since Taking Office

And that is what bothers me the MOST about him, his lies upon lies upon lies upon lies upon lies.... just unadulterated DECEITFULNESS.

I just can't take the lying, it breaks every rule I was ever taught by my parents, by my church, by my employers etc etc etc

...he makes my skin crawl....

 

[Hale]

• In the 773 days to yesterday, Trump has made 9,014 partly or wholly made-up statements according to the Washington Post
• He's started lying more and more frequently with each year of his presidency
• 104 came in one two-hour speech this weekend
• Donald Trump Has Reportedly Racked Up More Than 9,000 Lies Since Taking Office

I find these "statistics" absolutely hilarious. It's like watching 3rd graders on the playground! Seriously - grow up!

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.
And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals.
When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive.
They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over.
They are still there.
But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.
So you won't get anything that someone wanted to hide.
You need the originals in order to find what someone tried to hide.
That is true whether it was evidence of hackers or of illegal actions by the Clintons.

You’re thoroughly confused.

The hard drive copies were taken from the DNC’s servers. The 33,000 deleted emails were on Hillary’s servers. The two had nothing to do with each other.

“And digital copies are useless.
In order to find evidence of any hacking or illegal correspondence, you need the originals. When things are deleted, they are not wiped off the drive. They are just marked as being able for future writes to be able to write over. They are still there. But when you make a copy, you don't copy the parts that are marked as deleted.”

Too fucking stupid. <smh>

They didn’t create the copies with Windows Explorer, dragging files from one location to another — they did a byte-for-byte copy which duplicates every byte from the source drive onto a destination drive. that includes data from files marked for deletion as well as actually deleted files (except for such data that is overwritten).

The copy contains everything that can be found on the source drive. Which is why the FBI said this was an “appropriate substitute.”

I am not confused at all.
It was someone else who claimed Hillary's email server was hacked and I was the one trying to point out that was the DNC that was hacked, not Hillary.

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense. You will be copying the file table as well as just raw data, so then will have extreme difficulty trying to even find files, much less read them.
But the point is it would be easy for people to avoid anything they wanted to delete when doing the copying.

If anyone at the FBI knew what was appropriate, they would be working for a computer company and not the FBI.

I said, ”Digital copies of the hard drives were provided to the FBI,” clearly speaking of the DNC’s servers, which had nothing at all to do with Hillary’s servers; to which you replied... ”yes, but those copies were missing over 30,000 emails, and were what Trump was suggesting the Russians might be able to find.”

Yes, you are completely confused as “those copies” were not “missing over 30,000 email.” Again, those were copies of the DNC servers; while the 33,000 missing email were deleted from Hillary’s servers, not the DNC’s.

As far as your knowledge on hard drives, it really wasn’t necessary for you to exhibit sheer ignorance on the technology. You did get the size correct though, I’ll give you that. The destination drive must have at least as much storage capacity as the source drive, and ideally in this case, would be the same size, but that’s all you got right. And I expect a professional company as CrowdStrike, who are in that industry, know enough to know that.

This is not a 2 person conversation. There are other people claiming it was Hillary's email server that was hacked. And it was Hillary that would not allow the FBI to check for the missing emails or evidence of hacking. Hillary did give the FBI a copy of the drives, but that did not at all help in supplying the missing 30,000 emails.
Of course I was unaware the DNC had also supplied copies of their drives because that makes no sense. If you actually want to find deleted files of evidence of hacking, you need the original drives in the machine they were in at the time. You don't want copies, and copies are not going to do any good.
You don't want RAW bytes because they you have to carefully find and interpret the file allocation tables, and then follow their entries to find the actual sectors. That is very difficult these days because all drives use a virtualization scheme for sectors, so that they can map out bad ones, and implement drive encryption. It is not as simple as just looking at RAW bytes. The interpretation is very difficult unless you perfectly shadow it onto the exact same media, in size, brand, embedded firmware, etc.

And yet, despite your ignorance on the subject, the FBI found the copies an “acceptable substitute.” You’ve not convinced me you know more than they do. And yes, access to raw data is also vital in performing forensics on a hard drive as that is how to view data that was deleted after being sent to the “recycle bin.” Also, if you do a copy like that to a similar sized drive with the same cluster size on both and you plug that into the same OS as the source, the undeleted files and files marked for deletion can be read.

That is the part that proves the FBI's ignorance or corruption. They should not have accepted copies, and instead insisted on the originals. That fact I know more about computers is obvious, since they are paid for law enforcement by a the federal government, and I am paid by Intel, HP, IBM, Sequent, Microsoft, Apple, etc., to work on computers.
Yes you might succeed if you use the same size drive, with same brand, version, embedded system, etc.
But likely hopeless if you use a different size drive, different brand, different version of firmware, etc.
The algorithm that locates actual physical sectors from the virtual requests is not going to be the same even if the different sectors have been mapped out as bad, the allocation table is set up differently, the drive uses a different RAID optimization mapping, etc.
But that does also depend on what is meant is meant by a RAW copy. If you use the firmware from the original drive, and follow the file allocation table routines for a virtual sector by sector copy, there is a chance that might work even though the destination drive was using different firmware, allocation table routines, etc. But the FBI should never have taken that risk. They should have used the original drives, taken them as evidence, and left the DNC to use the copies. They failed in their ability to ensure a credible line of evidence. They could have been given anything. They can't use anything they get from the copies because they could easily not be accurate or even deliberately manipulated.

 

[Rigby5]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

Great, then explain to the class why the brand matter when doing a byte-by-byte copy of one drive to another, assuming the storage capacity on the destination drive is at least as big as the source drive......

The reason the brand and version of the drive matter is that the mapping of virtual to physical sectors of the drive are dependent upon the embedded firmware scheme. You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades. The reasons for this include the ability to map out bad sectors, allow encryption, to allow RAID sort of distribution of sectors so that you can read the next sector off a different platter at the same time you read the previous sector, etc. Sectors used to originally be physical and sequential, but now are virtual and can be distributed for faster access vertically instead of sequentially. It all depends on brand, version, etc. Harddrives have their own processors and complex cache schemes. You would have to reverse engineer the entire scheme in order to read from RAW bytes. You could do that 30 years ago, but not any more.

“You can likely find the file allocation table and start looking for sectors, but they have not been real physical sectors in many decades.”

Thanks again for demonstrating for the forum that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

File allocation tables look at clusters, not sectors...

A sector is a fixed division of a track on a disk. And A cluster is a group of contiguous sectors and basic unit for FAT32 files. The FAT tables in FAT32 provide information about used clusters, reserved clusters, and free clusters. All clusters allocated for a file is organized by FAT tables in a linked list manner .

Wrong, you do not read clusters, you read sectors. Sure a cluster is a group of sectors and is how you find the sectors, but is it sectors you read.
Clusters exist as a way of avoiding the sector details in the file table system.
And FAT32 is not only somewhat obsolete, but only 1 of many different allocation table system.
For example, the UEFI boot system uses the GUID Partition table instead of a FAT table.
Windows uses NTFS by default.
Linux uses Ext, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4, JFS, XFS, btrfs and swap.
I deliberately avoided referencing clusters since they are not universal to all file systems, and mean nothing at all to the drives.
I doubt the DNC servers were using FAT32.

 

[Rigby5]

And no, unless you use the exact same brand, size, and condition of drive, you can't really do a byte by byte copy and have it make any sense.

Oh look, we have us a cyber forensics expert, here!

Just so we are all clear on this line of bullshit from you:

You claim to know more about this than the government forensic scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field.

Do I have that right?

Of course I do know more than anyone working at the FBI, who is not going to have nearly as much experience as I do.
I build computers over the decades from scratch. Not all aspects but most of them, and I have to know about all of them.
The FBI does not have to know much at all, and can't know very much because you can't learn this stuff while working at the FBI.
I have built mainframes, minis, personal computers and smart devices.
I do operating systems, firmware, embedded systems, network protocols, pacemakers, etc.

We have the best investigative cyber division in the world... next to maybe the Russians, who are well trained as well....

What are ya trying to do, impersonate Trump..telling us a bunch of grandiose crud about yourself? The BIGGEST, the Greatest.... the Bestest (sic)

and yes, they know a hell of a lot more than you.... and when they don't, they know who to go to in the private sector, that can help.


A copy of the servers affected is what they used and experts say, this is what is best to use, vs the original server.


Trump's Stupid ‘Where Is the DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained

Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box.

“To keep it simple, let’s say there’s only one server. CrowdStrike goes in, makes a complete image including a memory dump of everything that was in the memory of the server at the time, including traffic and connections at the time,” Rid said. “You have that image from the machine live in the network including its memory content, versus a server that someone physically carries into the FBI headquarters. It’s unplugged, so there’s no memory content because it’s powered down. That physical piece of hardware is less valuable for an investigation than the onsite image and data extraction from a machine that is up and running. The idea a physical server would add any value doesn’t make any sense.”

What Rid means is that after a hack, some of the evidence of who did it and how they did it may be fleeting. It could be in the server’s memory, the RAM, and not stored on its hard drive. (Hackers use “fileless” malware precisely for this reason.) To preserve evidence in cases like these, incident responders need to make an image—essentially a copy of the server in that exact same state at that exact same time—so they can look at it afterwards. Think about this like when investigators take pictures of the crime scene or victim.

Lesley Carhart, principal threat hunter at the cybersecurity firm Dragos, told Motherboard that physical servers are rarely seized in forensics investigations.

"For decades, it has been industry-standard forensic and digital evidence handling practice to conduct analysis on forensic images instead of original evidence," she said. "This decreases the risk of corruption or accidental modification of that evidence."

I asked Rid if he thought it was suspicious that the DNC did not hand over the actual server to the FBI, and he said “no, not at all.”

Also, the copy of the server hard drives is only step one in the process.... it doesn't tell you much, all the other legwork is where the prosecution/indictments come from....

“To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.”

And this is what they did to get this information on the Russian hacks


https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

First of all, the DNC hack is of unknown time, but the best guess is that it was not detected for several months, meaning that a memory dump would be useless.
Second is that in the quote:
{... “To really investigate a high profile intrusion like the DNC hack, you have to look beyond the victim network,” Rid said. “You have to look at the infrastructure—the command and control sites that were used to get in that are not going to be on any server ... looking at one server is just one isolated piece of infrastructure.” ...}
Clearly a copy of a drive would be totally useless, and would not even be possible to log as evidence.
I agree you would need to examine the routers, switches, configurations, and the whole network. Which could really only be done on site. Someone handing you a copy of a drive is totally and completely useless.

 

[Rigby5]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in a true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

I guess those other million pages they are pouring over are clean as well. So far, anyone that has been with trump since 2012 has been arrested and either has been tried and convicted or awaiting trial. There are a few that Mueller hasn't approached yet but he will. The best thing for Trump and the good of the Nation is for Trump to do a Nixon. For you idjit cupcake rightwingfruitcakes, Nixon was impeached but the didn't have the votes in the senate to convict him. Plus, the charges, if brought today, would not have stood up legally. But, like Trump, Nixon was loosing it and on one special day, resigned.

Nixon wasn't impeached.

Correct. Nixon was not impeached, and he resigned before any investigation was able to start.
But Clinton was impeached, just not convicted.
Impeachment being a state where the president is temporarily suspended while being tried.

{... Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. It does not mean removal from office; it is only a statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction by a legislative vote, which judgment entails removal from office....}

 

[McRocket]

Now that Cohen has been revealed as a total nothing-burger, what shall we do next?

Should we pretend Cohen never happened and continue the collusion narrative, promising an impending Mueller "bombshell"? Or shall we take a different, wiser tangent? One thing is certain, Trump is GUILTY and UNFIT, and something must be done. Even a Republican like me knows that!

So in true bipartisan spirit, I've compiled some possibilities that should be considered. I've run these through the same computer used to predict global warming, so the actual probabilities are included. They're 100% accurate, you can trust me:

• Trump is an alien from the planet Flaflooga, sent to take over the Earth with his mind-ray: 87%
• Trump is literally Hitler, thawed from cryogenic suspension and here to establish the New Reich: 92%
• A Genuine Birth Certificate will be found proving that Trump is a Russian national (how ironic!): 41%
• Cancelled checks from Trump to Putin with the memo "Thanks for the boost" will surface: 78%
• Trump and Pence will both get "an offer they can't refuse" from Kim: 18%
• Pelosi and Schumer will prove that Trump is actually their 17 year old love child: 29%
• AOC will tweet a clapback so stunning that Trump will resign in shame: 65%

As you can see, there is at least a 410% chance that Trump should not be President. I'm sure there are more possibilities, but the computer overheated. This should take us well past 2020.

You're welcome, Democrats!

Jeez...the legal term is 'conspiracy', not 'collusion'.

And since the Mueller investigation has not even been revealed - you have not a clue what it says or if there was conspiracy.

Sheesh...you Trumpbots just cannot stop looking silly and ignorant.

Now I have no idea if Trump will be found guilty of conspiracy - my guess is no. But I am not stupid enough to run around, matter-of-factly claiming he is/is not when there is no possible way 99.999% of Americans could know for certain.