Bidengate Breaks... err... down

[thebeave]

When I just had just reached voting age and it was revealed that Billy Carter had registered as a foreign agent of Libya, I remember thinking "Who gives a shit?" It's deja vu all over again.

Well, typically the US Government gives a shit. If you apply for a top secret clearance, for example, you very likely will have to disclose such relations between a close family member and a nation such as Libya. I can only imagine how much they might care if its the POTUS.

I don't remember that, though. Why would Billy Carter do that? Maybe he wanted to peddle his "Billy Beer" there?

 

[ZiprHead]

When I just had just reached voting age and it was revealed that Billy Carter had registered as a foreign agent of Libya, I remember thinking "Who gives a shit?" It's deja vu all over again.

Well, typically the US Government gives a shit. If you apply for a top secret clearance, for example, you very likely will have to disclose such relations between a close family member and a nation such as Libya. I can only imagine how much they might care if its the POTUS.

I don't remember that, though. Why would Billy Carter do that? Maybe he wanted to peddle his "Billy Beer" there?

Cuz he couldn't sell the piss water here?

 

[Patooka]

Well, typically the US Government gives a shit. If you apply for a top secret clearance, for example, you very likely will have to disclose such relations between a close family member and a nation such as Libya. I can only imagine how much they might care if its the POTUS.

Wow. How quickly they forget.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump team overruled 25 clearance denials, official says

A White House official turned whistleblower says dozens of people in President Donald Trump's administration were granted access to classified information despite "disqualifying issues" in their backgrounds.

apnews.com

 

[Harry Bosch]

When I just had just reached voting age and it was revealed that Billy Carter had registered as a foreign agent of Libya, I remember thinking "Who gives a shit?" It's deja vu all over again.

Well, typically the US Government gives a shit. If you apply for a top secret clearance, for example, you very likely will have to disclose such relations between a close family member and a nation such as Libya. I can only imagine how much they might care if its the POTUS.

I don't remember that, though. Why would Billy Carter do that? Maybe he wanted to peddle his "Billy Beer" there?

Again. Super sorry here. But I'm a typical American with a short attention span. You still haven't explained why I should care about Hunter Biden. I'm far more interested in Kim Kardashian latest fashion outfit. Supposedly Hunter had this laptop with e-mails that show an improper relationship that Biden may have had with a donor. Correct? But there is no evidence that corroborates this. It seems like a lot of assumptions. I'm just not impressed.

 

[Elixir]

I'm far more interested in Kim Kardashian latest fashion outfit.

You’re one sick mo fo!

Supposedly Hunter had this laptop with e-mails that show an improper relationship that Biden may have had with a donor. Correct? But there is no evidence that corroborates this. It seems like a lot of assumptions. I'm just not impressed.

It’s an unusual and curious accusation … because skulduggery involving foreign interests and election interference is generally a Republican thing. But if one is aware of how the new reich strives to accuse others of their own crime du jour, it’s hardly surprising.

 

[Artemus]

When I just had just reached voting age and it was revealed that Billy Carter had registered as a foreign agent of Libya, I remember thinking "Who gives a shit?" It's deja vu all over again.

Well, typically the US Government gives a shit. If you apply for a top secret clearance, for example, you very likely will have to disclose such relations between a close family member and a nation such as Libya. I can only imagine how much they might care if its the POTUS.

And after you accurately report it on your SF-86 you will receive your clearance

I don't remember that, though. Why would Billy Carter do that?

Because he was a drunken fool who was trying to cash in on the notoriety of being related to a high-ranking government official, which had no relevance whatsoever on the fitness or appropriateness of said relative to perform the job.

LIke I said, deja vu.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, Lord, I remember that. I'm sure Libya expected some behind-the-scenes influence peddling, but Billy was too dumb for that nonsense. He probably called Jimmy up and said, "Libbyuh wants me to get you to ____ for them. Is that okay?" And Jimmy handed the phone to someone else and said, "Get this idiot registered as a foreign lobbyist or something, before he gets us both arrested. And then put his number on the "Not At Home" list."

THey kept TRYING to find Billy something useful to do. Escorting diplomats (PLEASE don't take a whiz on the side of the road this time!) and so on. He certainly did not think there was a reason not to take money to namedrop with his brother. Jimmy'd be the one makin' the ackshul decision, raght?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are there any emails from Hunter saying he would actually do what Burisma wanted him to do?

And how do we know these emails are legitimate? These computers passed through many hands before getting to the FBI.

Exactly. I find the providence of the laptop sorely lacking. I strongly suspect most of the e-mails are legitimate but given the providence I consider it likely that things have been tampered with. Thus it means nothing--and showing that much of it is true means nothing, it could easily be someone hacked his system, got his old e-mails and then changed things a bit.

Don't go looking for suspicious stuff on that hard drive, address the chain of custody first!

How would the Russians do all that, though? Are they logging into his laptop from Russia, or are the Russian hackers here in the US somehow given access to it? Or did they take the laptop to Russia? Wouldn't a competent computer forensics team be able to tell if the emails or other information were altered?

This is an old machine, not live data. The providence is very sketchy, it's likely planted. And forensics can't catch a good enough job of faking it, especially in a situation like this where it's data, not images.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What We Know and Don’t About Hunter Biden and a Laptop - The New York Times.

No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation.

With pressure mounting on the F.B.I. to respond to questions from Congress about the laptop, the bureau wrote to one of the president’s staunchest allies in Congress, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, suggesting that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.

Enjoy your crow.

Which doesn't prove it wasn't manipulated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the NYT did claim that the emails were authenticated. So, if Rudy and his cronies altered them, I presume the computer forensics would show that, would it not? I'm not a computer expert, so I can't really say if it is possible to fake content on a hard drive and not have it be detected. As a minimum, they did not say that any of the content appears doctored. That's all I got for ya.

It most certainly is possible to fake content. It all comes down to how much faking you want to do. At the simplest level you can easily do it yourself: Plug in a thumb drive and copy a file to it. Notice how the file written date is the file written date of the original file, not the time you actually did it? Windows fakes the file date for your convenience, making it match the original instead of telling the truth. (And it most definitely is faking it--if you look at the new file while it's still writing it you'll see it has the current time. Once all the data is written it then copies the file timestamps over.)

Such fakery can only be detected when either the fakery is inconsistent (what often happens with photoshops--for example, pasting together two images that had light sources from different angle(s)--that's very hard to correct for) or when they leave behind signs of the tampering.

That's why programs like PGP exist--without a digital signature there's no way to know if it's real or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the NYT did claim that the emails were authenticated.

All the emails or just some?

Exactly. The best way to pull off something like this is to get an actual copy of their e-mail (say, the outlook database) so there's a lot of genuine stuff in there.

So, if Rudy and his cronies altered them, I presume the computer forensics would show that, would it not? I'm not a computer expert, so I can't really say if it is possible to fake content on a hard drive and not have it be detected. As a minimum, they did not say that any of the content appears doctored. That's all I got for ya.

To be sure, the email headers contain the servers the emails went through, those servers would have to be examined to confirm if true. Spoofing email headers is quite easy.

Except this is from years ago--do backups exist compare against?

 

[thebeave]

Well, the NYT did claim that the emails were authenticated. So, if Rudy and his cronies altered them, I presume the computer forensics would show that, would it not? I'm not a computer expert, so I can't really say if it is possible to fake content on a hard drive and not have it be detected. As a minimum, they did not say that any of the content appears doctored. That's all I got for ya.

It most certainly is possible to fake content. It all comes down to how much faking you want to do. At the simplest level you can easily do it yourself: Plug in a thumb drive and copy a file to it. Notice how the file written date is the file written date of the original file, not the time you actually did it? Windows fakes the file date for your convenience, making it match the original instead of telling the truth. (And it most definitely is faking it--if you look at the new file while it's still writing it you'll see it has the current time. Once all the data is written it then copies the file timestamps over.)

Such fakery can only be detected when either the fakery is inconsistent (what often happens with photoshops--for example, pasting together two images that had light sources from different angle(s)--that's very hard to correct for) or when they leave behind signs of the tampering.

That's why programs like PGP exist--without a digital signature there's no way to know if it's real or not.

Well, presumably the forensic experts know this as well. So, why would they say they were authenticated if they knew the authenticity couldn't be known for sure?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, the NYT did claim that the emails were authenticated. So, if Rudy and his cronies altered them, I presume the computer forensics would show that, would it not? I'm not a computer expert, so I can't really say if it is possible to fake content on a hard drive and not have it be detected. As a minimum, they did not say that any of the content appears doctored. That's all I got for ya.

It most certainly is possible to fake content. It all comes down to how much faking you want to do. At the simplest level you can easily do it yourself: Plug in a thumb drive and copy a file to it. Notice how the file written date is the file written date of the original file, not the time you actually did it? Windows fakes the file date for your convenience, making it match the original instead of telling the truth. (And it most definitely is faking it--if you look at the new file while it's still writing it you'll see it has the current time. Once all the data is written it then copies the file timestamps over.)

Such fakery can only be detected when either the fakery is inconsistent (what often happens with photoshops--for example, pasting together two images that had light sources from different angle(s)--that's very hard to correct for) or when they leave behind signs of the tampering.

That's why programs like PGP exist--without a digital signature there's no way to know if it's real or not.

Well, presumably the forensic experts know this as well. So, why would they say they were authenticated if they knew the authenticity couldn't be known for sure?

The QOP doesn't want to admit the truth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, even if they ever do prove that Hunter actually wrote those emails, word for word, AND sent them, all he has to do is say that he never acted on anything in thete, or intended to.
He was joking.
That's apparently a defense the right will accept, and defend.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I just had just reached voting age and it was revealed that Billy Carter had registered as a foreign agent of Libya, I remember thinking "Who gives a shit?" It's deja vu all over again.

This is all ignoring the other aspects of the story, including Giuliani's allegation that not only did he have emails and photos, but he had extraordinarily illegal content from the laptop as well (which would actually have been a crime for Giuliani). I find it amazing how this stuff was never released. But yeah, we shouldn't have been skeptical, we should have just accepted Four Seasons Landscaping man at his word.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh come on, this story is more than a week old. It's old news and nobody cares about old news.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh come on, this story is more than a week old. It's old news and nobody cares about old news.

No one has given us a reason to care about it at all.

 

[Swammerdami]

Reading about the possible misdeeds of one possible criminal is NOT on my To-Do List. Why should I care?

I support law and order and think criminals should be prosecuted. Did Trump's DoJ fail to do its job? Biden's DoJ? I assume the underlying theme is the usual "See? You guys are just as guilty as us." But we'd need to indict a lot more criminals than a possible one named Hunter to match the stench coming from the Trump family, Trump Cabinet, and the rest of QOPAnon.

Is the intended inference that if someone is criminal, the other members of his family are also? This isn't guaranteed. The 45th President apparently had a criminal father, criminal grandfather, criminal 3rd wife, and at least two of his children are criminals, but I've seen no allegations of criminality against Trump's mother nor against his two youngest children.

Extraneous details:
While skimming the thread I did notice mention that the original m-time (modify time) is preserved when a file is copied. Yes, but the Unix c-time (change time) will be no earlier than the new file's creation. (A hacker can "fix" this by writing to the raw disk.) In Windows, c-time refers to creation-time and Windows doesn't pretend to any consistency — IIUC an ordinary user can, unwittingly, set the new file's creation-time to EITHER the old or new value!

Exactly. I find the providence of the laptop sorely lacking. I strongly suspect most of the e-mails are legitimate but given the providence I consider it likely that things have been tampered with....

How would the Russians do all that, though? ...

This is an old machine, not live data. The providence is very sketchy, it's likely planted. And forensics can't catch a good enough job of faking it, especially in a situation like this where it's data, not images.

I'll guess provenance, rather than providence, was the intended word.
Unless the Lord of All Creation is somehow involved in this scandal.

 

[TSwizzle]

Reading about the possible misdeeds of one possible criminal is NOT on my To-Do List. Why should I care?

You should care because not only did the MSM try its best to ignore, deny and bury the scandal, the MSM and big tech tried to censor the story.