Aloysius | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Member since Dec 23, 2010

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “No leash

Why would anybody trim a cat's claws? That would interfere with their ability to defend themselves, climb trees and shred furniture.

Posted by Aloysius on 12/15/2018 at 1:03 PM

Re: “Herd shifts

Uh-oh, the Investigator's playing off the bottom of the deck.

That quote is from a 2017 column by right-winger Mark Thiessen, not the NYT. A column written before Robert Mueller's detailed indictment of fifteen Russian agents for the DNC hack. An indictment backed by copious evidence.

It seems Mueller's investigators didn't need to take physical possession of DNC servers either.

In short, it's classic "whataboutism." A made-up diversion.

Many people criticized both Clintons for huge speaking fees. But here's the deal. They weren't secret, and they weren't illegal. Nor were any Clinton Foundation donations. All public, all accounted for.

Any company suspecting a data hack would hire a private security firm to determine what happened. Only then would they notify the Feds.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Aloysius on 12/13/2018 at 12:49 PM

Re: “Herd shifts

Tra-la, indeed. And no answer to the question.

Why would the DNC alter evidence of Russian hacking? Evidence it already had, and turned over.

As I say, this is one of Trump's favorite examples of "whataboutism."

I think we're done here.

Posted by Aloysius on 12/12/2018 at 2:04 PM

Re: “Herd shifts

Actually, no, I can't think why anybody would suspect that the DNC would alter evidence of Russian hacking. Even a search warrant, which--repeat--the FBI never sought, wouldn't give investigators an open-ended fishing expedition. If cops get a warrant to search your house for illegal weapons, it doesn't mean they can confiscate your tax records. That's why a warrant has to stipulate "particularly" what evidence is sought. This is a classic Trumpist red-herring.

Posted by Aloysius on 12/12/2018 at 1:12 PM

Re: “Herd shifts

But a former FBI official told The Hill it's not unusual for the bureau to bypass a direct examination of a hacked server.

"In nine out of 10 cases, we don't need access, we don't ask for access, we don't get access. That's the normal [procedure], Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBIs New York office, told The Hill.

It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up," he added. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient.

Asking for direct access to a server wouldn't be necessary, Taddeo said, "unless there was a reason to think the victim was going to alter the evidence in some way."

Posted by Aloysius on 12/10/2018 at 11:08 AM

Re: “Herd shifts

Total non-sequitur. It was the FBI that tipped off the DNC to the Russian "Cozy Bear" computer hack back in 2015 to begin with. Ergo, it appears CrowdStrike merely verified something investigators already knew.

But yes, I'd trust Mueller's highly-detailed indictment over the Russians.

Posted by Aloysius on 12/10/2018 at 10:56 AM

Re: “Herd shifts

In sum, then, the DNC didn't refuse to turn over anything. If the FBI felt it needed physical access, it could have gotten a search warrant.

What's supposed to be the issue?

Meanwhile, the Investigator evades the real issue: Russian intelligence involvement.

Posted by Aloysius on 12/09/2018 at 2:38 PM

All Comments »


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation