Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials

Someone was saying that this is how business is often done at that level. Lots of dirty money sloshing around and obeying the laws only if there is going to be scrutiny. This investigation is going to make it harder for the Trumps and their associates to continue doing business, because shady is the only way their business is done. No legitimate investor wants to work with them because of the risk, and no shady investor wants to because they don’t want anyone to look into their finances.

It’s looking like much of the investments Kushner had gotten recently were pay-for-influence. People were willing to do that when they thought they could get away with it, but that’s not going to continue anymore (or it’ll have to go more underground).

If you’re redacting a pdf properly, no, because the redaction doesn’t simply cover the text. It replaces it completely.

Sure, but that would just leave a blank space.

OK. But that’s what’s visible to the casual reader. What I’m wondering is if there’s something in the background code for this file which says “replace [text] …”? Because if there is, then someone who knows how to access that code could still undo it.

Only if the redacter is a complete moron or has the intent of divulging secrets.

When you are writing a post, and you realize that you didn’t want that particular sentence, and you delete it, is there any way for me to read the deleted text? It is the same thing.

Not if done correctly. I redact documents for work, and when we redact we also strip the metadata. We only work with Adobe, so I don’t know if the same is true for Word documents.

For certain settings, yes… Word with “track changes” is one way*, using a Word/Excel/etc document via a sharing service like Sharepoint is another, I’m sure the same is true for Apple products, but no experience, sorry.

Another way it could happen for the casual user is to accidentally add a layer with one of the “paint” tools (or equivalent) while thinking they are deleting/covering data, but I’m sure this office wouldn’t make this mistake.

I also think that printing the modified file itself to PDF would solve a lot of this, especially if you select… IIRC… “flat” PDF option.

Sorry, forgot:

This. The way it works is:

  1. I need to redact text in a PDF.
  2. I draw a black box over the text in question.
    a. At this point, FP’s conjecture is true. Hide the layer and you can see the text under it. Much like using a sheet of clear plastic with a sharpie rectangle to cover text on a piece of paper.
  3. (And this is the key piece). I “flatten” the layers in the PDF. That means that the black box is now literally all that exists in that part of the PDF. The text isn’t “covered up”, it has ceased to be. Gone to meet its Maker. Run up the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibule. It is EX text.
  4. I then print this document BACK to PDF and ensure that the metadata (author, original creation date, etc) is gone.

Mueller gathers evidence that 2017 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin

Seriously? Russia helps a jackass get elected US president, and a leader of a shadowy mercenary corporation sets up a secret meeting to establish an extragovernmental channel of communication between Russia and the new president?

Robert Ludlum, you’re a shitty author, stop writing our timeline.

I mean, he’s long dead, so you’re likely right about the quality of his prose.

Is there any legitimate reason such a back channel would be used?

Legitimate? Not likely.

Of course. For example, they might want to monitor the price for pissing whores, without setting off speculation that causes the markets to fluctuate.

The talking poiint on this has already been used: Kennedy set up something “back channel” too. Tu Quoqe 24-7

Right, because what a Democrat did over half a century ago has anything to do with what a Republican does now. :rolleyes:

Are they even trying to not look shady?

Amid renewed scrutiny, Erik Prince to host fundraiser for Russia-friendly congressman

and the last thing you want is fluctuations in your pissing whores.

The back channel part isn’t what’s interesting about it. It’s that someone was arrested in relation to it.

Not just arrested. Arrested while traveling to Mar-a-lago to celebrate Trump’s inauguration anniversary. Not that that’s meaningful. I just find it amusing.

I don’t know how significant that is. When you have a special counsel looking at everything with a fine tooth comb, there’s going to be people arrested for doing things that other people have done without consequence.

Sort of like the premise of this story: Dozens race to register as foreign lobbyists since start of Mueller inquiry, fearful of Manafort’s fate