Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Guccifer 2.0 Drops New Documents (thehill.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-wrinkle-in-the-story dept.

Joe Uchill, reporting for The Hill: Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee, has released a cache of purported DNC documents to The Hill in an effort to refocus attention on the hack. The documents include more than 11,000 names matched with some identifying information, files related to two controversial donors and a research file on Sarah Palin. "The press [is] gradually forget[ing] about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and [I] have some more docs," he said in electronic chat explaining his rationale. The documents provide some insight into how the DNC handled high-profile donation scandals. But the choice of documents revealed to The Hill also provides insight into the enigmatic Guccifer 2.0. The hacker provided a series of spreadsheets related to Norman Hsu, a Democratic donor jailed in 2009 for running a Ponzi scheme and arranging illegal campaign contributions. The DNC responded by assembling files to gauge the exposure from Hsu to its slate of candidates.

18 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. "Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

    I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

    Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

    Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

    (Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:"Controversial" donors? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He was pestered by the press because he refused to repudiate it the day before.

      David Duke is famous to everyone that is old enough to remember 1994 (I realize you might not have been born yet). He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake, his connections to white supremacists (he was a grand wizard of the KKK, not just a member) and his heading of a current white supremacist (sorry white nationalist) organization are all well known facts with anyone that's older than 20. He's got his own page with Southern Poverty Law and all the racist tracking groups.

      David Duke is about as well known of a white supremacist as you can get, there are very few people in his "movement" that are as famous as him. The claim that Trump didn't know who he was is absolute horseshit and the fact that he failed to repudiate the donation and DEFENDED duke during the first interview is what brought the media storm. A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country.

    2. Re:"Controversial" donors? by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      David Duke has never been convicted of any crime

      So pleading guilty to mail and tax fraud in 2002 isn't good enough to be considered a conviction anymore?

    3. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are forgetting the more well known one, Robert Byrd. A DNC member for life, until he died a few years ago while still a member of the Senate for them. A previous Grand Cyclops of the KKK, and ... wait for it.... personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent it from being passed.

      So, the DNC having a KKK member, who tried to prevent equal rights for blacks back in the day is OK. A not well known KKK member endorses Trump, he forgets who he was when asked, is proof that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president? Lets also forget he denounced Duke every time once he was reminded who he was.

      For some of you reading this, you won't believe the DNC tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act. It would have passed in the 30s if they didn't prevent it. They will also bring up the term Dixicrats and say they became the GOP, but of the 54 Dixicrats 2 went to the GOP while 51 went back to the DNC for life, 1 went independent. Al Gore Sr. being one of them along with Robert Byrd.

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

    4. Re:"Controversial" donors? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      If you're unable to cultivate an extremely basic set of working knowledge regarding national and international news and politics, it's not that you're too busy, it's that you choose not to know these things. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake

      Oh, that's a good point. So was Charles Rangel. Oh, wait, he still is a Congressman, unlike Mr. Duke.

      Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited for 11 ethics violations — yet Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't "repudiate" him upon learning of his endorsement, she actively campaigned with him in NYC.

      But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another example — who is as bona-fide anti-Semitic as one can get in America. The riots he encouraged and personally participated in led to an actual killing of at least one man. And yet, Hillary Clinton not only welcomed Al Sharpton's support this year, she gave a speech at his organization.

      A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country

      Maybe, if Trump went to give a speech at a KKK-organized conference — and campaigned together with Mr. Duke on the streets — it would've been comparable... As things are, you can't even see your own hypocrisy jumping in front of you and screaming into your ear...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:"Controversial" donors? by halivar · · Score: 2

      Oh geez, come off your high horse. I knew who David Duke was, but purely as a matter of trivia. His service in the house was without note; his run for president brief. His impact on national politics was virtually nil, save for his contribution to the narrative that the GOP is full of racists. Today he likes speaking at Iranian symposiums on the evils of the dirty Joooos; but no one even knows about that because it doesn't fucking matter.

    7. Re:"Controversial" donors? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm 34 and had no idea who he was. This might surprise you, but I also have no idea who the current big A list celebrities are either. Outside of the representation whom I can directly vote for, I don't know who most politicians are either. You see, some of us are busy and don't have time to deal with things outside of our control or areas of interest.

      Considering that Trump had previously run against David Duke in the 2000 Reform Party Presidential Primary I think it's very likely that he knew who Duke was.

      But even if he had forgotten it doesn't change much, he certainly found out who Duke was afterwards yet he still refused to give a convincing disavowal. I don't pretend to know exactly why he wouldn't disavow Duke but I can't think of any good answers.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:"Controversial" donors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are forgetting the more well known one, Robert Byrd. A DNC member for life, until he died a few years ago while still a member of the Senate for them. A previous Grand Cyclops of the KKK, and ... wait for it.... personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent it from being passed.

      And who reputed the KKK, and expressly endorsed civil rights protections.

      So, the DNC having a KKK member, who tried to prevent equal rights for blacks back in the day is OK.

      If he hadn't rejected those ideas, sure! But he did, didn't he?

      Besides, you forget Strom Thurmond, don't you?

      A not well known KKK member endorses Trump, he forgets who he was when asked, is proof that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run for president? Lets also forget he denounced Duke every time once he was reminded who he was.

      Yeah, yeah, tell us that story again. He still fumbled the first time.

      For some of you reading this, you won't believe the DNC tried to prevent the Civil Rights Act. It would have passed in the 30s if they didn't prevent it. They will also bring up the term Dixicrats and say they became the GOP, but of the 54 Dixicrats 2 went to the GOP while 51 went back to the DNC for life, 1 went independent. Al Gore Sr. being one of them along with Robert Byrd.

      LOL, it's not the members of the House and Senate you to concern yourself about, it's the millions of voters, and their sentiments today.

      Sorry, but history is against you. GOP fought tooth and nail to get blacks equality and the DNC fought to prevent it. The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

      Fought tooth and nail? The GOP practically abandoned the issue as soon as the election of 1876 came about, and half of them were only barely interested in it. I get it, I get it, you've always been told that the GOP was straight-up abolitionists, but nope, it had several factions, and in fact, Lincoln was chosen to run for office because of his moderate position.

      And they did have other issues, including silver coinage, land grants, and building factories and railroads, among others.

      You really don't know what you're talking about.

    9. Re:"Controversial" donors? by mi · · Score: 2

      Sharpton may or may not be a racist, but a lot of respectable people publicly engage with him

      He is a racist — there is no "may or may not" about this. That "a lot of respectable people" engage with him despite this is exactly the hypocrisy I'm decrying here.

      this is where the difference in media attention comes from

      The difference comes from the vast majority of journalists being Democrats.

      And now to recall — Trump did not seek Duke's endorsement, and didn't campaign with him, whereas Hillary has done both with figures far more negative.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:"Controversial" donors? by J053 · · Score: 2

      You might want to look up the Compromise of 1877

  2. who does he think we are? by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    this hacker will not detract us. he cannot subvert our freedom or our liberty, or our elections. He must understand that this is a government by the people, for the people, and one in which the current candidates for president are a woman in a $12,000 burlap sack who committed treason and a xenophobic, racist, and somehow unaccountably sentient mind-controlling murkin.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  3. DNC Dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DNC dump including some unflattering material:
    "Just the work of some attention whore "

    RNC dump including some unflattering material:
    "Look! Look! More evidence that they're a bunch of racist sexist bigots! Go get'em Gufficer 2.0!"

  4. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by twotacocombo · · Score: 2

    Well, "double plus unlift" doesn't look all that sexy in a headline.

  5. Re:Let me get this straight.... by pastafazou · · Score: 2

    Of course you don't see how it's wrong. They do their due diligence to make sure the scandal won't hurt their election performance, not to make sure they're playing by the rules.

  6. Re:Dropped? So...did they pick it back up then? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

    "I'll drop you a line" has been in the common vernacular for decades. Never-mind it's use in espionage (eg: "wheres the drop")

    You know exactly what it means, it's not new, and frankly you're more interested in being cranky than anything else.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  7. Lol, Sarah Palin? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...a research file on Sarah Palin."

    Now we'll know what color crayon she uses when she "writes" her books.

    To be honest, I already know more about Sarah Palin than I ever wanted to. I could die happy if I never heard another word about her.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  8. Re:Uh by quantaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Different entity.

    Guccifer broke into a few people's emails, got arrested, then fabricated a claim about hacking Clinton's server.

    Guccifer 2.0 apparently broke into some DNC servers and has been dumping docs from there ever since.

    --
    I stole this Sig