Slashdot Mirror
Guccifer 2.0 Dumps a Bunch of Clinton Foundation Donor Data (engadget.com)
The hacker Guccifer 2.0 today released a large database of information reportedly stolen from the Clinton Foundation. The dump, Engadget reports, includes names, addresses, and emails of both individuals and corporate donors as well as their contribution amounts. From the report: This, of course, isn't the first time Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin have attempted to subvert the US political process during this election cycle. Just last month Guccifer released Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Tim Kaine's personal cell phone number. What's more, nearly half of the country's state voter registration systems have recently come under cyberattack, according to the DHS, though the FBI has not yet determined if those breaches originated in Russia. There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks. Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he "jokingly" suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server.
I'm so glad that: "Four House Democrats recently demanded that the FBI investigate the nominee after he 'jokingly' suggested that Russia find and release the 33,000 emails reportedly missing from Hillary Clinton's private email server."
I mean, that's the real crime--not what Hillary did. It's very important that the FBI get to the bottom of this--though maybe it will at least keep them too busy to be destroying more evidence that could indict a Clinton.
Roughly 7% of the Clinton Foundation outlays go to charitable grants. A very large portion of the other 93% goes to "expenses", which means paying a lot of Clinton's friends and top campaign workers so they didn't have to get another job between elections. In other words, the "charity" is mostly used to buy influence.
wait, seriously?
the Clinton Foundation has the highest approval ratings with Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680), Charity Watch (https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478), and GuideStar (http://www.guidestar.org/profile/31-1580204).
the Foundation misses three out of 17 of the checkpoints on the BBB's Wise Giving, which also means that the Foundation does hit 14 of the 17 accountability requirements of the BBB (http://www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/clinton-foundation-aka-bill-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-foundation-in-new-york-ny-655)
the Clinton Foundation is indepedently reviewed to be above reproach. the claims that the Clintons somehow use it for nefarious purposes is not only unfounded, it's completely bonkers.
Does Trump actually have any criminal convictions? I looked, but couldn't find any in the sea of misinformation out there.
Also, there is a difference between deleting a copy of classified material (to prevent that copy from becoming compromised), and deleting the *only* copy of classified material (preventing our own government from having access to it).
I think the accusation is that she has done the latter. Since she shouldn't have had a private email server to begin with, deleting the emails from the server should have certainly happened eventually, but not while the only copy of those emails resided on that private server.
Deleting all the emails isn't a crime, and if she's "guilty" of storing confidential emails, deleting them is her duty.
WHAT?!!! Uh, NO .
If you ever hold a security clearance, the proper procedure for dealing with classified information leaks will be drilled into you. The very first thing you get taught - repeatedly - is you do not delete classified information if it leaks.
The process is pretty simple: you disconnect from the network, go into "airplane mode" if necessary, and then immediately stop using the machine. You don't delete anything, you don't close any open programs, you immediately call the security people and you let them clean up the mess.
This leaves a paper trail. But it also makes sure that the information spill is known, that how far it leaks is known, and that any potential spill to uncleared individuals is known.
So if Hillary did delete emails with classified information, she - well, broke procedure. I have no idea if it's a law or just an official process. But there's a process and procedure for dealing with classified information leaks, and deleting anything is 100% not it.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
When TFA relates to another post (like in this case to Guccifer's "leak"), it would be good to have a direct link to that too.
Specially if TFA is clearly trying to steer people away from information that it is talking about.
1) Obstruction of justice. Doesn't matter whether the emails contain evidence or not. Law enforcement requested them and you destroyed them. This is a crime.
2) Destruction of federal property. The emails belong to the government. You destroyed them. This is a crime.
This "leak" is so obviously fake that Politico pulled their story about it. Here's an article about how obviously fake it is.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Doubt it.
Apparently these aren't actually Clinton Foundation Docs at all, they're from previous hacks. There also seems to be some deliberate bullshit thrown in.
I'm not a fan of the corporate media, but they do tend to be more reliable then shit created by an ex-spy whose country invented Maskirovska.
Yes, seriously.
Citing a bunch of 5-star "would give again" ratings (didn't we just have an article about that a day or so ago?) says absolutely squat about how much of the money actually ends up actually doing useful charitable work. Which, if you read carefully, was the statement I said needed a citation. Not how many people wuv it.
Hint: I've read their consolidated financial statements. Further hint: they don't drill down nearly far enough to reveal slush-funding, keeping cronies on payroll, etc.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it. But cut-and-paste cites to a bunch of cheerleading doesn't cut it.
That '50% of people who met with Clinton' statistic is little more than a case of journalistic malpractice. It turns out to be 50% of a small subset of people she met with who happened to not be government representatives who would routinely come in contact with Clinton in the course of her duties as SOS. So what is a small set of 'questionable' meetings is represented as though it were 'half of everything Clinton did at State was connected with the foundation's donors'. And then fools like you quote it as 'maybe fake, but why would it be surprising'. Unimpeachable evidence, that...
And while I'm on the subject of that small set of meetings, none have turned up any quid-pro-quo. And you can bet that if it were there, it would have been reported on exhaustively - based on the fact that the 50% number itself, having been discredited, is still being reported on. The fact that all we ever here is this bogus '50% of meetings' figure all but guarantees that this is a non story. That doesn't stop Trump, Pence or any others of his surrogates from repeating it. Nor does it stop 'mainstream' journalists from distilling it down to 'there have been serious questions asked about the Clinton Foundation'.
It's all self-feeding bullshit. Kind of like Cheney feeding a bogus WMD story to Judith Miller at the NY Times and then quoting the resulting article to prove his point about WMD.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...