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.

28 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. Well that was a well balanced summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I particularly liked:

    There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks

    So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups? Hey, I suppose that's better than Hilary who can't even run a secure email server.

    I'm also interested in these "unanswered questions"? I suspect the reason they're unanswered is because you haven't asked them. You're just implying that something is amiss about Trump without actually saying what is wrong or making any allegations.

    1. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I particularly liked:

      There are also a number of unanswered questions regarding Republican nominee, Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks

      So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups? Hey, I suppose that's better than Hilary who can't even run a secure email server.

      I'm also interested in these "unanswered questions"? I suspect the reason they're unanswered is because you haven't asked them. You're just implying that something is amiss about Trump without actually saying what is wrong or making any allegations.

      Oh you know what this is... It's an attempt to paint those "unanswered questions" in as bad of a light as possible in order to cast Trump (or his operatives) in a bad light to sway votes.... After all, it's the seriousness of the charge, not the evidence that supports it that maters (Unless the Charge is WJ Clinton sexually assaulted some woman, then it's ignore any evidence and start making stupid statements like "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. )

      It's like going up to mild mannered "Bob" and asking him "Hey, Bob! When did you stop beating your wife? Huh? When Bob? Answer me Bob, this is a serious situation Bob, when did you stop beating her?"

      Of course the questions are unanswered. Trump had nothing to do with it, unless you think because he can tweet stupid stuff at 3am means he's somehow a brilliant hacker with the DNC as his target... Why bother to answer some stupid baseless charge?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump?

      I have a question for you - when the list of the Clinton Foundation donors gets leaked online, why are you talking about unanswered questions for Trump? Isn't this story about Clinton? Because I can think of at least one question for Clinton - how did the database of donors for The Clinton Foundation get stolen? Where and how was it being stored? Those are a couple unanswered questions right off the top of my head, maybe you can think of some more.

      It seems like the summary kind of takes this track:

      The Clinton Foundation donor database got leaked.
      Russia has been trying to subvert the US political process!
      Nearly half of the US states have had their voting systems attacked! (but we don't know if the Russians did that, and we don't even know if it's connected to the Clinton Foundation database leak)
      There are "unanswered questions" for Donald Trump.
      Four Congressmen want Trump investigated by the FBI.

      That seems like a weird direction to head off into when this is a story about the Clinton Foundation donor database getting stolen and leaked. It's almost like that small collection of facts are unrelated to each other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is part and parcel of the childish maneuver to deflect guilt. It is pointing to bad behavior in a vain attempt to justify bad behavior. Basic logic of this goes something like this ....

      "You killed a puppy"

      "But Johnny killed a kitten, and got away with it, so should I"

      Whenever you see "Trump did ______" and someone answers "Clinton did ______" in response (and they aren't pointing to a third alternative), they are guilty of this childish maneuver. Personally speaking, this is why I can't vote for EITHER of the two idiots running on the major party tickets.

      This isn't good for Clinton, and it is no surprise that they want to make it about Trump somehow. Once you understand that it is the same crap kids try on their parents, you realize that we're dealing with children who are over 18 years old.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Well that was a well balanced summary by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All logging functions on the server were disabled. There is no way to know how many times it was hacked. Zero is as likely as any positive integer.

      The only thing known: It was setup in a non-standard configuration to not log intrusions. They did not want to know.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Better odds by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have a better chance of finding them than our own corrupt / incompetent / paid-for agencies do.

    Is sad when you put more trust in a FOREIGN intelligence agency than your own when it comes to matters like this.

  3. Desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Guccifer or his friends at Wikileaks and the Kremlin"
    Just tell us what happened without participating in the propaganda will you? This is embarrassing for all reporters.

  4. What a crock by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He implies there is some sort of correlation to banks making donations, and tarp funds being distributed. Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars? And since when does the secretary of state have any impact on where tarp funds are distributed? And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow, it's not like they are buying paintings of themselves with it.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:What a crock by fightinfilipino · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:What a crock by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not quid-pro-quo, it's a charitable donation. A write-off for the donors. It's certainly much less fishy than Trump donating 25K to the Florida AG who was investigating Trump U and subsequently dropped the case.

    3. Re:What a crock by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:What a crock by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...
  5. Did you read the update in TFA? by tipo159 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article has been updated with:

    The Clinton Foundation has denied the validity of Guccifer 2.0's claims. Speaking to Politico, a foundation representative said, "Once again, we still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue. None of these folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation." And, as Buzzfeed Senior Technology Reporter, Joe Bernstein, points out, it's highly unlikely that the foundation would name its own folder "Pay to Play."

    If this is the case, all of you people who are still looking to stick a crime on Hillary will have to look somewhere else.

  6. Re:At's all fun until.... by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are influencing our elections by providing that elusive and oft promised but ne're delivered Obamian transparency, undermining an entire administration's corrupt miscarriage of justice, and finally serving up the goods from a 10,000 unfulfilled FOIA requests, then GOOD. We need to be influenced. More influence please! Influence the shit out of me and everyone else! HARDER!!!

    If exposing the truth is detrimental to one of the parties that might be something the electorate deserves to know, you know, before the election.

    Besides, I ordered a shit ton of Jiffy Pop from Amazon in preparation for the culmination of this election cycle. /popcorn GO!

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  7. Stop blaming the Russians by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am so sick and tired of hearing about how Russia is trying to "subvert our election." Annoyed enough to bother logging in and not posting AC.

    Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.

    Who cares who revealed it? If they weren't acting unethically, there would be no issue. But they are, and that's why it's a problem, and trying to bring Russia into this is purely a smokescreen.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  8. Re:Authentic by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it was in Bruce Schneiers most recent newsletter, that there is always the risk of something artificial and damaging being added to otherwise original, authentic material, on the basis that if 99% of it it's true, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to say that other 1% isn't true either. Maybe it wasn't him, but I definitely read it somewhere and it really was interesting food for thought.

  9. Re:Lost emails by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS. Of course, she conveniently forgot that she had any such requirement due to a head injury, of which she is still suffering effects. All of which should keep her out of any position in government for the rest her life, but people like you continue to try to minimize the crimes she has committed.

    As for having ANY classified email on her home brew, basement dwelling server is also a crime (she sent and received )

    As for deleting her server after it was subpoenaed is ALSO a crime.

    If she is investigated for murder, it won't be because of some kid having SIDS in Kansas. There are plenty of murders of people that she was quite familiar with, which might have some relationship to her. Cute though.

    Trump has his own issues, and people limited to binary choices rarely choose well. Vote 3rd Party.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Re:Charity? by jasnw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to the American Institute of Philanthropy, which gave the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating, the Clinton Foundation spends only 12% of the money it raises on overhead. Politifact has a good rundown on this: http://www.politifact.com/trut... . Do some research before making wild claims, don't just go with wisdom from the blogosphere.

  11. Re:Lost emails by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Lost emails by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  13. Subvert? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Informing the public about who's paying bribes to which Ruling Party candidates isn't subverting the process, it's benefitting the process.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. Leave alternative links by zedaroca · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Lost emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:one foundation but not the other by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty sure the IRS is PERFECTLY capable of catching and dealing with people caught cheating with their taxes. This is a non issue.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. Re:Lost emails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually she had a duty to preserve all documents related to her job as SoS.

    She had a duty to delete confidential material. She did as required, and is accused of a crime of deleting documents, when she was required to, by law.

    No, she has no such duty. Her duty is to stop using the machine and hand it over to the appropriate security officers to investigate the extent of the leak.

    Stop just making shit up. It does nobody any good to just spout lie after lie after lie. I can see why you like her so much, though!

  18. Show me the guilty verdict by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.

    From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation. The one troll I saw on a similar post yesterday simply denied facts and claimed that the 90s were some great economic boom. Again FACTS can be used to prove that troll wrong.

    Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for. We know that the FBI gave complete immunity to staffers, the guy who setup and ran the Exchange server, and his boss had a secret meeting with the suspects husband and former ex President the Friday before the Monday dismissal. We KNOW that the DNC has been colluding with mass media to promote Hillary and we know that they used their influence to shove Bernie down in the elections.

    I have plenty of things I could complain about with Trump too, but with all the media bullshit there is no way my complaint would ever be viewed as valid. Telling a crowd that maybe they can protect their 2nd amendment rights was turned into "Trump claimed Kill Hillary", and Trump satirically saying "maybe Russia can release those emails she deleted" became "Trump claimed he wanted Russia to hack America", and the Russian influence in the DNC and Clinton foundation are ignored, but "Trump loves Putin".

    It is so contrived I honestly no longer feel like I'm living in my own Country.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  19. Re:Lost emails by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She had a duty to delete confidential material.

    You're just making shit up. The problem for you is, her narrative has been that she didn't know any of it was classified -- the "I was too stupid" defense.

    --
    sig: sauer
  20. Re:Lost emails by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >The timeline is that she was investigeated for Benghazi, and while being investigated, noticed improper emails. She wipes the improper emails, then later there's an investigation into the improper emails. The "evidence" was already destroyed, back before it was evidence.

    The evidence was wiped after the state department asked for her emails:

    âoeWe learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,â he continued. âoeWhile it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.â (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416125/hillary-clinton-defies-subpoena-wiped-her-server-clean-joel-gehrke)

    And then after they found an archive of the emails after the subpeona, illegally destroyed the evidence AFTER it was evidence:

    "On March 4, 2015, the House subpoenaed all emails from Clintonâ(TM)s personal servers, including a document preservation order.

    PRN staff member X had a âoeconference call with President Clintonâ(TM)s staffâ on March 25, 2015, after which â" sometime between March 25th and 31st â" âoehe had an âoh shitâ(TM) moment,â when he realized he had forgotten to wipe clean the PRN server as he had been instructed to do by Mills in December 2014.

    image: http://thefreethoughtproject.c...Ã--442.png

    At some point during those six days, PRN wiped the server clean using BleachBit â" despite the subpoena from the House earlier in the same month.

    In fact, PRN staff member X admitted to deleting the remaining emails despite being âoeaware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clintonâ(TM)s e-mail data on the PRN server.â" (http://thedailycoin.org/2016/09/04/clinton-email-server-wiped-after-her-subpoena/)

    This is direct destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, so naturally the FBI gave immunity deals to the people responsible, who then turned around and say Hill Dawg had nothing to do with it. It is fantastic (and I don't mean that in the good sense) how this investigation was conducted.