Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Crime Democrats Government Privacy Republicans Security IT Politics Technology

Guccifer 2.0 Drops New Documents (thehill.com) 106

Posted by msmash 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guccifer 2.0 Drops New Documents More

Guccifer 2.0 Drops New Documents

Comments Filter:

  • So (Score:2)

    by xx_chris ( 524347 )
    what.

  • Seems like someone is just an attention grabber

  • these little right wing shitheads can go fuck rebar.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      right wing shitheads, left wing asshats, it's all the same. They can all go suck an egg.

  • "Controversial" donors? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @01:39PM (#52505197) Homepage Journal

    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" [breitbart.com] 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 [washingtonpost.com] — 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 [npr.org] (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980 [telegraph.co.uk]).

    (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 [washingtonpost.com].)

    • Re:"Controversial" donors? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @02:08PM (#52505365)

      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.

      • Re:"Controversial" donors? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @02:24PM (#52505479)

        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.

        • Re:"Controversial" donors? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @04:13PM (#52506319)

          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.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

          I suppose it makes sense that you would suggest that people focus on the history in order to try and drum up support for the GOP when their current behavior is so completely toxic. Today's GOP has allied themselves with the racists and Christian extremists and now spend all their time drumming up support for the fight against the rights of homosexuals, immigrants, minorities, women and pretty much everyone else who isn't a wealthy white man.

          Today's GOP platform bears no resemblance whatsoever to the origin

        • The GOP started as a single issue party to end slavery against the wishes of the DNC.

          And just look what has become of it; if it were a dog you'd take it out and shoot it, let alone if it were a horse.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mi ( 197448 )

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

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

        Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited [washingtonpost.com] 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 [breitbart.com].

        But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another exam

        • "Congressional ethics violations" doesn't have the same ring as "led the KKK". Sharpton may or may not be a racist, but a lot of respectable people publicly engage with him and he has a very large, public following compared to Duke. I'm not saying Hillary isn't slimy. Even most Hillary supporters probably agree that she is, but this is where the difference in media attention comes from.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            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 [washingtonpost.com].

            And now to recall — Trump did not seek Duke's endorsement, and didn't campaign with him, whereas Hillary has

      • Media spin. Here's the first of what happened, in 2015: Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?” Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.” Heilemann: “Would you repudiate David Duke?” Trump: “Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever h

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )

          Yeah, media spin is a factor, but Trump dug himself into that hole... the conversation you pasted, goes along, and then Tapper clarifies what he's asking:

          Tapper said "Ku Klux Klan?"

          He was looking for a response specifically to the KKK.

          And Trump said: âoeBut you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know."

          Trump SHOULD have said: "Well, ok... I condemn the Ku Klux Klan; but you may have other groups in there that

          • Trump has lived his whole life in New York, are you even sure he knows what the KKK is?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by vux984 ( 928602 )

              are you even sure he knows what the KKK is?

              Let's just say that If he doesn't them its yet another example why he's not fit to be president.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by J053 ( 673094 )

        Donald Trump stated: "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep." - New York Times, Feb. 14, 2000.

        This was when Trump was considering running for President on the Reform Party ticket. Does nobody remember anything, any more?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          This was when Trump was considering running for President on the Reform Party ticket.

          I can see Trump forgetting the name of an also-run from 15 years ago. Can you not?

    • Re:"Controversial" donors? (Score:5, Informative)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @02:19PM (#52505447) Homepage

      David Duke has never been convicted of any crime

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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        I stand corrected. Thank you...

        And yet, his crime:

        Duke was accused of telling supporters he was in financial straits, then misusing the money they sent him from 1993 to 1999. He was also accused of filing a false 1998 tax return claiming he made only $18,831 in 1998 when he really made more than $65,000.

        is kinda smallish, don't you think?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cdrudge ( 68377 )

          is kinda smallish, don't you think?

          I never commented on how big or small they were, just that he was convicted. They were federal felonies, so I'd say that they were more significant than not.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            I never commented on how big or small they were

            If you want to go Kefedokhles, I haven't stated, Duke was never convicted of a crime either. I only invited readers to imagine, Trump stating so — even if it were true.

            They were federal felonies, so I'd say that they were more significant than not.

            The entire amounts in question are about 10 times less than just the donations of the schemer in TFA. What the schemer actually schemed out of his victims is, likely, several more orders of magnitude still.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jon3k ( 691256 )

          is kinda smallish, don't you think?

          Are you serious? You think forgetting to report 2/3 of your income is "smallish" ?

      • David Duke has never been convicted of any crime

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

        Tax Fraud Is The New White

  • WTF is with this "drop" lingo? I wish English speaking folks would stop being too lazy to use words larger than 4 letters in attempt to somehow sound hip.

    Pretty soon grunting and sputtering sentence fragments will be all the rage.

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

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      "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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        So, if a headline were to read "Nintendo drops the Nintendo NX", what does that mean to the average English speaking person?

        Mood has nothing to do with it. Creating a double-meaning to a basic everyday word that's fundamental to the English language is idiotic.

    • Your point might have been made better if you had actually spelled out the word "four".

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @01:42PM (#52505221)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Someone call the wambulance --- another hacker is losing his audience.

  • DNC Dump (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!"

  • ...the DNC actually did due diligence to see how a donor scandal might affect their candidates? The horror!

    I don't see how this is wrong. Show me documents that expose collusion with Hsu to hide illegal donations or some sort of menu detailing the amount of influence certain donations buy, and you might have my attention; otherwise, this is just retrieving somebody's used toilet paper and saying "look at this shit! How dare they take a shit!"

    • 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.

  • Lol, Sarah Palin? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2016 @02:48PM (#52505681) Journal

    "...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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by halivar ( 535827 )

      Something about heads and free rent. Or, as Snape said in response to Dumbledore's "After all these years?": "Always."

    • "...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.

      [chuckles] Yeah, Palin is no match for a female Democrat intellectual powerhouse like sophisticated NYC-born Sheila Jackson Lee, or a male Democrat intellectual like Hank "Guam will tip over" Johnson.

      Strat

      • Yeah, Palin is no match for a female Democrat intellectual powerhouse like sophisticated NYC-born Sheila Jackson Lee, or a male Democrat intellectual like Hank "Guam will tip over" Johnson.

        They're stupid too. What's your point? Does their stupidity make Palin's stupidity any less stupid?

    • Yeah. I was hoping I would never have to hear about Sarah Palin again.

  • You could say I've lost my belief in our politicians.
    They all seem like game show hosts to me.

    Sting -- If I ever lose my faith in you from the album Ten Summoner's Tales

  • Wouldn't that be the perfect name for a drag queen at the lower end of the scale? Or are we witnessing the actions of one of the extremely rare, female, teen-age hackers, sniggering wildly as she unveils bombshells about somebody called Shaun from the Eastenders, who's cheating on his pregnant girlfriend while she's in hospital with a rare, but probably fatal disease?

  • Somebody, open the window - he's dropped one again.

  • American politics is corrupt.

    Yes, I did say "summary," not "news." Because it's not exactly news, is it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close