Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Politics

Guccifer 2.0 Dumps a Bunch of Clinton Foundation Donor Data (engadget.com) 404

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This discussion has been archived.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

Guccifer 2.0 Dumps a Bunch of Clinton Foundation Donor Data

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:09PM (#53013995)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 )

      So we're to understand that Trump is running these hacker groups?

      Whoa, hey there buddy, no one said that. No, that's not what they said, they said that there are unanswered questions. What are the questions? That's not important. How many are there? The amount of unanswered questions can be described as "a number", as opposed to "a fish" or "a tree". I don't know why you have to jump to all of these inflammatory conclusions like Trump is running these hacker groups, all anyone is saying is that there is a certain quantity of questions, where the quantity is an inte

    • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:36PM (#53014149)

      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?

  • by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:10PM (#53013999)

    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.

  • Desperate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:11PM (#53014005)

    "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.

    • by wiredog ( 43288 )

      It's pretty clear that "Guccifer 2.0" is a cover name for the KGB, or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

  • by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:11PM (#53014007) Journal

    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.

    • I mean, that's the real crime--not what Hillary did.

      Uh, you're writing sarcastically, but you do understand that this is correct, right?

      Trump did encourage others to engage in unlawful activity, eg hacking. While this is the leaking of a donor list of a charity that the Clintons run that does things like fight AIDS in Africa. It is not illegal to fight AIDS in Africa. It's not illegal to run charities that do so. It's not illegal to donate to charities that do so.

      This isn't a fake charity like the Tru

  • What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Timmy D Programmer ( 704067 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:15PM (#53014031) Journal
    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.
    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      Does $1000 seem like an appropriate bribe for a billion dollars?

      You have to go down the list. E.g., J.P Morgan gave to lots of people to get their $25B TARP quid-pro-quo. Yeah, it probably cost them less than a million in bribes total, but bribery has a very high return on investment in a nation as corrupt as ours.

      And what's the freaking point when this money is used for charity anyhow

      Lot's of things ares speculative, but one thing we know for sure is that the Clinton Foundation gives only a token amount to actual charity, and the vast majority is "expenses". o all appearances, it's the largest, most open bribery racket in the Western wo

      • Re:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)

        by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @08:05PM (#53014579)
        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.
        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          Over 50% of the people who met with Clinton when she was Secretary of State donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's as blatant as it gets: for sure there was quid-pro-quo: pay for access. There's plenty of evidence for pay-for-results as well, if you care. The TARP thing? The documents are new and maybe fake, but why would it be even a little surprising? We know this is how it works - there are limits and disclosure around campaign contributions, but not around "charitable donations", so problem solv

          • Or maybe she just talked to them about the charity work and they decided to contribute, its obviously ludicrous to suggest she could not promote her own charity! Really clutching at straws with such an obviously illogical post.

            • its obviously ludicrous to suggest she could not promote her own charity!

              Using your time as secretary of state to promote your own charity isn't really good optically.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              There was a time )or so I'm told) when people in power in America sought to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

              There's simply no reason for me to give any politician the benefit of the doubt. She looks corrupt, so she's corrupt until proven otherwise. He looks crazy, so he's crazy until proven otherwise. Personally, I think America can tolerate a little crazy more than it can more corruption, but that's just me.

              • It's annoying that you think a charity makes a politician look corrupt. I understand that you think facts have a liberal bias but at some point we need to accept that certain people just can't determine witch hunts from actual scandals because of the fucking fox news bubble..
          • It's a silly story. The state department doesn't even have anything to do with TARP.
          • Re:What a crock (Score:4, Informative)

            by Rob Y. ( 110975 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @01:08PM (#53018169)

            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.

  • You guys are making lots of fun of this, and maybe it's all false alarm, but then again some foreign intelligence agency might indeed try to massively influence your elections. I wouldn't consider that funny if I were you.
    • by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:36PM (#53014143) Homepage

      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!

  • by tipo159 ( 1151047 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:26PM (#53014087)

    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.

    • Obviously If this is indeed a fake data dump, certainly people shouldn't keep looking for evidence of crimes in it. But one thing turning out to be a hoax on a subject doesn't mean there is nothing interesting there still left to find. Imagine if Trump's tax return leak turned out to be fake. Would that mean that we should stop looking into his taxes now that he's been exonerated? No of course not. They both have their shady dealings, and they both have been falsely accused of crimes for which they are

  • Just watched how fast the "Russian's hacked us narrative" dies away.
    Like Miss Emily used to say "Nevermind".

    I still remember how during the 2012 debates Barry told us that the Russians were no longer our enemy.

  • For a long time, Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been promoting a massive data dump that they'd make today that would totally destroy the Clinton campaign. Instead, they had a sort of self-promotion-fest and a promise to drop some interesting data real soon now. [foxnews.com].

  • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @06:43PM (#53014209) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Subvert? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr AT mac DOT com> on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @07:08PM (#53014333) Journal

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

    -jcr

    • Well if it is fake (as it now appears to be), surely that is subverting the process by spreading misinformation, rather than the truth.
  • by zedaroca ( 3630525 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @07:14PM (#53014359)

    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 [wordpress.com] too.
    Specially if TFA is clearly trying to steer people away from information that it is talking about.

  • it's a faaake! (Score:2, Informative)

    by tuffy ( 10202 )
    This "leak" is so obviously fake that Politico pulled their story about it. Here's an article about how obviously fake it is. [dailydot.com]
  • by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2016 @08:51PM (#53014781)
    She has the full force of the Russians bearing down on her, trying to get Trump elected, and they had to resort to faking a leak. If they really couldn't find anything on her, and they don't have any political American overseers or bribes or whatever, Clinton might actually be better than we thought. God knows what would happen if these same hackers rooted around Donald Trump's stuff....
    • As Secretary of State on an official mission she did tell Russia to go into overload. Still no word if she wants to accept that as something she was actually accomplished in doing, but with attacks Russia has made in Europe and Asia and now this it might be.
  • Clinton and the Democrats have already done that. Wikileaks is simply shining a light on them.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:04AM (#53016911) Homepage

    "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."

    1) Not a single shred or iota of evidence has been shown to substantiate a case that the DNC hacks or Wikileaks were the actions of Russia.

    2) The leaker is NOT the one interfering or subverting the US political process. Rather, they are merely showing that Hillary and her corrupt cohorts are doing so.

    3) Hillary is a sociopath who in the first debate essentially threatened war with a nuclear power over in order to cover up her DNC scandal. Frankly, even Trump isn't that scary.

    4) I think every one with half a brain (which probably leaves the poster out) understood Trump's comment about maybe having Russia find Hillary's missing emails was satire, and a jest at her public accusation of the Russians without any provided proof. Guess what, in America that is illegal. In fact, I think the Russian government should file a personal lawsuit against Hillary for slander.

    "What's more, nearly half of the country's state voter registration systems have recently come under cyberattack, according to the DHS"

    Why is that? Could it be because so many apparently dropped a crap ton of Bernie Sanders supporters from the voter rolls? And hackers are trying to find out how and by whom?

    "Donald Trump's, connection to these attacks."

    Donald Trump's connection is that he has seen them talked about in the media, and seen a very stupid Hillary accuse Russia of the attacks. That's it...

    And the OP is a damnable moron for trying to seek more from it. I mean really, why the hell is anyone more upset about the hacks than the illegal and corrupt actions on the part of Hillary's cohorts? This is like the hacker who retrieved the photos to prove the rape case, but faces 10x the sentence for doing so than the rapists. WTF.

    "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."

    Well gee, considering the FBI is in Hillary's pants as are those four Democrats. I mean, the FBI basically came out and said "We found gross negligence and multiple violations, but because it is Hillary we are not going to prosecute." And this occurred shortly after a chance meeting between the Attorney General and Bill Clinton, which was no frigging change meeting.

    Sorry, Hillary and Trump are both unacceptable candidates for presidency.

    Trump is an arrogant bigoted asshole.

    Hillary is a corrupt lying oligarchist warmonger.

"We will bury you." -- Nikita Kruschev

Working...