Guccifer Clinton Foundation Hack a Hoax?
Guccifer insists everything is authentic. Foundation says NO.
On Wednesday, Romanian hacker known as Guccifer announced he hacked into the Clinton Foundation. He showed a screenshot of folders he found in the foundation’s server, which included “docs and donors lists of the Democratic committees, PACs, etc.” He then asks if this surprises anyone, but it did raise a few red flags.
It turns out, people have discovered that a lot of his new “findings” actually belong to a previous hack on the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Plus, Clinton Foundation officials said no one could find proof that someone hacked its server.
The Hill reported:
But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation.
A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.
The Clinton Foundation discloses its donors, and many of the alleged donors published by Guccifer 2.0 do not appear to have given to the organization.
One spreadsheet was allegedly created by a Kevin C. McKeon at DCCC in 2009. There was a Kevin McKeon that worked at DCCC at that time.
Plus, the Clinton Foundation denies a hack took place:
“Once again, we still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue,” a foundation official said. “None of these folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation.”
No evidence of a #Guccifer hack at @ClintonFdn, no notification by law enforcement, and none of the files or folders shown are ours.
— Donna E. Shalala (@DonnaShalala) October 4, 2016
Yet, Guccifer spoke with BuzzFeed News and insisted that “all files are authentic” and came from the foundation:
When asked about the widespread speculation that the documents weren’t legitimate and a statement by the Clinton Foundation that “none of the folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation,” Guccifer 2.0 appeared to double down, writing: “is it possible that some ppl r trying to divert attention from my release by spreading false accusations?”
BuzzFeed mentioned that Guccifer did not tell the organization how he hacked the foundation or why the documents “seem to imply some connection between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the receipt of federal funds through the TARP program, which were largely distributed during the administration of George W. Bush.”
The reporters also noticed that this time around, Guccifer typed in broken English and mainly used emojis. In the past, Guccifer typed in near perfect English.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Authenticity is always a fundamental question in appraising evidence.
What with Assange pwning the world, this could be a trend.
Amazing. Granted Guccifer’s actions are illegal, but do they honestly believe he is going to reveal how he broke in in the first place.
Do they expect him to leave traces? ( Google the phrase opsec. )
Really. Is this the kind of intelligence system the Democrats want our government to use? We only catch hackers when they leaver obvious traces?
“widespread speculation that the documents weren’t legitimate ”
Which could have a single source, namely the Clinton Campaign, an organization known to be willing to spread deliberate lies from a multitude of sources.
Possible false flag in advance of a release of something far more damaging in order to muddy the waters so that future releases wil be written off as of questionable authenticity?
Sounds like something the Clinton Machine would engineer for the purposes of obfuscation.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440699/wikileaks-bust-was-conservative-scandal-obsession-microcosm
I think there’s a lot of wisdom there, and in Occam’s Razor.
With all due respect to those here, when has it been shown that the Clinton Crime Family is truthful? (And Donna Shalala is renowned for veracity?)
This was poor timing on Guccifer 2’s part–he should have waited until tomorrow.
The Clinton Foundation discloses its donors
Hahahahahahhh, a little light comedy from The Hill. Slightly more interesting than opening with a stock joke about the traveling salesman and the farmer’s daughters … but only slightly.
Anybody else remember all the claims that the observations that Hillary looks sick was some sort of conspiracy theory?
Any damaging information on either candidate, whether from a hack, investigative journalism, accusation, lawsuit, whatever, needs to come by early October if its going to have an impact, and according to my calendar, we’re there. Trump’s foundation getting investigated and his leaked mid-90s tax return with huge losses are really the only things we’ve seen and neither is really much of a revelation. When the FBI fixed Clinton’s potential charges, that pretty much cleared any obstacles she had, and I’m sure everyone involved will get their night in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever.
“No evidence of a #Guccifer hack at @ClintonFdn, no notification by law enforcement, and none of the files or folders shown are ours.”
Why would law enforcement be expected to notify a private organization that its system had been hacked?
Anyone else wondering how much the Clintons paid Assange not to dump documents damaging to Clinton? He threatens, he threatens, he threatens, then at the appointed time for release, he postpones, and the next day, (having succeeded in negotiating a final price, per my conspeercy theery), Assange posts only Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikileaks.
There you go.
You just HAD to do it, din ya? Had to open that can of worms. Well, let a thousand night-crawlers blossom…
Hey Rags, Her Thighness can’t get Julian to meet her in Ft. Marcy Park, but that’s not the only way to silence him–not if you’re alter ego is Monty Hall.
Their defense includes a proven lie. “All our donors are disclosed” One lie destroys any other evidence presented. That the release reflects other documents is not a refutation but a confirmation.