Clinton Foundation likely hacked

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-idUSKCN10T01G


Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable foundation hired the security firm FireEye to examine its data systems after seeing indications they might have been hacked, according to two sources familiar with the matter.So far, no message or document hacked from the New York-based Clinton Foundation has surfaced in public, the sources said.



One of the sources and two U.S. security officials said that like hackers who targeted the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democrats' congressional fundraising committee, the hackers appear to have used “spear phishing” techniques to gain access to the foundation's network.


These techniques include creating bogus emails or websites in an effort to gain access to Clinton Foundation staffers’ emails and then to the foundation itself.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the U.S. officials said the hackers used the same techniques Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies employed against the Democratic Party groups, which suggests that Russians also attacked the foundation.



Kremlin officials dismissed as absurd the allegations of Moscow's involvement, which were made last month amid political party nominating conventions for the Nov. 8 election.
Neither former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, the Clinton Foundation’s principal lawyer, nor a spokeswoman for the foundation responded to requests for comment on the hacking and the precautions the organization has taken.

Officials with FireEye said the company could not discuss its clients.


Although no documents have emerged, the attacks have left some Democrats and Clinton campaign officials worried that the hackers might have obtained emails and voice messages that could be used to reinforce Republican charges that donors to the Clinton Foundation were rewarded with access to Clinton and her aides while she was secretary of state or to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.


Another concern: hackers or outlets such as the anti-secrecy WikiLeaks website could release documents and emails damaging to her presidential campaign, several people familiar with the foundation's activities said.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee convened a closed-door meeting on Wednesday to discuss best cyber security practices.


The meeting, according to people familiar with it, included a recommendation that staff and lawmakers change their phone numbers and email addresses if that information was published online by hackers believed to be working for or with Russian intelligence agencies.



One of the U.S. officials said, however, that the spear phishing pattern used against several organizations, appears to reinforce the intelligence community's "preliminary assessment" that the attacks were intended more for espionage than for trying to influence the U.S. presidential election.


So far, said a third U.S. official familiar with the attacks, there is no evidence that the hackers were able to follow any of the hacked emails into the State Department's classified email systems.
Anxiety in Washington over the possibility that a foreign power might be using hacked information to meddle in the U.S. election has prompted some Democrats and cyber security experts to urge the Obama administration to blame Russia publicly.



Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee, said the United States should carry "a big stick" in cyber security matters. "The U.S. government needs to be very clear, very direct, and hold these people accountable."



Current and former White House and intelligence officials said the Obama administration is unlikely to blame Russia publicly, given the difficulty of attributing the attacks without revealing American sources and methods, the geopolitical concerns at play, and a fear that doing so could risk aggravating cyber conflict.

[Th'Pusher]

Hopefully it'll produce as much interesting information as that Soros hack...

[ducks]

everything Clinton touches gets hacked

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Hopefully it'll produce as much interesting information as that Soros hack...

Like the financing of BLM?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-idUSKCN10T01G


Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable foundation hired the security firm FireEye to examine its data systems after seeing indications they might have been hacked, according to two sources familiar with the matter.So far, no message or document hacked from the New York-based Clinton Foundation has surfaced in public, the sources said.



One of the sources and two U.S. security officials said that like hackers who targeted the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democrats' congressional fundraising committee, the hackers appear to have used “spear phishing” techniques to gain access to the foundation's network.


These techniques include creating bogus emails or websites in an effort to gain access to Clinton Foundation staffers’ emails and then to the foundation itself.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the U.S. officials said the hackers used the same techniques Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies employed against the Democratic Party groups, which suggests that Russians also attacked the foundation.



Kremlin officials dismissed as absurd the allegations of Moscow's involvement, which were made last month amid political party nominating conventions for the Nov. 8 election.
Neither former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, the Clinton Foundation’s principal lawyer, nor a spokeswoman for the foundation responded to requests for comment on the hacking and the precautions the organization has taken.

Officials with FireEye said the company could not discuss its clients.


Although no documents have emerged, the attacks have left some Democrats and Clinton campaign officials worried that the hackers might have obtained emails and voice messages that could be used to reinforce Republican charges that donors to the Clinton Foundation were rewarded with access to Clinton and her aides while she was secretary of state or to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.


Another concern: hackers or outlets such as the anti-secrecy WikiLeaks website could release documents and emails damaging to her presidential campaign, several people familiar with the foundation's activities said.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee convened a closed-door meeting on Wednesday to discuss best cyber security practices.


The meeting, according to people familiar with it, included a recommendation that staff and lawmakers change their phone numbers and email addresses if that information was published online by hackers believed to be working for or with Russian intelligence agencies.



One of the U.S. officials said, however, that the spear phishing pattern used against several organizations, appears to reinforce the intelligence community's "preliminary assessment" that the attacks were intended more for espionage than for trying to influence the U.S. presidential election.


So far, said a third U.S. official familiar with the attacks, there is no evidence that the hackers were able to follow any of the hacked emails into the State Department's classified email systems.
Anxiety in Washington over the possibility that a foreign power might be using hacked information to meddle in the U.S. election has prompted some Democrats and cyber security experts to urge the Obama administration to blame Russia publicly.



Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee, said the United States should carry "a big stick" in cyber security matters. "The U.S. government needs to be very clear, very direct, and hold these people accountable."



Current and former White House and intelligence officials said the Obama administration is unlikely to blame Russia publicly, given the difficulty of attributing the attacks without revealing American sources and methods, the geopolitical concerns at play, and a fear that doing so could risk aggravating cyber conflict.

Why is it that Trump isn't getting hacked?

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.163608893.6895/flat,800x800,075,f.u3.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Although, one has to wonder given Donald "I have big words" Trump's twitter feed, what horrors might pop up.

Something that might be, say, investigated by the FEC?
http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking-trump-commits-election-fraud-fec-to-investigate/

[I. Hustle]

Why is it that Trump isn't getting hacked?



Maybe he doesn't have a computer?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Hopefully it'll produce as much interesting information as that Soros hack...


Why is it that Trump isn't getting hacked?

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.163608893.6895/flat,800x800,075,f.u3.jpg

Did you see some of the passwords the DNC staffers were using? abc123 kobebryant24

[Reck]

The downside of the digital age.

[ducks]

maybe trump has a apple

[TheSanityAnnex]

:cry Why is it that Trump isn't getting hacked? :cry

[RandomGuy]

[RG is crying about hacking]

I'm not crying about it you twit, I am implying that he isn't getting hacked by the russians because Trump is the preferred candidate of putin.

You won't see me complaining about "media bias" when it comes to this shit. If you can't put on your big boy pants and deal with it, get TFO.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm not crying about it you twit, I am implying that he isn't getting hacked by the russians because Trump is the preferred candidate of putin.

You won't see me complaining about "media bias" when it comes to this shit. If you can't put on your big boy pants and deal with it, get TFO.

Then your implication is probably correct, Trump is less likely to start a war with Russia.

[hater]

The downside of the digital age.


Makes is hard to hide corruption huh? How is that a downside Einstein?

[hater]

This is a good thing. Will help that lunatic with the sexual deviant husband far fom the white house

[SnakeBoy]

I'm not crying about it you twit, I am implying that he isn't getting hacked by the russians because Trump is the preferred candidate of putin.


Or maybe he really doesn't use email or even have his own cell phone as has been reported.

[RandomGuy]

Then your implication is probably correct, Trump is less likely to start a war with Russia.

It is hard to start a war if you are willing to roll over at the drop of a hat.

[RandomGuy]

Or maybe he really doesn't use email or even have his own cell phone as has been reported.

The reason you aren't seeing Trump campaign emails is pretty obvious.

As for Trump not using technology:
Don't doubt it given his age and overall low intellectual firepower.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It is hard to start a war if you are willing to roll over at the drop of a hat.

What you call rolling over others call negotiating. You really feel comfortable with warhawk Hillary and her hardon for Russia?

[RandomGuy]

What you call rolling over others call negotiating. You really feel comfortable with warhawk Hillary and her hardon for Russia?


WOW. So you are going with "Trump will "negotiate" peace in our time."

Really?

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/british-statesman-and-prime-minister-neville-chamberlain-at-heston-picture-id2668142

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PLvFD6oJmBE/VgHoAvdxcYI/AAAAAAAARls/3Fe8tCMWO6E/w1200-h630-p-nu/Trump%2Band%2BPutin%2BOn%2BHorseback.jpg

Kissing Putins ass is not good for US foreign policy, especially given the way they actively seek to harm US interests.

[TheSanityAnnex]

WOW. So you are going with "Trump will "negotiate" peace in our time."

Really?

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/british-statesman-and-prime-minister-neville-chamberlain-at-heston-picture-id2668142

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PLvFD6oJmBE/VgHoAvdxcYI/AAAAAAAARls/3Fe8tCMWO6E/w1200-h630-p-nu/Trump%2Band%2BPutin%2BOn%2BHorseback.jpg

Kissing Putins ass is not good for US foreign policy, especially given the way they actively seek to harm US interests.

Yes, I do trust Trump more than Clinton in terms of "keeping the peace". Clinton made the Middle East even more unstable during her tenure, I wouldn't expect her Presidency to be any different.

[Reck]

Yes, I do trust Trump more than Clinton in terms of "keeping the peace". Clinton made the Middle East even more unstable during her tenure, I wouldn't expect her Presidency to be any different.

I know you don't like her but lol at Trump keeling any peace.

The dude can't even let tv personalities slights go without going to Twitter to feud with them.

Its also worth noting that Trump is viewed as an extreme and poor choice by other world leaders.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I know you don't like her but lol at Trump keeling any peace.

The dude can't even let tv personalities slights go without going to Twitter to feud with them.

Its also worth noting that Trump is viewed as an extreme and poor choice by other world leaders.

Who gives a shit if he goes on Twitter for a feud. He's yet to try and overthrow multiple leaders in multiple countries, unlike Clinton.

[Winehole23]

http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/14/c-r-e-a-m-part-one-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/
http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/25/c-r-e-a-m-part-two-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/14/c-r-e-a-m-part-one-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/
http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/25/c-r-e-a-m-part-two-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/
Have only read the first link so far but yeah, exact thoughts I had when viewing it. I thought it ww going to be of the 9/11 truther variety and was shocked it wasn't. It's a very compelling film and has been scoffed by those who've written it off without ever watching it.

Thanks for the links, this is exactly what Reck was asking to read.

[Winehole23]

it's also a good diagnosis of the Republican disease of ignoring easy political points by trying to stretch evidence further than it really goes. treating every particle of evidence as if it were a bombshell and a cataclysm for HRC tends to discredit the polemic. the tendency to exaggerate and jump to outlandish conclusions has undermined what should be -- and otherwise would be -- a very strong case against HRC.

that said, in the totality the picture is fairly damning.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Schweizer did exaggerate certain elements but over all the case he presented was very strong. I found it interesting in your article that one of his criticisms of Schweizer was that he did not dig in far enough and easily expose other deplorable acts by the Clintons.

[Winehole23]

yep. the incompetence of HRC's critics is unfortunate.

having wasted so much of their own credibility on bullshit and exaggeration hurt their own case and Donald Trump.

[Winehole23]

HRC's defenders now parrot the logic of Citizen's United while defenders of Citizen's United abandon it. The target changes the positions of both sides:


In campaign statements and talking points -- and in activists' tweets and Facebook comments -- the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the insinuation seems to be that the revelations aren't even newsworthy because, in the words (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-cash-_n_7104770.html) of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, "there’s nothing new" here.


To advocates for limiting the influence of money in politics, this pushback from Democrats is particularly rich (pun intended) coming from a party that spent a decade asserting that Republicans raking in cash from Big Oil and pushing oil-friendly policies was rank corruption. The Democratic defense of their presumptive presidential nominee registers as especially disturbing to campaign finance reform advocates considering the mighty efficiency of the Clinton fundraising machinehttp://www.ibtimes.com/defense-clinton-democrats-promote-ideology-behind-citizens-united-1903669

[Winehole23]

Trump couldn't resist the bait. He called HRC a bigot.

Result, the talking heads are talking about that exchange today.The Clinton Foundation, much less so.

[Winehole23]

Time for the GOP to face it. Trump is their McGovern.

[SnakeBoy]

Time for the GOP to face it. Trump is their McGovern.

It won't be that bad but it's a decent analogy. I wonder if Hillary will fulfill the Nixon role as POTUS.

[Winehole23]

it's not over by a long shot, but this is the GOP's weakest candidate -- and weakest campaign -- in my lifetime.

it isn't even close.