Clinton Foundation Allegedly Hacked Exposing Thousands Of Donor Databases; "Pay To Play" Folder

[FunkyMike]

While the hack of the Clinton Foundation was foreshadowed two months ago, moments ago notorious hacker Gufficer 2.0, who previously was responsible for hacking the DNC and DNCC not to mention the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, announced that the moment "many of you have been waiting for" has come, by revealing that the Clinton Foundation has been hacked.

 

This is what Guccifer 2.0, who has denied being affiliated with the Russian government claiming that like the original Guccifer he is from Romania, posted moments ago on his website:

 

Quote

So, this is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases.

 

Hillary Clinton and her staff don’t even bother about the information security. It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation server.

The unknown hacker has allegedly exposed 1,000 of Hillary donors (a small list of master donors can be found here)...

 

Spoiler

 

...corporate donations made to various House representatives....

 

Spoiler

 

...as well as Wall Street bank donations, curiously cross-referenced to how much TARP funding they received.

 

Spoiler

 

As Guccifer notes," It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds."

 

Guccifer 2.0 also posted a note to Julian Assange who was mocked on Tuesday morning after he failed to produce Clinton documents he has long claimed to have.

 

“P.S. I’m pleased to congratulate Wikileaks on their 10th anniversary!!!,” Guccifer 2.0 writes. “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!"

 

* * *

But the most interesting, and perhaps damning, finding is the following: a root directory snapshot revealing a folder which Hillary may have some trouble explaining: "Pay to Play"

 

The hacker also provides a link to the hundreds of thousands of other documents he has access to saying "I can’t post all databases here for they’re too large. I’m looking for a better way to release them now."

 

We will go through the files, with a focus on Pay to Play because this may be the clearest confirmation that after repeated accusations that the Clinton Foundation was primarily a conduit for rich donors to get access to privileged kickbacks, or well "pay to play", this was indeed the case, although the fact that someone actually left a folder with that name in the foundation's server makes us wonder if someone is really that stupid, or whether this hack is even real.

 

To be sure, as The Hill notes, some of the files contained in the leaked data dump appear to originate not from the Foundation but from the DNCC:

 

Quote

A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”

 

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.

The Clinton Foundation has denied the hack, with president Donna Shalala saying that “none of the files or folders shown are ours.”

 

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/clinton-foundation-hacked-exposing-thousands-donor-databases-pay-play-folder

[wakjak]

Sounds like a convenient conspiracy to me. 

[Emn1ty]

Agreed, a little too good to be true for me to take at face value. I'll wait to see more people talking about it.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

The Foundation is crooked as hell but if it was hacked...??

[FunkyMike]

I do quite like this comment:

 

Quote

FireBrander  Creative_Destruct Oct 4, 2016 4:20 PM

"the fact that someone indeed left a folder with that name in the foundation's server makes us wonder if someone is really that stupid, or whether this hack is even real"

 

If the

>President of the United States

>The Attorney General of the United States

>The Director of FBI

>The Major Media Groups

all "have your back"

 

You'll, eventually, do some REALLY STUPID, CORRUPT ******* **** right in front of people's faces.

Lets see if this is real but who would be surprised at this point if it is.

[Open Minded]

I love how some people believe every single thing they read about Trump but Clinton... oh no.  We can't believe everything we read about her.  It's the vast right-wing conspiracy! 

What a joke.

[Emn1ty]

20 hours ago, wakjak said:

<snipped>

Cause when someone disagrees with you the only course of action is to insult them, right?

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jason S.

[wakjak]

48 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Cause when someone disagrees with you the only course of action is to insult them, right?

I didn't insult them. I've said they may have deep seeded issues they need to work out before trying to figure out the world isn't black and white. 

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, wakjak said:

I didn't insult them. I've said they may have deep seeded issues they need to work out before trying to figure out the world isn't black and white. 

As you and others seem to enjoy doing with Trump, you heavily implied he was having mental trouble (considering there's no moral or ethical issue being had here) because of his "issues". What else does that mean, exactly? What "deep seeded issues" are you referring to. Especially since he pointed out a valid criticism of the fact that despite everything Trump does is almost always taken heavily out of context, people still believe it at face value whilst with Hillary there's always a reason, an angle that makes it valid or if not valid... less damnable than something Trump did/said (which has also been taken out of context for the sake of narrative).

World isn't black and white, though some don't seem to have any grey areas when it comes to Trump.

[wakjak]

15 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

despite everything Trump does is almost always taken heavily out of context,

No no.. it's not taken out of context. Most of the time there's even video evidence to back it up, or quotes.. so let's not go with "out of context" when we can easily search said context.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jason S.

[Emn1ty]

 

15 hours ago, wakjak said:

No no.. it's not taken out of context. Most of the time there's even video evidence to back it up, or quotes.. so let's not go with "out of context" when we can easily search said context.

So even headlines like, Trump suggests military members with mental health issues aren’t ‘strong’ and ‘can’t handle it’ isn't being "taken out of context"?

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jason S.

[Emn1ty]

59 minutes ago, primortal said:

Not mean military members with mental health issues aren’t ‘strong’ and ‘can’t handle it’ is "taken out of context"?

Because they are framing it in a way that he insulted them or thinks less of them, which in actual fact his entire statement shows the opposite.

 

Quote

Look we need that so badly and when you ... when you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over and you’re strong and you can handle it. But a lot of people can’t handle it. And they see horror stories. They see events that you couldn’t see in a movie, nobody would believe it.

 

Now we need a mental health help and medical. And it’s one of the things that I think is least addressed and is one of the things that — like your question — one of the things that I hear the most about when I go around and talk to the veterans. So we’re going to have a very, very robust, level of performance having to do with mental health. We are losing so many great people that can be taken care of if they have proper care.

 

You know when you hear the 22 suicides a day it’s a big part of your question. But when you hear the 22 suicides a day that should never be. That should never be. So we’re going to be addressing that very strongly and the whole mental health issue is going to be a very important issue when I take over and the V.A. is going to be fixed in so many ways but that’s going to be one of the ways we’re going to help.

In this statement, he's not saying they aren't strong and can't handle it, he's saying they need help. Yes those words quoted by the article did leave his mouth but that doesn't mean he's saying what the headline is suggesting, it's a quote that was taken woefully out of context by the MSM on almost all sides. Turning what was a statement of compassion into one of insult.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

I beg to differ, you're mixing two different things to put them in your context.  Mental health comes in many forms he first talks about "when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it" that's not referring to suicide in any means.  And then goes on to talk about suicides and the immediate help they need which I completely agree with and both candidates agree with as well.

[TPreston]

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:59 PM, FunkyMike said:

I do quite like this comment:

 

Lets see if this is real but who would be surprised at this point if it is.

I hear she shot JFK also!

[Emn1ty]

16 minutes ago, primortal said:

I beg to differ, you're mixing two different things to put them in your context.  Mental health comes in many forms he first talks about "when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it" that's not referring to suicide in any means.  And then goes on to talk about suicides and the immediate help they need which I completely agree with and both candidates agree with as well.

So you're arbitrarily splitting up an entire statement in response to a question to fit your interpretation? Interesting, because that was his entire response to the question posed of him:

 

Quote

So my question for you is, when you become president, will you support and fund a more holistic approach to solve the problems and issues of veteran suicide, PTSD, TBI and other related military mental and behavioral health issues and will you take steps to restore the historic role of our Chaplains and the importance of spiritual fitness and spiritual resiliency programs?

He also states that mental health is something that is overlooked often among Veterans, and wants to improve mental health care solutions. But I suppose that's "a part of something else" as well? Is he wrong, that some people can get along with PTSD and some can't? Even McCain (who was burned by Trump's previous comments about being captured) defended Trump's statement.

 

Quote

“This is kind of the classic example of the media feeding frenzy that is going on. The bias that is in the media,”

“What he is saying is that some people, for whatever reason, and we really don’t understand why, suffer from PTSD, and others don’t.”

 

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

Thread cleaned. Please keep it on topic and leave the personal insults out of it.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

26 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

So you're arbitrarily splitting up an entire statement in response to a question to fit your interpretation? Interesting, because that was his entire response to the question posed of him:

I was not arbitrarily splitting up his statement; you do know it was a multi-part question right?

Quote

So my question for you is, when you become president, will you support and fund a more holistic approach to solve the problems and issues of veteran suicide, [comma] PTSD, [comma] TBI and other related military mental and behavioral health issues and will you take steps to restore the historic role of our Chaplains and the importance of spiritual fitness and spiritual resiliency programs?

 

He answered the PTSD part of the question with

Quote

when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it

 

then when on to answer the suicide part of the question.

[FunkyMike]

 

Just now, TPreston said:

I hear she shot JFK also!

Am intrigued TPreston. <3

 

Are you referring to this? 

 

Conspiracy theorist claims Hillary Clinton 'murdered' John F Kennedy Jnr because he was planning to run for the same senate seat as her in shocking new book

 

Regardless .. I am still waiting on evidence that she eats fetus for breakfast. 

[Emn1ty]

Just now, primortal said:

I was not arbitrarily splitting up his statement; you do know it was a multi-part question right?

He answered the PTSD part of the question with

then when on to answer the suicide part of the question.

And there was entire paragraph about mental health (which PTSD falls under) between those two talking points which you're ignoring. This is exactly the kind of hoops I expect to be jumped through from people who can't help but attempt to justify an interpretation rather than admit that they might just be wrong. Slicing and dicing, moving goalposts around to make sure that you're only dealing with the context you want to deal with and conveniently ignoring the rest because it's contrary to what you want it to be.

Were Trump's words reckless and not well thought? Perhaps (but that's par for the course with Trump). Was he actually insulting veterans? No, not without ignoring half or nearly all of his statement with special conditions, so much so that you're actually breaking his paragraphs down and assigning them explicitly to certain topics which were not clearly defined for those paragraphs (which aren't actually even paragraphs, they were a single statement that was spoken so the paragraphing is at liberty of the writer).

[+primortal Subscriber²]

9 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Were Trump's words reckless and not well thought? Perhaps (but that's par for the course with Trump).

Yes I fell down the "context" rabbit hole and lost my way; I concede in that.  But also you clearly stated is what the crux of the problem with him is, "reckless and not well thought" and always has and will get him into trouble constently.  He wonders why the media pounces on him and he has to correct himself over and over again.  If he can't articulate correctly what he means, can bring this country into a lot of problems if elected.

[Emn1ty]

6 hours ago, primortal said:

Yes I fell down the "context" rabbit hole and lost my way; I concede in that.  But also you clearly stated is what the crux of the problem with him is, "reckless and not well thought" and always has and will get him into trouble constently.  He wonders why the media pounces on him and he has to correct himself over and over again.  If he can't articulate correctly what he means, can bring this country into a lot of problems if elected.

I am perfectly fine with the media holding Trump accountable for what he says, but that particular statement was portrayed very much contrary to what was intended and deliberately taken out of context. If they are going to chastise him for saying something stupid, at least do it with his genuinely stupid statements rather than doing their absolute best to turn everything he says into some kind of controversy.