Posted on 10/04/2016 2:14:40 PM PDT by ColdOne
A new posting from the hacker alias Guccifer 2.0 purported to be documents stolen from the Clinton Foundation appears to be a hoax.
ADVERTISEMENT
Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers.
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sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I agree, best election ever. Maybe instead of a vote, the deciding event should be a duel between the two candidates, broadcast live on pay-per-view.
doesn’t mean the DNC didn’t give these “spreadsheets” to the Clintons.
Well the DHS will take over the Election for sure now
The Hill is in damage-control mode already.
So, the spin is going to be that the documents are fake. Who fakes this many documents?
The Hill trying to cover for Illary & Billary. Could take the whole gubment down.
Phone numbers are real..just ask Hanks
LOL That picture says it all. PAY to PLAY.
What we have seen so far, while interesting, seems totally unrelated to the Clinton Foundation. Much of it is probably available in the public records - TARP funding recipients and amounts for example. And corporate contributions to Congressmen.
I’ll start to buy in when we see some damaging info on the Foundation itself. So far I don’t think we have. But looking for it should be the focus of the document dump review.
First, an inspection of the individual documents is warranted. If any of them were prepared by someone who was not an American with an American vocabulary and understanding of English usage, it should be quite evident. We have all seen Help screens and user documents which were obviously written by someone other than a native American speaker. Such a test would not conclusively prove their validity, but it could certainly disprove them.
Second, perhaps, even if the documents are not genuine, we should dredge up the phrases used in the Dan Rather defense. He tried to establish the benchmark that genuineness was not as important as conveying someone’s notion of the truth.
HRC press conference right now. A female reporter asked her about Assange and the info he was going to release and did she really say to someone, “Can’t we just drone the guy?” She looked down during the entire question and then answered that she knew nothing about it. I DESPISE THIS WOMAN.
So if the documents really belong to the Democratic Committee then it’s OK that donations to democrats from big banks are tied to TARP?
Not a hoax. All of the email addresses and phone numbers are authentic.
I read it that they are actually from the Democrat committed, not the Clinton foundation as claimed.
Why Donald Trump, of course, who asked Putin to do it. Or so the media and Democrats will insist, perhaps as soon as tonight's VP debate.
she is doing a presser? wow was this scheduled?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.