Update and Correction: The Bradley Foundation told local news in Wisconsin that the contribution letter is a fake, a possibility that had previously been raised by an alert commenter (see comments below post). The foundation had not responded to an inquiry from DataBreaches.net prior to publication asking them if they had any comment or statement on the situation. Kevin Collier has more on the fakery over on Vocativ.
Original post:
How many entities and individuals are going to try to tamper with or influence the presidential election outcome by hacking and leaking information intended to discredit Clinton or damage her campaign? If America’s detractors and enemies want Trump elected over Clinton, and are dumping data everywhere to try to make that happen, then maybe that’s a reason to vote for Clinton. I’m not a supporter of hers, but I’m getting damned tired of those trying to manipulate the outcome by selectively targeting one candidate.
In today’s installment, Anonymous Poland reminds us that he hacked the Bradley Foundation, allegedly to expose corruption of the Clinton Foundation and to show how the Bradley Foundation donated $150 million to Clinton’s campaign.
The hack and data dump were first announced on Twitter on October 29, and repeated thereafter, often including a screenshot of a letter showing the foundation’s intention to donate $150 million to Clinton’s campaign, e.g.
— Anonymous Poland (@anpoland) October 31, 2016
DataBreaches.net was able to download the more than 30 GB data dump, which included a lot of personal information on Bradley Foundation employees such as personal contact details and emergency contact information, date of birth and tax information such as W-2 information.
The data dump also included a lot of internal documents on investments, as this screenshot of part of the directory suggests:
In a series of DM on Twitter, DataBreaches.net asked @AnPoland whether he thought Trump would be better for Poland. His answer may strike some readers as naive:
“Yes! He promised to return our lands from Ukraine.”
“And you believe that?,” DataBreaches.net asked.
“We hope,” he replied.
So people had their personal information hacked and dumped because Trump promises everyone everything? Seriously? Could Trump even locate Ukraine on a map if it wasn’t labeled?
DataBreaches.net also asked @AnPoland as to how he was able to gain access.
“I got all very easy: admin/p@ssw0rd by rdp :)” he replied, “next: run some .exe and got access to network and … got all :)”
The foundation likely did detect the hack, as he reports that they subsequently changed their password or otherwise hardened their security and he was unable to regain access.
The foundation did not respond to an emailed inquiry from DataBreaches.net about the hack and data dump.
The Bradley Foundation hack is nowheres on the order of the WikiLeaks dumps or DCLeaks, of course, but is part of a disturbing pattern this election year. After the election, I will report on an amazing claim about how some individuals have allegedly attempted to get Trump elected. It’s a wild story, but because it may just be a story and not true, I’ll wait until the election results are in before posting it.
Believe it or not, but I am no fan of Trump. I’m a practical Libertarian, and believe that in our current climate, no political party has the American people’s best interests in mind. I’ve tried to be objective in this race, stepping back and looking at things from a broader perspective. And I see things a little differently.
>> How many entities and individuals are going to try to tamper with or influence the presidential election outcome by hacking and leaking information intended to discredit Clinton or damage her campaign?
I find that interesting in light of the fact that Julian Assange was a hero and darling of many when he hacked and leaked information intended to discredit Bush and the Iraq war. Now, it’s just different somehow.
>> I’m getting damned tired of those trying to manipulate the outcome by selectively targeting one candidate.
Now see, that statement made me spew my mouthful of Cheerios. This is EXACTLY what the mainstream press has been doing this entire election cycle. They have made no attempt to hide it, and are proud of the fact that they’re all in for Clinton. One example will suffice:
Eleven years ago, Trump said on a secretly recorded tape that celebrities can do anything — even grab a woman’s pussy.
And yet:
Hillary campaigns with Beyonce, who performs a duet with the words “curvalicious pussy served delicious.”
Hillary is thrilled to have the support of Madonna — who has publicly offered to give blow jobs to anyone who votes for Hillary.
Hillary’s campaign has deployed Miley Cyrus to canvas for her — the same Miley Cyrus who invites men in her audience to reach up and grab her pussy. (See YouTube)
When Vernon Jordan was asked by CBS’ Mike Wallace what he talked about while golfing with Bill Clinton, he answered: “Pussy.” (Spectator Magazine, 1998)
One could go on and on. In our circles, there have been repeated attempts to create a false equivalence between Clinton’s illegally storing classified information on a personal server and the fact that Trump’s network operations folks need to read up on best practices for information security.
So – there are other views.
Yep. I have not been a fan of media coverage at all. And I’m no fan of WikiLeaks because they have leaked personal info that could have/should have been redacted. If you search my site for “WikiLeaks,” you’ll find that a lot of my coverage of them over the past few years has been critical more than appreciative.
Consider me an “Indie” who is disgusted with the entire system and coverage.
Are you sure the letter above is real? I know the rest of the leak might be real, but the letter shown above has some very odd wording (e.g., “in this connection,” that suggests it was written by a non-native English speaker. In addition, the disclosure that the funds are for Clinton’s campaign do not ring true. I am a financial professional and have written dozens of withdrawal letters to financial institutions of this type – I would *never* disclose a client’s purpose for a withdrawal in this detail, even if I had a close personal relationship with the recipient… especially in writing. Lastly, and not to get into the weeds, but the letterhead looks cut and pasted, with an off-white background.
A copy of that file is in the data dump and the file properties show a creation date that matches the letter. In addition, there is a .doc copy of the same letter with the same creation date authored by “Karen Goldammer,” who has also authored other files in the data dump.
There are also two other letters to the fund, requesting smaller amounts be available, dated in April of 2016. Those letters have the exact same text, differing only in the amount requested.
So unless someone created a bunch of files and knew who to list as the author, it’s legit.
But I’m glad you’re keeping an eagle eye out for such possible deception.
Trump is just a dirty businessman that wants to be a politician.
Whereas Clinton is already a dirty politician with more damaging dirt to dig up.
Simply a game of numbers.
Both have been hacked, but Clinton has more worrying conversations and interactions that should be discussed, instead of just moaning about the circumstances they were found.
Skeletons in the cupboard are still skeletons in the cupboard, no matter how or when they are discovered.
Should you wait until 1 is elected before sending them to jail, then have another election ?
Or find out before-hand and so be able to disqualify them before the farce sets in.
How stupid would you feel if you elected a criminal because you dislike them less than the other criminal ?
The problem I have is that I can’t always be sure that hacked/dumped materials are authentic. Some of the leaked stuff has been authenticated, but there’s other stuff that’s going to come out that is even deadlier…. and will we just believe it or will we base our decisions on it without authentication? After the election, I will report on some claims that were made to me – I’m not reporting them before the election because I couldn’t confirm/authenticate them, but they call into question some of our govt’s claims.
And if you ask me to choose between two criminals, I’d choose the one that I think is going to do less harm to our country’s international relations. Which in this case, I think, is Clinton. But then, I might just write in a vote for someone at the last minute. I hate voting for the lesser of evils.
BTW in general private charitable foundations can’t make political donations: For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
As I suggested, Bradley claims this letter was fabricated. Story here: http://fox6now.com/2016/11/03/really-bizarre-milwaukees-charitable-bradley-foundation-network-hacked-by-anonymous-group/
Also, the “conservative” foundation only has $850 million in total assets: http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/gop-insider-rick-graber-to-lead-bradley-foundation-b99749697z1-384159301.html and is headed by a GOP guy.
This letter ain’t real.
I woke up to see their response and was just about to update the post. It’s a shame they hadn’t responded earlier when I had actually reached out to them to ask them for a response. That said, I’m still surprised that there were a number of letters/doc files like that in the dump or that @AnPoland would have done that. But it’s been a season of many surprises, so….
Anyway, you were right, and I appreciate your taking the time to raise the issue here! Would you like to be this site’s designated fact-checker? 🙂