A hacker persona with alleged ties to the Russian government has posted what the hacker claims are files stolen from the Clinton Foundation. “Hillary Clinton and her staff don’t even bother about the information security,” the hacker calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” wrote in the post revealing the files. “It was just a matter of time to gain access to the Clinton Foundation server.”
According to screenshots, the files include spreadsheets tracking Foundation donors and financial institutions that have donated to lawmakers. A Clinton Foundation spokesman declined to comment on the record about the alleged hack.
One spreadsheet appears to detail how much banks have given to lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee. Another document shows how much banks gave to Democratic lawmakers and how much those banks received from the 2008 bailout bill to stabilize the financial sector, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
“It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds,” wrote Guccifer 2.0. Some cybersecurity experts believe Guccifer 2.0 is an invented identity that the Russian government is using to release files it obtains through hacking.
— GUCCIFER 2.0 (@GUCCIFER_2) October 4, 2016
UPDATE: The Hill is calling this a hoax.
A new posting from the hacker alias Guccifer 2.0 purported to be documents stolen from the Clinton Foundation appears to be a hoax. 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.
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.