Showing posts with label Political Hacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Hacks. Show all posts

May 17, 2020

Hackers Want $42 Million From Trump to Keep His S*... Secret

        Hackers Demanded $42 Million Otherwise will release Donald Trump ...

President Donald Trump may have another adversary to beat to win November’s election besides Joe Biden: a group of hackers.
The anonymous hackers this week crippled the computer systems of high-profile celebrity law firm Grubman Shire Meiselas & Sacks claiming to have stolen 756GB of highly-confidential documents including contracts and personal emails from the firm’s client list, which includes Madonna, Drake, Lady Gaga, Elton John, Robert De Niro, U2 and Bruce Springsteen.
 The hackers initially demanded $21 million from the law firm to stop the documents becoming public, posting a screenshot of a contract for Madonna's World Tour 2019-20 complete with signatures from an employee and concert company Live Nation.
But on Thursday, they doubled their ransom demand claiming that they also had information on the U.S. president. 
“The ransom is now $42,000,000,” the hackers said on their dark web site, seen by VICE News “The next person we’ll be publishing is Donald Trump. There’s an election going on, and we found a ton of dirty laundry on time.”
The hackers made a direct plea to Trump, urging him to get the attorneys to pay up.
“Mr. Trump if you want to stay president, poke a sharp stick at the guys, otherwise, you may forget this ambition forever. And to you voters, we can let you know that after such a publication, you certainly don’t want to see him as president” 
The hackers have demanded payment of the $42 million within a week, and issued a warning to celebrity lawyer Allen Grubman: “Grubman, we will destroy your company down to the ground if we don’t see the money.”
Trump is not known to be a client of Grubman’s firm, nor is any of his companies, so it is unclear what — if any — “dirty laundry” the hackers may have on him.
The firm confirmed the doubling of the ransom demand on Thursday, labeling the attackers “foreign cyberterrorists” and adding that its clients had so far been very supportive.  
“The leaking of our clients’ documents is a despicable and illegal attack by these foreign cyberterrorists who make their living attempting to extort high-profile U.S. companies, government entities, entertainers, politicians, and others,” the company said in a statement.

Who’s behind the attack?

The ransomware being used in this attack is known as Revil or Sodinokibi. Like all ransomware, once the malicious software is downloaded onto a victim’s network, it quickly encrypts all files (including back-up files) and renders the computer system unusable unless you pay the ransom. 
Revil was the ransomware used in an attack on the foreign exchange company Travelex earlier this year. 
The ransomware first emerged last April and has grown in popularity to become one of the most widely used weapons among hackers, targeting everything from businesses to hospitals and even cities.
In August last year, the authors of Revil advertised on an underground Russian hacking forum for a select group of hackers to come on board as affiliates and distribute the ransomware. Those who came on board kept 60% of the ransom they received while kicking the rest back up to the authors.
The move means that any one of those approved to distribute the ransomware could be behind the attack on Grubman’s firm.
While the identity of the ransomware authors is not known, there are clues to where they are located: in the dark web ad, the authors said it was forbidden to use the code against targets inside Russia.  
The authors have also been linked to the Russian gang behind GandCrab, another hugely popular piece of ransomware. Analysis of the code shows Revil shared a significant amount of overlap with GandCrab, the authors of which reportedly retired last May after earning $2 billion.
“It has long been suspected that this group operates within Russia’s locus of control,” Allan Liska a ransomware expert at security intelligence firm Recorded Future told VICE News. “The Kremlin generally turns a blind eye to these activities, as long as the threat actors don’t target Russian citizens, however going after an ally of Russia may force Russian cyber security forces to turn their attention to the Revil team as well.”

Should the victims pay up?

Ransomware demands are typically much smaller than the $42 million being demanded by the hackers in this case. But with hundreds of A-list celebrities on its client list, there is plenty of incentive for Grubman’s law firm to pay up.
But even if it does, there is no guarantee the trove of personal documents won’t be published anyway.
“Paying the ransom does not guarantee that the attackers will not do anything with the data,” Hugo van den Toorn, manager of offensive security at Outpost24, told VICE News. “As a matter of fact, the worst has already happened; the company’s reputation has been impacted. Paying and dealing with the threat actors might, therefore, be the absolute last resort.”  
And that appears to be the case here.
“[Grubman’s] view is, if he paid, the hackers might release the documents anyway,” a source at the law firm told Page Six. “Plus the FBI has stated this hack is considered an act of international terrorism, and we don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

March 19, 2019

There Are Dogs ,Gay Whores and Leeches, Lindsay Graham is ALL of Those Except Gay Whores Keep To Their Words

He (Graham)is not talking about Trump here. Impeachment are for Dems only over lying over s e x

Just a few Tweets to go with the previous story:
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who was once a major Republican opponent of President Trump, has been supportive of more policies and moves in recent months. Graham's apparent switch has some Democrats and members of the media now putting out theories that Graham may have been blackmailed by Trump or the Russians.
Gee, whatever can you mean? Never mind, we know exactly what Stephanie Ruhle means. Does NBC? 
 The insinuation is referring to a long-time whispered rumor that Graham is secretly a homosexual and has been guarding it for many years.
MSNBC Anchor Stephanie Ruhle started things off earlier this week by making the vague speculation.
They got to him, he is compromised!
Things got a lot more heated when a member of Congress, Representative Ilhand Omar went after Graham on Twitter Wednesday night over the speculation. 

Conservative pundits say these speculations are essentially tone-deaf and hypocritical, with recent widespread media coverage of public personalities' past comments on homosexuality. They noted the lack of media coverage of the, "homophobic dog whistle" aimed at Senator Graham.
Other media personalities and Hollywood celebrities who have previously demanded repercussions towards those individuals joined the fray, making the same comments.

Hello. A few questions.

(1) Who is “they”?
(2) How did “they” “get to him”?
(3) How is he “compromised”?
(4) Is this a reference to the prominent & pernicious homophobic rumor that is circulating the internet? Because I might expect that from a troll, but you’re a Congresswoman.

Don't worry guys. @jaketapper will be sure to spend as much time on Omar as King. He's a straight-shooter, you see.
Image result for lindsey graham a whore

November 18, 2017

Moore Supported a Rabidly Hostility Towards LGBT and Its Advocates

 A smiling Roy Moore stood shoulder to shoulder with his fiercest religious allies.
Flanked by a sign for Moore’s Senate campaign, one supporter railed against the “LGBT mafia” and “homosexual gay terrorism.” Another warned that “homosexual sodomy” destroys those who participate in it and the nations that allow it. Still, another described same-sex marriage as “a mirage” because “it’s phony and fake.”
Thursday’s news conference was designed to send a powerful message to the political world that religious conservatives across America remain committed to Moore, a Christian conservative and former judge whose Alabama Senate campaign has been rocked by mounting allegations of sexual misconduct. The event also revealed an aggressive strain of homophobia rarely seen in mainstream politics — in recent years, at least.
In the days since religious liberals have stepped forward to express their opposition to Moore. An anti-Moore rally at a Birmingham church Saturday drew more than 100 people, some of whom carried signs decrying his opposition to gay rights.
But in a Senate campaign suddenly focused on Moore’s relationships with teenage girls decades ago, Moore’s hardline stance on gay rights and other LGBT issues has become little more than an afterthought for many voters as election day approaches. 
Moore first caught the attention of many in the LGBT community after describing homosexual conduct as “an inherent evil against which children must be protected” in a 2002 child custody case involving a lesbian mother. In a 2005 television interview, Moore said: “homosexual conduct should be illegal.” He also said there’s no difference between gay sex and sex with a cow, horse or dog.
Moore’s stand — combined with the fiery comments from his supporters — unnerved some in Birmingham’s relatively small LGBT community.
“It made me extremely angry,” said Mackenzie Gray, a 37-year-old who came out as transgender in 2010. She said most people in her life don’t know she was born a man. 
“My fear with the religious leaders and the hateful rhetoric we’re hearing is that it’s going to start escalating into something even larger,” Gray said. “It’s dangerous.”
The state has been slow to embrace gay rights: 81 percent of voters supported a ban on same-sex marriage in 2006. Only neighboring Mississippi, with 86 percent, scored higher.
Patricia Todd, the state’s first openly gay state representative, said she has faced at least four death threats in recent years. One woman called Todd’s cell phone and pledged to kill her and her family, she said, noting that local LGBT leaders meet quarterly at the FBI office in Birmingham to help identify potential hate crimes.
“It’s been brutal, but it’s gotten to the point where I just laugh at them,” Todd said.
In contrast to many conservative politicians with national ambitions, Moore has made little attempt to change his tone on LGBT issues as equal rights for the gay community has earned increasing acceptance among mainstream America.
By Steve Peoples

November 17, 2016

Time: "TransitionTeam Right out of the Swamp”

Americans who voted for Donald Trump were clearly fed up with inside-the-Beltway business as usual. They want the president-elect to deliver on his promise to replace “a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you the American people.”

Which raises a question: As Trump builds his administration, how long will it take for Trump voters to notice that what he is preparing to deliver is an agenda none of them asked for — more Washington insiders, more corporate lobbyists and more pollution?
Donald Trump named Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus his White House chief of staff, elevating one of his loyal GOP advisers with a deep expertise of the Washington establishment Trump has vowed to shake up.

Most of the media attention so far has gone to Trump’s appalling choice of‘s Stephen Bannon as chief strategist, and he’s an anti-Washington outsider to be sure. And the voters who applauded or shrugged off Trump’s racially charged campaign rhetoric will applaud or shrug off Bannon. But he is the outlier — the head fake meant to mask the real play — because the people running Trump’s transition team and, soon, staffing his administration are precisely the sort of old-school insiders Trump railed against on the campaign trail. And their agenda, if left unchecked, will deliver dirtier air and water and more climate chaos.

This org chart of the President-elect’s transition team tells the tale: the oil lobbyist who has been trying to block sensible rules to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas production; the coal lobbyist who has been trying to kill the first-ever rules to reduce climate pollution from power plants; and the poster boy for Trump’s betrayal of his outsider promise, Myron Ebell, the former tobacco apologist and Big Oil PR man now running Trump’s environmental transition team.

Ebell spent his early career taking money from Big Tobacco to create doubt about the dangers of smoking. He parlayed that into a gig working for the oil industry to spread doubt and confusion about climate change. He’s an architect of the decades-long disinformation campaign designed to kill federal climate action.

The Environmental Protection Agency is no place for a climate denier like Ebell. It’s like putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of the Centers for Disease Control.

Public records show that Ebell’s group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, took more than $1 million from ExxonMobil between 2000-2003 alone. In those days, Exxon staff scientists were briefing company executives about the dangers of climate change while the company was paying people like Ebell to claim that climate change was “nothing to worry about.” The world’s biggest oil company is now the subject of state and federal probes over these practices. And to its credit, it is supporting the international climate agreement Trump and Ebell oppose.

If we turn our back on the world by being the only country not involved in the major climate agreements, it will hobble us in a global race for clean energy jobs. Renouncing the Paris Climate Agreement, as Trump has vowed to do, will put the brakes on U.S. investment in renewables, and thus on jobs. And by the way, most utility-scale wind and solar generation plants are in Republican congressional districts, in states like North Carolina and Texas. Breaking our promises to other countries will diminish our standing in the world. And it could trigger a retaliatory trade war, which would do more damage to American workers.

The lobbyist-run transition team has also signaled plans to strip away air pollution limits. They’ll call it “reducing regulation” and claim they just want to return EPA to its core missions. But these same people have spent years lobbying against health protections that get in the way of their donors’ profits. They opposed rules on toxic mercury that damages children’s brains and a host of other protections.

Trump’s team will no doubt try to use the real economic pain in coal country as an excuse to lift clean air protections. The reality is that — as even coal executives have conceded — he can’t revive the jobs that have been lost due to market pressure. But he could hamper one of the fastest growing industries in America, clean energy. Solar jobs have grown more than 20% in each of the last three years.

At the moment, voters who supported Mr. Trump will, of course, give him a chance to prove his policies. But he’s quickly going to have to produce results — that’s what every president learns. If his energy policies bring more pollution, don’t expect parents in Michigan or Wisconsin to stay on board. If the plants that makes wind turbines or LED light bulbs lose orders, those workers there will not stay in his coalition for long.

As is often the case, it may not be Trump who pays the price. The next backlash will come in the midterm elections, when voters send the message that they really did want to retake Washington, not sell it to polluter lobbyists like Myron Ebell.

 Pooley, a former managing editor of Fortune, is a senior Vice President at Environmental Defense Fund. 

August 22, 2016

FBI Not Credible in that The Clinton Email Investigation was Not Political

FBI Director Comey, testified and handed over emails
 to partisan committee and also made decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton

The political dust-up over the FBI handing documents about the Hillary Clinton email investigation to Congress is intensifying, with Republicans complaining the materials were turned over in such a way that assessing them is difficult and Democrats contending they should not have been given to legislators.

On Tuesday, the FBI delivered to Congress an overview of the investigation along with summaries of more than a dozen interviews with senior Clinton staffers, other State Department officials, former secretary of state Colin Powell and at least one other person, according to an email from a senior aide to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that was sent to congressional offices.

The tussle centers over whether the FBI has the authority to impose sharp restrictions on the material, which comingled classified and non-classified documents. The FBI required Congress to maintain the materials in a secure area accessible only by those who have clearances. Also at issue is the aim of Grassley and other Republicans to publicly release the summaries, which include new, unclassified details about the FBI’s server investigation.

In announcing the agency’s findings last month, FBI Director James B. Comey said the investigation was untainted by political influence. Comey has said he wants to release more details than normal about the agents’ work to underscore the nonpartisan nature of the probe. But the unusual delivery of the records, and the restriction imposed by the FBI, have fueled the partisan squabble.

“I certainly don’t think it was done to feed the political fire; I think it was done, as the director said, in the interest of transparency,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “But while that might be a good thing in the short term for the bureau, I think it’s very problematic in the longer term for the entire Department of Justice.”
The FBI declined to comment for this story. Ron Hosko, a former assistant director at the FBI, said Comey has “spoken repeatedly on his respect and understanding” of congressional oversight, and that is probably why the director was so responsive to legislators’ inquiries.

“There is an oversight responsibility. There is an undeniable political piece of this thing,” Hosko said. “I don’t see Comey or the FBI trying to push back and say, ‘You’re not entitled to X’ if the law says they are.”

Comey announced last month that he was recommending that Clinton not be charged in connection with her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, offering an unusual level of candor at a news conference in which he opined that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information. He later promised to release some materials to Congress.

Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman who has worked for several Democratic campaigns, said that although Comey might have been seeking to burnish his reputation for honesty, he ultimately treated Clinton unfairly and set a potentially dangerous precedent for future high-profile cases. Witnesses, Miller said, might be less likely to come forward — and agents and prosecutors tempted to work differently — knowing Congress would one day have access to what they said and did.

“That’s obviously not how the FBI is supposed to work,” Miller said. 

And Comey’s release has not mollified Republicans who want more information. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the House Oversight Committee chairman, said he was concerned about what was not included in the binders full of documents, and he continued to question Comey’s conclusion that Clinton should not be charged.
FBI Director James Comey said on July 5 that Hillary Clinton should not be charged for her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. Here's what he said, in three minutes. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
“This whole case is upside down and backwards,” Chaffetz said. “There’s nothing normal about it.”

Grassley and his staffers have complained to the FBI that the unclassified material released to Congress was mixed with classified material, making its review and possible release burdensome.

The staffers and officials whose interview summaries are unclassified include longtime aide Huma Abedin; former chief of staff Cheryl Mills; former campaign staffer Heather Samuelson, who helped sort Clinton’s emails so they could be produced publicly; and former IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who set up a server in Clinton’s home, according to the email from the Grassley staffer.

Summaries also include Powell, Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy; former assistant secretary for diplomatic security Eric Boswell and former executive secretary Stephen Mull, according to the email. Powell, who also used a private email account while secretary of state but not a private server in his home, wrote in an email that he had “a pleasant interview with two agents.”

“It was less about the specifics of emails than the whole process of how they are handled and how to manage info flow in the future,” Powell wrote.

Fewer than “a dozen and a half paragraphs” of the FBI’s 32-page investigative summary also are marked as secret, according to the Grassley staffer’s email.

It remains unclear whether that summary will be released, even if Congress is able to separate classified portions from the unclassified material.

On Wednesday, Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, wrote to Michael DiSilvestro, the director of the Office of Senate Security, asking him to separate the classified materials from the non-classified ones. Grassley had earlier told a Washington Post reporter he hoped the non-classified would be made public eventually. But DiSilvestro wrote back Thursday that the FBI had provided the material with a “handling restriction” that all of it be kept in his office, and the Judiciary Committee and the FBI would have to negotiate different terms.

On Friday, Grassley wrote back that his committee had not agreed to such restrictions on non-classified material, and it would be “inappropriate” for DiSilvestro to let the FBI dictate what could be done with it.

“Absent such prior agreement, there are serious Constitutional separation of powers issues raised by the Executive Branch purporting to instruct a Senate office how to handle unclassified, non-national security information,” Grassley wrote. “It’s unclear how the Executive Branch would have any authority to do so.”

DiSilvestro’s office referred a reporter to the Senate secretary. A representative there did not return a message seeking comment.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, has said the handing over of documents was “an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI.” But, he added that “if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks.”

There already seems to have been at least one, though it is not especially negative for Clinton. The New York Times reported that she told investigators that Powell had advised her to use a personal email account, and that was included in the materials turned over to Congress. The paper reported, though, that Clinton had made the decision to use private email before Powell gave her that advice. 

Featured Posts

Police Union For NYS Troopers Want Out of NYC Because of the NO Chokeholds Law

"SEND THEM AWAY TO ANOTHER STATE I SAY" I hear Russia is Hiring...                                       ...