Trump's Campaign Website Hacked By Cryptocurrency Scammers (techcrunch.com) 108
President Trump's campaign website was briefly and partially hacked Tuesday afternoon as unknown adversaries took over the "About" page and replaced it with what appeared to be a scam to collect cryptocurrency. TechCrunch reports: There is no indication, despite the hackers' claims, that "full access to trump and relatives" was achieved or "most internal and secret conversations strictly classified information" were exposed. The hack seemingly took place shortly after 4 PM Pacific time. The culprits likely gained access to the donaldjtrump.com web server backend and replaced the "About" page with a long stretch of obfuscated javascript producing a parody of the FBI "this site has been seized" message.
"the world has had enough of the fake-news spreaded daily by president donald j trump," the new site read. "it is time to allow the world to know truth." Claiming to have inside information on the "origin of the corona virus" and other information discrediting Trump, the hackers provided two Monero addresses. Monero is a cryptocurrency that's easy to send but quite difficult to track. For this reason it has become associated with unsavory operations such as this hack. One address was for people that wanted the "strictly classified information" released, the other for those who would prefer to keep it secret. After an unspecified deadline the totals of cryptocurrency would be compared and the higher total would determine what was done with the data. "The website was reverted to its original content within a few minutes of the hack taking place," the report adds. "There is no evidence to suggest that any sensitive data, such as donator information, was accessed, but until the site administrators investigate the event thoroughly it is a remote possibility."
"the world has had enough of the fake-news spreaded daily by president donald j trump," the new site read. "it is time to allow the world to know truth." Claiming to have inside information on the "origin of the corona virus" and other information discrediting Trump, the hackers provided two Monero addresses. Monero is a cryptocurrency that's easy to send but quite difficult to track. For this reason it has become associated with unsavory operations such as this hack. One address was for people that wanted the "strictly classified information" released, the other for those who would prefer to keep it secret. After an unspecified deadline the totals of cryptocurrency would be compared and the higher total would determine what was done with the data. "The website was reverted to its original content within a few minutes of the hack taking place," the report adds. "There is no evidence to suggest that any sensitive data, such as donator information, was accessed, but until the site administrators investigate the event thoroughly it is a remote possibility."
Scammers in the Trump campaign?! (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole Trump campaign is nothing but a scam for Trump to get his uneducated racist supporters to pay his legal bills.
Lock Him Up!
(with his already jailed co-conspirators)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination."
Uno.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Had the Democrats had the numbers Merrick Garland would have been confirmed in the same circumstances.
Agreed. It is however *not* clear that the Democrats would have ever actually blocked a President from appointing a Justice.
The path we are on is *dangerous*, and the changing of Senate rules that the 2 parties engaged in previously to slowly erode supermajority requirements for confirmations is *nothing* compared to a direct statement of intent to subvert their constitutional duty to confirm Presidential appointees.
The next escalation is packing the court. What other option is there? And frankly, what ro
Re: (Score:1)
Lets not forget ir was Reid(D) who set these nuclear option shenanigans in place over a decade ago...
Re: (Score:2)
The (Nuclear Option) shenanigans actually started in 2005 when Frist (R-TN) threatened to use the nuclear option for some Bush appointees.
Some Republicans and Democrats got together (Gang of 14) to prevent that from happening.
7 Democrats and 7 Republicans got together and signed an agreement to vote for cloture in case of filibuster (Democrats) and vote against point of order in case of nuclear option (
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Biden Rule. Biden Rule. Biden Rule.
Or is it the ongoing GOP court-packing they've been doing since Raygun?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't whether you can prosecute him,\but whether you should. And after that it becomes just another case, not something that has to go to the Supreme Court.
Right, but then he appeals his way upwards, claiming some constitutional defense for his actions. And conceivably the court decides to hear the case, to avoid having any dirt he has on his appointees coming out.
Re: (Score:2)
Expanding the Supreme Court must be very high priority for Biden, and then reforming it to remove the politics from appointments.
Alternatively he could try to impeach Kavanagh. That might have the added benefit of making it possible to revisit any decisions he was involved in.
Re: (Score:2)
We will eventually find ourselves asking the question of whether or not we can prosecute an ex president for crimes committed before
Quite likely yes, we can, legally. But realistically no, we won't.
or while holding office.
More than likely no, unless it is something even more egregious than Nixon. Prosecuting a former president for crimes committed while in office opens up a dangerous can of worms, setting a precedent that could conceivably allow for political prosecution of rivals that may have committed acts that are marginally/questionably criminal or, especially if a president is able to get a Congressional and Supreme Court majority, simply retroactively
Re: Chinese propagandists? (Score:3)
Re:Scammers in the Trump campaign?! (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately it's pretty clear it didn't happen. We even have Biden's tax returns to confirm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Income usually. Overpayment for services that may not have even been rendered.
Re: (Score:1)
Cash payments don't always make it to a tax return. One reason a cashless society is far away, the pols hate the idea of all currency being traceable...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of laundering money - to make it show as legal income. Please tell me you aren't that stupid
Re: (Score:2)
You're a liar. There was no laundering - that's how Trumpolini's been making his money since the nineties.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah, the October surprise that fizzled. Put the guy under oath and allow him to be crossed examined.
Meanwhile , we objectively know that Trump had a previously unknown Chinese bank account that:
"In 2017, the company reported an unusually large spike in revenue—some $17.5 million, more than the previous five years’ combined. It was accompanied by a $15.1 million withdrawal by Mr. Trump from the company’s capital account."
https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Did Zerohedge report on this? No?
Re: (Score:2)
The $17.5 million spike in revenue wasn't in the Chinese bank account, though, it was in an American account of his American company (Trump International Hotels Management) which happens to own the Chinese company (THC China Development). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1... [nytimes.com]
The 17.5 million COULD have come from China, but there's no evidence of that in the tax returns.
Also, the Chinese bank account wasn't a secret per se. It was known to the IRS as Trump put it on his tax returns. I guess it's a secret in
Tax returns? (Score:2)
How do you have access to his tax returns?
Re: (Score:1)
Easy google search -- make me wonder why you didn't try it.
https://joebiden.com/financial... [joebiden.com]
plus this site has tax returns of many past presidents or presidential candidates.
https://www.taxnotes.com/presi... [taxnotes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Except i am still trying to find the crime for Biden... Even if true Biden in 2017 was not in public office and was joe citizen.
However, in 2017 Trump was in office. The total lack of curiosity by the likes of zerohedge, tucker, etc is astounding while they pursue the Biden nuth'n buger.
Re: (Score:2)
So what about the latest report by Forbes of the Industrial Bank of China spending millions of dollars in Trump Tower leases while Trump is president? Trump Tower, which Trump still maintains complete ownership over, and has not donated any of the profits from it to the US Treasury?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, the October surprise that fizzled.
They had multiple October surprises fizzle. Like "Hunter's" laptop magically showing up abandoned at a Delaware computer shop owned by a Trump supporter, with a harddrive full of emails that had been floating around in Ukraine for the past 2-3 years and with the most "damning" email a calendar invite. Not a meeting, an invite. The Durham probe that was unable to find evidence of a Deep State. The selective declassification of Russian investigation intel (that has been decried by both Republicans and Dem
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that were remotely true, it isn't treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Scammers in the Trump campaign?! (Score:2)
Quoting from GNews is essentially like quoting a story from Breitbart. No credibility. In fact, Miles Guo, the founder of GNews, is heavily tied to Steve Bannon and both have been pushing that one quackpot who claims to have evidence Covid19 was made in a lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking traitor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's OK for Trump to take Chinese and Russian money.
Also look up the definition of treason because taking money from anyone isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
And? So you're saying that someone got paid for advising? And that's treason? It's not. And that someone isn't Joe Biden.
And you're linking to Zerohedge who are wall-to-wall pasting a Fox news interview with the worst lying racist scumbag Tucker Carlson, if being racist was a crime then tucker would be in prison.
I just hope Joe Biden sticks to his word when it comes to trying to replace fossil fuels with renewables because his family seems to have too much interest in fossil fuels for my liking. But, he can
Re: (Score:2)
Used to chant? They still do at every rally. As is the case Trump always projects his crimes on others so he encourages it.
Re:Scammers in the Trump campaign?! (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that you morons sound like the Trump supporters who used to chant "Lock Her Up!", right?
Unlikely considering the accusation never had any substance and Clinton was cleared. Trump, however... you have to admit you lot have put a lot of overtime in trying to keep up with defending him. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of public record her staff smashed subpeonaed devices.
There's a partial truth in there, but I'm not sure it's worth discussing given your blatant disregard for it. If you have to wrap up a kernel of truth in a partisan slander, is there really any point in arguing with you? Your motives are clear.
Coney even said in his "recommend no charges" spiel that she'd violated the law.
Yes. Mens rea applies.
And thank god- I myself have had brushes with white collar criminal statutes where mens rea being non-obvious resulted in no prosecution.
People do dumb shit sometimes. You don't prosecute them for it unless there's a real reason to.
Christ you idiots are quick to defend the establishment.
So are you.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole email-gate thing is really one of the more fucking stupidest scandals I've ever seen prosecuted.
On one hand that's true, it's a tempest in a teapot. They ALL do it. On the other hand, the whole reason she used a personal server was that Colin Powell (Remember him? Remember Iraq before him?) advised her that it was a good way to avoid discovery. And her staff deliberately deleted a subset of the email stored thereon, the whole point was to destroy evidence and then they destroyed evidence. It's well-known at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
And her staff deliberately deleted a subset of the email stored thereon, the whole point was to destroy evidence and then they destroyed evidence. It's well-known at this point.
No. A contractor deleted some emails that were supposed to have been deleted months prior. The FBI doesn't believe that evidence was destroyed, did not prosecute the contractor for destroying evidence, and the contractor openly admitted to it and why he did it, and no one found any evidence that he was instructed to do so. The contractor directly received the subpoena and simply did something you're not supposed to do.
If they had suspected foul play- they would have prosecuted him.
*that* is what is known
Re: (Score:2)
Credibilty's a bitch, iddn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very open and important question: What do you do against a President that was a criminal?
We would have been able to answer that question with Nixon, only he was pardoned.
Some will argue (myself included) that this was the right move- perhaps to dodge this *very* question.
That does not detract from the validity of the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why are you surprised that Serial Liar Carlson had another serial liar on to make up nonsense, and nobody sane believes either of them?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Biden's accused this Tony fella of treason... where is this?
However, look at what Trump did to Vindman and suddenly his supporters are claiming that a military officer is above reproach?
Since this now appears to be the case here is what General Kelly said concerning Trump:
"The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life,"
Re: (Score:2)
He is a Veteran Naval Officer with Q-Security level clearance,
The fact that you're using his rather meaningless position as a previously commissioned Naval Officer with a very obscure clearance designation used by the Department of Energy tells me you're probably a twitchy ass conspiracy theorist.
and they (the biden administration) accuse him of RUSSIAN TREASON.
[citation needed]
Quit lying.
sounds a bit far out don't you think?
That some rando's status as a discharged Naval Officer with a self-claimed "Q-Security Level Clearance" is credible or relevant? Yes. Very fucking far out there.
I think you may have some stray rogue radio waves impeding your hat's neuroelectrica
Re: (Score:2)
He is a Veteran Naval Officer with Q-Security level clearance,
The fact that you're using his rather meaningless position as a previously commissioned Naval Officer with a very obscure clearance designation used by the Department of Energy tells me you're probably a twitchy ass conspiracy theorist.
and they (the biden administration) accuse him of RUSSIAN TREASON.
[citation needed]
Quit lying.
sounds a bit far out don't you think?
That some rando's status as a discharged Naval Officer with a self-claimed "Q-Security Level Clearance" is credible or relevant? Yes. Very fucking far out there.
The specific statement of him possessing a "Q" level security clearance claim is very important to his credibility. Remember, the "Q" in "QAnon" comes from the creater supposedly holding a "Q" level clearance. It's a clear and heavy-handed attempt to inflate the credibility of the claims among the Trump base and QAnon followers (which, let's be honest, heavily overlaps).
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the legal system because of crap like this, a decision like that makes me think the judge is either corrupt or a complete idiot. Fox went into full lying mode, the judge lapped it up. Saying that what Tucker says is just opinion although he is explicitly claiming facts. Saying that no-one reasonable believes anything Tucker says.... why do people have to be reasonable?? That's 100% no true Scotsman, if they believe what he says then they're not reasonable and only reasonable people matter.
I'm not say
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Riiight, riddle me this....who is more racist, the orange clown who got exactly jack shit done during his 4 years because congress was gridlocked
Trump had a Republican majority in both houses for the first 2 years. No Obamacare repeal/replacement (they have no replacement plan), no massive investment in infrastructure (the one part of Trump's platform that was actually correct-America's infrastructure sucks), couldn't build his ineffectual and overpriced wall (that Mexico was never going to pay for and Trump had to raid DoD-pro military my ass- funds just to make repairs that he later claimed was new wall), renegotiate NAFTA (all we got was NAFTA 2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Scammers in the Trump campaign?! (Score:3)
220k+ Americans plus their families would argue against Trump having no impact
Re: (Score:1)
You make some valid points, even though they don't exonerate Trump in any way of his failings. He wasn't so ineffective in collusion with foreign powers, cronyism and corruption you know.
I reply to your message for another reason though. Jimmy Carter was lot better than people give him credit for. Don't listen to republican propaganda, look at US statistics during and shortly after his presidency. Lot of things Reagan got credit for were his work.
Oof. This shouldn't be happening. (Score:2)
Seriously, why are these campaigns not taking security seriously?
I don't care what party you are; you should do your voters right and hire professionals to cover your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
the weak link is a human. you are right, they need professionals doing this, not humans.
Re:Oof. This shouldn't be happening. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the information given. They undid what the hackers were doing in only a few minutes, which says to me that the admins were literally ready and waiting to do so.
Leading to the conclusion that they knew there was an infiltration attempt taking place but were successfully stopping it, and that they then catfished it to gather information, and then went back to successfully stopping it minutes later.
Re: (Score:2)
They undid what the hackers were doing in only a few minutes, which says to me that the admins were literally ready and waiting to do so.
Physically, the President of the US is protected by the Secret Service . . . guys wearing sunglasses with radios in their ears and Uzis in their pockets.
Although they do not advertise it, I'm fairly certain that the Secret Service also has a "Cyber Branch" that protects the President online.
Re: (Score:2)
Although they do not advertise it, I'm fairly certain that the Secret Service also has a "Cyber Branch" that protects the President online.
I suspect they outsource that to the NSA or some such external agency.
However, even so, I'd hope the Secret Service are not providing IT security for a campaign website. That would be politicising their role.
Barron did it (Score:2, Informative)
i think Barron Trump did it.
So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
It would be hilarious if the password was also "maga2020!" for that website's admin account.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was the password recommended by Cybersecurity expert Rudy Colludy. And I'm sure there is evidence tying this to a deal Hunter Biden made with Chinese hackers on the child porn laden laptop Rudy keeps under his bed.
So is this also Russia or no? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry they did it to you again. Actually no, I'm not.
Re: So is this also Russia or no? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Projection is a hell of a drug, comrade.
What idiot? (Score:2)
Translation: Send us money and we might do something you like.
We already have that service: It's called Federal Government.
What idiot would enable this grab for cash?
Trump doesn't really have a campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't to say there isn't a campaign to re-elect Trump, just not one he's in charge of. Instead the Super PACs are running things and Trump is just stumping at rallies.
That said, spare a moment to think of this: The folks running these Super PACs trust Trump enough to run the country but not enough to run a campaign...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What I find interesting with the Trump campaign is that he doesn't run on a platform, go to his site and there's no indication of what he intends to do if elected.
Re: (Score:2)
go to his site and there's no indication of what he intends to do if elected.
My crystal ball says: Ignoring the "China flu" until there's a vaccine, blaming the bad economy on Democrats, and four more years of incoherent late night twitter rants.
Re: (Score:1)
The folks running these Super PACs trust Trump enough to run the country but not enough to run a campaign...
They saw what happened in NY to get the entire Trump clan banned form administering a charity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This should work out super-well for them.
They'd be better off
Re: (Score:2)
Take that a step further - they also presumably believe they will have some control over Trump should he be reelected. You know, when he will have no further use for them, and he will be emboldened the frankly cult-like support of the rank-and-file followers who manage to be religiously devoted to a man that thinks they are garbage. He does not exactly have a track record of loyalty to anyone who does not offer him some immediate advantage.
This should work out super-well for them.
The "good news" (from their point of view) is that Trump is easily influenced. The "bad news" is that Trump is easily influenced. As you correctly point out, there's no guarantee that their influence will be the one he ultimately follows. As often as not he would simply follow what he last heard, which led to a lot of his early flipflops.
Re: (Score:2)
"Take that a step further - they also presumably believe they will have some control over Trump should he be reelected. You know, when he will have no further use for them,"
He will still be broke. His golf trips aren't paying the bills. Even if he did twice as much golfing in term 2 he'd still owe the Russians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That said, spare a moment to think of this: The folks running these Super PACs trust Trump enough to run the country but not enough to run a campaign...
They trust him to run it into the ground, so they can pick up the pieces at fire sale prices. But he won't get the chance (and neither will they) if he's in charge of his own campaign, which he probably wants to lose so that he can stop doing what Uncle Vlad tells him. Although I'm not sure that would be a good idea, because at that point he will have outlived his usefulness...
Sure that's what they tell you (Score:2)
In reality Trump is just mining cryptocurrency on your computer in an attempt to pay down his crippling debt.
250,000 dead, 0 responsibility? (Score:3)
250,000 people died much earlier than they would have normally if it wasn't for Trump. He got rid of existing pandemic protocols that would have stopped the virus in China. Plans that evolved and developed as we faced the first SARS virus (2003), MERS, and Ebola.
Tweet from October 2019: https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/s... [twitter.com]
Trumps contribution: Telling people not to wear masks not to worry about the virus, who cares if it spreads to old people?
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably overstating it, but not by a whole lot. People would've died even if we'd done everything right, but not nearly as many.
ob (Score:2)