I wonder how John Podesta missed this alert email from Google? #podestaemails @wikileaks

There’s been lots of claims that “Russian Hackers” were at work in the hacking of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. While I can’t verify this one way or the other, I do know this  – Google sends you an email alert if Gmail has been logged into from a different location and or device than what was normally being used. The process is described here (bold mine):

Google Sends Email Notifications for New Sign-ins

Google now sends email notification when you sign in to a Google account from a new device. Here’s an excerpt from Google’s notification:

“Your Google Account was just used to sign in from Chrome on Mac. Why are we sending this? We take security very seriously and we want to keep you in the loop on important actions in your account. We were unable to determine whether you have used this browser or device with your account before. This can happen when you sign in for the first time on a new computer, phone or browser, when you use your browser’s incognito or private browsing mode or clear your cookies, or when somebody else is accessing your account.”

So when hackers gained access to Podesta’s Gmail account, there should have been an email immediately generated that looked like this (my rendition based on an example Google sign-in alert):

Example based on known Gmail alerts

That Google alert would include the IP address of where it was logged in from, which may or may not have been useful, as hackers likely would have been using an obfuscated IP on a proxy server or something similar to hide their identity. For those who don’t know, the IP address in the example above is the standard LAN base IP, so there’s no rabbit hole to go down there.

Even though Google allows you to turn off such alerts, at least one would have been generated before hackers could turn it off, unless of course Podesta had disabled alerts himself, which would have been an incredibly stupid move given his high-profile. Searching the Podesta emails at Wikileaks reveals no such email in the tranche (so far) that I can find, but hackers likely would have deleted it or not included it in their bulk download. Since it is known that Podesta gets emails on his cellphone, surely he would have seen it? We may never know, he may be too embarrassed to admit it if he did see it.

In an article published earlier today, Motherboard claims to have traced it all back to the Ukraine:

On March 19 of this year, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta received an alarming email that appeared to come from Google.

The email, however, didn’t come from the internet giant. It was actually an attempt to hack into his personal account. In fact, the message came from a group of hackers that security researchers, as well as the US government, believe are spies working for the Russian government. At the time, however, Podesta didn’t know any of this, and he clicked on the malicious link contained in the email, giving hackers access to his account.

Months later, on October 9, WikiLeaks began publishing thousands of Podesta’s hacked emails. Almost everyone immediately pointed the finger at Russia, who is suspected of being behind a long and sophisticated hacking campaign that has the apparent goal of influencing the upcoming US elections. But there was no public evidence proving the same group that targeted the Democratic National Committeewas behind the hack on Podesta—until now.

The data linking a group of Russian hackers—known as Fancy Bear, APT28, or Sofacy—to the hack on Podesta is also yet another piece in a growing heap of evidence pointing toward the Kremlin.

But then they have this disclaimer near the end of the story:

None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the US presidential election.

No smoking gun? Hmmpf.

Wikileaks mentioned today that Hillary Clinton’s claim from the third debate about this Russian connection claim being “verified by 17 intelligence agencies” is a load of bollocks:


Source: [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789173501458456576]

One has to wonder who is telling the bigger lie these days. Lately, truth seems to have become one with entropy while on a 24/7 spin cycle.

Meanwhile, some read the emails and weep, others read the emails and rejoice, some just get hopping mad.

We live in interesting times.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 20, 2016 4:21 pm

And it matters WHO hacked them because ???? I’m interested in the substance of the communications, as everyone should be. While, yes, there may be ulterior motives behind the hacker(s) hacking and releasing them, it pales in comparison to the revelations exposed. Then again there may not be ulterior motives, and they may just have been persons hacking for kicks – because they can.

Reply to  GW
October 20, 2016 5:17 pm

You hit the nail on the head. It’s the contents that are so important and leave a blood trail of collusion, lies and dirty tricks, played on a grand scale. The Hillacrat and her party are a bunch of lying cheating progressives. To them this is business as usual – nothing to see here!!!!!

Tom O
Reply to  TG
October 21, 2016 6:11 am

Why is it “assumed” that the hackers are Russians? This article says they were traced back to the Ukraine, which would have its own agenda with the election. Although Wikileaks bagged these emails somehow, the trace to the Ukraine could well mean that the Ukrainian government was trying to get “dirt” on Clinton so as to insure getting more support when she got elected. I can’t picture the Ukraine “sharing” this stuff with Russia, nor vice versa. but I can picture Poroshenko (sp) using this sort of information to “arm twist” a Clinton administration into giving him more advanced and lethal military hardware to use against the breakaway provinces.
But yes, the content is so very impressively important, and it wasn’t denied until only recently when they suddenly realized how stupid they sounded blathering about the leaks while not denying the truth of them.

Reply to  GW
October 20, 2016 7:29 pm

All unclassified Emails,even private ones, conducted on the public dime by public officials should be available for anyone’s perusal. It helps (the public) that some politicians aren’t so bright. Podesta didn’t even bother to change his password after it was in one of the Wikileaks dumps and as a result had his twitter account compromised to state that he had switched and was supporting/voting for Trump. Some are a bit smarter, as Colin Powell has said that he didn’t put anything in an unclassified Email that he didn’t want everyone to read because of hacking potential. As for Hillary she is obviously devious to the point of being criminal and completely computer illiterate to the point of not even being able to learn how to use a desk top system (not good qual’s for a president). In addition, just because the leaks originated somewhere in Russia doesn’t mean that the Russian government knows anything about it although they may be cheering them on.

Reply to  BFL
October 20, 2016 9:27 pm

+ a gazillion

Reply to  BFL
October 20, 2016 10:29 pm

At the time, however, Podesta didn’t know any of this, and he clicked on the malicious link contained in the email, giving hackers access to his account.
Jeez, come on. Even my 79 year old mother knows not to click on dodgy email links. What planet if this goof living on?
That is, assuming that the claim that he clicked on a link is even true and not totally made up speculation . “Yet another piece in a growing heap of evidence speculation and propaganda pointing toward the ” … Clinton campaign.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  BFL
October 21, 2016 12:13 am

All internet communication is public, by definition, as one cannot control where it goes physically. The internet was deliberately designed that way.

Reply to  BFL
October 21, 2016 6:36 am

“All unclassified Emails,even private ones, conducted on the public dime by public officials should be available for anyone’s perusal”
It’s called FOIA.

Reply to  BFL
October 23, 2016 2:43 pm

Russian hacking IS a big problem. I recently was attacked by Russians posing as a Nigerian banker trying to enlist my aid in money laundering somebody’s lost inheritance. True story! The Russians are nefarious.

Reply to  BFL
October 23, 2016 2:44 pm

I typed an “End Sarc” tag, but it didn’t show. Sorry. I guess I needed to put it in quotes.

Reply to  GW
October 20, 2016 8:37 pm

The latest leak is a major security breach, with the e-mails from the White House advance team, that has knowledge of travel plans of Pres Obama, and the candidates. It could be a sign of the Russians planning an assassination.

George Tetley
Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2016 1:57 am

Da? assass in ation ? Nyet! not worth the effort, the law says its forbidden to do that to idiots.

Tom O
Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2016 6:21 am

Clinton says that 17 intelligence agencies know its the Russians. I am sure there are at least some people in those agencies that are not computer illiterate, but no one has come forward publicly with evidence to that affect. On the other hand, I have seen a retired NSA member has stated that he believes the hacks were done by US intelligence – or lack of same – not the Russians. Given the history of the CIA, I would suspect that if assassinations are planned, it fits quite well with their MO, and your concern is appropriate.

Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2016 6:38 am

If they were planning an assassination, wouldn’t they keep secret the fact that they were reading the president’s itinerary?

John Silver
Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2016 6:38 am


Reply to  MikeN
October 21, 2016 6:39 am

PS: This president has been a god send for the Russians. No way they would assassinate him.

Tom Halla
October 20, 2016 4:28 pm

The Clinton machine with Podesta proves how sloppy they are. As they seem to think they are immune to ordinary restrictions and laws placed on peasant scum like us, they do not take into account that others might not properly bow and scrape to their magnificence. Many recent programs allow automatitc encryption of files, even emails, and failure to use such a program would seem to imply a sense of impunity.

October 20, 2016 4:35 pm

If Mama Clinton disregards prescribed procedures for use of the internet, why should the little bears follow?

October 20, 2016 4:40 pm

I don’t think the Democrats care a great deal that the emails were hacked, despite all the noise. Russian hackers are just a useful foil, who knows, it may or may not be true. The attitude I perceive from the Democrats is, it doesn’t matter a great deal because they can’t lose. They have treated this entire election process as a coronation of Mrs. Clinton from the get go. And they have been annoyed that anyone would get in their way. I find the attitude of the Democrats disturbing.

NW sage
Reply to  SMC
October 20, 2016 5:55 pm

Blaming the Russians accomplishes the purpose of giving the media something- ANYTHING – to talk about except the issues leaked in the emails themselves. The moral character divulged by these is NOT something to be discussed. Especially in the main-stream media who now have an excuse to talk about the Russians ad-nauseum.

Tom O
Reply to  NW sage
October 21, 2016 6:26 am

Blaming the Russians gives them plausible reason for invalidating the election if Trump wins big. My personal belief is that is the reason behind the finger pointing to start with – if the election can’t be controlled and Trump still wins, then invalidate the election and leave Obama in office until they can “secure” the voting by making it ALL electronic and controlled within the government.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  NW sage
October 21, 2016 12:33 pm

Tom O,
Sure sounds like something Ben Rhodes might dream up. After all, he has been a bit quiet lately. Wonder if he got his hand slapped for that article in the NYT.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  SMC
October 20, 2016 6:51 pm

Pretty evident that the Clinton tentacles pervade the Democratic party structure and this campaign has been 8 years in planning and preparation. Start to finish this a planned event with Sanders ( 30’s style Socialist) and Trump as wild cards only because she is such a God- awful, unlikeable, insincere candidate. If the Republicans had nominated a tackling dummy they’d be running away with it.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
October 21, 2016 2:21 am

What in the world makes you think the Repub Bosses are not “with her”, John? It sure looks to me like the fix was in, so to speak.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  John Harmsworth
October 21, 2016 6:01 am

If the Republicans had nominated a tackling dummy they’d be running away with it.

“DUH”, that’s what they did the past two (2) times when they nominated Romney and McCain as their Party’s POTUS Candidates …… and ya seen how good a “sprinter” they were.
At least McCain had a “slight” chance of winning the job of POTUS …. if not for the daily, nightly, weekly incessant “badmouthing” of Sarah Palin by the ……. dastardly, devious, dishonest, disingenuous, crooked highly partisan Democrat media, publishers, editors and “yellow” journalists, ….. the “badmouthing” mimicry of all the highly partisan Democrat lemmings, ……. and also the “badmouthing” mimicry by the RINOs in Congress.
Ells bells, compared to the “personal attacks” levied against Sara Palin and family, ….. Donald Trump is enjoying an “electioneering” cake-walk such as Hillary now is.

October 20, 2016 4:41 pm

Most politicians I’ve met are totally clueless about technology.
Hillary probably thought setting up her own email server would make her emails safer, or at least ensure she had more control over them.
Podesta probably used the name of his cat as his email password, or wrote it down somewhere, or a similar obvious mistake.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 5:09 pm

..and all the thousands of people around them agreed..and not a one of them were any smarter??…even when she was told she couldn’t use a private server??
That’s why she hired all of those experts to wipe her server…because they were totally clueless too??
>>but you are absolutely right about one thing….she did it to have total control over them

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 5:32 pm

It’s worse then we thought, most pols have a low tolerance for anyone who cannot explain it in a sound bite, that’s just how they think … “yes, that sounds good.” In my limited time in and around DC I always used to ask “do you want the real answer” or “the expedient one.” Never once did I get asked for the real answer.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 5:46 pm

Latitude, just because politicians have access to people who have technical skills doesn’t mean they themselves make good technical decisions.
Setting up her own server was a poor decision – home-brew servers are difficult to secure against expert hackers, only a dedicated team of counter-insurgents has any hope of keeping intruders out.
Getting an expert to wipe the server was an obvious thing to do, once she became worried about the contents being discovered.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 6:10 pm

thank God my watch is waterproof…..
She was told she could not use a private server…before she did it
….and according to you, she was too stupid to know better…..but yet, knew enough to set up a private server
She did it so she could slime around and get away with it…and she should be in jail

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 6:19 pm

Latitude I’m not defending Hillary’s actions or ethics, I’m critiquing the technical choices she made.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 6:30 pm

…and the choice she made was to break the law
She knew it at the time she did it.
She hired a security IT company to install her server.
There’s tons of emails showing her staff trying to figure out how to “wipe” it.
She said she handed it all over….lied…tons of emails have been found that she didn’t hand over.
The technical choice she made was to use her own server so she could avoid being caught..
..and so far, it worked
If she was as stupid as you claim…she would have used the government server she was given
..she would not have been smart enough to think to set up her own private server…doing that takes knowledge of how things work….while she claims she’s not smart enough to know how things work
She’s claiming she’s too stupid to know….it’s the Russian’s fault…..but she’s smart enough to be president

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 7:00 pm

Sorry Eric, no chance. She knew that whatever went to a government server was public material. She absolutely knew there were things she would communicate that she needed to control in perpetuity. That’s why several thousand emails were erased after she was told not to and why she should go to jail.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 10:49 pm

Getting an expert to wipe the server was an obvious thing to do, once she became worried about the contents being discovered.

Once she became worried about the content what she had allowed to be leaked being discovered. There is no point in bolting the door after the horse has bolted. This was simply a further criminal act of deleting FIOA accessible material in an attempt to pervert the course of justice by removing evidence of the confidential and classified nature of the content that she had allowed become accessed.
The server did not require wiping it just required being disconnected. Wiping was an attempt to destroy evidence.

Sorry Eric, no chance. She knew that whatever went to a government server was public material. She absolutely knew there were things she would communicate that she needed to control in perpetuity. That’s why several thousand emails were erased after she was told not to and why she should go to jail.


Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 11:24 pm

Latitude, remember this too, Cheryl Mills and the ‘Lotus Notes’ scandal during Bill Clinton’s time at the White House.
Mills knew this time on how to avoid being caught out again. I guess Hillary didn’t have a clue, but Mills had personal experience, and in my mind, suggested the ‘off the grid’ server.
Leopards never change their spots !

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 5:51 pm

..She actually stated once, that her server was safe because it was guarded by Secret Service !! lol

Phil R
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 20, 2016 6:55 pm

Dumb@ss probably used “Risotto.”

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 21, 2016 10:05 am

Eric Worrall – October 20, 2016 at 4:41 pm

Hillary probably thought setting up her own email server would make her emails safer,

Eric, the above is the only CYA that you have offered in support of Hillary’s criminal actions that I can agree with the context of …… except the two (2) words of “probably thought” which IMO you definitely got wrong. You should have stated … “Hillary intentionally ordered the installation and set-up of her basement Server in a failed attempt to ensure that both hers and Bill’s “money-negotiating” E-mails were safe from prying eyes.
It was definitely a failed attempt simply because the “installer” did not physically/electronically “ensure” that said Server installation was “safe” from the “prying eyes” and exploitation by computer “hackers”, both domestic and foreign.
And the irony of it is, the public would never have known about the aforesaid “failure” if not for “Wikiileaks”.
Eric, the actual fact is, as you stated below, to wit:

… home-brew servers are difficult to secure against expert hackers, only a dedicated team of counter-insurgents has any hope of keeping intruders out.

And my guess is, expert hackers from all over, gained access to Hillary’s basement Server, assumed Hillary’s ID and IP protocols, which gave them unfettered access to data/info on other US government Servers, mainframes, etc.
“DUH”, just which “counter-insurgent” is going to “question” requests from the Server that belongs to the “top dog” at the State Department?

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
October 21, 2016 10:10 am

+1 Sam .. if it was me doing that I’d be rotting in jail somewhere or facing the death penalty for treason.

October 20, 2016 4:50 pm

I got an alert when I changed my home ISP from Rogers.com to AOL Canada broadband.

October 20, 2016 5:01 pm

There are several ways to access a gmail account from another device without tripping the Gmail alert to the account holder.
By pure coincidence I accidentally used one on myself today. When I didn’t get the alert after accessing gmail on a new computer, I thought I might have turned the alert off by accident, and went to check settings. It was on. Took me a few minutes to figure out why. While figuring out that, I figured out a couple other ways to do it.
I’ll not detail them here. But I will make the observation that the most common attack vector these days is to compromise a network of computers in such a manner that the hacker can appear as the legitimate end user on the victim’s own computer. This or other strategies would easily guard against the Gmail alert being sent.
The alert is not in the e-mail dump (in my opinion) because it was most likely was never generated.

October 20, 2016 5:04 pm

They even send you an alert if you merely sign in from a different browser.

Bill Illis
October 20, 2016 5:05 pm

The US spends about $80 billion per year on intelligence gathering despite the fact the Dems now say it is an immoral venture.
So what we do is elect Hillary to be in charge and Podesta could easily be the chief of staff and then they use their personal email servers set-up in a White House storage room by a staffer that knows nothing about IT security and NOW the Russians know every secret there is to get regarding the US. Good plan voting public.

Reply to  Bill Illis
October 20, 2016 6:09 pm

Our own intelligence gathering may include hacking the phones of allied leaders: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/world/europe/germany-us-merkel-phone-monitoring/index.html
Righteous indignation? Really?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 20, 2016 7:06 pm

Hackers abound and most are unbound. Guaranteed both GOP and Dems are regularly fed juicy information that they have to be careful not to reveal the source.

October 20, 2016 5:28 pm

The email may have gone through a gmail server but that doesn’t mean it was hacked there. More than likely somewhere else along the way that was storing the emails.
That said I’m shocked that people actually think email is safe. It is like a postcard NOT a sealed envelope. Anyone along the way can pick it up, read it, and send it on its way. No decrypting required.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  TRM
October 20, 2016 5:41 pm

Exactly, having spent my formative years at the University of Utah I know, from the horses mouth, that packet switching was meant to be public and open, (my first class in software engineering was taught by Sutherland, and Catmull was a TA).

Reply to  TRM
October 20, 2016 6:37 pm

It is possible to use a secure encryption envelope on email. But not using webmail or default configuration of any of the common email clients.

October 20, 2016 5:30 pm

New sign-in from Chrome on Linux

I totally freaked until I figured out what was going on. That’s me though. I don’t think most people would give it a second thought.
I believe that John Podesta had no clue.
My poster child for naive and clueless is David Petraeus. He was head of the CIA and thought he could hide his clandestine sexting with one simple trick. Did he think that being the boss of a bunch of spies made him a security expert? It cost him his career.

Reply to  commieBob
October 20, 2016 5:58 pm

David Petraeus was charged with purposely leaving a classified PAPER document out in open so his biographer could view it …no computer involved …..IIRC…

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2016 12:51 am

The whole sad thing started in 2012 when Petraeus’ mistress sent harassing emails to someone who notified a friend in the FBI because she thought Petraeus was being blackmailed. The FBI discovered the illicit communications and Petraeus was forced to resign. Some time later in 2015 he was convicted of mishandling classified information. link

Reply to  commieBob
October 20, 2016 6:43 pm

Also Petraeus did a lot less than scary Hillary and lost his job.

October 20, 2016 5:37 pm

Let’s get serious here.
Do we really think that any hacker would be unaware of Google’s security measures, and wouldn’t know how to bypass them?
Hackers have trawled the servers at the CIA with impunity. Do you really think Google on Hillary’s server would be any impediment?
The whole point of hacking is to get in, collect the treasure, and get out without the target knowing.
Professional hackers are very good at this, and would have hacked Hillary on their coffee break

October 20, 2016 5:41 pm

We are living the Chinese curse, ‘May you live in interesting times.’

Leon Brozyna
October 20, 2016 5:42 pm

A couple decades ago, when the internet was still an infant crawling on all fours and email was the biggest thing around, I received some sound advice – – – assume that whatever you send out via email can be read by anybody, that it is never private.
Of course, these days it’s any even scarier world, with emails from strangers or that look like they came from your bank or phone calls from unknown businesses even though you’re on the no-call registry … which leaves you with two simple choices … be smart or become a hermit.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 20, 2016 6:17 pm

“…or become a hermit.”
not a bad idea… (☺)

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 20, 2016 10:29 pm

I’ve become a hermit… Mostly.

October 20, 2016 5:49 pm

Actually Anthony, all he had to do was open a virus loaded email and they would have complete access to his hard drive, stealing all his passwords. Then they could wait till late at night when he is offline and probably sleeping, then they could answer answer the Google warning themselves and say it was ok…then delete the Email…He never would have seen it..IMHO

October 20, 2016 5:50 pm

It looks like Podesta made a very common mistake: Clicking on an attachment. This is one of the primary ways hackers get into computers. Which means you don’t have to be that sophisticated to be a hacker, you just have to find some clueless computer users to click on your email exploit.
I imagine a lot of people have had a look at Hillary’s server and all those connected to it. Hacking doesn’t require a state sponsor.
Hillary’s focus on the hacking being by the Russians is just a distraction to deflect attention from what is actually in the emails. It makes no difference who did the hacking. What matters is the Hillary Clinton deceptions that have been exposed. Deceptions that make her unfit to serve as president, or anything else, other than an inmate.

Reply to  TA
October 20, 2016 6:05 pm

Yes, and many people fall for it !! there is a big one going around asking you to send money to the Trump campaign, but if you look at the sending address, it is jibberish..

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2016 4:33 am

I have never clicked on an attachment in an email. That was “Computer 101” when I started out. It still should be.

Curious George
October 20, 2016 6:07 pm

I wonder how this campaign could even happen.

October 20, 2016 6:09 pm

Maybe off topic, but definitely relevant..From Fox News…
“Clinton’s debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions”
Her bad judgement is definitely dangerous to the U.S.A….

October 20, 2016 6:13 pm

My significant other banks mostly on line for convenience (five rental properties) and has been hacked countless times. Switched her to full Mac from Windows emulator for half the computer, hacks lessened but but did not stop (apparently the emulator does not have sufficient firewalls.) The last episode worth ~$250 was this past Monday. Paypal charge when she does not have a Paypal account. Reversed by the bank after two hours, after their independent confirmation she does not have PayPal account.
Me, mostly written checks when not on some secure auto pay (think USAA for vets). Postage stamps seem like cheap hack insurance. Especially given a high hackable net worth.

Reply to  ristvan
October 21, 2016 4:30 am

I’m a firm believer in snail mail.

Caligula Jones
October 20, 2016 6:15 pm

I wish more people would understand that “hacking” basically means “guessing passwords”.
And as Kevin Mitnick pointed out, social engineering is as important as understanding thousands of lines of code. One of his “hacks” was simply pulling a company phone book out of the garbage. Its not what you know. Its not who you know. Its what you know about who you know.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
October 20, 2016 6:42 pm

The leading vulnerability on a computer system is often the authorized user getting fooled, coerced, or corrupted.

Richard Dyson
October 20, 2016 6:45 pm

and this has anything to do with a Climate Change website how?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
October 20, 2016 10:33 pm

Anthony, this story is important. Thank you for posting it.

Reply to  Richard Dyson
October 21, 2016 3:15 am

Because Podesta has been a major driver of the AGW agenda. He was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. He founded the Center for American Progress with money from “progressive” billionaires, such as Sandler and Soros. Climate Progress is part of the outfit, Joe Romm is a Senior Fellow at CAP.
Carol Browner, former Obama climate czar, EPA head under Bill Clinton, a former Vice -President of Socialist International, a member of Hillary’s re-election team and a long time architect of the EPA Endangerment finding, is on the board at CAP. Tom Steyer is also on the board at CAP.
“and this has anything to do with a Climate Change website how?”
How, indeed.

October 20, 2016 6:47 pm

“verified by 17 intelligence agencies”
Why is this considered a whopper of a lie, I am just wanting more information, not defending anyone.

Reply to  nc
October 20, 2016 8:42 pm

nc….there are not that many intelligence agencies that have authorization to be involved in cyber/security particularly outside the US. Additionally, if we knew, why would we tell? Why would we release this classified information to the Clinton campaign or the press? Top Secret used to mean something.

Reply to  nc
October 21, 2016 3:19 am

Check out the story here:
“As head of the entire intelligence community, Director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group.
As to Clinton’s assertion that “17 agencies that actually confirmed” it was the Russians, it turns out that it was DCI Clapper who was the source. Clapper is the same man who was accused by two Congressmen of committing perjury before a House committee investigating NSA domestic surveillance. The actual statement he released about the supposed Russian involvement with the leak of the Clinton campaign emails was, “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.”
His statement does not contain the word “confirmed.”
http:// http://www.speroforum.com/a/WVNHCDROEJ57/79106-Fact-17-intelligence-agencies-did-not-confirm-Russia-is-behind-email-hacks?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ZRHXIDNMAA57&utm_content=WVNHCDROEJ57&utm_source=news&utm_term=Fact+17+intelligence+agencies+did+not+confirm+Russia+is+behind+email+hacks#.WAnDlSRQUpQ

Joel O’Bryan
October 20, 2016 6:57 pm

So why do we have to believe his GMail credentials were what was “hacked.”
If he clicked on a malicious link, and the malicious code thatwas activated was state-designed and therefore likely sophosticated, his entire machine’s OS was compromised. They could have key logged his accesses to far more than his GMail credentials, but other secure login credentials. Things they could have gotten include personal banking access, access to VPN tunnels on his machine to secure networks at his Progress lobbying group, the DNC network, …. everything. Then a good state actor will exit silently removing any hack tools as they exited to prevent forensics. Likely in a way just as they did Hillary’s home server 4 years ago.

Lone Gunman
October 20, 2016 8:11 pm

Maybe the hackers DELETED that Gmail notification? If they could log into his account then they could deleted that notification.

October 20, 2016 8:13 pm

“The Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.”
The number 17 is somewhat misleading as not every agency did its own separate investigation, but there is no question that the U.S. intelligence community has publicly stated that Russia is behind the hacking.

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 20, 2016 10:35 pm

Truth will out, its wonders to perform;
Painted lilies, corruption to adorn.

Reply to  kim
October 21, 2016 5:27 am

Likewise from Chaucer …
‘Mordre wol out, that se we day by day.
Mordre is so wlatsom and abhomynable
To God that is so just and resonable,
That he ne wol nat suffre it heled be,
290 Though it abyde a yeer, or two, or thre.
Mordre wol out, this my conclusioun.’

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 20, 2016 11:19 pm

Thanks Zeke.

“We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

Note the : “who have all concluded ”
When I heard that in the debate it definitely sounded that she was claiming there 17 agencies who had ALL said Russia was behind it. This seemed obviously untrue to me but I did not dig into proving it was.
Politifact did and came to the oppostie conclusion which tells me how much I cant trust them.
So at least we see where the number 17 came from. So what Clinton said several timesin the debate was just “somewhat misleading” misleading, it was a lie.
Thanks again Zeke, very useful on two counts.

Reply to  Greg
October 21, 2016 6:34 am

“So what Clinton said several timesin the debate was just “somewhat misleading” misleading, it was a lie.”
Hillary said her Clinton Foundation paid out 90 percent of donations to help people. The Truth is the Clinton Foundation paid out abut six percent of donations to help people. Hillary lies all the time. Just about everything she says is a lie. You should assume she is lying if you see her lips are moving. She is a pathological liar, just like her husband Bill, and Barack Obama.

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 21, 2016 6:30 am

“The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.””
Don’t you love it, the TRUTH interferes with the current election, according to The U.S. Director of National Intelligence. I guess the truth *would* interfere with the election, if you were Hillary or one of her supporters.

Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 21, 2016 7:36 am

Zeke, surely, by now, everyone here must be familiar with the concept of “proof by consensus” …

October 20, 2016 8:15 pm

So if hackers could log into his account, they could also DELETE the login notification because they knew it was coming!

October 20, 2016 10:41 pm

Lol!! It was gmail that got hacked? Well doesn’t that make them stupid for using them in the first place. Seriously didn’t they learn anything from the witch hunt they tried on Palin? That was WELL before Clinton became SoS.

Reply to  pkatt
October 20, 2016 10:44 pm

Oh and it does not take a russian to hack gmail. Half the time they lose the user names and passwords themselves.

richard verney
October 20, 2016 11:38 pm

I found Hillary Clinton’s comments about the hacking surprising.
I do not know whether Russia is behind the hack or not, but I am surprised that Clinton raised this since it confirms how reckless and wrongful it was for her to have official/government emails on her own private equipment/servers.
A person’s individual equipment is obviously far less secure than the government servers. It is far easier for Russia (or anyone else for that matter) to hack personal computers/servers.
Her action with her personal email account therefore placed American security at extreme risk from hacking and this cavalier attitude to state security alone suggests that Hillary Clinton is not a fit and proper person for public office.

Chris in Hervey Bay
October 20, 2016 11:39 pm

Here we go again.
There must be a lot of new posters or us older ones have a short memory.
When the FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, announce the name of our famous ‘FOIA’ I’ll believe they know who ‘Hacked’ the DNC.
It has only been nine years come November, and it seems no one has a clue.
I reckon it was an inside job and the emails walked out the door on a thumb drive.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
October 20, 2016 11:47 pm

Sorry, 7 years.

October 21, 2016 12:31 am

Totally pointless article. If you go to bed at 10pm and check your email account at 6.30am the next morning, then it is a little bit too late, now is it?

October 21, 2016 1:54 am

Anybody with an ounce of sense should know that anything that is put on the net, is open. I even worry about financial information. It’s all subject to being hacked. There for awhile terroists were watching the same live feeds in real time from drone strikes. There’s a database on all of us, sorted and complied. There is a K chip in all the switches allows all the information to be read. And who knows how many back doors exist. Somebody has to have overall admin. Any real work I do is still done with pen and paper, and computers that never see the net. No cameras, WiFi or mics.

Reply to  rishrac
October 21, 2016 2:00 am

Absolutely.. Having “online” and “offline” computers protects your “special” data…

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2016 8:47 am

It does, my windows 95 machine loads and excuses faster than my 64 bit quad processor machine. Which is soon going offline and a new hard drive with software that supports a 64 bit machine. And the windows 95 doesn’t sit and spin. I don’t turn it on and go for coffee.

Reply to  rishrac
October 21, 2016 11:17 am

“excuses faster” – is that a Freudian slip? 🙂

Reply to  philjourdan
October 21, 2016 4:32 pm

Probably a word correct slip… a new problem, can’t understand why the computer didn’t know what I meant 😊

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2016 9:56 am

I bet it can’t make up excuses faster than my ex could.

Reply to  Marcus
October 21, 2016 4:45 pm

Not so special as priopertary. Who still programs in Fortran or Assembler? Not that I ever had a position in programming.

George Tetley
October 21, 2016 2:15 am

Whats with the clintons legs? Watching her climb some stairs on TV the most obvious thing was the size of her legs, even as she is a midget her legs would do” justice” to King Kong

October 21, 2016 4:11 am

It’s far more likely that the hack was internal and due to a worker who discovered that they still had a conscience. Blaming the Russians is just a way for a corrupt group of parasites to avoid being accountable for what the emails reveal. It is what slimeballs do when they can’t answer tough questions.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  hunter
October 21, 2016 5:16 am

Climategate !!

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
October 21, 2016 9:55 am

Hillary said that of Trump, ” always blaming someone else for his failures ” .. What!!?

October 21, 2016 4:59 am

There is another possibility. That Podesta’s computer itself was compromised (or his android or whatever). Then there would be no error generated since they would be pulling the emails straight off of his computer.
And another possibility is that the email was generated, but they deleted it to prevent Podesta from knowing about the breach. While Google does send alerts, if you do not put in an alternate email address, it sends it to your account. So they immediately deleted it.
But then there is also door #3 which is that Podesta turned it off. There are only 2 people who know what really happened (well 1, plus a clueless idiot), and I doubt either are going to tell the story.

October 21, 2016 6:34 am

With proffessional hackers, if you don’t catch them in the act, it is pretty close to impossible to track the hack back to it’s source.
If they are claiming that 6 months after the fact, they were able to trace the hack then one of two things is likely.
1) The hackers weren’t professionals. IE, it wasn’t the Russians.
2) They are lying.

Reply to  MarkW
October 21, 2016 4:51 pm

I’m opting for choice number 2

mark - Helsinki
October 21, 2016 10:26 am

A conscientious democrat logged into Podesta’s emails and downloaded them. Just like someone conscientious released the CRU emails.

Joel Snider
October 21, 2016 12:19 pm

Well, considering that Hillary was the one operating the unsecured server, what is the likelihood that it was from her accounts that they accessed all the others?

Jeff Alberts
October 21, 2016 12:24 pm

Umm, if someone logged into his email from an unusual device/location, and an email was generated, couldn’t the logged in culprit simply delete the email as soon as it was generated? Am I missing something?

October 21, 2016 8:14 pm

Absolutely salivating at the thought of a Hillary presidency. Can’t wait for the senate to turn blue and possibly the house too. You CD’s couldn’t arrange a shag in a brothel.

Prof. S Greene
October 21, 2016 8:27 pm

If the hacks were from NSA, there will be fireworks if HRC wins eh?

October 21, 2016 8:30 pm

If the hacks came from NSA ,there will be fireworks if HRC is elected eh?

James Francisco
October 22, 2016 5:34 am

How dare the Russians try to affect our elections, that’s the job of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, BBC, TIME MAGAZINE, WASHINGTON POST, NEW YORK TIMES and most of rest of our media.

Hocus Locus
October 22, 2016 2:24 pm

Oh, that???
No the FBI already gave us a good clue back in September.
By (as of September 27) having failed to contact the server’s operator for logs.
Common knowledge that the one who compromised the Russian server-for-hire used it as a springboard. But from where? The server’s owner claims to have if not the answer, at least the 2nd traceback address.
Now this could mean that the FBI, upon seeing a Russian ip address, was instructed NOT to pursue the matter any further. Because someone highly placed in the US government wanted to pin it on the Russians, and they think IT people are stupid.
Or perhaps, the FBI is stupid.
Lose-lose for them.

Clif westin
October 23, 2016 7:56 am

Unless they used Remote Desktop then there would be no warning.

October 24, 2016 10:53 am

I still believe it is far more likely to have been and inside job (i.e. Seth Rich, as Assange suggests) than unknown ‘Russian hackers’, but that would imply that the DNC had dissention in the ranks, which their egos would never admit. It is characteristic of political idealists that they cannot seem to admit their own fallibility.

October 25, 2016 3:11 pm

Has this $3 million anti-Murdoch plot from Clinton campaign chairman Podesta’s hacked emails been mentioned?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights