With the release of more emails today by Wikileaks from a top aide to Hillary Clinton, the shadowy internet group publicly hinted that it may hold even more up-to-date emails from John Podesta, as news reports indicate the original hack on Podesta occurred in the midst of the 2016 Presidential campaign, in late March of this year.
When you dig through the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks, one notices right away that they only go to a certain point - as no emails to or from Podesta have a date that is after March 21, 2016.
I noted that date this morning on Twitter - and Wikileaks quickly noticed.
The March date is an interesting one, because according to news reports in the last 48 hours, that is right around the time that Podesta's email account was hacked, maybe by the hacking group known as Fancy Bear.
A story from website Motherboard shows that hackers used a fake email link that Podesta used to enter his password for his gmail account.
This is a graphic used in that Motherboard story to show the phishing clicks:
Motherboard's report specifically says that Podesta received a phishing email on March 19 - as of now, the Wikileaks emails from Podesta extend just two days after that.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported today that a private internet security firm based in Atlanta has concluded that Podesta was "hacked by Russia's foreign intelligence service, the GRU, after it tricked him into clicking on a fake Google login page last March."
That would square with the Motherboard report - and square with the evidence that the Podesta emails only go to March 21, 2016 - at this point.
Here's a link to a report from the group SecureWorks that details what it found on these hacking efforts .
"Specific targets include staff working for or associated with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), including individuals managing Clinton's communications, travel, campaign finances, and advising her on policy," the group noted.
To some, a link between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence would be no surprise.
So, does Wikileaks have more?
