Well, the Report Declares 22 Million Not 11 Million Illegals

State by State: The Cost of Illegal Immigration ...

Foreign nationals are increasingly gaining the ability to influence American elections more directly. They’re being granted the right to vote.

From Boston, where the city council is debating the move, to San Francisco, where noncitizens gained the right earlier this month in school-board elections, jurisdictions are looking to expand the boundaries of the electorate beyond its citizens.

***

Primer: This was compiled by Yale and MIT. Have you considered how many U.S. House Representatives exist from districts where illegals and foreign nationals are the majority? 20? 10? 40?

Context: The Democrats on the Dreamer thing were and are willing to sacrifice the interests of 325 million Americans in order to gain unconditional amnesty for 3.4 million illegal aliens.

The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016

In part: Our analysis has two main outputs. First, we generate what we call our conservative estimate, using parameter values that intentionally underestimate population inflows and overestimate population outflows, leading to estimates that will tend to underestimate the number of undocumented immigrants. Our conservative estimate for 2016 is 16.7 million, well above the estimate that is most widely accepted at present, which is for 2015 but should be comparable. Our model as well as most work in the literature indicates that the population size has been relatively stable since 2008; thus 2015 and 2016 are quite comparable. For our second step, recognizing that there is significant uncertainty about population flows, we simulate our model over a wide range of values for key parameters. These parameter values range from very conservative estimates to standard values in the literature. We sample values for each key parameter from uniform distributions over the ranges we establish. In our simulations, we also include Poisson population uncertainty conditional on parameter values, thus addressing the inherent variability in population flows. Our simulation results produce probability distributions over the number of undocumented immigrants for each year from 1990 to 2016. The results demonstrate that our conservative estimate falls towards the bottom of the probability distribution, at approximately the 2.5th percentile. The mean of the 2016 distribution is 22.1 million, which we take as the best overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants based on our modeling approach and current data. We also show the variability in our model based on the simulations for each year from 1990 through 2016.

***

Population inflows

Population inflows are decomposed into two streams: (I) undocumented immigrants who initially entered the country legally but have overstayed their visas; and (II) immigrants who have illegally crossed the border without being apprehended. We describe our approach for each source, explain the basis for our assumptions and why they are conservative, and list parameter ranges for the simulation.

(I) Visa overstays are estimated using Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data for 2016, the first year for which visa overstays were comprehensively measured [5]. To apply this data in our context we also gather data for non-immigrant visas issued for all years from 1990 [6]. For our conservative estimate we assume that for each year the rate of overstays was equal to the 2016 rate. Calibration of our model shows that this assumption is in fact quite conservative. In particular, approximately 41% of undocumented immigrants based on the current survey data approach are visa overstayers [7], which translates to a visa overstay population of 4.6 million in 2015. Our model however predicts the number of overstayers to be less than this (even though our overall estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants is higher). That is, in our model most undocumented immigrants are not overstayers, and the model produces an estimate of the number of overstayers below the estimate produced in the conventional approach based on survey data. We compute that we would need to set the visa overstay rate above the DHS 2016 rate, specifically 1.1 times that rate, for our conservative estimate to generate as many overstayers as the 4.6 million in the 11.3 million estimate. Since many overstayers leave or adjust their status within a few months of their visa expiration date, we make a further conservative adjustment and count as overstayers only those individuals who have overstayed more than 1 year. For the simulation, we set the visa overstay rate equal to the 2016 rate multiplied by a uniform draw from the range [0.5,1.5]; consistent with the discussion above, this is a relatively conservative range.

(II) Illegal Border Crossers: We estimate illegal border crossers through application of the standard repeated trials (capture-recapture) model [810]. The model requires as inputs statistics on the total number of border apprehensions, the number of individuals apprehended more than once in a year (recidivist apprehensions), and estimates of the deterrence rate—the fraction of individuals who give up after being apprehended and do not attempt another crossing. Given these inputs, the repeated trials model generates estimates of: (i) the apprehension rate—the probability an individual is caught trying to cross the border; and (ii) the total number of individuals who are not apprehended (they may be caught one or more times but cross successfully on a later attempt) and enter the interior of the country illegally—the number of illegal border crossers in a year. We discuss data sources and potential weaknesses of this approach here; more information and mathematical details are provided in the Supporting Information.

DHS [10, 11] provide figures for the total number of border apprehensions for every year in our timespan. They also provide information on the number of recidivist apprehensions and estimates of the deterrence rate for every year from 2005. Based on these figures and estimates they provide an estimate of the apprehension rate for each year from 2005 to 2015. Their estimate is 35% for 2005 and increases steadily, to above 50% by the end of the sample period. From their estimates we are able to derive directly estimates of the number of illegal border crossers for each of these years. For earlier years (1990 to 2004) we must make further assumptions. Our assumptions are about the apprehension and deterrence rates, since these have been addressed in the literature; in turn we are able to generate estimates of the number of illegal border crossers in earlier years based on these assumptions (see the Supporting Information for analytic details).

Most experts agree that the apprehension rate was significantly lower in earlier years [12, 13]. A recent study [12] using data from the Mexican Migration Project estimates this rate for every year from 1990 to 2010; estimates in the 1990’s begin from the low twenties and range upwards to approximately 30%. A second study estimates the rate for 2003 at around 20% [13]. Given these estimates, and the general view that apprehension rates have risen, for our conservative estimate we assume that the apprehension rate in years 1990-2004 was equal to the average rate in years 2005-10 or 39%; this is well above the rates discussed in the literature for earlier years and thus tends to reduce our estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants since it implies a larger fraction are apprehended at the border. For our simulation we assume a uniform distribution over the range [0.25,0.40] for the earlier years, still above the average rates in the literature for these years.

Additional facts support the view that the apprehension rate has increased in recent years. The number of border agents has increased dramatically over the timespan of our analysis [14], and the number of hours spent by border agents patrolling the immediate border area has increased by more than 300% between 1992- 2004 [15]. Further, new infrastructure (e.g., fences) and technologies (e.g., night vision equipment, sensors, and video imaging systems) were also introduced during this period [15]. Thus the apprehension rate we use for earlier years almost certainly overstates the actual apprehension rate and therefore underestimates the number of successful crossings. However, we note that these additional border resources may have been concentrated in certain locations and it remains a possibility that apprehension rates were higher in earlier years. We note finally that in using data only on Southern Border crossings we again are conservative in our approach, not accounting for illegal crossings along other borders.

Notwithstanding our view that we make conservative choices in setting up our model and parameter values, we acknowledge that border apprehension rates for the 1990’s are not based on as well-developed data sources as estimates for more recent years. Thus it remains a possibility that these rates are higher than we believe. One aspect of this uncertainty concerns deterrence. When deterrence is higher border crossings will fall. Most researchers believe deterrence has increased in recent years [8, 12]. We note that reference [12] estimates that the probability of eventual entry after multiple attempts on a single trip in the 1990s is close to one, indicating almost no deterrence in the earlier period. One piece of evidence in support of this is data on the voluntary return rate, which refers to the percentage of individuals apprehended at the border who are released back to their home country without going through formal removal proceedings and not being subjected to further penalties. Voluntary returns are thus not “punished” and thus are less likely to be deterred from trying to cross the border in the future, compared with individuals who are subjected to stronger penalties. The voluntary return rate has fallen in recent years, from 98% between 2000 and 2004 to 84% between 2005 and 2010. Thus, at least based on this measure deterrence efforts have increased. However, this does not conclusively demonstrate that deterrence was lower in earlier years and it remains a possibility that it was higher, which would tend to reduce our estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants. In conclusion we note that although there is much uncertainty about the border apprehension rate, it would have to be very high, above 60% for earlier years, in order to generate estimates of the 2015 population of undocumented immigrants in the range of the current widely accepted estimate of just over 11 million (this is based on analyzing our model using the conservative estimate values for all other parameters). This seems implausible based on our reading of the literature.

Population outflows

Population outflows are broken into four categories: (I) voluntary emigration; (II) mortality; (III) deportation; and (IV) change of status from unauthorized to lawful.

(I) Voluntary emigration rates are the largest source of outflow and the most uncertain based on limited data availability. It is well accepted that voluntary emigration rates decline sharply with time spent in the country [16]; thus we employ separate emigration rates for those who have spent one year or less in the U.S., 2-10 years, or longer. We use the following values for our conservative estimate. First, for those who have spent one year or less we assume a voluntary emigration rate of 40%. This estimate is based on data for the first-year visa overstay exit rate (the fraction of overstayers who left the country within one year from the day their visa expired) for 2016 [17], which is in the lower thirty percent range (the rate for 2015 is similar). We note that the rate for visa overstayers is very likely a substantial overestimate for illegal border crossers, who are widely viewed as having a lower likelihood of exiting in the first year, especially in more recent years [12]. The 40% first-year emigration rate that we assume is well above the standard values in the literature [4, 12, 16, 18], which range from 1% to 25%. Hence this assumption contributes to making our estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants in the country a conservative one. For years 2-10 we assume a rate of 4% per year. This is the upper bound among estimates in the literature, which lie between 0.01 to 0.04 [4, 16, 18]. Lastly, for years 10 and above, published estimates of the emigration rate typically fall around 1%; we set this rate to 1% per year in line with these estimates. Note that given the extremely high 40% emigration rate that we assume for those who have only been in the country for one year or less, overall annual emigration rates in our model simulation are significantly higher than those found in the literature or government sources. To further enhance the conservatism of our model, we assume that all undocumented immigrants present at the beginning of 1990 have been here for only one year. Read the whole report here.

Kamala Harris Led the Disdain for ‘That Book’

Listening carefully to each of the Democrats during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was quite revealing. Many prefaced their questions with statements challenging Judge Kavanaugh on his fealty to the Constitution. Senator(s) Coons, Booker, Harris, Whitehouse and others proved their hypocrisy and disdain for The Founders, The Federalists, The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society calling those organizations highly partisan.  The moral standards and beliefs of the Democrats were applied conveniently as a weapon in countless exchanges during the past several days of the hearings.

In fact, The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society was branded often as contentious organizations, right-winged and in some cases radical. Hummm

About ‘that book’ though: Personally, I was struck how Brett Kavanaugh held his pocket edition of the Constitution almost as a his lifeline and how worn out it was. His loyalty and allegiance to the Constitution was quite refreshing and mostly reassuring.

When it comes to the Federalists, they were a group of supporters to the Constitution that were diligent to the assurance of a decentralized system of government. Many of Judge Kavanaugh’s 300 plus decisions were based on that very concept and applying the law as passed by Congress.

What about those demands for documents?

Oh, what about this?

Or this?

Ahem…

If Senator Coons has know Brett Kavanugh for thirty years….why all the challenge then? Watch this video and tally the statements made by the Senator that turned out to be untrue in 11 minutes.

Outside the mainstream? Exactly what does that mean? Anyone? Uphold or undermind the founding principles? Really?

Hey, the Mayor of Atlanta has Joined the anti-ICE Movement

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms on Thursday signed an executive order for transferring all remaining U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees out of the city jail and declaring that Atlanta will no longer hold anyone for the federal agency.

The Democratic mayor’s move follows a separate executive order from June that blocked the jail from taking in any new ICE detainees amid enforcement of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy on the southwest border, which split up many immigrant families. Bottoms has vigorously objected to that federal policy.

“Atlanta will no longer be complicit in a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the horrific fallout,” Bottoms told reporters moments before signing her executive order. “As the birthplace of the civil rights movement we are called to be better than this.”

Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican nominee for governor, criticized the mayor’s move in a statement he released Thursday afternoon.

“The City of Atlanta should focus on cleaning up corruption and stopping crime — not creating more of it,” he said.

So….how about it Atlanta…what say you about her oath of office?

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING; OATH OF OFFICE; MANDATORY TRAINING
.
(As taken from the Atlanta City Code of Ordinances)
Section 2-301.-
Organizational meeting; oath of office; mandatory training
.
(a) Organizational meeting.
The council shall meet for organization in the council chamber, or any
other designated public place, on the first Monday in January following each regular election, or, if such Monday is a legal holiday, then on the next following day not a legal holiday.
(b) Oath of office.
At such organizational meeting, the mayor, president of the council, and
council members shall take and subscribe before a judge of the superior court, or any official authorized to administer oaths, the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the [mayor, president of the council, council member] City Council of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. I will not knowingly permit my vote to be influenced by fear, favor, affection, or reward, and in all things pertaining to my office. I will be governed by the public good
and the interests of the City. I will observe the provisions of the Charter, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Atlanta, and I will support and defend the Constitutions of the State of Georgia and the United States of America. I am not the holder of any office of trust under the government of the United States, any other state, or any foreign state which I am prohibited from holding by the laws of the State of Georgia; I am not the holder of any unaccounted-for public money due this state or any
political subdivision or authority thereof; I have been a resident of the City of Atlanta [and Council District] and am otherwise qualified to hold this office by the Constitution and laws of this State and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Atlanta, so help me God.” More here.
So….Atlanta, (an international city/hub) how about challenging this Mayor on this topic of which Atlanta was part of for starters?

WASHINGTON – Law enforcement officials from the United States and the United Kingdom wrapped up Friday a “week of action” during which they conducted outreach at major international airports with the goal of education about and prevention of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). This outreach, called “Operation Limelight”, was conducted at four international airports in the U.S.—John F. Kennedy International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport—and at Heathrow Airport and train stations throughout the UK.

On August 30, law enforcement from the two nations also gathered at the U.S. embassy in London to sign a proclamation affirming their commitment to end the practice of FGM/C in both countries and around the world. The proclamation reads, in part:

“Female genital mutilation/cutting is a global issue that transcends our borders. FGM/C is a culturally-based, gender-specific form of violence and when performed on girls under the age of 18, it is child abuse. The top priorities of the U.K. and U.S. are safeguarding girls through prevention, multi-agency partnership and education. These efforts require that we learn and share our experiences and cooperate through both our informal and formal engagements. Through existing police to police and mutual assistance agreements and arrangements, the U.S. and U.K. law enforcement intend to share intelligence to enhance our knowledge of, and response to female genital mutilation. This collaboration seeks to build our intelligence capacity to identify those involved in perpetrating or facilitating FGM/C offences whilst safeguarding potential victims.”

Signatories of the proclamation include representatives from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, London Metropolitan Police Service, UK National Police Chiefs Council, UK Border Force, UK Crown Prosecution Service, and British Transport Police.

“Our agency is committed to pursuing those who commit or allow female genital mutilation. Through outreach and investigations, we will work to eradicate this form of abuse,” said Louis A. Rodi, III, Deputy Assistant Director, National Security Investigation Division, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations.  “We value our partnerships with UK law enforcement as well as with other U.S. federal agencies, including the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This collaboration strengthens our resolve to carry out this important work to protect women and girls and investigate crimes against them.”

“FGM is a barbaric and violent crime enacted on girls who suffer the results for the rest of their lives. It is child abuse, and no religion, culture or tradition should be allowed to mitigate or make an excuse for such appalling crimes. It is even more traumatic because it is generally committed or facilitated by their families who they should look to for love and protection,” said United Kingdom’s National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead on Female Genital Mutilation Commander Ivan Balhatchet. “FGM is hugely complex to investigate and prosecute. Frequently, the survivor is unwilling to give evidence against those closest to them, and some cases of FGM occur prior to the arrival of the survivor in the UK.

Belhatchet continued, “the US shares the same goal but also the same challenges. This proclamation will mean both the UK and US learn more about FGM, the routes taken by perpetrators and when and where it is committed; this is particularly important because we know that perpetrators continue to adapt to evade detection. We also want this agreement and our joint operation to send a signal to those planning to commit FGM that we will do everything we can to protect girls and prosecute offenders.

“FGM is not something we can eradicate alone. We need everyone who works with children and young people to be alert to signs of FGM and tell [law enforcement] about them. We also need the public and other support groups to speak out and share information with us.”

For more information about the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting, view this video from the U.S. Department of State or visit the United Nations’ Zero Tolerance Day website.

Female genital mutilation/cutting is a federal crime in the United States, and any involvement in committing this crime is a serious human rights violation which may result in imprisonment and potential removal from the U.S. Individuals suspected of female genital mutilation/cutting, including sending girls overseas to be cut, may be investigated by the Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center (HRVWCC) and prosecuted accordingly.

Established in 2009, the HRVWCC furthers ICE’s efforts to identify, locate and prosecute human rights abusers in the United States, including those who are known or suspected to have participated in persecution, war crimes, genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings, FGM/C, and the use or recruitment of child soldiers. The HRVWCC leverages the expertise of a select group of agents, lawyers, intelligence and research specialists, historians and analysts who direct the agency’s broader enforcement efforts against these offenders.

Since 2003, ICE has arrested more than 410 individuals for human rights-related violations of the law under various criminal and/or immigration statutes. During that same period, ICE obtained deportation orders against and physically removed 908 known or suspected human rights violators from the United States.  Additionally, ICE has facilitated the departure of an additional 122 such individuals from the United States.

Currently, ICE has more than 135 active investigations into suspected human rights violators and is pursuing more than 1,750 leads and removals cases involving suspected human rights violators from 95 different countries. Since 2003, the HRVWCC has issued more than 75,000 lookouts for individuals from more than 110 countries and stopped over 260 human rights violators and war crimes suspects from entering the U.S.

Iran Using Same ‘Active Measure’ Tactics Against the U.S.

When traveling internet sites, social media accounts and various news aggregator services, one needs to be even more suspect of what information is out there. Russia has been applying propaganda ‘active measure’ tactics for decades and due to the global internet system, the volume has gone beyond measure.

With all things Russia going on in Washington DC and in media, the success of active measures has been noticed by both China and Iran. Both have launched robust propaganda operations forcing the West and citizens to question authenticity of sites, articles and posts of all forms.

Watch out for those hashtags….influencing voters and fake/false news goes back to at least 2016. The operations are so effective that even big media has been duped and corrections are printed or made often when recognized. Some items are never corrected.

Iran’s Anti-US Propaganda Reflects regime’s instability photo

(Reuters) – Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google said on Thursday it had identified and terminated 39 YouTube channels linked to state-run Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

Google has also removed 39 YouTube channels and six blogs on Blogger and 13 Google+ accounts.

“Our investigations on these topics are ongoing and we will continue to share our findings with law enforcement and other relevant government entities in the U.S. and elsewhere,” Google said in a blog post here 

On Tuesday, Facebook Inc (FB.O), Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) collectively removed hundreds of accounts tied to an alleged Iranian propaganda operation.

Google, which had engaged cyber-security firm FireEye Inc (FEYE.O) to provide the company with intelligence, said it has detected and blocked attempts by “state-sponsored actors” in recent months.

FireEye said here it has suspected “influence operation” that appears to originate from Iran, aimed at audiences in the United States, the U.K., Latin America, and the Middle East.

Shares of FireEye rose as much as 10 percent to $16.38 after Google identified the company as a consultant.

***

The Daily Beast went for a deeper dive on the tactics by Iran and explained a few cases.

An Iranian propaganda campaign created fake Bernie Sanders supporters online, Facebook disclosed Tuesday.

In a press release, the social-media giant said it had removed 652 pages associated with political-influence campaigns traced to Iran, including coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Iran and targeted people across multiple internet services in the Middle East, Latin America, U.K., and U.S.”

The cybersecurity company FireEye, which first alerted Facebook to the influence campaign months ago, wrote in a separate posting on its site that it had traced the campaign—including posts from supposed “American liberals supportive of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders”—to Iran through email addresses and phone numbers associated with the “inauthentic” accounts.

The investigation began with FireEye’s discovery of a fake U.S. news outlet called Liberty Front Press, which Facebook says was created in 2013. The actors behind that site over time branched out into different personas intended to appeal to different audiences including “anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes.” Examples included accounts like The British Left, which published content in support of U.K. Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, and the pro-Palestinian Patriotic Palestinian Front. FireEye also says it “identified multiple Arabic-language, Middle East-focused sites” as part of the effort.

Unlike the Russian cyberinfluence campaign in 2016, FireEye didn’t find a complementary hacking campaign attached to the propaganda activity. Iran has spent big on developing its offensive online capabilities, but FireEye said it found no links to APT35—a hacking group that has targeted U.S. defense companies and Saudi energy firms. Instead, the security firm found links between the campaign and Iran’s state-run TV propaganda channel, PressTV.

The Iranian actors behind the campaign expanded beyond Facebook and Instagram and onto Twitter, according to FireEye. In a separate statement late Tuesday, Twitter announced it had suspended 284 accounts for what it said was “coordinated manipulation” and that “it appears many of these accounts originated from Iran.”

The Daily Beast recovered tweets from what appears to be an account associated with the campaign. @libertyfrontpr has since been deleted, but Google cache results show it linked back to the LibertyFrontPress.com website FireEye attributed to be part of the propaganda effort. The account was active as of at least Tuesday and is not listed as suspended on the platform.

The account used hashtags like “#Resist” and #NotMyPresident when tweeting out anti-Trump sentiments. It also weighed in against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. “The #Senate has a responsibility to reject any nominee who would fail to be a fair-minded constitutionalist. That is #BrettKavanaugh. We must #StopKavanaugh.”

In a rare move for Holocaust-denying Iranian propaganda, @libertypr slammed the Republican Party for allowing anti-Semite and Holocaust denier John Fitzgerald to run for a seat in the California legislature.

In addition to the U.S. themes, Liberty’s Twitter account also targeted opponents of the Iranian government, including the Mujahedeen Khalq exile group, or MEK, which advocates the overthrow of Iran’s clerical government, with hashtags like “#BanTerrorOrg.”

The takedown marks the second time since the 2016 election that Facebook has appeared to act without U.S. government pressure to stop an alleged political-influence campaign. In late July, Facebook took down a handful of sock-puppet accounts purporting to be black, Hispanic, and #Resistance activists. Facebook didn’t attribute that campaign to a specific country or group, but it did note that some of the accounts had links to the infamous Russian Internet Research Agency troll farm.

Facebook said Tuesday that it had taken down the new batch of pages only after waiting “many months” after being alerted to the campaign by FireEye. The delay allowed the company to further investigate the campaign and improve its defenses against future efforts.

Securing the Elections, FBI Investigating Hacks

Securing the vote.

The states, which under the US system are responsible for conducting elections, remain concerned about the integrity of the ballot. Thirty-six  states have now deployed Albert sensors on their voting infrastructure to allow the Department of Homeland Security to observe state systems that manage either voter information or voting devices (Reuters).

The states also want the Feds to share more threat intelligence. Forty-four states and the District of Columbia took part in a Department of Homeland Security exercise this week  (US Department of Homeland Security). The states appear to have gained enough insight into the value of threat intelligence to decide that they want more of it (Reuters). Some advocate Federal standards for the conduct of elections, perhaps even mandatory standards (Atlantic Council). More here.

Meanwhile:

Then there is the matter the FBI is investigating in California.

The FBI launched investigations after two Southern California Democratic U.S. House candidates were targeted by computer hackers, though it’s unclear whether politics had anything to do with the attacks.

A law enforcement official told The Associated Press the FBI looked into hacks involving David Min in the 45th Congressional District and Hans Keirstead in the adjacent 48th District. Both districts are in Orange County and are seen as potential pickups as the Democratic Party seeks to win control of the Congress in November.

A person with knowledge of the Min investigation told the AP on Monday that two laptops used by senior staffers for the candidate were found infected with malware in March. It’s not clear what, if any, data was stolen, and there is no evidence the breach influenced the contest.

The CEO of a biomedical research company, Keirstead last summer was the victim of a broad “spear-phishing” attack, in which emails that appear to come from a friend or familiar source are designed to help hackers snatch sensitive or confidential information, the law enforcement official said. There is no evidence Keirstead lost valuable information.

The investigations so far have not turned up evidence the two candidates in Orange County were political targets.

The official and the knowledgeable person were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Keirstead was narrowly defeated in the June primary for the seat held by Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Min came in third in the contest to unseat Republican Rep. Mimi Walters.

Min’s staff was alerted to a potential cyberattack by a facility manager in the software incubator where his campaign rented space. It was later found the computers were infected with software that records and sends keystrokes, with additional software that concealed it from conventional anti-virus tools used by the campaign.

Hackers also used a broad spear-phishing attack in an attempt to gain access, and FBI investigators are still piecing together additional details, the official said.

The two laptops were replaced, and Min’s computer was not infected. The attack on the computers was first reported by Reuters.

Keirstead campaign officials detected repeated attempts to access the campaign’s website.

Rolling Stone magazine, which first reported that cyberattack, said hackers or bots tried different username-password combinations in a rapid-fire sequence over a two-and-a-half-month period to get inside the campaign’s WordPress-hosted website.

According to the campaign, there were also more than 130,000 so-called brute force attempts over a monthlong period to gain access to the campaign’s server through the cloud-server company that hosted the Keirstead campaign’s website, Rolling Stone said.

Computer security experts say that many attempts to gain access to a site hosted with the popular and free WordPress software is not unusual.

“Every WordPress hosted website sees 130,000 brute force attempts over a monthlong period, regardless whether it’s Bohemian basket weaving, a blog about furry costume construction, or a politician website,” said Robert Graham, a cybersecurity expert who created the BlackICE personal firewall.

“Hackers don’t know or care who you are: they only care that you use WordPress,” Graham said in a text message.

Min finished third behind fellow Democrat Katie Porter, who faces Walters in November. In the 48th District, Rohrabacher will face Democrat Harley Rouda, who snagged the second runoff spot by defeating Keirstead by 125 votes.