
A number of readers asked me what I thought of the manipulated release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the unsealing of his indictment in the United States …
About the government assertion that “Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Bradley/Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications.” – Definitely a computer crime and if proven Assange should be prosecuted and sentenced. Why Obama commuted the sentence of Manning is unfathomable as it rewarded criminal conduct and espionage – but then again, Obama hailed deserter Bowe Bergdahl as an honorable soldier.
Since it is alleged that Manning obtained password “hashes” using ordinarily available software and passed them on to Assange for decryption may be problematical because I do not see anything that claims Assange returned the actual password and that password was used to access classified materials – so the crime still primarily resides with Manning. As for the conspiracy between the two individuals, Manning and Assange, could it not be argued that a portion of the same conspiracy exists between leakers and legitimate media outlets?
About the public assertion that Assange hacked the DNC, Clinton, and various Clinton associates -- There was a credible theory that the DNC release was not a hack and the sensitive information was collected and transmitted via a thumb drive wielded by a disaffected staffer – possibly one with an allegiance to Bernie Sanders. Conspiracy theorists believe that the DNC staffer might have been Seth Rich who was murdered in an alleged robbery attempt in which nothing was taken. As for Rich’s murder being a rightwing conspiracy theory, one needs to consider the context of previous claims of conspiracies which are now coming to light as actual conspiracies – possibly with a few mistakes in details here and there. Who initially believed that individuals in the Obama White House and the top echelon of the intelligence community (James Clapper/DNI, John Brennan/CIA, Loretta Lynch/DOJ, James Comey/FBI, and others) could have actively interfered in a presidential election and then a subsequent attempt to damage the actions of a sitting President?
About the public assertion that Assange published the classified documents stolen by Edward Snowden -- I don’t think WikiLeak’s role in the matter differs one iota from that of the New York Times publishing the classified “Pentagon Papers” (Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force) stolen by Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg escaped prosecution due to (wait for it) prosecutorial misconduct on behalf of the Nixon Administration. In the case of Snowden, he may have been a Russian operative since he sought, and was granted, asylum in Russia where he currently resides.
About the public assertion that Assange is a foreign national operating on behalf of the Russian government to sow discord and disruption in the United States -- I would like to see a finding that links the Russians to Assange, an Australian programmer, either as a witting or unwitting agent.
The mechanics…
There are four classic scenarios in which a publication might find itself with access to government classified information: one, passive receipt of classified materials from as yet an unknown sources; two, actively hacking or intercepting classified information; three, using bribery, coercion, or fraud to gain access to classified materials; and four, the outright solicitation (including persuasion or incitement) of classified information.
I cannot find a case where the government has criminally punished the passive receipt of classified documents other than the judiciary using a contempt of court citation to attempt to coerce an individual journalist to reveal a source or sources. Bribery, coercion, and fraud are clearly illegal acts in and of themselves. Hacking government computers or intercepting information is clearly illegal. As for solicitation, it is done every day via “tip lines” and is not punished. Even though receiving “stolen property” is a crime, it overlooked and not prosecuted. Publishing information from an individual who did commit a crime to obtain the information does not subject the publisher to criminal prosecution as a co-conspirator.
Consider that Snowden released information that caused imminent and serious harm to national security, and yet no publisher was prosecuted. One, because the information revealed that the government was violating the U.S. Constitution and federal law; and two, because the information was in the public interest and contributed to a debate about the breadth of domestic surveillance on American citizens by their government.
Unless you believe the government’s allegation that Assange actively participated in the hacking of government computers – he cannot be successfully prosecuted under existing laws, rules and regulations. Whether you regard Ellsberg, Snowden, and Manning as whistleblowers or criminals, they need to be held accountable for their illegal actions as individuals. As for Assange, he should have the same rights, privileges, and immunities as the New York Times – or he would have if he were an American citizen. Unfortunately, he is Australian which complicates matters due to the lack of constitutional protections.
Already the liberals are on the stump…
Consider this Tweet from progressive socialist democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard…

First, Julian Assange is more a publisher than a journalist. Second, I would hope that anyone who encouraged a government individual in a position of trust to violate that trust by breaking their chain of command and dumping raw classified documents into the public domain is prosecuted to the full extent of the law – but this is unlikely. And third, I would hope that anyone who actively participated in the hacking of a government computer system is prosecuted and given a lengthy jail sentence. As for journalists, the First Amendment of the Constitution and federal law does not provide immunity from possessing, mishandling, and disseminating classified government documents related to national security and the protection of methods and sources, the government refuses to take the matter to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
Bottom line…
As we saw in Watergate, where Associate FBI Director Mark Felt was leaking information to the Washington Post and today with the numerous government leaks --- this behavior is often condoned and excused at the highest levels of government. So we must ask, Cui Bono – who benefits from the Assange prosecution?
However, after reading the actual indictment, I am not so sure that this is not a predicate crime or pretext for forcing Assange to give up his sources, notably for the alleged hacking of the Democrat National Committee, Hillary Clinton, and various Clinton associates and cohorts.
Whatever the evil intentions and motivations, leakers of classified information have provided history-changing insight into the activities of a secretive government predisposed to conceal their self-serving actions, actions on behalf of special interests, foreign and domestic, actions to cover-up criminality and wrongdoing, and in general to avoid having embarrassing mistakes, errors, omissions, waste, fraud, and abuse come to the public’s attention through the media.
I believe that Assange should get a pass unless the government proves its allegations that he actively participated in hacking a government computer beyond pointing to commonly available programs to access and dump hashed password files.
We are so screwed.
-- steve

Thursday, April 11, 2019
WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested today in the United Kingdom pursuant to the U.S./UK Extradition Treaty, in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified U.S. government computer.
According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.
The indictment alleges that in March 2010, Assange engaged in a conspiracy with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning, who had access to the computers in connection with her duties as an intelligence analyst, was using the computers to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks. Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log on to the computers under a username that did not belong to her. Such a deceptive measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures.
During the conspiracy, Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.” To which Assange replied, “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”
Assange is charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The extradition will be handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy | USAO-EDVA | Department of Justice
|