,
25 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD - For those of you following the Assange indictment, @emptywheel and @OrinKerr have been doing some great real-time response on CFAA and other issues, and @davidallengreen on the Sweden angle. /1
I think @emptywheel specifically wrote a thought-provoking piece sketching some of the potential dangers in this indictment /2
I would like to add one point. This material in the hands of any prosecutor will offer some serious complications, and the DOJ must know that. Or at least so it seems to me. /3
Assange is a self-professed dissembler. Moreover, as someone who was in touch with him at this time, I know from direct experience that he often exaggerated WL's capabilities when it came to cracking encryption. /4
Take a look at the relevant exchange in detail. At 16:09:06, after passing the lm hash, Manning admits that she is not even sure if it is what she thinks it is. /5 
Now, prior to that, Assange already admitted that any work on this would be "painful" because of a lack of processing power. But after only a cursory inquiry, with the ambiguity of the hash still unresolved, he claims within a minute to have "passed it onto our guy." /6
I can tell you, WikiLeaks at that time did not have tons of resources at its disposal. Did Assange really decide to devote any time and energy to this--after already receiving more from Manning than he could possibly deal with? /7
Or is it more likely that he was trying to show a key source -- who appears to have brought up the whole hash idea on her own -- that he was responsive, and that WL was sophisticated enough to handle this request from her? /8
Keep in mind that at this time WL was also apparently trying to decrypt the Garani air-strike video from Afghanistan, which would have been a bigger priority for Assange, and to my understanding was never accomplished. Here is Manning discussing it with Andrian Lamo /9
Assange could not crack that video's encryption on his own, he told me. In other words, he was relying on the help of others--calling in favors or enlisting volunteers. That shows you how stretched WL was. /10
So ask yourself, with this transcript, is Assange really going to decide in just one minute to divert time and computing power to crack this lm hash -- or rather what Manning thinks might be an lm hash, but isn't even sure? /11
The Obama DOJ had this material and never pursued it. Maybe it wondered: How can we prove Assange meant what he said, and truly was seeking to engage in a conspiracy, rather than bragging, lying, humouring a source about something both evidently did not care much about? /12
I know I certainly have that question. Legal experts, please weigh in. /end
ps/ This story may be relevant: motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/…
From some discussion I'm seeing, I am not sure I did a good job making my point. I am going to try this briefly again. /1
People are trying to read meaning into the Assange-Manning transcript, taking what was said about the hash there at face value. But that is not a tenable starting point. /2
Who is to say that everything Assange says in it is not 100 percent grade-A BS? /3
Manning asks: "Any good at lm hash cracking?" Assange says, "Yes." Would he lie if he were not good at it. Absolutely. /4
In fact his very next comment on the subject reads like an excuse about why he would not succeed in cracking it. /5
Then Assange appears to understand that this excuse might cause Manning to NOT continue in this direction, so he mentions having "rainbow tables." Would he lie and say this even if he did not? Absolutely. /6
Manning then expresses uncertainty about what kind of hash she has. Assange has just said he is good at cracking lm hashes but now that he has been given the value he says quickly that he "passed it onto our lm guy." /7
Would Assange totally fabricate a WL volunteer who specializes in this exact thing that Manning is passing along to impress her -- hoping that if she is impressed she might provide more material? Yes, he would. /8
Two days later, Assange asks, "Any more hints about this lm hash? no luck so far." Manning wasn't asking, and she does not appear to respond. He does not appear to mention it again. Do we know if Assange took one overt act aside from pretending to do so? Nope. /9
I am not saying that Assange did not genuinely seek to assist in cracking the lm hash. Maybe he did. I am saying we simply do not know based on this document. This exchange, it seems to me, cannot be taken at face value. /10
In fact, there appear to be details in this log that are really doubtful. Assange boasts on Mar 10, "we now have the last 4 months of audio from telephones at the is parliament" He is referring to the Icelandic parliament. From what I could tell, I believe this is untrue. / end
