Post

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Apr 13, 2019 • 39 tweets • 14 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

1/ charge against Assange is violation of 18 USC 1030a. Indictment was filed on March 6, 2018 for incident on March 7, 2010, barely meeting 8-year statute of limitations. Despite clemency, Manning appealed her 1030a conviction. Issues seem relevant to charge vs Assange.

2/ 1030a, under which Assange was charged, is an anti-hacking law that requires that access to computer be "without access or exceeding authorized access".

3/ Manning didn't HACK into DoD computers. M had high-level clearance and was entitled to access the files delivered to Wikileaks. M's 1030a conviction - and this is little known - was on questionable technicality: use of widely available Wget to access files available on portal

4/ Judge didn't consider whether there would have been 1030a violation if M had used portal to download the 75 files retrieved using Wget, reaching decision on basis that use of Wget utility was "exceeded authorized access".

5/ See discussion in May 31, 2018 decision fas.org/sgp/jud/mannin…, Manning Appeal Brief Sep 5, 2018 eff.org/files/2018/09/… and Amicus Brief Aug 30, 2018 eff.org/files/2018/09/…

6/ M's appeal argued that Wget software didn't give M access to any files that M wasn't entitled to see, and that the court had made an error of fact to the extent that it thought that Wget evaded password authentication. (It doesn't). Case seems quite plausible.

7/ there is an important inconsistency between US circuits over meaning of "exceeds authorized access". Under "broad" interpretation, satisfied if use is improper e.g. leaking. Under "narrow" interpretation, satisfied only if access to information gained thru improper means

8/ M's military court stated that this was new issue for them and that federal Circuits were divided. They noted that Fourth Circuit (which governs EDVA) had adopted "narrow" interpretation. This would be helpful to Assange.

9/ Manning's downloading of State Dept cables is one of the key incidents in Assange indictment narrative. DoJ stated that Assange told M that "curious eyes never run dry" and that M subsequently accessed State Dept cables.

10/ M had legal access to State Dept cables thru portal. No evidence that Assange was involved in M's decision to access cables thru Wget (which is what M was convicted for - questionably.) M was clearly guilty of other offenses but the 1030a seems questionable.

11/ the other incident in Assange charge is his attempt to crack a password for M, but there's something curious here. Doesn't appear that password in question would have given M access to anything that M didn't already have access to (!) - only disguise as a different user

12/ Assange indictment observed that "army regulations" prohibited M from circumventing security mechanisms and from sharing passwords. Watch the pea. To extent that all/part of incident is breach of "army regulations", it was relevant to M, but not to Assange under 1030a

13/ my overall (interim) take: US success in Assange extradition case is not a gimme. US framed indictment narrowly in order to avoid arguing about their real beef with Assange. US-UK extradition treaty requires that case be limited to charges in extradition, but it seems

14/ implausible that US has any intention of limiting their interest in an extradited Assange to the password incident. More likely, as soon as Assange arrives in US, there would be barrage of superceding indictments, with US thumbing its nose at world opinion as it has elsewhere

15/ nor would UK government have much recourse once Assange was extradited. Not that quislings of May regime would be inclined to object anyway.

16/ however, there is an extant and distinguished legal tradition in UK. There are many UK judges who are acute enough to see what is really happening here. I expect that the Assange extradition hearing will be epic.

17/ here's a quote from Manning Amicus Brief from Fourth Circuit (>EDVA) decision WEC Carolina which pertains to password issue. Issue for 4th would be whether sought password gave M access to unauthorized material, or merely disguised. Indictment only pleaded disguise.

18/ ironically, I first used wget a few months ago in order to download from Wikileaks 😀. wget didn't give access to these documents; it is merely a way to download documents while preserving original modification-time metadata. Manning appeal re wget seems appropriate.

19/ here's another thought on curious fact situation on password. Based on premise that Manning was authorized to access documents, but wanted to disguise his identity when accessing documents which he was authorized to access. And that Assange's password help limited to disguise

20/ Assange's offer to help Manning crack a password to enter area to which he was authorized under fraudulent identity is an offense, but the offense is identity fraud (USC 1028 law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…) not USC 1030a.

21/ while both are serious offenses, there's an important difference in statute of limitations. Under USC 2332b(g)(5) law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…, USC1030a has an eight-year limitations, whereas USC 1028 is only five years (!).

22/ the distinction is highly relevant to extradition. Indictment only pled that purpose of breaking password would be to disguise identity, not to expand access to documents. 1028 was logical charge, but they needed 1030a for statute of limitations. As always, watch the pea

@bleidl

23/ in 13 above, I referred to principle in US-UK extradition treaty in which limits US right to pile on charges after extradition. (I've deleted prior tweet 23 in which I had lost track of reference and withdrew assertion.) But original point was right h/t @bleidl.

24/ however, Rule of Specialty is not a right which Assange can assert, only executive branch of UK government. (Courts not involved.) One can safely assume that quisling UK government will grant whatever US imperium demands. I.e. limiting extradition charge to single computer

25/ offence is nothing more than a charade by US and UK governments to disguise true intentions from UK courts.

26/ a battleground issue in extradition case is likely to be Article 4 of US-UK extradition treaty which states that UK courts shall refuse extradition if they determine that request for extradition was "politically motivated". Lots of evidence of this.

state.gov/documents/orga…

https://twitter.com/RickPetree/status/1116704236526555136

27/ thread on Rule of Specialty here

https://twitter.com/RickPetree/status/1116704236526555136

h/t @bleidl

None of the dozen or so commentators who I listened to on US news television today understood that neither Manning nor Assange HACKED into DoD computers. What a wasteland of false information.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/828229304949547008

28/ maybe this would be good time to re-mention Wikileaks' list of their 11 greatest hits ("interesting publications"): look who's mentioned 😀

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/828229304949547008

Despite claim, Wikileaks had zero role in release of Climategate emails. News disseminated thru climate blogs.

29/ Intercept (unsurprisingly) makes same point as me about password incident. Greenwald has been following this for years.
theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the…

30/ Alexa O'Brien has enormous and essential set of Manning documents alexaobrien.com/manning

31/ In opening statement alexaobrien.com/archives/1283, prosecutor said that "evidence will show that Manning with the help of .. Assange attempted to devise a way to browse SIPRnet anonymously".

32/ Prosecutor says that Manning asked Assange "Any good at LM hash cracking?". Prosecutor added that "LM ..stands for Land Management."

33/ Manning prosecutor said that Assange replied: "We have rainbow tables for LM, " adding that an "LM hash is essentially the way that a Windows computer stores passwords"

34/ alexaobrien.com/archives/2325

35/ Manning's supervisor Stephen Lim testified that he sent SIPRnet link to Manning and that the diplomatic cables which were subject of M's 1030a conviction (Specification 13) had no password. No wonder they want to blame Assange.
alexaobrien.com/archives/1735

36/ violation of AUP was one of key points in Manning's 1030a conviction. However, prosecutors were apparently unable to locate AUPs for Manning (or his platoon). Strange.
alexaobrien.com/archives/2325

37/ Evidence from superior that Manning was allowed to "surf the SIPRnet".
alexaobrien.com/archives/2325

38/ Manning statement at trial is fascinating
alexaobrien.com/archives/985

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @ClimateAudit

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Dec 2

Victoria Nuland was appointed to Board of Directors of National Endowment of Democracy, the primary US funding agency for overseas NGOs involved in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.
One can scarcely help wondering what Nuland's input has been in connection with recent NGO activity in Georgia and Syria.

for people unfamiliar with Victoria Nuland, she has been mentioned dozens of times in previous threads here.
x.com/search?q=nulan…

reupping a link to Nuland's notorious conversation with US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014, while Maidan insurrection reaching crescendo in Ukraine (precisely as Putin and Russia preoccupied with Sochi Olympics). On February 22, 2014, Yats (Yatsenyuk) Nuland's choice was installed as Prime Minister; Oleh Tiahnybok, leader of the neo-Nazi party, was given a key role in post-coup government, while Klitschko remained mayor of Kyiv, a position that he retained. Precisely as Nuland and Pyatt agreed. Nuland said that Biden would be running point on the operation, which he did, becoming the de facto US regent in Ukraine from 2014-Jan 2017. Worth listening to again. 📷youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6s…… Earlier CA link here x.com/ClimateAudit/s…

Read 4 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Oct 24

Some readers have probably noticed that Microsoft has recently become one of the leading retailers of lurid allegations about "Russian influence operations targeting U.S. elections".

What is being overlooked is the lead author of the Microsoft articles is none other than Clint Watts, the founder (fpri.org/news/2017/08/f…) of the infamous Hamilton 68 dashboard, which was exposed by @mtaibbi in #TwitterFiles 15 (x.com/mtaibbi/status…) as the "next great media fraud".

Taibbi comprehensively exposed the total sham of the Hamilton 68 dashboard. Nonetheless, Clint Watts, the main proponent of the sham Hamilton 68 dashboard, has risen to a more lucrative and more prominent platform at Microsoft, where he continues to propagate the same warmonging claims as he has for more than a decade.

less well known is that Watts also had a curious role in the original Russiagate hoax. Christopher Steele had met Kathleen Kavalec, a senior State Department official on October 11, 2016, where he spun an even more lurid fantasy than the "dossier" itself, adding in Sussmann's false Alfa Bank hoax and naming Millian as a supposed source (notwithstanding his supposed reluctance to identify sources because of "danger".) Kavalec later met with Bruce Ohr, who became Steele's conduit to FBI after November 1, 2016.
Kavalec read Watts' lurid November 6, 2016 article entitled "Trolling for Trump" and, after meeting with Ohr et al on Nov 21, 2016, called Watts in for a meeting on December 7, 2016. warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolli…
Kavalec was so impressed with Watts that she sent a copy of "Trolling for Trump" to Victoria Nuland and other high-level State Department officials including Daniel Fried, John Heffern, Athena Katsoulos, Naz Durakoglu, Jonathan Cohen, Bridget Brink, Eric Green, Christopher Robinson, Conrad Tribble. Earlier in 2016, Brink and Nuland had been involved in the Biden/State Department putsch to remove Shokin as Ukrainian Prosecutor General.

Clint Watts' "Trolling for Trump" article warontherocks.com/2016/11/trolli…, which had so enthralled senior State Department official Kavalec and her associates, said that their interest in "trolls" had arisen as follows: "When experts published content criticizing the Russian-supported Bashar al Assad regime, organized hordes of trolls would appear to attack the authors on Twitter and Facebook."

So who were the "experts" whose feelings had been hurt by online criticism? It turned out to be January 2014 article foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria… co-authored by Watts himself entitled "The Good and Bad of Ahrar al-Sham: An al Qaeda–Linked Group Worth Befriending."

At the time of Watts' article, ISIS was still very new. It was written in the same month as Obama had called ISIS the "jayvee". At the time, U.S. (through separate CIA and DoD operations) and Gulf States allies were funneling cash and weapons to jihadis of every persuasion as the Obama administration attempted to implement its regime change coup in Syria.

But despite Beltway support for arming Al Qaeda and its allies (including Ahrar al-Sham as advocated by Clint Watts), the larger public has never entirely understood the higher purpose supposedly served by arming Al Qaeda and its allies to carry out regime change in Syria. Mostly, they find it hard to believe that U.S. would carry out such an iniquitous policy. So Watts ought to have expected some blowback to his advocacy of arming AlQaeda allies, but instead, Watts blamed "Russia" for online criticism, ultimately falsely accusing simple opponents of US allying with AlQaeda allies as Russian agents or dupes.

Read 5 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Oct 2

actually, the lesson from Helene is the opposite from that being promoted.

In 1933, the Tennessee Valley Authority was given the mandate for flood control in the valley of the Tennessee River and its tributaries. Over the next 40 years, they built 49 dams, which, for the most part, accomplished their goal. Whereas floods in the Tennessee were once catastrophic, younger people are mostly unaware of them.

The French Broad River (Asheville) is an upstream tributary where flood control dams weren't constructed due to local opposition.

Rather than the devastation of Hurricane Helene on Asheville illustrating the effect of climate change, the success of the flood control dams in other sectors of the Tennessee Valley illustrates the success of the TVA flood control program where it is implemented.

Hurricane Helene did not show the effect of climate change, but what happens to settlements in Tennessee Valley tributaries under "natural" flooding (i.e. where flood control dams have been rejected.)

I should add that, in its first 40 years, the TVA built 49 flood control dams, of which 29 were power-generating. In the subsequent 50 years, TVA built 0 flood control dams,
However, in the 1980s, they established the Carbon Dioxide Information Centre (CDIAC) under their nuclear division, which sponsored much influential climate research, including the CRU temperature data (Phil Jones) and Michael Mann's fellowship from which Mann et al 1998 derived.
In 1990, the parents of Crowdstrike's Dmitri Alperovich moved from Russia to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where his father was a TVA nuclear engineer. Dmitri moved to Tennessee a few years later.
One can't help but wonder whether TVA's original mandate for flood control got lost in the executive offices, attracted by more glamorous issues, such as climate change research.
If so, one could reasonably say that a factor in the seeming abandonment of TVA efforts to complete its original flood control mandate (e.g. to French Broad River which inundated Asheville) was partly attributable to diversion of TVA interest to climate change research, as opposed to its mandate of flood control.

another thought. As soon as the point is made, it is obvious that flood control dams have reduced flooding. Not just in Appalachia. I've looked at long data for water levels in Great Lakes and the amount of fluctuation (flooding) after dams installed is much reduced.
And yet my recollection of public reporting of climate is that weather extremes, including flooding, is getting worse. But in areas with flood control dams, it obviously //isn't// getting worse than before. It's better. Note to self: check IPCC reports for their specific findings on flooding.

Read 5 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Aug 7

as readers are aware, @walkafyre has a long-term project of decoding the Mueller investigation through the laborious project of identifying the interviewees underneath the redactions. Some of the identifications are so ingenious that it's fun. Yesterday was an interesting example, which I'll narrate since it's interesting. (There are many other equally interesting examples.) It is the identification of the interviewee of Bates number B2997, interviewed on Aug 15, 2018 (302 filed on Dec 17, 2018). The 302 was published in volume 11 (page 92) - online at walkafyre's website here:

The 302 has 6 pages. The last 4 pages are totally redacted of information. All identifying information has been redacted from the first two pages except for the presence of Mueller attorney Aaron Zelinsky. Take a look.

And yet from this meagre information, walkafyre has made a firm identification of the interviewee.

It doesn't seem possible, does it. But I've reviewed the backup and it works. I'll explain.themyefiles.knack.com/mueller-files#…

first step. The 302s are in non-proportional font (Courier) and characters can be counted. Last name has 8 characters and praenomen has 9-10 characters.

second step. B2995 previously identified as Ali, Hesham and B3005 previously identified as Bartholomew, Vanessa. 302s are //locally// in alpha order, thus pinning surname to alpha range Ali to Bar.

third step. the interviewee (LN8) interacts with a LN9 frequently.

fourth. the interview was in summer 2018 with Zelinsky in attendance. This indicates that interview was connected to Roger Stone.

fifth, LN9 has given money to "the ___". Probably "the PAC". Public data on Roger Stone's PAC shows that the largest contributor (by far) was John Powers Middleton (9-character last name.)

So the interviewee is a LN8 in alpha range Ali-Bar with some sort of regular connection to Middleton. Walkafyre had this figured out a long time ago, but was stuck.fec.gov/data/receipts/…

a few days ago, @walkafyre took a look at documents related to a sordid lawsuit between Middleton and Roy Lee, an estranged associate. Case number shown below. One of the motions demanded deposition of "Alex Anderson", a Middleton employee. Alexander Anderson had previously made a deposition in support of Middleton.
As a coup de grace, one of the production requests in the pleadings was for "all communications related to Middleton's relationship with Roger Stone".
The redacted interviewee the August 15, 2018 grand jury notice was convincingly Middleton's employee Alexander Anderson.

Read 15 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Jun 8

in 2019 and 2020, there was a huge amount of interest in the Strzok-Page texts, but almost no attention was paid to the fact that the texts had been heavily "curated" before reaching the public and that some key topics were missing.

One of the key topics that was missing from the Strzok-Page texts (as curated) was any mention of the interview of Steele's Primary Sub-Source in late January 2017. Given that the FBI had insisted on inclusion of Steele dossier allegations in the Intelligence Community Assessment dated January 6, 2017, this was a central FBI issue at the time and the lack of any reference in the Strzok-Page texts as originally presented is noteworthy.

Readers may recall that the very first tranche of Strzok-Page texts, released in Feb 2018, contained a long gap from mid-December 2017 to mid-May 2018 - from the ICA to appointment of Mueller. This is the very period in which the Crossfire investigation metastasized into the lawfare that undermined the incoming administration. The fact that this period was separately missing from both Strzok and Lisa Page has never been adequately explained. As an aside, it seems odd that the FBI can retrieve emails and texts from targets, but not from their own employees.

Subsequently, a tranche of texts from the missing period was released, but these were also heavily curated and contained no texts that relate to the Primary Subsource.

However, from an an exhibit in the Flynn case , we //KNOW// that, in the late evening of January 13, 2017, Strzok and Page texted about the Primary Subsource, less than two weeks prior to the interview (which began on January 24, 2017). The message wasn't interpretable in real time, but we (Hans Mahncke) were subsequently able to connect it to the Danchenko interview via the reference to the "Womble" law firm, with which Danchenko's lawyer, Mark Schamel, was then associated. We also learned that Schamel was friends with and namedropped Lisa Monaco.

But other than this single excerpt from the Flynn exhibits, I haven't located anything in any of the other Strzok texts than can be plausibly connected to the critical interviews of the Primary Subsource.

I think that there are some Strzok emails from Jan 19 and Jan 22, 2017 that may refer to the pending Primary Subsource interview, that I'll discuss next.

One useful thing that the Weaponization Committee could do would be to publish a complete and unexpurgated set of Strzok-Page texts. Given the interest created by the highly expurgated version, one wonders what an expurgated and unbowdlerized version might yield.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142…

In the volume of Strzok emails released on October 31, 2019, there was an almost entirely redacted thread dated January 19 and January 22, 2017, a couple of days before the Primary Subsource interview on January 24, 2017, which look to me like they have a good chance of relating to the PSS interview.

The thread began with an email from FBI Office of General Council (OGC) - Sally Anne Moyer or Kevin Clinesmith - to Strzok and a CD subordinate, with a very short subject line.

We know that the PSS interview was lawyered up and carried out under a sweetheart queen-for-a-day deal that was usually only available to highly placed Democrats (Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills etc.) So involvement of OGC in negotiation of the PSS interview is expected.

at 6:47 pm on Thursday, Jan 19, 2017, Strzok's CD subordinate wrote back that "here's what we have to decide ASAP". The issue is totally redacted, naturally. (This is one day before inauguration.)

Read 12 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

May 12

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1485801171336019968

in April 2022, Mark Steyn, on his GB News show
,
commented on recently released UK COVID data, claiming "the third booster shots so zealously promoted by the British state, and its groupthink media has failed, and in fact exposed you to significantly greater risk of infection, hospitalization and death."
Steyn showed images of five tables from official statistical publications to support his claims.
In April 2023, Ofcom, which, in addition to its ordinary regulatory role, had taken a special interest in vaccine advocacy, ruled that Steyn's "presentation of UK Health Security Agency data
and their use to draw conclusions materially misled the audience. In breach of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code" - a very damaging finding that Steyn has appealed.

I haven't followed this case. However, as it happens, I had taken an interest in UK COVID data about 3 months earlier, as it was one of the few jurisdictions that published case and hospitalization rates by vaccination status.

Also, to refresh readers on the contemporary context, early 2022 was the period in which COVID lockdowns and overall alarm began to decline.

At the time, I observed that the UK data showed that the case rate for triple vax was //higher// than among unvax. Three months later, Steyn (as discussed below) made a similar claim, for which he was censured.

Although the UK authorities conspicuously refrained from including this result in their summary or conclusions, they were obviously aware of the conundrum, since their publication included a curious disclaimer by UK authorities that actual case data "should not be used" to estimate vaccine effectiveness. I pointed this odd disclaimer out in this earlier thread, also noting that health authorities in Ontario and elsewhere had previously used such data to promote vaccine uptake and that the reasoning behind this disclaimer needed to be closely examined and parsed.

All of these issues turned up later in the Ofcom decision re Steyn.

Ofcom ruled that Steyn's presentation was "materially misleading" because
(1) he failed to take account of "fundamental biases" in age structure of vax and unvax groups i.e. unvax group was skewed younger, vax group skewed older; and
(2) he failed to include the disclaimer that "This raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does not take into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations”.steynonline.com/mark-steyn-sho…
ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/…

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1485801171336019968

in this thread, I'll re-examine Steyn's analysis. I've transcribed all the numbers in the tables and done further calculations to check his claims.

First, case rates. Steyn first showed an important table showing the population by 5-year age group and vax status, observing that the total population of triply vax (boosted) was approximately equal to the population of unboosted, observing that this facilitated comparison. Steyn: "Let's take a look at this, as you can see from a pool of 63 million down at the bottom there, 63 million, there are 32 million who are triple vaccinated. That leaves just under 31 million, who are either double single or unvaccinated. So we have two groups of similar size, 31, 32 million. So it's relatively easy to weigh the merits of the third shot upon Group A versus group B."

He then showed a table of cases by age group and vax status, pointing out that the total number of boosted cases was approximately double the number of unboosted cases: "So the triple vaccinated in March were responsible for just over a million COVID cases and everybody else 475,000 COVID cases. So the triple vaccinated are contracting COVID at approximately twice the rate of the double, single and unvaccinated. Got that? If you get the booster shot, you've got twice as high a chance of getting the COVID. In the United Kingdom, there's twice as many people with the third booster shot who got the COVID, as the people who never had the booster shot."

Ofcom purported to rebut Steyn's analysis as shown in excerpt below. They observed that proportion of unvax in younger age groups was much higher than in older age groups and that the "simple comparison between the two groups made by Mark Steyn failed to take into account these inherent biases".

However, Ofcom failed to show that there would be a different outcome in the more complex analysis in which age groups were allowed for.

As it turns out, in regard to case rates, Steyn's conclusions, if anything, under-stated the phenomenon, as shown next.

Read 11 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Stephen McIntyre

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @ClimateAudit

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!