Post

Stephen McIntyre

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

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

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

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Apr 19

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1705979759484653694

here is a thread from 2023 in which Eric Ciaramella's "yikes" is placed in a more detailed context.

In this thread, I suggested that the linkage was connected to Jan 21, 2016 meeting of Ukrainian prosecutors with State Dept officials, noting that Jamie Gusack (reporting to Bridget Brink) had distributing the first demand for Shokin's head (Nov 22 TPs)

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1705979759484653694

as pointed out in that thread, Gusack (State Dept) had been coordinating with Ciaramella (NSC) prior to arrival of Ukr prosecutors in Jan 2016, referring to Shokin replacement.

State Dept cited "diamond prosecutors case" as big deal. But what happened to it next? A long story.

Bridget Brink, Jamie Gusack's boss, reported to Victoria Nuland. Brink was appointed Ambassador to Ukraine in April 2022. Unanimous approval by Senate in early days of war at the exact time that US and UK were sabotaging the peace deal negotiated in Istanbul

Read 4 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Mar 17

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1769062912155328978

as observed yesterday, , after 2014 US coup, the tsunami of billion dollar US/IMF loans was associated with unprecedented embezzlement by Ukr oligarchs thru corrupt Ukr banking system. Rescues of failed banks (mostly unnoticed in west) were markers

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1769062912155328978

in today's thread, I'll provide a short bibliography of articles (mostly Ukrainian language via google translate) on the Ukr banking corruption crisis that began and exploded after the 2014 US coup, while Biden, Blinken, Nuland et al were running Ukraine

once one searches specifically for the topic, there are interesting references, but the topic has received essentially next to zero coverage in the west. I'll take myself as an example. Despite following Ukr affairs quite closely, my prior knowledge was three vignettes.

Read 15 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Mar 16

May 25, 2021: US DOJ announced indictment & arrest of Austrian banker Peter Weinzierl

Mar 13, 2024: we learn that Alexander Smirnov was an FBI informant against Weinzierl and had lured Weinzierl to UK on behalf of FBI for arrest justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/t…
archive.is/zO1rt

the DOJ charges against Austrian banker Weinzierl, filed during first six months of Biden admin, pertained to allegations that payments made via Meinl Bank in Austria by Brazilian construction company Odebrecht were connected to evasion of taxes in Brazil.

if the concern of US DOJ and FBI with administration of Brazilian tax collection seems somewhat quirky, there may be an ulterior motive: Meinl Bank had a central role in the looting of Ukrainian banks during the 2014-2016 Biden administration of Ukraine.

Read 11 tweets

Stephen McIntyre

@ClimateAudit

Mar 3

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, named by NYT as architect of 2014 post-Maidan takeover of Ukrainian intelligence by CIA, is former head of Ukrainian SBU. His comments on Biden corruption deserve attention, but have been ignored.archive.is/zXXQV

on October 10, 2019, early in the Trump impeachment saga, Nalyvaichenko published an op ed in Wall St Journal saying "alliance with US depends on answering questions about Bidens and election interference" [by Ukraine] archive.is/wsrjP

in that editorial, Naluvaichenko, the former SBU hear, stated that Ukraine had responsibility to investigate allegations that Ukraine interfered in 2016 election (a separate issue from Russian interference) and whether Burisma hired Hunter Biden for "cynical purposes".

Read 6 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!