Mike LevineVerified account @MLevineReports 13h13 hours ago
It’s actually just one word, the name of the defendant.Mike LevineVerified account @MLevineReports 13h13 hours ago
Guys, this is truly an amazing find by @SeamusHughes. My hypothesis is: prosecutors used a filing in an Assange-related case as a template for a filing in this case, but forgot to change the one paragraph. If true, it means sealed charges have been filed against Julian Assange.
https://twitter.com/MLevineReports/status/1063253354829291520
Yeah I think so, it’s an interesting issue but it’s probably the reason they haven’t been charged for the Manning leak. I think the hacking of data at issue in the DNC and CIA leaks and possible coordination with outside intelligence make these situations possibly different.I will be curious to see what the charges are against Assange. I think he's a partisan hack but ... not to go all ren here, simply publishing stolen materials shouldn't be prosecutable. We've been through this before, right?
I'll answer for the other 7.5 billion people on the Earth.I have definitely not followed this Assange thing closely. Anyone else think that he was actually in Ecuador and not the Ecuadorian embassy in London?
That is meanI'll answer for the other 7.5 billion people on the Earth.
No.
I just thought the building was in Ecuador.I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that the only thing many people know about him is that he's been locked in a building for years.
We know. You're not trying.I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that the only thing many people know about him is that he's been locked in a building for years.
Oh, absolutely. I'm just funnin'.I just thought the building was in Ecuador.
Give me some credit for admitting my ignorance maybe? Please? Just a little?
Thinking about it now, I am like - duh - what an idiot. Just had it in my head that he was in Ecuador. And again, now thinking about it, it makes no sense that he wouldn't be able to leave the embassyOh, absolutely. I'm just funnin'.
Why did you think he couldn't leave the building?
Edit: because tone is impossible on the internet, I am absolutely not trying to actually insult you at all. I'm slightly amused but genuinely interested.
This is what seems most likely to have him in real trouble. Plus any actual hacking, or authorization of same.possible coordination with outside intelligence
I’m guessing the cat has better hygiene.technicaldifficulties said:From what I hear, dude needs to take better care of his cat.
I kind of figured he was involved in the actually thefts - both because he's a partisan hack and that so many gov't officials think he's basically an agent of foreign gov'ts. But I'd still like to see the evidence.And here’s Assange soliciting theft of data from the government of Iceland.
- Yeah more than one way to skin a bandicoot.
This has always been an evidence-free smear that states use to discredit Wikileaks. It's a stupid meme from the same breed that sold us Iraq.and that so many gov't officials think he's basically an agent of foreign gov'ts
That's incorrect.This has always been an evidence-free smear that states use to discredit Wikileaks. It's a stupid meme from the same breed that sold us Iraq.
Even in their narrative, that Guccifer 2 sent the leaks to Wikileaks, there was no ostensible reason for Assange to know the source was affiliated with the Russian state. There wasn't even a reason for him to think it was wrongful. Hedges made an interesting point about this.That's incorrect.
In general, they've said what they think - with allegations - and Assange's behavior is consistent with those beliefs.
Having said that, I'm still willing to wait for the evidence before I form a complete opinion on him.
His behavior is consistent with journalists who expose corruption and war crimes. That's what he's done. That it could theoretically be favorable to an opposing state doesn't change the fact that these documents serve the public interest. This is information people should want to know regardless of their political affiliations.What is happening to Assange should terrify the press. And yet his plight is met with indifference and sneering contempt. Once he is pushed out of the embassy, he will be put on trial in the United States for what he published. This will set a new and dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration and future administrations will employ against other publishers, including those who are part of the mob trying to lynch Assange. The silence about the treatment of Assange is not only a betrayal of him but a betrayal of the freedom of the press itself. We will pay dearly for this complicity.
Even if the Russians provided the Podesta emails to Assange, he should have published them. I would have. They exposed practices of the Clinton political machine that she and the Democratic leadership sought to hide. In the two decades I worked overseas as a foreign correspondent I was routinely leaked stolen documents by organizations and governments. My only concern was whether the documents were forged or genuine. If they were genuine, I published them. Those who leaked material to me included the rebels of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN); the Salvadoran army, which once gave me blood-smeared FMLN documents found after an ambush; the Sandinista government of Nicaragua; the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Central Intelligence Agency; the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rebel group; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); the French intelligence service, Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, or DGSE; and the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosovic, who was later tried as a war criminal.
We learned from the emails published by WikiLeaks that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two of the major funders of Islamic State. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton paid her donors back by approving $80 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, enabling the kingdom to carry out a devastating war in Yemen that has triggered a humanitarian crisis, including widespread food shortages and a cholera epidemic, and left close to 60,000 dead. We learned Clinton was paid $675,000 for speaking at Goldman Sachs, a sum so massive it can only be described as a bribe. We learned Clinton told the financial elites in her lucrative talks that she wanted “open trade and open borders” and believed Wall Street executives were best-positioned to manage the economy, a statement that directly contradicted her campaign promises. We learned the Clinton campaign worked to influence the Republican primaries to ensure that Donald Trump was the Republican nominee. We learned Clinton obtained advance information on primary-debate questions. We learned, because 1,700 of the 33,000 emails came from Hillary Clinton, she was the primary architect of the war in Libya. We learned she believed that the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate. The war she sought has left Libya in chaos, seen the rise to power of radical jihadists in what is now a failed state, triggered a massive exodus of migrants to Europe, seen Libyan weapon stockpiles seized by rogue militias and Islamic radicals throughout the region, and resulted in 40,000 dead. Should this information have remained hidden from the American public? You can argue yes, but you can’t then call yourself a journalist.
This perplexes me. Assange has said that he knows the source wasn’t Russian. How did he know that?Even in their narrative, that Guccifer 2 sent the leaks to Wikileaks, there was no ostensible reason for Assange to know the source was affiliated with the Russian state. There wasn't even a reason for him to think it was wrongful.
I'm not sure. They've never really defined how they handle sources/methods. Technically any news outlet with a secure dropbox for documents would be acting as a "Russian agent" even if the documents were sent through an encrypted service.This perplexes me. Assange has said that he knows the source wasn’t Russian. How did he know that?
Also a point about his status as a journalist - journalists check their sources to ensure they’re authentic. What steps did Assange take to verify the source of this information, ie the person or persons sending him the data?
It is not an evidence free smear. You may not be convinced but I have repeatedly stated evidence of it to you and of course not all evidence is public.This has always been an evidence-free smear that states use to discredit Wikileaks. It's a stupid meme from the same breed that sold us Iraq.
The world (and Clinton) knowing it was them is the point.I'm not sure. They've never really defined how they handle sources/methods. Technically any news outlet with a secure dropbox for documents would be acting as a "Russian agent" even if the documents were sent through an encrypted service.
Again, no idea. They have never said. Craig Murray has insinuated that the leaks came from two different sources possibly working for US intel agencies. Assange basically admonished Murray and said he doesn't speak for Wikileaks. What I've never understood about the Guccier 2 alias is, if the Russian government presumably setup this cutout to get the documents to Wikileaks under the guise of a nonstate actor, why would they be so comically obvious and unsophisticated about it?
There had to be a more professional way of concealing their role in the hack if it actually happened that way.
The only pertinent word in the title is the first oneFreedom of the Press and 1st Amendment? Nice title.
Marcie Wheeler is a great source, no complaints there.Again, no idea. They have never said. Craig Murray has insinuated that the leaks came from two different sources possibly working for US intel agencies. Assange basically admonished Murray and said he doesn't speak for Wikileaks. What I've never understood about the Guccier 2 alias is, if the Russian government presumably setup this cutout to get the documents to Wikileaks under the guise of a nonstate actor, why would they be so comically obvious and unsophisticated about it?
There had to be a more professional way of concealing their role in the hack if it actually happened that way.
Even in their narrative, that Guccifer 2 sent the leaks to Wikileaks, there was no ostensible reason for Assange to know the source was affiliated with the Russian state. There wasn't even a reason for him to think it was wrongful. Hedges made an interesting point about this.
- You're talking about two different things here. One is the technical detail which would have shown Assange the source of what he was getting, which you claim was unknowable (though like we discussed JA says he does know)....Even if the Russians provided the Podesta emails to Assange, he should have published them. I would have.
Perhaps also pertinent is that the rhetoric about the "people's intelligence service" is that it is (somehow) unbiased, neutral. Just reporting the facts, Ma'am. Except there seems to be issues of choosing which facts to present, and issues on editorializing that undermine the supposedly "neutral" positionThe problem is I think it's Assange himself who has been driving the first point, that there was some physical means of transfer because really he knows the other point is legally untenable putting himself personally at risk, therefore he has to create or show some sort of alibi. The other point is simple enough. What am I or anyone going to say - you hold the wrong beliefs or values? You are who you are, I disagree with your beliefs but ok that's me. It just won't fly in court. The struggle is in the massive argumentative bridge that Assange constantly asks his followers to build, which is the creation of doubt of what the basic metadata trail shows and will show. Again, when you see people under suspicion trying to craft alibis out of thin air they're really trying to impede the logical arrival at their front door.
Exactly he's not a mere data publisher or even launderer at all.Perhaps also pertinent is that the rhetoric about the "people's intelligence service" is that it is (somehow) unbiased, neutral. Just reporting the facts, Ma'am. Except there seems to be issues of choosing which facts to present, and issues on editorializing that undermine the supposedly "neutral" position
Wheeler hurls childish insults at people who question her theories and then blocks them on Twitter. But sometimes she is fair and that particular article was a good rundown on Murray/Assange. I don’t see why Murray couldn’t have inside knowledge about the sources if he did play a direct role in the exchange.Marcie Wheeler is a great source, no complaints there.
A couple points, and Wheeler may have made them herself, not sure, but anyway:
- Murray isn't saying he got data from two different sources, he's saying WL did, and on that he's speculating as much as you or I or any Joe schmoe would. The reason of course is that DNC and Podesta are two different things. That's true. Podesta was part of the campaign (and the DNC IIRC) but those are inherently two different data sources. That's true. Totally different networks. Of course that doesn't defeat the idea that one person or group - or say the GRU - could have raided both caches.
- As for the Podesta data - It would be a simple matter for JA to say 'duh Murray gave me the drive, ask him.' - This is also true for the original data set that JA himself holds. The obvious thing for him - just like the DNC - is to allow a forensic copy of the data be made. That would be easy for him to do. But he doesn't.
- Assuming you believe him here - Murray is actually discussing an intermediary, not a direct source. He's also vague on what he received. He could have gotten an encryption key for instance, not data.
- Murray seems to confuse his Podestas, He's referring to Tony, not John, but he seems to want to drag 'Podesta' into it because, yaknow, it's Podesta data. Sort of like Sarah Sanders claiming that Jim Acosta hit the WH intern, this is the kind of point one inserts when someone wants to persuade someone of something because the actual straight way can't work. But the idea that the IC was monitoring Tony's data (I really doubt that considering the who/what/why etc.) is pointless as far as John is concerned (same problems would arise with him btw). So why bring up KSA???
- On a similar note that is why Binney was so important, because they needed a technical explanation as to how data would have been downloaded to a drive and manually delivered. Obviously that has been blown to bits, most recently by Binney himself.
- About the lousy Russian operational security - You have to realized this has been described in indictments. The DOJ has sworn pleadings that relate to this with detail. This is in the bag. BUT if you have read anything about US-USSR/Russia spycraft over the decades you'd know there has been a lot of shoddy work. By us and them. Putin himself has sort of derisively referred to the cyber types, and while it was meant to mislead I think he - a classic cold KGB spy type - really does think very little of the hacker brigades. And it's true, the people that run them are old line intelligence officers, but the operatives themselves are just like you'd expect, outcasts and losers living on the fringes of society who are not meticulous in how they operate. These are smash and grab types. Look at what the Dutch, Germans, French and Ukrainians have found, these people have been regularly exposed. I'm not really sure they or Putin or FSB/GRU care. That's the mentality these days. It's not the stuff of John LeCarre, the old rules have changed.
Thread on this here: https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1064872108252192768- that Assange is wanted for Manning crimes, or that Assange is wanted for election crimes. Well I think the IC primarily wants him for the Vault 7/8 releases, then for the election, and frankly I think the Manning issue has faded and has for some time.
The deal they reportedly had to let the USG redact portions of the Vault7 releases in exchange for temporary immunity and exit from the Ecuadorean embassy fell through about a month before Pompeo's infamous speech. WaPo's David Ignatius appears to affirm John Solomon's Waldman story here.- In May of 2017 what exactly was it known that Assange was wanted for? Manning? Maybe the election?
Assange and IC had a deal in the works, and upon learning Assange had offered to assist the investigation, Comey told them to stand down. That was the end of the Assange/DOJ honeymoon.Laufman described what the government might want to achieve, and Waldman laid the groundwork for a deal to give Assange limited immunity and a one-time “safe passage” to leave the London embassy and talk with U.S. officials. Laufman played to Assange’s belief that he was a publisher, the documents show; he put an offer on the table from the intelligence community to help Assange assess how some hostile foreign powers might be infiltrating or harming WikiLeaks staff.
As the negotiations warmed, Assange unleashed his first leak on March 7, 2017, with about 8,000 pages of documents on the CIA’s cyber weapons. It did not deter the talks, however, since U.S. officials were more concerned about what he might release next.
Just a few days after the negotiations opened in mid-February, Waldman reached out to Sen. Warner; the lawyer wanted to see if Senate Intelligence Committee staff wanted any contact with Assange, to ask about Russia or other issues.
Warner engaged with Waldman over encrypted text messages, then reached out to Comey. A few days later, Warner contacted Waldman with an unexpected plea.
“He told me he had just talked with Comey and that, while the government was appreciative of my efforts, my instructions were to stand down, to end the discussions with Assange,” Waldman told me. Waldman offered contemporaneous documents to show he memorialized Warner’s exact words.
Waldman couldn’t believe a U.S. senator and the FBI chief were sending a different signal, so he went back to Laufman, who assured him the negotiations were still on. “What Laufman said to me after he heard I was told to ‘stand down’ by Warner and Comey was, ‘That’s bull####. You are not standing down and neither am I,’” Waldman recalled.
“The constructive, principled discussions with DOJ that occurred over nearly two months were complicated by the confusing ‘stand down’ message,” Waldman recalled.
On April 7, 2017, Assange released documents with the specifics of some of the CIA malware used for cyber attacks. It had immediate impact: A furious U.S. government backed out of the negotiations, and then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo slammed WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service.”
Soon, the rare opportunity to engage Assange in a dialogue over redactions, a more responsible way to release information, and how the infamous DNC hacks occurred was lost — likely forever.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal
- that Manafort/Trump is trying to bring Assange to the US in the first place - they may have been trying to get Assange to freedom or give him transit to (yes) Russia.
Trump had already given Sessions his blessing to arrest Assange (4/23/17). You'd think if there was some sort of collusion plot Wikileaks was holding over on Trump, they sure would have come out with it by now. We see how combative Trump is with Mueller, Schiff, Sessions. Yet when it comes to the risk of exposure by Assange, someone he's fine with his DOJ prosecuting "if they want to," someone he ostensibly was in collusion with and could completely blow open the whole conspiracy Trump is supposedly hiding, it's radio silence.AP: Can I just ask you, though — do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision, but if they want to do it, it's OK with me. link
What doesn't make sense is how people explain some of Trump's actions (hiring Whitaker, ####ting all over the investigation on twitter, discrediting Cohen but supporting Manafort) as being intentional enough to try and shut down the investigation. Yet when it comes to the DOJ teeing off on Assange, all of a sudden the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. In this belief system, Trump has hired AG Whitaker to shut down the Russia investigation, but doesn't care if AG Whitaker (or Sessions for that matter) goes after Assange, potentially blowing up the Russia investigation. Trump obviously doesn't care about that thread being pulled.- that Trump is cleverly manipulating the DOJ into doing whatever he wants. This is Qanon stuff and that's WL's claim. However it's pretty damned obvious that Trump isn't the DOJ. He'd like to, and he's trying like hell to, but he is obviously not very clued into reality much less top level DOJ/IC strategy. His own DOJ is pleading with the courts to ignore his public statements as having nothing to do with actual policy. It's #### like this that really makes me think that WL is in deed malicious in its intentions.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just on this, I think it's a fair point. Obama got this too, is he an all powerful manipulator or a hopeless incompetent, pick one.What doesn't make sense is how people explain some of Trump's actions (hiring Whitaker, ####ting all over the investigation on twitter, discrediting Cohen but supporting Manafort) as being intentional enough to try and shut down the investigation. Yet when it comes to the DOJ teeing off on Assange, all of a sudden the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. In this belief system, Trump has hired AG Whitaker to shut down the Russia investigation, but doesn't care if AG Whitaker (or Sessions for that matter) goes after Assange, potentially blowing up the Russia investigation. Trump obviously doesn't care about that thread being pulled.
Why is Trump so unafraid of Assange being prosecuted and potentially exposing the conspiracy? Because it never happened. That's why.
Well, there is some good reason to think that: "there should be like a death penalty or something"There's a lot less reason to believe Trump wants to see Assange prosecuted though. Like nothing he has said or done indicates that.
2010. This fits in the Manning is still relevant category, but actually they're talking about a leaking of taxes, not even intel stuff.Well, there is some good reason to think that: "there should be like a death penalty or something"
Joke's on me huh
Uh, kinda. Should probably check the date on that video.Well, there is some good reason to think that: "there should be like a death penalty or something"
Joke's on me huh
Do you know if they can just expel him at some point? Are the kid gloves a result of some Ecuadorian asylum rules?
They made him a citizen. I don't know Ecuador's rules on that, but it has to interfere with just kicking him out.Do you know if they can just expel him at some point? Are the kid gloves a result of some Ecuadorian asylum rules?
Ah. Thank you. I’d somehow missed that in the coverage.They made him a citizen. I don't know Ecuador's rules on that, but it has to interfere with just kicking him out.
Does it? I think it’s just Politics right now. I don’t think Ecuador or any country is required to harbor in their missions any Joe/Jose Ciudano who is wanted for extradition in a foreign country.They made him a citizen. I don't know Ecuador's rules on that, but it has to interfere with just kicking him out.