The Charges Against Julian Assange

As expected, EDVA rolled out a bunch more charges, under the Espionage Act, against Julian Assange. I’m going to do a follow-up post on how stupid the way they’ve done this is, but first wanted to lay out the charges.

The indictment charges Assange with 17 new counts (in addition to the single CFAA charge they’ve already charged him with, which is now Count 18).

  • Count 1: Conspiracy to Obtain, Receive, and Disclose National Defense Information (18 USC §793(g)
  • Count 15: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information — informants in Afghan Significant Activity Reports (18 USC §793(e))
  • Count 16: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information — informants in Iraq Significant Activity Reports (18 USC §793(e))
  • Count 17: Unauthorized Disclosure of National Defense Information –informants in State Department Cables (18 USC §793(e))
  • Count 18: Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion (18 USC §641, 793(c) and 793(e)

Then there are a set of throw-everything-at-the-wall charges that charges Manning giving three sets of files — the Detainee Assessment Briefs, the State Department Cables, and the Iraq Rules of Engagement — to Assange in four different ways.

The attempt, Count 5, is related to the files Chelsea Manning would have gotten had the password crack been successful.

So effectively, there are three main sets of documents, the Gitmo Detainee Assessment Briefs, the State Department Cables, and the Iraq Rules of engagement, for which EDVA has charged Assange for causing Manning to obtain them, Assange obtaining them himself, causing Manning to disclose documents she had legal access to to Assange, and causing Manning to disclose documents she had unauthorized possession of to Assange. (It’s worth noting that three of these four steps are replicated in the existing Joshua Schulte indictment.)

Then there are three sets of informants that Assange disclosed — those not redacted in the Afghan Significant Activity Reports, those not redacted in the Iraq Significant Activity Reports, and those not redacted in the State Department cables.

Then there are the two charges associated with what Manning would have gotten had Assange succeeded in cracking that password — the CFAA charge and the attempt to obtain charge.

Finally, there’s an overriding conspiracy.

12 replies
  1. Erich Kuerschner says:

    And what is the evidence for the DNC hack? The “evidence” provided by the DNC? The “evidence” providied by sayso of the personally picked members of the intelligence community?

    • Rayne says:

      You’ve commented here over the last 10 years approximately two dozen times under 3-4 different names and accounts. You’ve shared your pro-Russian view several times. We get it. You don’t like the content here of late. Bring a better argument or get out of here with this weak sauce. You need more info? Go FOIA the FBI. Ask them about their relationship with Crowdstrike while you’re at it because the DNC hack has been covered here and you simply can’t read or refuse to accept what’s been written.

    • bmaz says:

      Hi Erich! Thank you for your whole four comments on this blog since, well, let’s see here, oh, February of 2013.

      Would you like to ante up more information, or naw?

    • bmaz says:

      I will provide you with this “sauce”: VIPs are basically crackpots at this point. I read that article, and a LOT of their other bunk, a long time ago. But, as to this old piece, as you so demanded, I read it. Again. And, again, it is truly garbage.

      Don’t come here and demand that anybody read, and respond, to crackpottery. I read that article back when it was initially published. It was as batshit then as it is now. Do you have anything else to offer, or naw?

      • matt says:

        “Batshit crackpottery garbage” is nonsensical gibberish for the intellectually lazy- it is not an argument (unless you want to have a shouting match). If you care about the truth, you will need to challenge your assumptions, or at least engage respectful dialog. William Binney suffered the wrath of the National Security State under both parties leadership and has earned his right to challenge the intelligence community. Did you watch “A Good American?” Do you disagree with his inside knowledge of the NSA and his technical expertise? The fact is, he is a formidable voice with credentials who is very relevant currently as figure in recent contact with the Trump administration. I don’t pretend to understand the science of hacking forensics. But, I do understand the importance of independently verifiable evidence. It is incredulous that a private security firm, paid by a legal firm, paid by the DNC was allowed exclusive access to evidence, and then allowed to exclusively conjecture conclusions (Bears in the Midst) with no public (Mueller, FBI) examination of the evidence.

        Now, hear me qualify my statements above. Russia, is absolutely involved in hacking, phishing, election influencing, and the underground intelligence trade. Spy-craft is an essential element of all major Nation states (UK, Israel, China, and the USA being the biggest and best at it). Spy-craft is an essential element of both US political parties as well. What I find so frustrating about establishment Democrats is their incapability to see that multiple interests, foreign and domestic, were all playing dirty (and have been playing dirty for a long time). Putin and Trump are not the only culpable ones. Making Russia the singular scapegoat allows us to ignore other serious co-conspirators. In my view, the Bannon/Mercer/Cambridge Analytica/Israel(Black Cube) conspiracy should take the cake for the 2016 election win for Trump. As should, the Koch libertarian redistricting/voter suppression efforts in multiple states made possible by Citizens United.

        No offence, but if you guys are still nitpicking “collusion theories” over the next year(s) and withholding your commendable expertise from more important political issues… it is you that will be branded “crackpot.”

        Blessings & Good Night

        • bmaz says:

          No, they are basically into the Alex Jones orbits at this point and relentlessly argue bogus facts and theories. And, thanks, I know exactly who Binney, McGovern and the others are. Frankly, even several of their own and/or former members, including Tom Drake, have taken serious issue with the VIP’s outlandish conclusions and cherry picked, if not outright manufactured, “evidence”. Lastly, we do not need your help in deciding what we cover here at Emptywheel, we have gotten along just fine on our own for a very long time, and will continue to do just that. PS – the are no “collusion theories” it is a made up term that means nothing. We have reported on criminal conspiracy here.

Comments are closed.