Witness | US v Pfc. Manning, Adrian Lamo, confidential informant for US Government
- posted December 20, 2011
UPDATE POST COURT-MARTIAL
United States v. Pfc. Manning was conducted in de facto secrecy. The public was not granted contemporaneous access to court filings or rulings during her trial. In addition to reporting on her trial, I transcribed the proceedings, reconstructed the censored appellate list, and un-redacted any publicly available documentation, in order to foster public comprehension of her unprecedented trial.
As a result of a lawsuit against the military judge and the Military District of Washington brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as my own FOIA requests and research, an official court record for US v. Pfc. Manning was released seven months after her trial. That record is not complete.
The official trial docket is published HERE and the entire collection of documents is text searchable at usvmanning.org.
*During the pretrial proceedings, court-martial and sentencing of Pfc. Manning, Chelsea requested to be identified as Bradley and addressed using the male pronoun. In a letter embargoed for August 22, 2013 Chelsea proclaimed that she is female and wished to be addressed from that moment forward as Chelsea E. Manning.
Adrian Lamo, confidential informant for the US Government
Adrian Lamo
SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that Lamo was a confidential informant for the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) beginning in the “latter part of July 2010” until August or September of 2011. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that Lamo “knew there were other individuals involved and opportunities in that community with other hackers.” Special Agent Mark Mander, CCIU, testified, however, that Lamo started to cooperate with Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) “probably at the end of May 2010.” Lamo also reportedly told Wired in May 2011 that he has had “almost weekly telephone contact with a ‘handler’ at the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command.”
SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that information provided to Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) by Lamo in exchange for expenses “wasn’t substantive.” However, SA Mander, CCIU testified that “[t]he majority of the investigation plan was based on Lamo of Manning and other documents obtained from Pfc. Manning’s personnel file.”
SA Mander, CCIU, also testified that Lamo’s “initial information started the investigation.” Special Agent David Shaver, CCIU, who “completed 19 classified CCIU reports“, also testified that his “investigative plan was to look for items mentioned in the alleged chat logs between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning [said to be bradass87].”
Special Agent Toni Graham, Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) testified that on 27 May 2010 she was serving in a battalion in Baghdad, Iraq when she received instructions from her headquarters based on information from an confidential informant.
SA Graham, Army CID, testified that the confidential informant, who provided her and other investigators with information, was in direct contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
SA Graham’s, Army CID, 29 May 2010 affidavit stated that Manning had been penetrating .mil and .gov accounts for over a year. SA Graham, Army CID, admitted in her sworn testimony that she did not know that Pfc. Manning had only deployed seven months earlier in November 2009.
Rainey Reitman notes that SA Graham, Army CID, testified, “I can’t say for sure [Pfc. Manning] was doing it for over a year,” because the “information was also something she had gathered by way of the confidential informant’s report.”
The following is an alleged exchange between Adrian Lamo and bradass87 published by Wired on 13 July 2011 currently understood to have occur on 22 May 2010.
According to Lamo’s sworn testimony, the alleged exchange occurred one day after Lamo had decided to contact US Army authorities through an intermediary on 21 May 2010:
(12:11:03 PM) bradass87: i’ve been penetrating *.smil.mil networks for over a year
(12:11:21 PM) bradass87: as well as *.sgov.gov
(12:11:49 PM) bradass87: ive created a massive mess
(12:12:30 PM) bradass87: and no-one has a clue, because 95% of efforts are on physical security of classified networks… and managing OPSEC on unclassified networks
(12:12:46 PM) info@adrianlamo.com: Want to go to the press? :)
(12:12:51 PM) bradass87: no
Reitman notes that SA Graham, Army CID, testified that her 29 May 2010 affidavit stated that the video “Collateral Murder” was classified.
The 5 July 2010 charge sheet also alleges crimes related to a “classified video of a military operation filmed at or near Baghdad, Iraq, on or about 12 July 2007″ in Specification 1 of Charge I; and Specification 1, 2, and 5 of Charge II (emphasis added). However, the “12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi” video known as “Collateral Murder” is not classified. The 1 March 2011 charge sheet reflects that the word “classified” is omitted from Specification 2 of Charge II. Instead, the 1 March 2011 charge sheet alleges a crime for “unauthorized possession of information relating to the national defense, to wit: a video file named ’12 JUL 07 CZ ENGAGEMENT ZONE 30 GC Anyone.avi.'” Reitman notes that SA Graham, Army CID, testified that the information in her 29 May 2010 affidavit that stated the 12 July 2007 Baghdad US airstrike video was classified had also come by way of a confidential informant.
Reitman notes that SA Graham, Army CID, testified that her 29 May 2010 affidavit stated that “Manning had released TS-SCI [TOP SECRET-Sensitive Compartmented Information] information and cables onto the Internet.” However, information alleged to have been disclosed in the charges against Pfc. Manning on both the 5 July 2010 and 1 March 2011 charge sheets is not “TS-SCI” [TOP SECRET-Sensitive Compartmented Information].
-
The 12 July 2007 Baghdad, Iraq airstrike video is not classified.
-
The United States Forces – Iraq Microsoft Outlook/Share Point Exchange Server Global Address List (GAL) is not classified.
-
The US Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy cables are marked SIPDIS, which means they are intended for distribution outside the Department of State on SIPRNet, the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, which only goes up to information classified at SECRET.
-
The Combined Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE) Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity Reports (SigActs) are marked SECRET or below.
-
The United States Army Counterintelligence Center Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch Department of Defense Intelligence Analysis Program’s “WikiLeaks.org – An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services Insurgents Or Terrorist Group” is classified at SECRET.
-
CIA Red Cell Special Memorandum “Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission–Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough” is marked CONFIDENTIAL, below SECRET.
-
The Guantanamo detainee profiles are marked SECRET.
-
The classified Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation on the original 5 July 2010 charge sheet is alleged to have been obtained on SIPRNet, which only contains information classified up to SECRET. SA Shaver, CCIU, admitted in sworn testimony that the Microsoft PowerPoint file, “Farah.brief.final.version1”, alleged to have been downloaded by the Alienware .22 SIPRNet computer on 10 April 2010 at 13:12:24 hours was authorized for download on SIPRNet machines, which means the document would have to be SECRET or below.
-
In like manner to “Collateral Murder“, Specification 11 of Charge II on the 1 March 2011 charge sheet does not identify the file “BE22PAX.zip” containing a video named “BE22 PAX.wmv” as classified.
According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), 4.2 Million federal employees, contractors, and consultants have security clearances for SECRET information.
Major Matthew Kemkes, former military defense counsel for Pfc. Manning, asserted at the Article 32 Pretrial hearing that SA Graham’s, Army CID, 29 May 2010 affidavit was a “major piece of documentation” affecting Manning’s pre-trial confinement hearing. SA Graham, Army CID, testified in response to Kemkes’s assertion that much of her affidavit was based on information from commanders at Ft. Belvoir who had received intelligence from a confidential informant.” SA Graham, Army CID, testified, “That was the information I had at the time.”
Emails
Adrian Lamo of San Francisco, CA, a confidential informant for the Government, testified that he first came into contact with bradass87 when he received a “series of emails from 10th Mountain Division that was tied to a unit and location where Manning was stationed.” Lamo testified that although he could not remember the address of the first email, he testified that it came from a “.mil” email address.
Lamo testified that “later [emails] came from bradley.e.manning@gmail.com.” Reitman notes that Lamo testified that the name on the emails was “Bradley Manning”. Lamo testified that he could not and did not read the emails from the individual known to him as bradass87, because the “bulk” of emails were encrypted with an outdated key.
Lamo told Glenn Greenwald in a recorded audio exchange published on 18 June 2010, that the person Lamo communicated with as bradass87 initially sent him an email using Lamo’s outdated public encryption key. Lamo told Greenwald that the person Lamo communicated with as bradass87 sent subsequent emails using Lamo’s current public encryption key. Lamo told Greenwald that he could not read the emails sent to him with his outdated encryption key, and that he never decrypted the emails sent to him with his current encryption key. Lamo told Greenwald that he forgot about the emails allegedly sent to him by the person he communicated with as bradass87 until he was drafting his affidavit on 13 June 2010, at which point Lamo turned all alleged emails to law enforcement neither decrypting nor reading them.
Lamo reportedly told Jonathan Fildes in a 7 June 2010 BBC report, 11 days previous, however, that “[f]our agents – from different federal and military agencies – turned up at [Lamo’s] house to read the conversation logs – from his e-mail and instant messenger conversations with Mr Manning – ‘one by one'” (emphasis added).
Lamo reportedly told John Cook in a 9 June 2010 Yahoo! News article that “Manning contacted [Lamo] via AOL Instant Messenger ‘out of the blue‘ on May 21 [2010]” [original, repost (emphasis added). Reitman notes, however, that Lamo testified under oath “that he first received an encrypted email on 20 May 10. [This is what I have in my notes but I’m skeptical of it so flagging it. Did anyone else get this date down? email me.] (Bracketed note is Reitman’s.) The AFP also reported that Lamo testified “how an individual who he said eventually turned out to be Manning reached out to him by email on May 20, 2010.”
Lamo testified that he could not remember if it was approximately an eight email exchange.
Lamo’s suggestion to chat on AIM
Lamo reportedly told PBS that after he received the initial email from an individual he communicated with as bradass87, he received subsequent emails:
I received a subsequent e-mail, also encrypted, and then another one after that, and going by my rule of threes, whereby if somebody tries to get a hold of them three times I figure they’re probably serious so I’ll get back to them, I shot back an e-mail saying, “Hey, I’m not able to read your encrypted e-mail because it’s using the improper encryption key, but if you would like to chat, we can chat at America Online in Instant Messenger.” And sometime after that I received my first instant message from Bradley Manning…I’m not saying gospel that it was the third time; it might have been the fourth; it might have been the fifth.
Reitman notes that Lamo testified that he replied to the emails that he received from the person he communicated with as bradass87 by suggesting that he and bradass87 communicate with each other via AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). Lamo re-affirmed on cross-examination that the first alleged exchange with bradass87 on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) was at at Lamo’s suggestion.
Lamo told Glenn Greenwald that the initial and subsequent emails he received from the individual he believed he communicated with as bradass87, and Lamo’s reply, suggesting that he and bradass87 chat on AIM, occurred on the same day. According to Lamo’s repeated testimony at US v. Pfc. Manning Article 32 Pretrial the initial email from an individual that Lamo communicated with as bradass87 and the initial chat message from the same individual occurred on 20 May 2010.
“Whole unedited version” of the alleged chat logs
Reitman notes that Lamo testified that bradass87 sent him an encrypted chat message via Off the Record (OTR). Lamo testified that his first chat with the bradass87 occurred on 20 May 2010, and Lamo testified repeatedly that he chatted with bradass87 between 20 and 26 May 2010:
Prosecution: First chats?
Lamo: May 20. His username was bradass87. It was encrypted using a piece of software known as OTR. Installed manually.…
Prosecution: How long did you chat with bradass87?
Lamo: Over a period, May 20 through May 26.
Prosecution: Encryption key change at all?
Lamo: No. The key, unique to the computer, remained consistent, indicating I was chatting with the user, using the same moniker and computer the whole time.…
Defense: Alleged I.M. chats began via A.O.L. I.M.? And this was your idea? Began 20 May 2010?
Lamo: [Answered, “Yes” to all questions.]
Defense (Coombs): Chats between you and someone who identifying them-self as bradass87?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Chatted on that day?
Lamo: I believe that to be the case.
Defense (Coombs): And over the next five days?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Ended 26 May 2010?
Lamo: Yes, they did.
Reitman notes, Lamo testified that “[o]n May 20, BradAss87 sent him an encrypted message using Off The Record (OTR) chat” (emphasis added).
Reitman notes: “The IM exchanges began on 20 May 10. Lamo initially suggested it. The chats lasted for 5 [not certain why this isn’t 6] days and ended on 26 May” (Bracketed note is Reitman’s, emphasis added). Reitman notes that Lamo testified that “[h]e was then asked how many days he had chatted with BradAss87, and he stated it was from May 20th to May 26th” (emphasis added).
Kevin Gosztola notes, “Lamo claimed from May 20-26 while he was having the chats that there was no ‘encryption key change between the two parties’ and he was communicating with someone using the same computer and same moniker” (emphasis added).
Gosztola notes: “[L]ater in the day, on May 20 [2010], bradass87 sent Lamo a message” (emphasis added). The Washington Post reports, “The chats took place between May 20 and 26, 2010” (emphasis added). The AFP also reports: “Lamo said he began holding encrypted AOL instant message chats on May 20, 2010 with someone using the screen name ‘bradass87′” (emphasis added).
Lamo told Greenwald, however, that the initial chat with an individual Lamo communicated with as bradass87 occurred on 21 May 2010, a day after the initial email he received from the same individual on 20 May 2010. Lamo also told Greenwald: “We had at most five or six days of chats” (emphasis added).
Lamo testified that he chat with bradass87 from 20 May 2010, and after he had contacted US Army authorities on 21 May 2010 he continued to chat with an bradass87 until 26 May 2010. The alleged chat logs between Adrian Lamo and bradass87 understood to be full and un-edited chat logs published by Wired are reported to have occurred between 21 and 25 May 2010. According to Wired:
The chats between Manning and Lamo begin May 21, 2010. As received by Wired.com, the logs contained time stamps but no dates, and were saved by Lamo in four unordered files (A fifth file recorded only an encryption handshaking error that was also logged in one of the other four. We’ve ordered the files ourselves based on the conversation flow and information from Lamo. Breaks between files are indicated by a horizontal rule. Portions of the logs previously published by Wired.com are underlined. (emphasis added).
Based on Lamo’s sworn testimony there are, therefore, two days of alleged chat logs missing from Wired “whole, unedited” chat logs as published by them on 13 July 2011.
Wired notes in parenthesis that the text “(01:37:03 AM) bradass87 has signed on”, which is understood to have occurred on 24 May 2010, was the only content in the fifth file provided to them by Adrian Lamo. Kevin Poulsen of Wired’s Threat Level blog, wrote to Greenwald in their published email exchange that he received the “whole unedited version” version of the alleged chat logs from Adrian Lamo on 27 May 2010. Lamo told Greenwald a week after, however, that on 27 May 2010 Kevin Poulsen was not in possession of the “full” alleged chat logs between Adrian Lamo and bradass87:
GREENWALD: You- One of the things that I’m having a hard time with is you turned over these chats, the full chat log, to Wired and they published extremely selected samples that were very highly edited. And one of the things that I’m just so interested in is what it is that they didn’t include. Because a lot of the stuff that you’re saying took place in these conversation are nowhere to be found in the chats that Wired published.
LAMO: I’d say that it’s actually a fairly small amount of it, and I think most of it took place in the first chat which they may not have had since the chats took place on two difference computers, one on the first and the rest on the second one. But that being said there was some material and-
GREENWALD: So you didn’t turn over all the chats? You didn’t turn over all the chats to Wired? There’s some that they didn’t get?
LAMO: They received the rest after the fact but nothing that caused them to run a revision.
GREENWALD: So they do now have everything?
LAMO: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
GREENWALD: Including the ones on both computers that you just mentioned?
LAMO: That’s correct, and can we go off the record for a moment?
GREENWALD: Yes.
LAMO: There were materials [recording ends]
(emphasis added)
SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that his first contact with Adrian Lamo was on 25 May 2010 by phone; the communication Lamo lasted “minutes”; and the purpose was to establish Lamo as the person connected to the US intelligence analyst. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that the only other time he communicated with Lamo after that was to set up a meeting date.
SA Edwards, CCIU testified that he made physical contact with Adrian Lamo in Carmichael, CA on 11 June 2010 to collect the alleged chat logs. SA Edwards’, CCIU, meeting with Lamo occurred the day after Wired’s 10 June 2010 publication of excerpts of the alleged chat logs between Adrian Lamo and bradass87.
SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that he collected from Lamo a removable hard drive from a mobile laptop, which according to SA Shaver’s, CCIU, testimony is a Linux machine. SA Edwards, CCIU, also testified that he collected from Lamo an HP mini laptop that had a hard drive in it.
Wired reported on 13 July 2011, that they received: “four unordered files (A fifth file recorded only an encryption handshaking error that was also logged in one of the other four…)” (emphasis added). SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that he found four (4) alleged chat logs on the HP Windows Net-book that belonged to Adrian Lamo.
SA Shaver, CCIU, also testified that he found several copies of the alleged chat logs “slightly modified to be akin to the versions given to the media” on the other computer, a Linux machine belonging to Adrian Lamo (emphasis added).
Lamo told Greenwald, however, that “the first chat which [Wired] may not have had since the chats took place on two difference computers, one on the first and the rest on the second one” (emphasis added). Lamo also testified that he did not manipulate the alleged chat logs between himself and bradass87. SA Edwards, CCIU, also testified that he also collected two thumb drives from an individual named George W. [sounds like “Street”. Reitman notes the name as “George W. Shreik (sp.).”
Reitman also notes that SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that “the chat logs had been provided to this individual on two thumb drives”]. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that he collected these two thumb drives because chat logs provided during earlier interviews of Lamo were not a complete record.
Adrian Lamo testified that he gave two thumb drives to SA Edwards, CCIU, which contradicted SA Edward’s, CCIU, own testimony. When the military prosecutor examined Lamo, Lamo testified that he could not answer the military prosecutor about who he gave the two thumb drives containing the alleged chat logs.
When lead civilian defense counsel, David Coombs, handed Lamo a document, Lamo testified that “a reasonable person would conclude that these logs are communications between myself and a person known as Bradley E. Manning.” Lamo, however, did not testify that he concluded the same.
Wired v. Wired
Wired’s Threat Level blog reported on 6 June 2010 that “[w]hen Manning told Lamo that he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables, Lamo contacted the Army.” Lamo also reportedly told PBS: “I decided to turn Brad in when he mentioned the State Department cables and all their number” (emphasis added). Lamo also reportedly told Elinor Mills in a 7 June 2010 article:
‘If it was just the [12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike] video, I would have left the issue alone, and frankly, [Manning] would have had my kudos–and [Manning] still does,’ Lamo said. ‘But it wasn’t just the video. It was a lot of information that was unrelated to our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan or the war on terror at all, including information about some of our major trading partners.’ Asked to elaborate, Lamo said he couldn’t say more, except that the sensitive information had to do with code words and that it was ‘top-secret sensitive, compartmentalized information.’
As stated previously, none of the charged documents in US v Pfc. Manning are TOP SECRET/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information. Lamo also testified that he contacted US Army authorities through an intermediary on 21 May 2010:
Defense (Coombs): Day after, the 21st May, initial chat is when you decided to contact Army authorities?
Lamo: It was about that time that I contacted a third party to make a determination as to the seriousness of admissions made in the chats.
Defense (Coombs): Day after the chat began is when you decided to contact?
Lamo: That would be roughly accurate.
Defense (Coombs): We need to be accurate here. Accurate or not?
Lamo: I believe it is.
Defense (Coombs): 21st of May.
Lamo: Thereabouts.
Defense (Coombs): Again, close as possible. 21st May, right?
Lamo: At that time, I made communications regarding chats that had been communicated to me.
Defense (Coombs): So would that be 21st May?
Lamo: Yes it would.
Reitman notes: “On 21 May 10, a day after the chats started, Lamo decided to contact the army through an intermediary.” Kim Zetter’s at Wired also reported: “Asked when he first contacted law enforcement, Lamo said on May 21 he contacted Timothy Douglas Webster, a psychology student at UC Santa Barbara and a former Army counterintelligence agent.”
The 21 May 2010 portion of the alleged chat logs, however, do not mention of State Department cables. Below is the entire portion of the 21 May 2010 alleged exchange with bradass87:
(1:40:51 PM) bradass87 has not been authenticated yet. You should authenticate this buddy.
(1:40:51 PM) Unverified conversation with bradass87 started.
(1:41:12 PM) bradass87: hi
(1:44:04 PM) bradass87: how are you?
(1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for “adjustment disorder” […]in lieu of “gender identity disorder”
(1:56:24 PM) bradass87: im sure you’re pretty busy…
(1:58:31 PM) bradass87: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?
(1:58:31 PM) info@adrianlamo.com < AUTO-REPLY >: Tired of being tired
(2:17:29 PM) bradass87: ?
Above represents what Wired published as the initial chat between Adrian Lamo and a person he communicated with as bradass87 on 21 May 2010. The alleged exchange, however, according to Lamo’s sworn testimony represents the second day of alleged chats communication that commenced on 20 May 2010, and occurs on the day Lamo contacted law enforcement through an intermediary, 21 May 2010.
“Webster, Timothy D.”
Lamo testified that he contacted Timothy Douglas Webster, “a psychology student at UC Santa Barbara”, who was also a former “counter-intelligence agent in the US Army” on 21 May 2010. Timothy Webster reportedly told David Dishneau at the AP that “a Sacramento-based computer hacker called him May 26 [2010] with a hypothetical question: What would you do if a soldier told you he had leaked classified information?” (emphasis added). Lamo reportedly confirmed Wester’s account published by David Dishneau at the AP on 4 August 2010: “Lamo confirmed the account.”
Lamo testified that he contacted Webster on 21 May 2010, because he wanted to make sure he had the “right team.” Reitman notes that Lamo testified that he had asked Webster who at the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) “could handle this right and in a sensitive manner.” Lamo told Greenwald, “I contacted Army authorities through a intermediately late the day after…rather I got the ball rolling on that. Wanted to make sure we had the right team for the job. So, I had asked a friend of mine to find who at Army CI [Counterintelligence] was good at this sort of investigation…who would handle it right and who would handle it sensitively.”
According to an alleged exchange between Lamo and bradass87, understood to have occurred on 22 May 2010 the day after Lamo testified he first contacted law enforcement via Timothy D. Webster, Lamo asked bradass87 about “Webster, Timothy D.” formerly in Army Counterintelligence (CI). Lamo tells bradass87 that he is “curious” to know how a paper by “Webster, Timothy D.” “had been received by the IC [Intelligence Community, referring to the 16 US intelligence agencies under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)].” In the alleged exchange Lamo describes Timothy D. Webster as a former Special Agent with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with a “[s]pecialty FCI [Foreign CounterIntelligence] in cyber-areas.”
(10:48:43 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: Would you know if a specific person had authored a report/paper?
(10:49:23 AM) bradass87: not really…
(10:49:42 AM) bradass87: bureaucrats usually aren’t that intelligent i find
(10:49:54 AM) bradass87: [re: false flag]
(10:50:03 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: Webster, Timothy D.
(10:51:05 AM) bradass87: who’s that?
(10:51:21 AM) bradass87: he’s an author obviously
(10:51:28 AM) bradass87: Sex and Intimacy [goog]
(10:51:59 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: SA with NGA (former)
(10:52:18 AM) bradass87: squints
(10:52:22 AM) bradass87: >shiver<
(10:53:01 AM) bradass87: squints creep me out
(10:53:06 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: Specialty FCI in cyber-areas.
(10:53:53 AM) bradass87: no idea…
(10:54:45 AM) bradass87: im not really sure where this is going… apart from awkward weirdness
(10:55:31 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I apologize if I’ve made you feel awkward.(10:55:37 AM) bradass87: no, its me
(10:55:54 AM) bradass87: i said too much too fast
(10:55:59 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: He wrote a paper a while back, I was curious how it had been received by the IC.
(10:56:36 AM) bradass87: i guess i can find out, though im restricted to SIPR now, because of the discharge proceedings
The first mention of Department of State cables, said to be Lamo’s motivation for contacting law enforcement, occurs 1 hour, 32 minutes, and 41 seconds after this alleged exchange with bradass87 about Timothy D. Webster, at 12:21:24 PM on 22 May 2010, one day after Lamo testified that he decided to contact law enforcement through an intermediary, Timothy D. Webster, and the third day of his alleged chat exchange with bradass87.
Timothy D. Webster reportedly told Martin Smith of Frontline that he “coached Lamo to keep up the chat as long as possible, to find out more details. [Webster] also alerted the Pentagon that they may have a security breach.” Lamo reportedly told PBS that Lamo made the decision to turn Manning in after, “talking to Tim [D. Webster] and getting his read on the situation.” “I trust [Tim Webster’s] judgment.” Lamo reportedly told PBS, “[B]ased on [Tim Webster’s] feedback, my initial gut suspicion that this was something that could not be allowed to continue was pretty much confirmed.”
Lamo reportedly told BBC that Webster “put me in touch with some of his former colleagues who he felt could handle the issue in a low key way.” Lamo reportedly told PBS, “[Tim Webster] came up with some of the right people to call, and [computer security analyst] Chet [Uber] made some of the other phone calls in order to make sure that this didn’t end up getting lost on some secretary’s desk somewhere.”
Chet Uber
SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that he received an email from and individual named Chet Uber in which Uber said he was aware of an individual who was in contact with an Army intelligence analyst releasing information to an Australian national in charge of WikiLeaks. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that his first contact with Adrian Lamo was on 25 May 2010 by phone, when Uber connected SA Edwards, CCIU, to Lamo.”
Robert McMillan, a Senior writer with Wired and IDG syndicated News Service correspondent, published in Computer World, PC World, IT News, and IT World reported that Uber announced at a press conference at DefCon on 1 August 2010 that he received a phone call from Adrian Lamo in “early June 2010 wherein Lamo told Uber that had “received classified documents from a US Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning and wanted advice about what to do.” Uber reportedly announce at the press conference that he told Lamo, “Put it in a bag, take it off your computer, wipe your drive and I’m going to call you back in 10 minutes.” “After Lamo called him, Uber contacted the US Department of Defense and set things up with the US Air Force Office of Special Investigation for Lamo to report the documents. He then called Lamo back and told him how to do that,” according to McMillan’s report in Computer World and IT News (emphasis added).
Lamo also reportedly confirmed Uber’s account with reporter Robert McMillan: “In an e-mail interview, Lamo confirmed Uber’s account. ‘Mr. Uber was, among a few others, an instrumental voice in helping me to come to my ultimate decision” to contact the authorities.'”
Andy Greenberg reported in Forbes on 1 August 2010 that Chet Uber held a press conference at DefCon and announced that in June 2010, Uber “learned from Lamo’s father “that Adrian Lamo had identified Manning as the alleged source of “Collateral Murder” (emphasis added). Greenberg reported that Uber announced that he had arranged a meeting for Lamo “with employees of ‘three letter’ agencies.” “‘Give them everything you have,'” Uber reportedly said to Lamo. Greenberg also reports Uber saying “that Lamo later called him from the meeting [Uber had arranged]'” with “five guys”.
On 1 August 2010, Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter at Wired reported that Uber announced at a DefCon press conference that:
“Lamo told [Uber] that Manning had used steganography — the science of cryptographically hiding content within another file — to send him the documents, and that they were hidden in either a movie file or a music file. Uber says he doesn’t remember some of the exact details clearly as a result of a mini-stroke he suffered in the past. Lamo told Uber the documents had markings indicating they were classified and that they were a threat to national security.
Uber doesn’t know what was in the documents Manning allegedly sent Lamo, but he initially told Lamo not to read them. He then told Lamo he had two options — he could destroy the classified documents or turn them over to authorities. Uber advised against destroying them since they might somehow be found on his computer and lead authorities to believe he’d been trying to hide them.
…
Uber said that after speaking with Lamo, he called the Cyber Defense Crime Center, which gave him phone numbers for the US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations and a couple of other agencies he didn’t recall. He gave the contact information to Lamo.”
In the same 1 August 2010 article by Wired’s Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter is a bolded update: “Adrian Lamo has now denied this. See the update at the bottom of this post.” The 2 August 2010 update at the bottom of the post reads:
Update 8/2/10 18:30 EDT: Adrian Lamo said Monday that Manning did not provide him with classified documents.
Lamo says Uber’s statements were the result of a misunderstanding. Lamo informed Uber in May that Manning, in his instant messenger chats with Lamo, had discussed things he’d seen on classified networks.
‘He described things that he had seen, but he did not actually send material firsthand,’ says Lamo. ‘He characterized documents…However, it would be inaccurate to say that he sent me any documents.’
If Manning had sent Lamo classified documents, it would have been strong evidence that he was the leaker he claimed to be.
Asked why he didn’t set the record straight on Sunday, Lamo said ‘I wanted to take the time to make sure that explaining would not impede’ the government’s investigation of Manning.
‘I think what we had with Chet was a failure to communicate.’
Uber didn’t return a phone call Monday.
(emphasis added)
Mark Rasch, formerly in charge of the Justice Department’s computer crime unit now in private practice in Washington DC reportedly told Declan McCullagh in a 10 August 2010 CNET article that he received a phone call from Uber “saying Adrian has a guy he’s been chatting with online who has access to classified cables.” Rasch reportedly told McCullagh in a 10 August 2010 CNET post: that he “found [Uber or Lamo] people in the intelligence community and law enforcement community [that Uber or Lamo] could report it to.” Rasch reportedly told McCullagh in a CNET 10 August 2010: “‘I didn’t take [Manning] down,’ Rasch said. ‘I just put the people who wanted to report [Manning] in touch with the people they wanted to talk to.'”
Rasch reportedly told McCullagh in a CNET 10 August 2010 that those people were the “FBI and Army intelligence.”
Greenwald’s account of a history between Mark Rasch and Kevin Poulsen, Senior Editor at Wired can be found here.
First contact with law enforcement
Lamo testified that he also could not answer the military prosecutor with certainty about the date of his first contact with law enforcement. Lamo testified, “I believe that would have been around 23rd or 24th.” When Lamo asked military prosecutors during his testimony to provide him with a record of his first meeting so that he might remember, military prosecutor’s conferred with themselves and ended their examination of Lamo.
In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Kevin Poulsen, Editor of Wired’s Threat Level blog, which published portions of the alleged chat logs between Lamo and bradass87 on 10 June 2010, reportedly told CJR that the initial phone call that he received from Lamo was on 24 May 2010.
Poulsen reportedly told CJR that the phone call from Lamo came after “Lamo had already contacted federal authorities, and was set to meet with them for the first time the next day [25 May 2010].”
Lamo reportedly told PBS: “I gave Kevin Poulsen an outline of what had happened after I had spoken to [Tim] Webster and [Chet] Uber and after there was a meeting with the federal authorities lined up.”
Wired Threat Level blog reported on 6 June 2010 that Lamo’s first meeting, which Wired reportedly understood to be on 25 March 2010 “took place at a Starbucks near his house in Carmichael, California,” where Lamo “passed the agents a copy of the chat logs.” Wired reported that the agents at this first meeting were “Army CID investigators and the FBI.”
Lamo told PBS when he was asked “Did you give the chat logs to the FBI right away?”:
I gave the chat logs to military investigators at the end of our meeting. My initial meeting was not actually with the FBI; it was with Army counterintelligence. There were a pair of FBI agents that came along, but I asked that they wait in the car while we talked until I was comfortable with their presence. (emphasis added)
Poulsen reportedly told CJR and as reported on Wired’s 6 June 2010 Threat Level blog that Lamo’s second scheduled meeting with FBI agents from the Oakland Field Office was at 4:00 pm on 27 May 2010.
Danny Clark
Adrian Lamo told the The Washington Post in a 7 June 2010 report: “I’ve never turned anyone in before, and don’t plan to again.” By July 2010, according to SA Edwards, CCIU,, Lamo was an official informant for the US Government, although SA Mander, CCIU says Lamo “probably” started cooperating with investigators in late May 2010. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that Adrian Lamo was a confidential informant for the Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) beginning in the “latter part of July 2010” until August or September of 2011, and that Lamo “knew there were other individuals involved and opportunities in that community with other hackers.”
Lamo testified that he exchanged instant message chats with Danny Clark on 21 July 2010. Lamo testified that he initiated contact with Danny Clark because “he was curious regarding [Clark’s] role in the WikiLeaks affair.” Lamo testified that he said to Danny Clark, “Let’s agree neither of us is gonna share these logs.” Lamo admitted in sworn testimony that he shared the logs with law enforcement. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that he attempted to interview Clark between 18 and 23 June 2010 but that he did not interview Clark, because Clark invoked his right to counsel. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that he had knowledge that Clark communicated with Lamo because Adrian Lamo provided Edwards with the chat log between Lamo and Clark “around” 22 July 2010, the day after the alleged communication. Lamo testified that he decided to contact law enforcement and share the alleged chat logs of his conversation with Danny Clark, when he “knew” Clark “was involved with illegal activity.” Lamo testified, “I found it unusual that someone would install additional encryption software on an Army computer, and that they would employ a civilian in so doing.”
On 23 July 2010 The New York Times reported that:
Mr. Lamo said that he believed that a person with ties to WikiLeaks had helped Private Manning set up encryption software that would have allowed him to e-mail small bits of classified data outside the military computer system without detection. According to Mr. Lamo, the small bits were meant to attract the notice of Mr. Assange.
Mr. Lamo acknowledged that he had no direct evidence that Private Manning had help. He said he based his belief on information from people who knew Private Manning, not on his contact with the soldier himself. Asked if Private Manning had ever told him of any WikiLeaks assistance, Mr. Lamo replied, ‘Not explicitly, no’< (emphasis added)./p>
Lamo reportedly told PBS: “At one point I was told that [Manning] had received assistance in setting up encryption software for use in securing his instant messages.
Lamo reportedly told ABC News in a 26 July 2010 post: “‘I do not believe that private [sic] manning [sic] had the technical expertise necessary to communicate this amount information to the outside world without being detected on his own,’ he said. ‘And I don’t believe he operated without guidance, rather I think it’s more likely that he was a personal shopper for classified data for the WikiLeaks apparatus.’
Two days later, on 28 July 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) ‘officially joined’ the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of State (State Department) (DoS) investigation of WikiLeaks. Although, according to SA Mander, CCIU, testimony, Neil MacBride, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks Grand Jury, was counseling the US Army’s military investigation and prosecution from early on.
Three days later, on 29 July 2010 Manning was moved from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait to Quantico, “due to a potentially lengthy pre-trial confinement because of the complexity of charges and an ongoing investigation.” The Quantico brig, however, “is a Level 1 facility that is not intended for long-term incarceration either pre- or post-trial,” according to Army Lt. Col. Dawn Hilton, Commander of the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. “Typically, pretrial prisoners are not incarcerated at a Level 1 facility for more than a couple months,” says Hilton.
The same day that Manning was moved to Quantico on 29 July 2010, Lamo reportedly told the The Washington Post, that “Manning lacked the technical expertise to obtain and transmit all the data and received help from people who worked with WikiLeaks. ‘There was overlap between people who were his friends and people working with WikiLeaks.'” Lamo also reportedly told the The Washington Post, “‘[Manning’s unidentified friends] made [Manning] feel real cool by putting him in touch with Assange,’ he said. ‘They were WikiLeaks’ “shopper” for classified information. There are at least two people in his social circle who are in contact with WikiLeaks.'” Lamo reportedly told The Washington Post that “he does not know how Manning’s friends came to know or work with WikiLeaks.”
Jason Katz
Lamo testified that he is familiar with the name and “certain circumstances regarding [Jason Katz’s] life and times.” Lamo testified that he was alerted by someone whom he “chats with” that another individual stated that Jason Katz was “attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that [Katz] was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that [Katz] was using [a] federally funded lab resources to do so.” Lamo testified that he gave Jason Katz’s name to an Army agent.
SA Mander, CCIU, testified that Lamo contacted SA Edwards, CCIU, about Katz. SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “Lamo contacted [Army] CCIU about Mr. Katz boasting about helping to decrypt [the Garani video]. Lamo contacted CCIU about an unknown individual who was chatting with someone else.” SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “Lamo contacted [Army CCIU] and related that he became aware on the Internet of someone that he did not know, who was part of the original decryption effort [of the Garani video], who worked for DOE [Department of Energy], which [investigators] believed was Manning.”
SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “Lamo was able to [verify the identity of that individual of] Mr. Jason Katz. Mr. Jason Katz had previously been identified as an employee of Brookhaven National Labs. [Katz] was employed [at Brookhaven National Laboratory from] February 2009 to March 2010. [Katz’s] reason for being fired was for engaging in inappropriate computer activity.” SA Mander, CCIU, testified that Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtained a federal warrant to search and executed a search of Katz’s government work station. SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “[Army CCIU] additionally obtained forensic imaging, which was authorization by a network connection agreement with [Katz’s] government assigned and personal computer.” According to the testimony of SA Mander, CCIU, the FBI is directing the investigation into Jason Katz.
SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that the file “b.zip” was found on the work computer of Katz, seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that the file “b.zip” was password protected. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that after he opened the file “b.zip” with a password that he obtained from CENTCOM, and he viewed the contents. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that inside the file “b.zip” was the file “BE22PAX.wmv”, a video taken from an aircraft over the battlefield [Garani Video]. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that he had seen the video before in a file “BE22PAX.zip” located in a folder called “videos” in the Farrah investigation folder on the CENTCOM server. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that the file “b.zip” was placed on the work computer of Katz, seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy, on 15 December 2009, and that the user of the work computer seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy was attempting to decrypt the file “b.zip”. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that a cracking program had been downloaded and installed on the work computer of Katz, which had been seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that according to the bash history a cracking program was running on the work computer of Katz trying to crack the password of the file “b.zip”. SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that he could not say if the user was able to unencrypted the file “b.zip”. SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that the video “BE22PAX.wmv” referred as a the alleged Garani video consisted of video of a flight over the battle space “not an air strike” and that the file was created in May 2009. SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that he was aware that WikiLeaks allegedly had a similar video around the same time frame. SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that the movie on the work computer of Katz that was seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy was the same movie located in the Farah folder created on May 2010 on the CENTCOM server, but SA Shaver, CCIU could not say when this movie as put on the CENTCOM server. SA Shaver, CCIU, testified that the movie file on the work computer of Katz had the same hash value as the movie on the CENTCOM server. SA Shaver, CCIU testified that the movie file on Katz’ work computer seized from Brookhaven National Labs at the Department of Energy was not the same video allegedly found on the Alienware .22 workstation computer of Manning: “Different video, Sir.”
NB The Government’s assertion in the Article 32 pretrial hearing should not be taken as statements of fact, since SA’s testimony did not include Government’s methods or modes for conducting the forensic analysis, and in some cases the evidence is inconclusive, circumstantial, or disputed as not criminal per elements or items as charged.
Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward Deputy, Commander of CENTCOM, is the Original Classification Authority for the classification determination and impact on national security for the BE22PAX.wmv video [Garani Airstrike Video]. Mr. Betts, Chief Classification Officer of USCYBERCOM, however, made the classification determination for the “alleged chat logs” and “the information contained therein”, and Lt. Gen. Robert E. Schmidle, Deputy Commander, USCYBERCOM and the Original Classification Authority for the alleged chat logs between Lamo and bradass87, concurred with the classification made by Mr. Betts declaration about the information contained in “the alleged chat logs” and its impact.
Lt. Gen. Schmidle, USCYBERCOM is also the individual who provided background information on the Garani video and a password to investigators for BE22PAX.zip (said to allegedly be the Garani video). While the Government admitted to defense that Robert E. Schmidle Deputy Commander US CYBERCOM and Mr. Betts Chief Classification Officer US CYBERCOM were both stationed at Fort Meade Maryland, where the trial, US v. Pfc. Manning is being conducted, the Investigating Officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza – a life long employee of the Department of Justice and a “colleague” to Attorney General Eric Holder, in the words of the Attorney General himself – ruled that neither Schmidle not Betts were “reasonably available” to be produced for the Article 32 Pretrial Hearing.
Another alleged unnamed military person engaged in unauthorized access
SA Mander, CCIU testified that the primary lead for the investigation into WikiLeaks disclosures was first Camp Liberty, then Army CID, then the Department of State. SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “[t]he State Department became involved immediately because of nature of information obtained in [the] chats. SA Mander, CCIU, testified that “[a] month into the investigation the FBI became involved.” However, SA Mander, CCIU, also testified that the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, who is in charge of the WikiLeaks Grand Jury impanelled in Alexandria, Virginia (VA), was advising the military investigators early on.
On 27 July 2010, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell announced “It appears that someone – if not multiple people – violated the trust and confidence bestowed on them by their country, and leaked classified information.”
Lamo reportedly told CNN the same day, on 27 July 2010: “As far as I know, [Manning] conducted the database himself but got technical assistance from another source.” Lamo reportedly told CNN that day: “[Manning] was aware of one other person in [the] military engaged in accessing databases without authorization.” CNN reported that “Lamo refused to elaborate on why he believed this.” CNN reported that Lamo did not provide CNN with “the complete instant message logs.” “I gave my hard drive to the Department of Defense,” Lamo reportedly told CNN.
Lamo also reportedly told PBS, when asked if he knew if Manning reached out to anybody else, confessed to anybody else?:
Manning indicated at one point in time in our conversations that he had been in contact with another individual in the military that was actively compromising the security of classified computer systems, but they had no interest in engaging in any sort of leak, which could be interpreted as meaning that he had shopped the idea to them and been rebuffed. But I don’t have enough information to say for sure whether or not that was the case.
That allegation is not found in the alleged “whole, unedited” chat logs as published by Wired on 13 July 2011, which based on Lamo’s sworn testimony is missing two days of alleged communications instant message communications between Lamo and bradass87.
Tyler Watkins
Lamo reportedly told PBS, when asked if he knew if Manning reached out to anybody else, confessed to anybody else?:
I’ve heard reports that he asked his significant other to help him with the couriering of information and was rebuffed in that. Again, I don’t know if that’s true.
Neurodivergence
Lamo testified that he has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, a term formerly used to describe some people on the Autism Spectrum, and that he has “recently had been successfully treated and placed on a medication that reduced his neurodivergence and allowed [him] to function more normally than usual.” Reitman notes that Lamo testified that his neurodivergence did not affect his memory.
Criminal history, sentencing, restitution, and employment history
Lamo testified that he is a convicted felon. Lamo testified that he had hacked “large companies” and was found guilty of computer fraud in 2004. Lamo testified that he was sentenced to six month house arrest. Although not certain exactly of the duration, Lamo testified that he believes he was sentenced to two and a half years of probation. Lamo testified that he was also ordered to pay restitution.
Lamo also reportedly told PBS: “I still owe the federal government roughly $60,000 in restitution to Microsoft, LexisNexis and The New York Times.”
Lamo testified that he does computer related work that “would be considered odd jobs.” Lamo testified that he is not employed full time, and at the time of his alleged chats with bradass87, he was living with his parents.
Institutionalization for drug abuse
Lamo testified that around the time he was convicted he started suffering from depression and over-medicating himself. Lamo testified that his parents were concerned about his drug usage so much so that they called the cops numerous times. In April 2010, one month before his alleged communication with bradass87, Lamo testified that he was involuntarily institutionalized after he called the police, due to a dispute over the the possession of his medications.
Lamo testified that he thought someone stole his backpack, which had his medications in it. Reitman notes notes that Lamo testified that when he was arrested he was institutionalized for 72 hours in a psychiatric hold, and then “voluntarily extended that stay for nine days.” Reitman notes that Lamo testified that he was discharged on 7 May 2010, two weeks before his alleged communication with bradass87.
On 20 May 2010, the same day that Lamo testified he received the first encrypted email and initial chat message from an individual he communicated with as bradass87, Wired published a biographical article on Lamo’s arrest and institutionalization for over-medicating and Lamo’s subsequent diagnosis with Asperger’s syndrome. The piece was updated a year later:
Update 7/29/11: We’ve clarified the headline of this story, and modified the text to clearly attribute the above details to Lamo. Since reporting this story, we’ve learned from police that Lamo’s initial hospitalization in April 2010 came after Lamo’s father phoned the Sacramento County Sheriff’s department three times in as many days to report that Lamo was over-medicating with his prescription drugs, which may have had a profound impact on his speech and coordination. The Sheriff’s office was unable to find a record of Lamo phoning the police himself. Lamo stands by his original explanation of the incident. (emphasis added)
Reitman notes that Lamo testified that he has a history of drug use. Lamo testified that when he handed his hard drives over to investigators his drug usage was “consistent with the time of communication with Manning.” Lamo also testified that at the time of his Article 32 Pretrial testimony his drug usage was consistent with when he allegedly communicated with an individual known as bradass87 and when he handed over hard drives.
Benefit or Immunity
Lamo testified that he has not received any benefit from law enforcement for his role as a confidential informant or in exchange for his testimony. SA Edwards, CCIU, testified that that Lamo was not paid “any money other than expense reimbursement.” When Lamo testified on cross examination that he never received an immunity agreement, the US Government military prosecution stood up, interrupted the defense’s cross-examination of the witness, and called for a sudden conference in chambers with the Investigating Officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza. According to Reitman’s notes, the conference lasted 7 minutes.
At this point, the prosecution stood and asked for a sudden conference. It was 2:23 PM…At 2:30 PM we reconvened.
Alleged chat communications between Lamo and bradass87 took place between 20 to 26 May, and Lamo contacted US Army authorities through an intermediary on 21 May 2010
Lamo testified that his chats with bradass87 began on 20 May 2010, and that he continued to chat with an bradass87 after he had contacted US Army authorities through an intermediary on 21 May 2010 until 26 May 2010.
Lamo reportedly told CNET in a 7 June 2010 report, “My plan initially was not to see him arrested. I and the FBI wanted to continue feeding him disinformation,” Lamo said. However, the criminal investigation unit of the Army had other plans, he said.” According to a report on 7 June 2010 in The New York Times, “Mr. Lamo said he had promised the FBI he would testify against the specialist [demoted to Pfc. Manning]. ‘I’ll keep my word…’ [Lamo] said.” Lamo also reportedly told John Cook at Yahoo! News in a 9 June 2010 post that he “continued his chats with Manning after contacting the FBI, at their request: ‘Initially, I was asked to continue talking,’ he says. ‘I maintained the appearance that everything was normal” (emphasis added) [original Link Broken, repost . Lamo reportedly told John Cook at Yahoo! News in a 9 June 2010 post that: “I received no particular direction, and I wasn’t asked to ask him about anything in particular” [original Link Broken, repost .
Off the Record (OTR)
Lamo testified that OTR was installed on his machine manually. Lamo testified that he “can only speculate” why the chats were encrypted. Lamo testified that he uses encryption on chats because, “I desire my right to privacy as a citizen.” Lamo admitted in his sworn testimony that “a reasonable person”, including himself, “would arrive at” the conclusion that a person would used OTR because they want to keep things confidential.
Lamo admitted in his sworn testimony that the chat logs had sensitive information about bradass87, and at no point in the alleged chat logs did bradass87 make the decision to have this information become public. When defense asked Lamo if he believed that bradass87 was reaching out to him “for moral support,” Lamo responded in sworn testimony: “I believe they were reading out for approbation and for a like-minded individual who would act similarly in their life to Julian Assange.” When lead civilian defense counsel, David Coombs, replied to Lamo’s answer by saying, “Not what I asked. Do you believe they were talking to you for moral support?” Lamo admitted “That is a possibility.” Lamo testified that he did not believe that bradass87 was looking for guidance on what they should do in such a situation: “I do not believe they were looking for guidance, so much as bragging about what they had done. The chat logs are to an extent bifurcated in that – some of them deal with personal info and some deal with wrongdoing.”
Journalism
Lamo testified that he he worked in journalism, and “when [he] see[s] stories [he] reports them.” Reitman notes that Lamo admitted in his sworn testimony that in journalism there is an obligation to protect sources. However, Lamo reportedly told PBS: “I consider journalism to be a more legal form of hacking.” Lamo testified that he told bradass87, “I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.” Lamo admitted in sworn testimony that “The offer [was] neither declined nor accepted.” Lamo also admitted in his sworn testimony that bradass87 said “‘No,’ that bradass87 did not want to go to press.”
Lamo, however, reportedly told in John Cook in a 9 June 2010 Yahoo! News article “that he spelled out very clearly in his chats with Manning that he wasn’t affiliated with WikiLeaks or acting as a journalist.” [original Link Broken, repost Lamo also reportedly told in John Cook in a 9 June 2010 Yahoo! News that “he suspects that Manning didn’t want to get caught up in negotiating which portions of their instant-message chats would be considered on the record, off the record or on background.” [original Link Broken, repost John Cook reported that Yahoo! News “asked Lamo to provide the relevant portion of the chat; he replied that he needed to talk to his lawyer before sharing it with us.” [original Link Broken, repost
Lamo also admitted in his sworn testimony that he told bradass87 , “I told you none of this is for print,” indicating that their conversation was not for journalistic purposes. Lamo admitted in his sworn testimony that while he told bradass87 that none of their conversation was for print, he had already reached out to law enforcement on 21 May 2010. Lamo also admitted in his testimony that he provided the alleged chat logs to both law enforcement and to Wired.
Lamo testified that the chat logs that he gave to Wired were “not for print by me.” On 10 June 2010, however, The Washington Post reported that “[t]he logs of messages between Manning and Adrian Lamo, [were also] provided to The Washington Post by Lamo” (emphasis added). On 19 June 2010, Boing Boing also received a copy of portions of the alleged chat logs between Adrian Lamo and bradass87 from an anonymous source.
On 11 June, 2010 Lamo handed over his hard drives to Special Agent Edwards according to SA Edwards’, CCIU, testimony. “Private Manning’s attorney can get them by discovery like everyone else,” Lamo reportedly told Wired. Earlier that day Lamo published his own press release. The following day Lamo published another.
Minister
Lamo admitted in sworn testimony that bradass87 had told Lamo in the alleged chat logs that that he was “not a source” for Lamo, and that he was looking for “moral and emotional support.” Reitman notes that Lamo testified that he was a minister at the Life Church and that he had told bradass87 that they could treat the alleged chat conversation as a “confession”. Lamo admitted in sworn testimony that he could “imagine” that bradass87 could have approached him as a matter of conscience.
Are you a user of Facebook?
Lamo testified that bradass87 identified himself as Bradley Manning when Lamo asked bradass87 if “he was a user of Facebook,” which is understood to have occurred on 22 May 2010 as published by Wired, one day after Lamo contacted law enforcement through an intermediary on 21 May 2010 and two days after his initial chat message from an individual he communicated with as bradass87 on 20 May 2010. Lamo testified that he sought verification of the identity of bradass87, because bradass87 “had made claims that I might be misled as to the identity. I desired identification as to identity of remote party.” Lamo testified that bradass87 answered affirmatively, that he “was a user of Facebook” but Lamo would not be able to find bradass87’s Facebook profile, because of bradass87’s privacy settings. Lamo testified that he subsequently received a Facebook friend request from a profile named “Bradley Manning” and the username and password of a Army Knowledge Online (AKO) account that would allow Lamo access to the Army Knowledge Online portal. Lamo testified that he knew the person who contacted him on Facebook was Bradley Manning, “based on photos, demographic information, and [the] extensive back story on the wall of a FaceBook account that recounted biographical data unique to Manning.” Lamo also testified that he did not log onto the Army Knowledge Online, because it “would have been a crime.”
Lamo testified that after he had already decided to contact law enforcement through an intermediary on 21 May 2010, he asked bradass87, “How long have you helped WikiLeaks?” and “Give me some bona fides, you know? Any specifics.” Lamo testified that he also asked bradass87, “Anything unreleased?” because wanted to determine if there were other items.
Lamo testified that he asked bradass87, “Is there a Baghdad 2600 meeting?” and “Is he the other one who pokes around the network?” Lamo testified that he also said to bradass87, “Then it stands to reason that you have at least three people who have some InfoSec knowledge.” Lamo testified that he asked those questions and made that statement after he decided to contact law enforcement on 21 May 2010 “out of concern for additional harm,” in order to determine if anyone was working for bradass87.
Lamo testified that he asked bradass87, “How long between the leak and the publication?” referring to a video of a 12 July 2007 US airstrike in Baghdad, Iraq after he decided to contact law enforcement on 21 May 2010. Lamo testified that he asked bradass87, “Uploaded where?”; “How would I transmit something if I had similarly damning data?”; and “Submission where?” after he decided to contact law enforcement on 21 May 2010 because he wanted to determine how bradass87 shared information with WikiLeaks.
Lamo testified that he asked bradass87, “Would the cables come from State?”; “Why does your job afford you access?”; “So you have these stored now?”; “So how do you deploy the cable, if at all?”; and “What’s your endgame plan then?” after after he decided to contact law enforcement on 21 May 2010. When defense questioned Lamo if he asked bradass87 those questions in order to get bradass87 to make incriminating statements, Lamo replied that he asked those questions, because he wanted to understand bradass87 “allocution”. [NB “allocution” refers to formal speech in legal proceeding, and specifically:
“The direct address between the judge and the convicted defendant prior to sentencing. During the address, the judge speaks directly to the defendant and asks if the defendant has anything to add prior to hearing the sentence. The defendant then answers the judge and may say anything in an effort to lessen the severity of the sentence, such as an apology, an offering of remorse, or an explanation of the motivations that drove the defendant’s criminal actions.”]
Lamo testified that he had asked bradass87, “Is that how you got the cables out?” and said to bradass87, “From a professional perspective, I am curious how the server was insecure” after he had decided to contact law enforcement on 21 May 2010. Lamo testified that he did so, because, “I am a curious individual,” to which defense replied, “A curious individual working with law enforcement?” Lamo answered, “Ultimately, yes.”
Lamo testified that he asked bradass87, “Hey. Can you torrent from there?” after he had already decided to contact law enforcement. Lamo testified that he could not recall why he asked that question, but Lamo admitted in his testimony that he asked that question, because he was trying to obtain additional information that would be useful to law enforcement: “In the sense that the logs as a whole were meant to be was shared with law enforcement, yes.”
Lamo testified that he asked bradass87 questions after he had decided to contact law enforcement in order to determine if bradass87 was a spy, to which bradass87 allegedly answered: “I’m not sure whether I’d be considered a type of ‘hacker’, ‘cracker’, ‘hacktivist’, ‘leaker’ or what…I’m just me…really…starts off like every physics/astro class intro…ever.” Lamo testified that he was working with law enforcement at the time that he asked bradass87 if he was a spy: “Were you working with law enforcement at this time?” Lamo: “Yes, I was.”
Lamo reportedly told BBC in a 7 June 2010 post, “I gave [agents from different federal and military agencies] conversation logs that implicated Special Agent Manning” (emphasis added).
*Amendments – September 28, 2012 – added the word agents in brackets in the last paragraph; October 6, 2012 – removed a redundant h1 header “Webster, Timothy D.” and renamed it Wired v. Wired.
Individuals named in the testimony of Adrian Lamo, confidential informant
- Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards, CCIU
- unnamed individual or agency that Adrian Lamo made his “initial reports of Pfc. Manning’s actions”
- unnamed number of individuals from unknown agencies who Adrian Lamo dealt with in the investigation(s)
- unnamed individual who Adrian Lamo have the thumb drives to that he cannot now recall
- Jason Katz
- unnamed individual whom Adrian Lamo “chats with” who told him that another unnamed individual stated that Jason Katz was “attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that [Jason Katz] was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that [Jason Katz] was using [a] federally funded lab resources to do so.”
- unnamed individual who told the unnamed person that Adrian Lamo “chats with” that Jason Katz was ” attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that [Jason Katz] was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that [Jason Katz] was using [a] federally funded lab resources to do so.”
- unnamed agent from an unnamed agency that Adrian Lamo informed that an unnamed individual who Lamo “chats with” told him that another unnamed individual stated that Jason Katz was “attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that [Jason Katz] was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that [Jason Katz] was using [a] federally funded lab resources to do so.”
- Timothy Douglas Webster, a former counter-intelligence agent in the US Army
- Danny Clark
Evidence named in the testimony of Adrian Lamo, confidential informant
- Adrian Lamo alleged encrypted AIM OTR chat logs between Adrian Lamo and bradass87 that began on 20 May 2010
- Bradley Manning’s Facebook Profile
- alleged encrypted emails from Bradley Manning’s Google and Gmail Account “bradley.e.manning@gmail.com” to Adrian Lamo
- alleged encrypted emails from Bradley Manning’s .mil email account to Adrian Lamo
- alleged email from Army Knowledge Online with an account and password received by Adrian Lamo
- a removable 500 GB hard drive from Adrian Lamo’s Linux mobile laptop machine
- HP Windows mini laptop or Net-book that had a hard drive in it that belonged to Adrian Lamo
- Two (2) thumb drives of “varying size”
No. 35 on the December 2, 2011 Defense Request for Article 32 Witnesses
35.) XXXXXXXXXX [Adrian Lamo] will testify about the chat conversations that he had with an individual alleged to have been PFC Manning between 21 May 2010 and 25 May 2010. He will also testify about the nature of the conversations and his subsequent actions.
Adrian Lamo, confidential informant, testimony at US v Pfc. Bradley Manning, Article 32 Pretrial Hearing, 12/20/11
See Transcript of US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial Hearing, 12/20/11
2:07 p.m. UNITED STATES CALLS MR. ADRIAN LAMO
Prosecution: Please stand, face…?
Lamo: Yes I will.
Prosecution: Do you swear…?
Lamo: Yes I do.
Prosecution: Please be seated.
Lamo: That I shall.
Prosecution: You are Mr. Adrian Lamo?
Lamo: That is my name.
Prosecution: From San Francisco, CA?
Lamo: Yes.
Prosecution: Mr. Lamo, when did you first come into contact with who eventually who you communicated with as bradass87?
Lamo: Received a series emails from 10th Mountain Division that was tied to a unit and location where Manning was stationed.
Prosecution: What was email from?
Lamo: From Bradley Manning, but don’t recall first. Later ones came from bradley.e.manning@gmail.com. I initially said we should communicate via AIM chat.
[Missed.]
Prosecution: Why couldn’t you decipher?
Lamo: They had been encrypted using an outdated key.
Prosecution: First chats?
Lamo: May 20. His username was bradass87. It was encrypted using a piece of software known as OTR. Installed manually.
Prosecution: Why were the chats encrypted?
Lamo: I can only speculate.
Prosecution: Why do you use encryption on chats?
Lamo: I desire my right to privacy as a citizen.
Prosecution: When did bradass87 identify himself as Bradley Manning?
Lamo: They identified themselves when I asked them whether they were a user of FaceBook; and they indicated that though I could not search for their account, they could search for mine. I received a friend request as well as an Army Knowledge account with a username and password that would allow me to access to the Army online portal.
Prosecution: Who contacted you?
Lamo: Bradley Manning.
Prosecution: How do you know that?
Lamo: Based on photos, demographic information, and extensive back story on the wall of a FaceBook account that recounted biographical data unique to Manning.
Prosecution: Did you log onto the AKO [Army Knowledge Online] account ?
Lamo: I did not.
Prosecution: Why?
Lamo: Would have been a crime.
Prosecution: Why did you seek verification of who you were chatting with?
Lamo: He had made claims that I might be misled as to the identity. I desired identification as to identity of remote party.
Prosecution: How long did you chat with bradass87?
Lamo: Over a period, May 20 through May 26.
Prosecution: Encryption key change at all?
Lamo: No. The key, unique to the computer, remained consistent, indicating I was chatting with the user, using the same moniker and computer the whole time.
Prosecution: How do you know [Special Agent] Tony Edwards [CCIU]?
Lamo: He responded to my initial reports of Pfc. Manning’s actions. He came to Sacramento to interview me regarding that report.
[Note Carmichael is 10.5 miles from Sacramento, CA]
Prosecution: What computer equipment did you give him?
Lamo: Provided one 500GB hard drive, Netbook with hard drive, two thumb drives of varying sizes.
Prosecution: Give thumbs to Edwards or military intelligence investigators?
Lamo: The number of people present and the lack of familiarity with agencies in question makes it difficult to distinguish who.
Prosecution: Before giving hard drives over, did you alter…?
Lamo: No. Did not manipulate. They were exactly as they were during the chats.
Prosecution: Familiar with Jason Katz?
Lamo: I am familiar with the name and certain circumstances regarding his life and times.
Prosecution: How did the Army become familiar with the video?
Lamo: I was alerted by someone I chat with that an individual stated he was attempting to decrypt something on behalf of WikiLeaks; that he was trying to decrypt the Garani video and that he was using federally funded lab resources to do so.
Prosecution: You gave his name to the agent?
Lamo: Yes.
Prosecution: Do you have Asperger syndrome?
Lamo: I have been diagnosed thus.
Prosecution: Issues with drug use while communicating with Pfc. Manning in 2010?
Lamo: No. I had recently been successfully treated and placed on a medication that reduced my Asperger’s and allowed me to function more normally than usual.
Prosecution: Drug use when handing over hard drives?
Lamo: No, condition at that time consistent with time of communication with Manning.
Prosecution: Consistent with today?
Lamo: Yes.
Prosecution: Ever been a source for the media?
Lamo: Yes I have.
Prosecution: Why?
Lamo: Because there is a necessity in certain circumstances to stay ahead of a story before it gets a life of its own, to be sure facts remain intact.
Prosecution: Ever received compensation from the Army?
Lamo: I have not.
2:19 p.m. DEFENSE EXAMINE MR. ADRIAN LAMO
Defense (Coombs): Tell me if you don’t understand a question.
Lamo: I appreciate that.
Defense (Coombs): Understand?
Lamo: Yes I do, sir.
Defense (Coombs): You are a convicted felon?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Hacked against large companies?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): In 2004, you were found guilty of computer fraud?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Six months house arrest, two years probation?
Lamo: I believe it was 2.5 years, but don’t have the docket before me, thus cannot state with certainty.
Defense (Coombs): Receive funds…?
Lamo: Restitution.
Defense (Coombs): Suffered from depression starting around this time?
Lamo: It would be consistent with that period.
Defense (Coombs): You over-medicated?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Your parents became concerned and called the cops numerous times about your drug usage?
Lamo: That took place, yes.
Defense (Coombs): In April 2010, you were involuntarily institutionalized after you called the police?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): Remember why you called the police?
Lamo: Due to dispute over the possession of my medications.
Defense (Coombs): Thought someone stole it out of your backpack? In fact, you thought someone stole your backpack?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Police did show up?
Lamo: There was an officer response.
Defense (Coombs): You were arrested?
Lamo: That is consistent with the course of events.
Defense (Coombs): You were institutionalized?
Lamo: As is usual in the state of California.
Defense (Coombs): May 7, 2010 you were discharged?
Lamo: That should tend to be correct.
Defense (Coombs): What do you do for a living?
Lamo: I do computer related work…would be considered odd jobs.
Defense (Coombs): So not full-time employment?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Any benefit? Immunity agreement? Government hasn’t made promises? No monetary compensation?
Lamo: [Answers, “I have not” to all the questions.]
Defense (Coombs): You are here on your own wishes?
Lamo: I am here to ensure that the truth is presented.
Defense (Coombs): I appreciate that.
2:17 p.m. PROSECUTION INTERRUPTS
Prosecution to Investigating Officer: Can we have a conference?
[Reitman notes: “At this point, the prosecution stood and asked for a sudden conference…The attorneys retreated to the back-room for a meeting with the Investigating Officer, while Manning and Lamo remained in the court room.”]
CONFERENCE BETWEEN COUNSEL AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CHAMBERS
2:30 p.m. COURT RECONVENES
[Sound issues in the press pool.]
[Reitman notes, “Coombs asked if it was about an ‘eight’ email exchange, and Lamo said he wasn’t certain.”]
Defense (Coombs): That is why I said approximately…
Lamo: [Missed answer.]
Defense (Coombs): You never read emails?
Lamo: The bulk of them were unreadable.
Defense (Coombs): So you never read any of these emails you received?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense: Alleged I.M. chats began via A.O.L. I.M.? And this was your idea? Began 20 May 2010?
Lamo: [Answered, “Yes” to all questions.]
Defense (Coombs): Chats between you and someone who identifying them-self as bradass87?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Chatted on that day?
Lamo: I believe that to be the case.
Defense (Coombs): And over the next five days?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Ended 26 May 2010?
Lamo: Yes, they did.
Defense (Coombs): At the time of chats, you were living with parents?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): Day after, the 21st May initial chat, is when you decided to contact Army authorities?
Lamo: It was about that time that I contacted a third party to make a determination as to the seriousness of admissions made in the chats.
Defense (Coombs): Day after the chat began is when you decided to contact?
Lamo: That would be roughly accurate.
Defense (Coombs): We need to be accurate here. Accurate or not?
Lamo: I believe it is.
Defense (Coombs): 21st of May.
Lamo: Thereabouts.
Defense (Coombs): Again, close as possible. 21st May, right?
Lamo: At that time, I made communications regarding chats that had been communicated to me.
Defense (Coombs): So would that be 21st May?
Lamo: Yes it would.
Defense (Coombs): Who did you contact?
Lamo: Timothy Douglas Webster, a psychology student at U.C. Santa Barbara.
Defense (Coombs): What was he before that?
Lamo: Counter-Intelligence agent in U.S. Army.
Defense (Coombs): So you contacted him and contacted Army authorities because you wanted to make sure you had the right team?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Asked a friend who was good at CID investigation? Who would handle this right and in a sensitive manner?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So within a day, you decided to report what you knew to law enforcement.
Lamo: What I saw in the chats appeared to be an admission of acts so egregious that it required that response, yes.
Defense (Coombs): Day after?
Lamo: What I just affirmed, yes.
Defense (Coombs): Before I talk about this, another set of chats…recall the I.M. chat with Danny Clark?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): 21 July 2010?
Lamo: That would be accurate.
Defense (Coombs): Why dud you contact Mr. Clark?
Lamo: I was curious regarding his role in the WikiLeaks affair.
Defense (Coombs): In these I.M. chats you initiated, you state, “Let’s agree neither of us is gonna share these logs.” Recall…?
Lamo: Yes, I do.
Defense (Coombs): You actually shared it with law enforcement?
Lamo: At the time, I found there was a necessity that overrode that implied agreement, yes.
Defense (Coombs): You shared?
Lamo: Those logs were shared with law enforcement.
Defense (Coombs): By you?
Lamo: By me.
Defense (Coombs): That was the point of the whole conversation, right?
Lamo: I don’t understand the question.
Defense (Coombs): You were working with law enforcement.
Lamo: That was not my intent in contacting Danny Clark.
Defense (Coombs): Law enforcement told you to keep your ear to the ground?
Lamo: I was told to [missed] WikiLeaks. For what it is worth, I am not working with the guys out pounding on doors.
Defense (Coombs): Not my question. You were told to keep ear to ground?
Lamo: They told me that if I saw or heard anything that I should report it.
Defense (Coombs): That would be accurate. “I’m not working with the guys out pounding on doors.” Recall saying that?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Yet these chats went through you to Agent Edwards.
Lamo: At that time, I wasn’t pounding on doors.
Defense (Coombs): So that is the distinction you made?
Lamo: At that time I wasn’t working with Mr. Clark, until I knew he was involved with illegal activity.
Defense (Coombs): What in this chat with Danny Clark made you want to report to law enforcement?
Lamo: I found it unusual that someone would install additional encryption software on an Army computer, and that they would employ a civilian in so doing.
[Missed question and answer.]
Defense (Coombs): Chats with bradass87, let’s go back to that.
DEFENSE PRESENTS MR. ADRIAN LAMO WITH A DOCUMENT
Defense (Coombs): Take a look and see if it jogs your memory.
Lamo: I recognize the cover page.
Defense (Coombs): Thumb through, see if you recognize.
[Lamo reads for a what the transcriber describes as a long time.]
Lamo: A reasonable person would conclude that these logs are communications between myself and a person known as Bradley E. Manning.
Defense (Coombs): You continued to chat with bradass87?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): During the following days after contacting law enforcement – I want you to look at page eight – it is numbered on the bottom for your benefit.
Lamo: Thank you.
Defense (Coombs): Can you look at 12:46:17 p.m.?
Lamo: I have located that line.
Defense (Coombs): Question by you: “How long have you helped WikiLeaks?”
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Got to page 49,1:48:50 p.m.?
Lamo: That line has been located.
Defense (Coombs): This time read to me.
Lamo: [Quoting himself] “Give me some bona fides, you know? Any specifics.”
Defense (Coombs): 1:51:14 p.m.
Lamo: “Anything unreleased?”
Defense (Coombs): You are trying to determine if he has any other items?
Lamo: That is an accurate assessment.
Defense (Coombs): Let’s look at page 14.
Lamo: I am on page 14.
Defense (Coombs): If you would go to 7:26:47 a.m. Read that line.
Lamo: “Is there a Baghdad 2600 meeting?”
Defense (Coombs): Reference to a hacker meeting?
Lamo: Reference to meeting of computer enthusiasts, who include hackers.
Defense (Coombs): Look at 7:28:41 a.m.
Lamo: “Is he the other one who pokes around the network?”
Defense (Coombs): Go to page 18, 7:30:09 a.m. Read it.
Lamo: “Then it stands to reason that you have at least three people who have some InfoSec knowledge.” I am asking these questions out of concern for additional harm.
Defense (Coombs): …to determine if anyone is working for bradass87?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Turn to page 25. We are going to talk about 2:48:52 p.m. for starters. Read.
Lamo: “How long between the leak and the publication?”
Defense (Coombs): …in reference to what is known as collateral murder?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): 2:50:04 p.m. Look.
Lamo: I am looking at this line.
Defense (Coombs): Read.
Lamo: Yes, I can. “Uploaded where? How would I transmit something if I had similarly damning data?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:50:04 p.m. Repeat.
Lamo: “Uploaded where? How would I transmit something if I had similarly damning data?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:54:53 p.m.
Lamo: That line reads: “Submission where?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:56:53 p.m.?
Lamo: Sorry, repeat?
Defense (Coombs): 2:56:53 p.m.
Lamo: I do not have a [missed time stamp] sitting on the desk before me.
Defense (Coombs): [Asks Lamo if he can find a certain line] 2:56:53 p.m. There is the inversion. Sometimes that happens. You are asking how information was shared with WikiLeaks?
Lamo: That is an accurate assessment.
Defense (Coombs): You know a lot about computers?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): So you are asking questions that you already know the answers to?
Lamo: I am not familiar with the organizational structure of WikiLeaks.
Defense (Coombs): I am talking about uploading.
Lamo: Every server can be customized and tailored, therefore there is no general knowledge that can be applied to that situation.
Defense (Coombs): So, you are asking how he did it?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): Let’s turn to page 32. Do you see 2:13:12 a.m.?
Lamo: Yes I do.
Defense (Coombs): Read.
Lamo: The line reads, “Would the cables come from State?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:13:51 a.m.
Lamo: “Why does your job afford you access?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:14:36 a.m.?
Lamo: “So you have these stored now?”
Defense (Coombs): Turn to page 33. 2:16:10 a.m.
Lamo: “So how do you deploy the cable, if at all?”
Defense (Coombs): 2:18:34 a.m.
Lamo: “What’s your endgame plan then?”
Defense (Coombs): Now you are asking these questions to have bradass87 make statements that would incriminate himself, correct?
Lamo: I am asking questions that in the network – someone who saw him in the physical world -would ask what they were doing, and how they could help them.
Defense (Coombs): Don’t understand. You are asking him how he did what he did?
Lamo: I am asking him in order to better understand his allocution, yes.
Defense (Coombs): Better understanding? At this point you have already decided to go to law enforcement, correct?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): Let’s go to page 36. 1:54:14 p.m.
Lamo: The line reads: “Is that how you got the cables out?”
Defense (Coombs): Page 37, 1:56:36 p.m.
Lamo: Could you repeat?
Defense (Coombs): 1:56:36 p.m.
Lamo: That line reads: “From a professional perspective, I am curious how the server was insecure.”
Defense (Coombs): …to determine what bradass87 did and how he sent information?
Lamo: I was asking out of curiosity. I am a curious individual, as I believe has been amply indicated by my actions.
Defense (Coombs): A curious individual working with law enforcement?
Lamo: Ultimately, yes.
Defense (Coombs): Page 41, 3:34:25 p.m., read.
Lamo: That line reads: “Hey. Can you torrent from there?”
Defense (Coombs): Explain “torrent”?
Lamo: Torrent is a slang use of bit torrent, which is a peer-to peer file-sharing program.
Defense (Coombs): Why are you asking?
Lamo: At this date, 1.5 years later, I do not recall why I asked that question.
Defense (Coombs): Could it be, because you are trying to obtain additional information for law enforcement?
Lamo: I don’t see how the information could be valuable.
Defense (Coombs): Don’t see how peer-to-peer sharing would be useful to law enforcement?
Lamo: Bit torrent is public by nature. Someone trying to share a file covertly would not use it as their first choice.
Defense (Coombs): That is not my question. [Missed.]
Lamo: In the sense that the logs as a whole were meant to be was shared with law enforcement, yes.
Defense (Coombs): Page 45, 4:45:20 p.m.
Lamo: “For a spy,” followed by an emoticon denoting a smiley face.
Defense (Coombs): You are indicating to bradass87 he couldn’t be a spy, correct?
Lamo: That predates his statements that he couldn’t be a spy.
Defense (Coombs): There are a number of coherent statements prior to that, that begin with “I’m not sure whether” made by bradass87…
Lamo: If you so prefer. “I’m not sure whether I’d be considered a type of “hacker”, “cracker”, “hacktivist”, “leaker” or what…I’m just me…really…starts off like every physics/astro class intro…ever”
Defense (Coombs): [Missed question.]
Lamo: I have no particular love for law enforcement.
Defense (Coombs): All this is because of your curiosity, not because of law enforcement?
Lamo: Because somebody had disclosed to me that they were involved…
Defense (Coombs): You have to listen to my question.
Lamo: Context is necessary to establish my curiosity.
Defense (Coombs): Were you working with law enforcement at this time?
Lamo: Yes, I was.
Defense (Coombs): Do you consider yourself a reporter?
Lamo: I work in journalism, and when I see stories I report them.
Defense (Coombs): You have indicated that you have written articles that are journalism?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): You understand that in journalism you have to protect sources?
Lamo: [Missed answer].
Defense (Coombs): Page two, 10:23:34 a.m. See where you say “I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.”
Lamo: Yes, and I also see no affirmative response.
Defense (Coombs): Not my question. Do you see the statement?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): Immediately after…?
Lamo: “Assange level? Or are you socially engineering…”
Defense (Coombs): You say the person denied protection?
Lamo: They declined to affirmatively accept it.
Defense (Coombs): So nowhere does it say “I do not want…” No where in that chat is there an affirmative statement where the individual declines your offer for journalistic privilege.
Lamo: The offer is neither declined nor accepted.
Defense (Coombs): Nowhere is there a declining?
Lamo: Neither is there an acceptance.
Defense (Coombs): That is not my question, Mr. Lamo.
Investigating Officer: Mr. Lamo? Can you please answer the questions?
Defense (Coombs): So nowhere is there a declining of protection?
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): You reference one point that he says, “No,” I do not want to go to press. Let’s turn to p. 7. See the statement there?
Lamo: Yes I do.
Defense (Coombs): Why don’t you read the question by you and the response?
Lamo: “Want to go to the press?” followed by emoticon denoting smiley face. Response from either Bradley Manning or bradass87 is “No.” They continue “There’s an issue with that.”
Defense (Coombs): Let’s go to page 10. Look at 1:55:10 p.m. What do you state at 1:55:10 p.m.?
Lamo: “I told you none of this is for print,” indicating it is not for journalistic purposes.
Defense (Coombs): Response from bradass87?
Lamo: Response from the individual, either Manning or bradass87 is “okay, okay.”
Defense (Coombs): Now at the time, you were saying none of this is for print, you had already reached out to law enforcement.
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): You subsequently provided to law enforcement and gave to Wired magazine?
Lamo: It was not for print by me.
Defense (Coombs): Okay. So you thought Wired wouldn’t do anything with it?
Lamo: At the time I was surprised by the depth of the unsurpassed leakage in the admissions made in logs that I wasn’t sure I would come back from the meetings with authorities.
Defense (Coombs): Ok, so you thought in case I don’t show up again, here it is.
Lamo: That is correct.
Defense (Coombs): You used OTR? Automated encryption service?
Lamo: Can be either automated or manual.
Defense (Coombs): You are OTR using to encrypt messages?
Lamo: That is its purpose.
Defense (Coombs): So someone would use OTR if they wanted to keep things confidential?
Lamo: Might be one reason.
Defense (Coombs): You have indicated the individual intended conversations to be confidential?
Lamo: [pause] A reasonable person would conclude that, and I would arrive at that conclusion.
Defense (Coombs): There was at no point in I.M. chats decision to have this information become public.
Lamo: No.
Defense (Coombs): And these chats had sensitive info. Regarding bradass87?
Lamo: Yes, they did.
Defense (Coombs): You believe this person was speaking to you for moral support?
Lamo: I believe they were reading out for approbation and for a like-minded individual who would act similarly in their life to Julian Assange.
Defense (Coombs): Not what I asked. Do you believe they were talking to you for moral support?
Lamo: I believe that was one of their motivations.
Defense (Coombs): Looking for emotional support?
Lamo: That is a possibility.
Defense (Coombs): Looking for guidance on what they should do in such a situation?
Lamo: I do not believe they were looking for guidance, so much as bragging about what they had done. The chat logs are to an extent bifurcated in that – some of them deal with personal info and some deal with wrongdoing.
Defense (Coombs): You consider yourself a minister?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): You are a minister at the Life Church?
Lamo: Correct.
Defense (Coombs): You told the person you were speaking to that they could treat it as a personal conversation?
Lamo: Yes.
Defense (Coombs): The person said that while they were “not a source for you,” they were looking for “moral and emotional support”?
Lamo: [Begins long answer…]
Defense (Coombs): Listen. The person said that while they were “not a source for you,” they were looking for “moral and emotional support”?
Lamo: Perhaps to bond, yes.
Defense (Coombs): As a minister, you understand that a person might come to you as a formal act of religion or a matter of conscience? Do you understand the question?
Lamo: I understand, however…
Defense (Coombs): Can you understand the question? It is a very simple question. Can you answer in a, “Yes” or “No” fashion?
[Discussion about whether defense should rephrase question.]
Defense (Coombs): An individual can come as a formal act of religion, true?
Lamo: Yes, if they are a person of faith.
Defense (Coombs): They can come as a matter of conscience?
Lamo: Yes, I imagine that they could.
Defense (Coombs): No further questions.
PROSECUTION EXAMINES MR. ADRIAN LAMO
Prosecution: First contact?
Lamo: My first contact was with Timothy Douglas Webster.
Prosecution: His job?
Lamo: At the time, he was a student at U.C. Santa Barbara.
Prosecution: Was he a member of the law enforcement agency?
Lamo: No.
Prosecution: When did you first meet with US Army CID?
Lamo: I have difficulty distinguishing…
Prosecution: When was the first time you met with a law enforcement agent?
Lamo: I believe that would have been around 23rd or 24th, however don’t have marked on a calendar.
Prosecution: Anything that could help you remember?
Lamo: If there was a record of such a meeting, that would help me remember.
Prosecution: Just a moment…
PROSECUTION CONFERS WITH ITSELF
Prosecution: No further questions, Sir.
MR. ADRIAN LAMO IS PERMANENTLY EXCUSED.
Other Resources
- US v Pfc. Manning | Defense Legal Filings, Defense Motion to Dismiss the Specification of Charge I for Failure to State an Offense
- The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks by Glenn Greenwald
- “Wired publishes the full Manning-Lamo chat logs:
Compare the claims Wired magazine made about what it concealed to what it was actually hiding” by Glenn Greenwald - Manning’s alleged chat logs diff
- Merged Manning-Lamo Chat Logs
- Transcript of US v Pfc. Bradley Manning, Article 32 Pretrial Hearing, 12/20/11
- Rainey Reitman’s Detailed Notes, December 20, 2011
- Kevin Gosztola’s Live Blog, December 20, 2011
- Secretary of the Army’s 15-6 Investigation