My Cart



Assange Superseding Indictment EDVA - Updated

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on May 23 2019


Assange Superseding Indictment



For the record Assange’s superseding Indictment has yet to be docketed as I began to write this update.  According to this EDVA DOJ-OPA Release


The superseding indictment:

...alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. 


 In the furtherance of Assange & Manning’s Conspiracy:


After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world. These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes. According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention.


Grand Jury Superseding Indictment:


beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.



Superseding Indictment Further Alledges


Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash.


Superseding Indictment Case No:

United States v. Assange (1:18-cr-00111)

This open source link will take you to the newly unsealed 37 page superseding Indictment. The Official DOJ Assange Superseding Indictment

There are 17 additional counts. Please do not try to tell me this puts a chilling effect on First Amendment Rights or constrains our Free Press. What Assange and Manning, Snowden, Schulte did is not Journalism. FULL STOP;





Count 1: 18 USC.§ 793(g) Conspiracy To Receive National Defense

Counts 2-4: 18 USC § 793(b) & 2 Obtaining National Defense Information

Counts 5-8: 18 USC § 793(c) & 2 Obtaining National Defense Information

Counts 9-11: 18 USC § 793(d) & 2 Disclosure of National Defense Information

Counts 12-14: 18 USC § 793(e) & 2 Disclosure of National Defense Information

Counts 15-17: 18 USC § 793(e) Disclosure of National Defense Information

Count 18: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1030 Conspiracy To Commit Computer Intrusion, maximum imprisonment 10 years §1030 and §371 maximum 5 years


The Espionage Counts carry a maximum sentencing of 10 years per but there are some other factors that could increase the term of imprisonment. But generally speaking on Counts 2 thru 17 that’s a maximum sentencing of: 150 years plus 15 (for the two conspiracy. Meaning Assange could face up to


165 years maximum sentencing


As to the superseding Indictment alleges, Assange and WikiLeaks:



ASSANGE encouraged sources to (i) circumvent legal
safeguards on information; (ii) provide that protected information to WikiLeaks for public dissemination; and (iii) continue the pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information to WikiLeaks for distribution to the public.


And while the proactive solicitation of information is the bread and butter of real reporting, the important distinction here is Assange and others, like Manning proactively attempted to “electronically break” in to our Country’s National Security Databases. Stealing classified and highly sensitive documents isn’t reporting. It’s engaging in criminal activity. Moreover both Assange and Manning acted in total reckless disregard to our Country’s National Security but the fact there was zero attempt to hide/redact actual names and geo-locations of our human intelligence that’s where this crosses numerous lines. 



Again this isn’t up for argument, Assange, WikiLeaks and recruits like Manning put their ambitions ahead of our National Security and that of our coalition allies.. That’s not journalism. That's engaging in cyber espionage. The temerity and pure arrogance that they made this a game and who could out hack who. Frankly I’m glad that Assange was charged with Espionage. Although I’m slightly intrigued by the ‘Hack the Box Security Conference” which in 2009 was hosted in Malaysia.

This link will take you to the archived 2009 event



 On page 4 of the Superseding Indictment. For the record real national security reporters don’t have a source that conspires to hack in to our Country’s database(s).



For example, WikiLeaks's "Military and Intelligence" "Most Wanted Leaks" category, as described inparagraphs 4-5, solicited CIA detainee interrogation videos.  

On November 28, 2009, Manning inturn searched the classified network search engine, "Intelink," for “retention+of+interrogation+videos."

The next day. Manning searched the classified network for “detainee+abuse," which was consistent with the "Most Wanted Leaks" request for "Detainee abuse photos withheld by the Obama administration" under WikiLeaks's "Military and Intelligence" category.


As with most crimes there are various elements that need to be met. One such element is intent. On page 5, paragraph 11. As you might recall, a few days ago I pushed a follow up entry to Assange’s EDVA matter and realized the RE line of Ms Palmer’s letter actually referenced previous cases. Now does my follow up entry from a few days ago make more sense? Also on page 6, paragraph 18, reading that section of the superseding indictment made the hair on my neck stand-up.

This isn’t journalism this is espionage and it’s vulgar and unpatriotic.

"You can-currently contact our investigations editor directly in Iceland +354 862 3481; 24 hour service; ask for 'Julian Assange.'" Similarly, on December 8, 2009, Manning ran several searches on Intelinkrelating to Guantanamo Bay detainee operations, interrogations, and standard operating procedures or "SOPs."

page 6, paragraph # 18:

Had Manning retrieved the full password hash and had ASSANGE and Manning successfully cracked it. Manning may have been able to log onto computers imder a usemame that did not belong to her. Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.


The superseding Indictment  certainly provides far more detail and an assumption can be made that those Jabber Chats let investigators have a clear idea of the “criminal intent”. As an American I am glad that Assange is being charged with espionage. You may have forgotten about the protracted cyber campaign known as “Avenge Assange” that targeted PayPal.


 I can assure you that I have not forgotten about “Avenge Assange” or the DOJ July 2011 “roll up”. which included

Sixteen Individuals Arrested in the United States for Alleged Roles in Cyber Attacks

More Than 35 Search Warrants Executed in United States, Five Arrests in Europe as Part of Ongoing Cyber Investigations


Moving on to pages 9 & 10, respectively...if this isn’t espionage then I don’t know what is. I would submit to you that this is also cyber terrorism and weaponization of Information. Specifically on page 10 and the “insurance files”. Again if you think this is real journalism then you either need to have your head examined or you don’t know anyone who was outed in the State Department Cables.


I make no apologies FUCK YOU ASSANGE & MANNING and double fuck you  to the actual “Reporters” who retweeted WikiLeaks 2010 “insurance” file. You are not Reporters and I’d argue you are not patriotic American(s) and if you want to defend Assange and people like Manning. Seriously  GTFO of my Country. I’m tired of your presumptive mendacity that Assange is a reporter and Manning is a hero. So unless you had family that were put in harms way because of these leaks then you need to sit down and chug some STFU juice.



 On August 20, 2010, for instance, WikiLeaks tweeted that it had distributed an encrypted "'insurance' file" to over 100,000 people and referred to the file and the people who downloaded it as "our big guns in defeating prior restraint."


In my line of work this is called “criminal intent” and one could make a strong argument that Assange et al crossed over from espionage to straight up extortion and/or threat of extortion. Also read pages 11 & 12 closely. How much blood does Assange, WikiLeaks and traitors like Manning have on their hands? They could have easily redacted the names. They didn’t and it’s hard to quantify how many human assets, ended up getting burned or worse. That’s entirely on Assange,  Manning and the WikiLeaks Cult members. Yes I’m saying WikiLeaks apologists act like cult members and they’ve been fully indoctrinated into Assange’s dystopian view of the world. And granted I have zero mental health training but Assange exudes the “God-like” complex. Which is fucking terrifying.



 "distributed encrypted backups of material we have yet to release. And that means all we have to do is release the password to that material and it's instantly available. Now of course, we don't like to do that, because there is various harm minimization procedures to go through." But, ASSANGE continued, the insurance file is a "precaution^ to make sure that sort of material [the data in WikiLeaks's possession] is not going to disappear from history, regardless of the sort of threats to...


One day, if I’m allowed, I will give you a more detailed explanation as to my (arguably) unhinged write up. At the moment I am shivering with rage, like red rum rage. All I am willing to say is I’d like 3 minutes in a room with Assange and Manning and Snowden and Schulte  Seriously 3 minutes alone with each and every one of them.

To those “reporters” defending Assange, Manning and WikiLeaks. ARE. YOU. HIGH??? Pull your head out or just go ahead and renounce your American citizenship. You don’t deserve to be a reporter and you for damn sure do not deserve to be an American citizen.

Here are some real-life and tangible ways that Manning (who as far as I’m concerned can spend her remaining days in Ft Knox) and Assange put not only American Military Forces, but our Coalition Forces and our human intelligence/assets in real life danger. Assange and WikiLeaks could have easily redacted names, they chose not to. That’s not Journalism that’s being a fucking information Terrorist. Using cyber terrorism tactics and weaponizing highly classified Government Property by way of these Records, for what Julian? No really for what Chelsea? So your names can be etched in to the history books as fucking traitors? Swear to sweet baby Jesus, I’m thankful I’m not allowed to be on Twitter because I’m fairly certain I’d have a lot of all caps tweets and an incomprehensible amount of “@“.


August 2010, ASSANGE (speaks to the monetization of intelligence and his zero obligation or accountability to “protect sources”.;.that is a pretty dissociative tendency...hey no big deal that WikiLeaks didn’t redacted  people’s names, sorry if you had assets killed but WikiLeaks is a news organization (not). The cravenness and audacity is just disgusting:


called it "regrettable" that sources disclosed by WikiLeaks "may face some threat as a result." But, in the same interview, ASSANGE insisted that "we are not obligated to protect other people's sources, military sources or spy organization sources, except from unjust retribution," adding that in general "there are numerous cases where people sell information ... or frame others or are engaged in genuinely traitorous behavior and actually that is something for the public to know about."


Further on November 27, 2010 our State Department sent a two page letter to Assange via WikiLeaks Counsel and explained in detail what the totality of publication of State Dept Cables in their un-redacted form would do. In the end WikiLeaks & Assange published some 250,000 cables, un-redacted.

ASSANGE claimed that he intended "to gradually roll [the cables] out in a safe way" by partnering with mainstream media outlets and "reading through every single cable and redacting identities accordingly."

Nonetheless, while ASSANGE and WikiLeaks published some of the cables in redacted form beginning in November 2010, they published over 250,000 cables in September2011, in unredacted form, that is, without redacting the names of the human sources.


This is the aforementioned November 27, 2010 letter (lawfully obtained by the Washington Post via FOIA) from our State Dept to WikiLeaks, See the red box. They implored WikiLeaks & Assange to redact the PII, WikiLeaks did not. How much blood is on Assange’s, Manning, WikiLeaks & the “trusted MSM Partners”? No really how much blood is on their collective hands?

JFC, Pages 15 & 16 paragraph # 44, in which the NYT’s “Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants” and when Assange was confronted his response is beyond dissociative it, in my view is flirting with sociopathic tendencies:


Page 16,  Executive Order No. 13526  👈🏻that link is from the National Archives and it will give you the complete document (lawful) file of: The President Executive Order 13526 Classified National Security Information. Obviously Julian Assange was not authorized to receive and/or disseminate classified US Government property/records.



Besides that traitor Manning, I’m curious to know who the “other” co-conspirators are....FWIW that verbiage is pretty SOP so I would glean that much into the verbiage but the plural of co-conspirators does have my attention. I suppose in due course time we will know for sure.

Count 1 - the time frame, I think is actually important November 2009 thru September 2011:

 ...detainee assessment briefs related to detainees who were held at Guantanamo Bay, U.S. State Department cables, Iraq rules of engagement files, and information stored on the Secret Internet Protocol Network classified up to the SECRET”



Count 2 - this is why I previously drew your attention to the “other” co-conspirators in Count 1. In my line of business that deviation in detail is actually important because as you can see in Count 2, Manning is named. And the time frame is not the same in Count 1 and Count 2. Again tiny details like this actually matter.



Count 3 - so again the timeframe and Manning are named, similar to Count 2 but again Count 1 - I’m pretty sure there are other co-conspirators.



As to the remaining counts it’s pretty much what you would expect given how much we already knew about the Manning & Assange Conspiracy. Although the Jabber chats, but on page 36 I noticed that we have a tightening of the time frame of when Manning & Assange attempted to unlawfully access SPIRnet. And perhaps I missed this previously but I don’t recall that we knew Assange & Manning manipulated logs. 

Also to understand the speed, the Grand Jury handed down a true bill today (based on the time/date stamp on the bates numbering system but also see the handwritten date on the last page of the superseding Indictment, below & redacted Criminal Information sheet (document number 34 - also please redact the direct dial number for the AUSA of you opt to tweet that cover sheet out.

‘By all appearances the EDVA AUSA is working at lightening speed as an arrest warrant was already issued but that should not come as any surprise given a few days ago I walked you through the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s 5/20/2019 filing. See previous entry here. The 3 page Order is at the very end of the aforementioned entry...

 And this is a fresh docket report...thus ends your SpicyFiles data - docket transmission 







Period. End of Discussion 


 And I make no apologies for my salty language sometimes the only proper word to convey one’s true sentiments is the F word...

 ps. I’m trying a new feature out, you should be able to click on the full size pictures and it should give you the ability to download the documents. Please let me know if it’s a worthwhile feature. 

Link to Assange superseding Indictment,

April 11th Indictment. 

And Dagmar Letter, where she invoked the 2010 GJ.


Also it is not lost on me that there has been significant activity on the Jason Schulte SDNY WikiLeaks Criminal Docket. I am currently in the process of pulling down the various docket entries and will likely read them later tonight but I’m also reading the 600+ pages of the HPSCI this point I feel like I’m barely treading please be patient with me.







While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.



  • Marie G: May 25, 2019

    Another great blog entry, Spicy. Thank you for the deep dive into this issue. It’s been quite a cluster [bleep] on Twitter, yuck. I appreciate the time you take to break this down in terms someone like me can understand. I still have that initial gut reaction of ‘I need Spicy to break it down’ but I’m learning to be a little patient (knowing other peeps will drop the news when you post). Thanks for all you do, keep it up and have a good Memorial Day weekend with friends and fam.

  • Kathy: May 23, 2019

    Thank you for your all your hard work that you do to get the word out. I’m so grateful for your investigation, time, explaining . You are a true Patriot. We Americans will never forget your sacrifice and never be able to to repay you for all you do. Bravo 👏👏👏

  • Suzanne: May 23, 2019

    I’d love the click & download option, Spicy. It didn’t seem to work for me this time. But it would be GREAT.
    Also, thank you for the meticulous, tireless, AMAZING work you do each & every day to bring us these legal analyzes! (in spite of the many roadblocks you face from twitter along the way…)

Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing