My Cart



Schulte + CIA + WikiLeaks = April 15th Warrants & Affidavits

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on April 15 2019



See Part I here.

See Part II here


For the record this entry is NOT part III, I am still working on Part III. But I was slightly delayed given the amount of hearing transcripts I need to read. Because facts matter and should carrry far more weight than an “opinion”...however below is a subtweet of one of the (many) Transcripts I have read. The January 2018 hearing transcripts clearly shows the first party to mention WikiLeaks was Schulte’s Former Attorney. I believe he withdrew on or about March 15, 2018 shortly after his oral arguments before the 2ndCCOAs.





A few moments ago Schulte’s SDNY docket updated. To include a new Order (Document # 85) denying Schulte’s March 26, 2019 stating the six warrants previously obtained in 2017 along with the Affidavits should be released becuase Schulte stated:

the time for the investigation is long gone”



But by now you should know that I tend to pay attention to tiny details. Such as the one disclosed on page 1, second paragraph. I took the liberty of enlarging it for you...the use of plural “investigations” is noteworthy:



Now what you may not know is that the Schulte’s server (currently in the possession of the FBI) was so sophisticated that it required the Public Defenders Office to purchase new computer with a better processor to handle that portion of the discovery:



🌶SpicyFiles-Sidebar🌶...please to do not besmirch Public Defenders. Some of the smartest Attorneys I personally know are PDs. They get paid at least 50% less of what they could make at a big firm. They do what they can for their clients because they love and respect the law.




What you may not know is the Search Warrants and Affidavits have been a boiling point for Defendant Schulte since the very beginning. In early 2018 the Government argued that Schulte had impermissibly shared contents of both the search warrant(s) and affidavit(s) with at least two reporters  based on jailhouse telephone transcripts. This culminated into a pretty heated May 2018 exchange, see transcript here:


I am directing you to call that to your clients attention. I think you should warn him that the Court is willing to enforce the order. He signed it on consent. It contains various provisions, including that the material marked "USG Confidential" shall be used by the defendant and his counsel only for purposes of this action.

It is not to be disseminated to third parties, which apparently it was disseminated to third parties.

If you want to vary the terms of the protective order, your relief is not to do it on your own, Mr. Schulte, but to have your lawyer come into court and explain why there should be a modification of the order. It provides for that in the order itself. That is the only means and method for disclosing information or using information that is subject to the protective order.

I take it, Mr. Laroche, that the affidavits in support of the search warrant were designated as "USG Confidential"?



To wit Schulte’s new Defense Counsel proffered the following to the Court.  in my opinion this was a smart move to alay the growing concerns of the Court and the Government. Note the Defendant’s response...



Your Honor, I will certainly do as directed by the Court. Perhaps I will go one step further and discuss with the government the possibility of having Mr.Schulte sign, because the protective order itself as of now isonly signed by his prior counsel. I'm happy to take that step and move forward.


And as I was preparing to push this entry an alert went off, you betcha Schulte through Counsel sent the following letter to the Judge, citing the Cohen matter as a predicate to releasing the six warrants in question. Keep in mind this letter was filed after the aforementioned two page Order denying Schulte’s request. So the timing and substance of this letter (document no 88) actually does matter. That said the PD does bring up a solid argument that if the warrant(s) and affidavit(s) really have a legitimate concern as it relates to National Security then the Government should have marked each as “classified”:


“...disclosure of the Materials with redactions strikes an appropriate balance between the strong presumption of public access to search warrant materials and the countervailing interest identified by the Government”

“The government has not met its burden of showing good cause sufficient to outweigh the strong presumption of public access to the Search Warrant Materials...”


And while I intellectually and procedurally understand what Schulte’s PD argues in her letter, I’m torn. Meaning she makes multiple persuasive arguments for releasing the search warrant(s) and affidavit(s) becuase the reality is a blanket protective order should never be a viable solution. Conversely I also understand and respect the Court and the Government’s desire to keep the investigative materials under wrap. Particularly given Schulte’s proclivity to violate the Protective Order and speaking with reports about matters that are highly sensitive.

It’s the following where Schulte’s PD makes a compelling argument for releasing the investigatory materials:


None of the six search warrants contain any details about the computer system. Three out of the six search warrant affidavits make no mention of the computer system at all. Only portions of the three other warrant affidavits contain information about the computer system. Thus, at most, a few careful redactions is the appropriate resolution here, not perpetual blanket sealing of all the Search Warrant



Again I am not saying I agree with Schulte, because I don’t. But I’m also willing to contemplate the merits and substance of his arguments...given that earlier today the EDVA unsealed the 2010 Affidavit and that gave us dozens of pages of JABBER chats with Manning and Assange (Thread archived, because twitter)




Unrolled thread found here, unrolled archive...because well we all know that there’s a tiny twitter crew that just loves to target me. It’s boring and it’s getting old. Weird how I said stay away from Basta-La-Vista and they jumped my this video is dedicate to you and your bullpucky...




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.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing