My Cart



Manning Assange WikiLeaks - EDVA Volume 1

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on May 29 2019

Manning + Assange + Lamo = Oh God..

National  Security Damaged

I’ve purposefully waited to dissect this trifecta. The complexity and dynamic of the Manning and Assange relationship, left me with a lot of questions.. Oddly it was difficult for me to wrap my head around this issue. And it seemed monolith to fully embrace the crushing amount of data. There’s a lot of material and ground to cover. In recent days I primarily focused on Assange. The reality is you can’t have a fulsome discussion without retracing the Manning and Assange relationship and the evolution of it.


Did Assange promise Manning a romantic future together?


What was the nature of their relationship?


Did Assange help Manning work through gender identity issues?


Yes I know those questions are extremely provocative. And sure some could construe my rhetorical question as completely out of line and untethered from reality. My retort is, I’ve spent a decent amount of my free time reading most of Manning’s UCMJ Docket, at least what’s publicly available. There are various events that one could paint a fact based picture of Manning & Assange’s relationship.

One inalienable thought that I keep coming back to:

Why is Manning still standing by her “man”?



She spent nearly 7 years in jail for leaking to WikiLeaks. Manning was dishonorably discharged from the Army. On January 17, 2017 (three days before Trump was sworn in) President Obama Commuted Manning’s sentence. On March 1, 2019 under the threat of Courts-Martial Manning was ordered to fully and truthfully comply with the EDVA Grand Jury. The Order is embedded further down in this entry. Notwithstanding Manning was granted immunity by the Military and DOJ, yet refused to comply with the lawful Grand Jury Subpoena. Why?

The only time a person would be that committed to protecting another co-conspirator is if there was a promise of a future together. And by future I mean a romantic and intimate in nature future together. Again I know my questions might be offensive, I’ll own that. At the present time, I can not come up with any other reasons to explain Manning’s fealty to Assange, can you? If so I’m all ears. For better or worse this is where my decision tree has landed me. Again I don’t have concrete proof, this is a hypothesis and it’s okay to be skeptical given my theory has supporting documentation.

On the reverse side of the coin, there’s a potential parallel rationalization. That Assange is (in my opinion) an “opportunistic sociopath”, who profiled Manning. Assange used Manning’s behavioral issues, Jabber & other encrypted chats to construct an effective “plan” to manipulate Manning. And not only cultivated Manning but in all likelihood withheld affection, communication and chats from Manning, until such time Assange felt Manning was no longer any value to him.  Insofar as Assange knew Manning’s pressure points, specifically Manning’s struggle with “gender dysphoria“ as further explained in the 2014 ACLU Complaint on behalf of Manning in Case 1:14-cv-01609 


Side-note I have a long standing theory of why the GRU hacking - Russia was building a vast opposition research database to create a target list of Americans & entities that would be receptive and amendable to their subversive bullshit. Both wittingly and unwittingly. As in the LinkedIn, Equifax, Yahoo, OPM, NIH etc hacks my guess is the GRU dumped all the information they stole into a larger database and then started data mining to output a targeted list of people. Again that’s a guess more precisely a hypothesis (which is an educated guess). 


 As per my standard practice, I will endeavor to provide you with original document sources, as well as open source links to judicial matters. If I am rendering an “Opinion” I will do my best to note it is an opinion versus fact. In the spirit of transparency and obligatory disclosure, I have not nor do I have any immediate plans to change my initial assertions. For better or worse, this is now this is where I stand. 


Manning is not a whistleblower.

Assange is not a journalist.

WikiLeaks is not a news organization. 



Real journalist do not hack or conspire to hack in to our Country’s National Defense databases. Nor do real journalists unlawfully exfiltrate highly sensitive data. Thereby weaponizing said data and putting untold number of human assets and that of our coalition allies in harms way. That’s not journalism. That is betraying our Country, our Allies and Conduct unfitting of the “trust” Manning was granted. It’s espionage. It’s unAmerican and unpatriotic. 


The narrative that this is “selective prosecution”, that the Assange Indictment & subsequent superseding Indictment “will put a chill on our free pressand/or “this is a first amendment issue” - all of which is Grade AAA Russian Propaganda and disinformation. Be smart and understand the underlying motives at play.

As some of you may know, I have three immediate family members who had the honor and privilege of graduating from West Point. I have an additional sibling who retired as a Lt Col. Like millions of other American families, mine includes service to our Country in the United States Army going back at least four generations. What you should know is Manning “enlisted” and there are varying oaths for enlisted, non-commission officers and officers, pursuant to Title 5 U.S. Code 3331 Manning took the following oath:


I ______ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Also there are different US Army oaths for Officers, NCO and enlisted. According to the United States Army’s historical records, the “oaths” established in 1789, was amended on May 5, 1960 and “fully” enacted on October 5  1962. 



Manning & UCMJ Trial


If you’re not familiar with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) you should familiarize yourself with them. They are an invaluable resource and a deep well of factual information, nonpartisan reports (many of which are submitted to Congress),  FAS is one of my go-to resource tools. You should also know that several of the Manning UCMJ documents where uploaded by the Government re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Chelsea Manning (1:19-dm-00003) - EDVA March 2019. Specifically in the EDVA case, see documents 5 thru 5-8 (at total of 8 exhibits, which were originally filed underseal)


... provides science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security. Specifically, FAS works to reduce the spread and number of nuclear weapons, prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism, promote high standards for nuclear energy’s safety and security, illuminate government secrecy practices, as well as prevent the use of biological and chemical weapons.


FAS has what I’d say is a “central repository” of the Manning Military Trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (USMJ)



I highly recommend you read the AR15-6 Report. It’s highly informative. For example the AR 15-6 Report disclosed that Manning lied on his SF86, specifically the derogatory financial information, lied when asked if he had been “fired” from any previous employer and lied about mental health issues (most of which are still redacted). See page 5, as there’s also a disclosure that Manning “threatened” his stepmother, who subsequently called the City of Oklahoma Police about the “alleged” threat.


See page 6 which itemizes other areas on Manning’s SF86 that disclose Manning omitted other relevant information that is required to be disclosed. When you have a TS clearance, that means our Government trust you with our Country’s most sensitive information. The fact Manning did not disclose on his SF86 that his (at the time he submitted his SF86 he had not transitioned) mother is a U.K. citizen and that he lived with her, just a few short years before he enlisted.  I can’t help but wonder if Manning’s mother was the go-between while Manning was in jail and Assange was holdup in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Again that’s a question versus a statement of fact.



This was Streamed live on Jun 19, 2018 by a person using the moniker of “Joe Public” the woman in “green” is purportedly Manning’s mother. Based on my research it appears this is in fact Manning’s mother. More broadly Mrs. Susan Fox-Manning has a prolific internet presence and runs several blogs & various social media accounts. I am not faulting her, she’s doing what most mothers would, advocating for her child. Conversely Manning’s father, see his 2011 NPR & Frontline interview transcript, Manning’s father proffered that he drew from his own Navy enlistment and that’s why he urged his (then) son to enlist. With that said I really wonder why the US Army Chain of Command in the US Army didn’t flag Manning sooner? For the record that pains me to ask that rhetorical question but it’s one of those supremely uncomfortable questions that needs to be asked. If we don’t acknowledge where, when or how a process was broken then there’s a reasonable belief that you can not implement corrective measures. 




What is difficult to reconcile (see pages 33 thru 40) of the AR 15-6 Report) there were multiple flags. It is also important to remember that the three previously identified areas where Manning lied on his SF86, the Investigators had several constraints. Specifically the 2009 DOD regulations regarding derogatory financial information has a $7,500 threshold and it factors in mitigating circumstances that caused said debt. OPM was not allowed to Investigate Manning’s relationship with his/her mother. (OPM is restrained by With whom he lived with for a short period of time  a few years before Manning enlisted. With respect to the past behavioral & mental health non-disclosures, again Investigators could not find any credible information that Manning was prescribed medication. But specifically on pages 35 thru 38 re Manning’s various outburst, at one point in the AR 15-6 Report Manning explicitly states “I don’t owe alligence to America



I now refer you to pages 2 thru 4 - I could be wrong but I believe the “computer” program used by Manning is Wget. I should note that in 2010 Wget was widely available. What’s difficult to discern is the FAS Manning Documents Arensdorf  asymmetrical in nature. Meaning Manning’s responses to the Government which alleged Manning used. Specifically that Manning used the Wget software which enables users to download files via high-speed download. But Wget has a known “bug”, when users are required to “log in”.

There is one critical datapoint that I think will materialize in the coming weeks and months. Prosecutors have given us a preview, specifically stating Assange and Manning conspired to “hide” the identity of the “user who unlawfully exfiltrated classified intelligence” and “deleted logs”...


When you drill down on Manning’s July 4, 2013 (the irony of the date is not lost on me), Manning attempts to knock down the Government’s assertion that he and his “co-conspirator” (my assumption is it’s Assange) used Wget. Which allowed him/her the ability to “by-pass a code-based restriction” by installing the unauthorized software on to Government own computers. Not once but repeatedly. In Manning’s February 2013 Statement, it’s disclosed that the unauthorized software was downloaded to two of Manning’s Government issued laptops. That’s not my opinion that’s part of the judicial record, hence that’s a statement of fact.


It’s important to make this distinction: Manning had  the authority to access SIPRnet and other highly sensitive databases. The authorization was required for Manning it perform the job assignment. But Manning’s impermissibly used Wget software (and others such as WinRar) which allowed him to transfer the information at a faster rate of speed. 


Further in Manning’s 2013 statement he admitted the following:

I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget to download the DABs. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my "My Documents" directory on my user profile on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.



You can read the full FAS Manning Case via this link (archived). So now that we have a baseline of what the Government’s case against Manning and how that closely tracks with Assange’s EDVA Case.

I still caution and strenuously urge you to remain somewhat skeptical that the current Assange EDVA matter hasn’t fully connected to the 2016 Russian Attack on our Presidential Election. More on that later in this write up because there is connective tissue. As many of you know, I’m a fact driven person. Facts speak for themselves. I am a fan of the: 68–95–99.7 rule, which is also colloquially known as the empirical rule.

Many assume that statistical data and litigation are implausible to cross streams. I would submit to you that those assumptions are deeply flawed. In litigation there are many opportunities when parties make a calculation, which is largely measured on the likelihood of success both in terms of Procedure and Meritorious Arguments. 

You might find these Assange focused write ups beneficial, as I purposefully collated them in chronological order. The subset of these previous write ups, my attempt to explain the natural arch, historical content and timely updates.


April 11, 2019 Assange Indictment

May 21, 2019 Dagmar Palmer’s EDVA Letter & 10GJ3793

May 23, 2019 Assange Superseding Indictment🌶


🌶 I still maintain in the Assange Superseding Indictment, look at Count 1 and compare them to Counts 2 et seq. In my Opinion there’s a pretty obvious clue in Count 1 that a lot of reporters & readers alike have overlooked.  Prosecutors use exacting language, in my line of work those kind of tiny details are actually far more important then you’d think.




But here’s the thing, when discussing Assange, one must also discuss Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Point of Order: henceforth I’ll endeavor to use the proper gender but I may use the male and female pronoun interchangeably, especially during the 2010 to 2013 timeframe. Please do not read in to that as a me being insensitive to her transition.


As in the: United States v. In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena for Chelsea Manning Case No - 1:19-dm-00003 at the 11th Hour, on March 1, 2019 through Counsel she filed a Motion to Quash. Again not to belabor the point (Dagmar Palmer’s letter) referenced 10GJ3793, which was discussed and Open Source links embedded in this May 21, 2019 write up.


 🌶SpicyFiles Sidebar🌶 I have previously and some might even argue vociferously stated my personal bias. I’m mindful that might get in the way of the facts. For reasons that I’m not a liberty to explain more fully. I hold a lot of fire for Manning. I do not see her actions are heroic nor do I see Assange as a “credible” journalist. That said I needed to get into a better headspace and find a way to silo my personal feelings. I’m in that space. I will endeavor to embed primary and/or original documents. That way you have access to the same set of facts that I do and hopefully you can make your own determination. My original assessment still stands, as it relates to Manning, Assange, Snowden and Schulte.


In order to frame this discussion, I have taken the liberty of running a fresh docket report (paywall in embedded link) for Case No - 1:19-dm-00003. Do you see what I see? There’s a pretty substantial gap in documents, meaning documents 10 thru 20 are likely still under-seal. Regrettably there is no way to know what’s in those documents or what the documents are (motions, Ex Parte, etc). All though in my line of work I’m pretty sure at least 1 or 2 documents are Hearing Transcript, which tend to be added to the docket, once all parties are in argument as to which relevant section(s) should or should not be redact. But still it’s almost impossible to know what documents 10 thru 20 are. We will know, when prosecutors want us to know and unseal those missing documents on the Manning Grand Jury Docket.


🌶 SpicyFiles-Sidebar🌶 Similar to how from time to time both the Alt-Right and AltLeft (cough-,horseshoe, something...something. cough- play both sides against each other,   Twitter, create twitter threads. I am clearly paraphrasing here, but during the : holy f*ck balls there are 25,692 [or inserted another absurdly high number] “sealed indictmentsand “Oh. My. God. Everyone is getting arrested” or “Qanon told us to wait for the rapture and great awakening” or “Mueller has multiple sealed indictments”

I was invariably in “tagged” me in to said Twitter thread that’s now been “like” and/or “retweeted hundreds” if not thousands of times. There are literally hundreds of reasons a “court filing is sealed”...but it’s important not all sealed cases are actual Indictments


On Manning’s first page of her March 1, 2019 Motion to Quash - see the handwriting in the red box? Yes it’s the same 10GJ3793 referenced in Ms Palmer’s letter. This is affirmed in subsequent filings by both Manning and the Government.




I find Manning’s opening paragraph in her statement of facts, ironic and unpersuasive. More broadly, this is a foreshadowing and it  establishes how and what Manning’s argument will be. It’s a pedestrian argument and sadly predictable. 


It is pretty clear and this might be the only area in which I agree with Manning. Trump’s tweets are not only pernicious, totally inappropriate but his tweets have been repeatedly used by defendants. Moreover Trump has repeatedly pontificated about criminal cases, some involving the death penalty. I also agree with Manning pointing out the CIA’s tweet and letter on CIA letterhead.


If I’m going to be intellectually honest, I can see how these actions are incredibly prejudicial and inappropriate. And I don’t fault Manning for using these tweets as part of her arguments. That’s not me saying Manning is without fault, she is but it’s me saying she does make a decent legal argument.  I have taken the liberty embedded the CIA & Trump Tweets in question below.


Trump Jan 2017 Tweet re Manning


Anyone want to take bets that someone in our IC de-briefed Trump? Nor is it lost on me that Trump was only on the job for less than six days. And has repeatedly proved he lacks impulse control, because the word of Trump “I’m president and you’re not” 




CIA - Letter to Harvard Tweet re Manning:


Frankly I wish the CIA didn’t tweet this or write this letter, as it gave Manning low hanging fruit. But I’m also mindful that the CIA likely had assets burned by Manning, Assange & WikiLeaks. It is what it is.


One thing you should know about the Fifth Amendment - the colloquialism made popular in “pop culture” of “I plead the Fifth” it has zero foundation in actual law, such as common law. You do not plead the 5th, you invoke your rights of “self incrimination” nor is it permissible to offer a blanket invocation of the 5th. That’s not how it works. You can invoke the 5th on specific questions. Period.

What I can’t square is, on March 1, 2019 Manning was ordered (under of threat of “empowered to convene general courts-martial” again that is clear and precise language from an Army Major General. Why did Manning continue to defy the lawful Grand Jury subpoena?



I order you to cooperate fully with the order issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to appear and testify fully, completely and truthfully before the aforementioned Grand Jury proceedings, and you shall provide full, complete and truthful information in regard to any other proceedings ancillary* to the above-captloned proceeding. (emphasis added)


* again in my industry those tiny details matter, a lot. And in my opinion give rise to my previous assertion of “how many cases Julian, just how many”...because Major General Schoffner is not a man of imprecise words. He stated “proceedings ancillary” that is one of the clearest indicators that it’s plural and the Assange Indictment likely has many tentacles. Which are (likely) still under-seal.


On March 5, 2019 the Government Filed Motion Motion in Opposition to Manning’s Motion to Quash. As you might know I read, write and edit legal filings for a vast majority of my workday. So when I say this is a well written, and a total evisceration of Manning Motion to Quash that’s me tipping my hat in deep respect for what and how the Government presented their counter arguments. Moreover the record reflects that Manning was granted “full use and derivative use of immunity” by the Army and by the Government - yet Manning refused:

January 2019, Manning was served through counsel with a subpoena to testify on February 5 before a grand jury...Manning has been further ordered to testify in front of the grand jury by this Court and a general court-martial convening authority.

In the compulsion orders, both authorities have granted her full use and derivative use immunity. (emphasis added)


The Government correctly argued that Federal Law 18 U.S.C.§ 6003(a) grants the District Court Authority to: “immunize witnesses and compel them to testify before a grand jury”


witness's testimony cannot be used, or derivatively used, against the witness "in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order." Id. § 6002.

In the military courts, the Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) likewise allow a general court-martial convening authority to grant such use and derivative use immunity* (emphasis added)



Rule 301. Privilege concerning compulsory self-incrimination,

see page 3 regarding Immunity:

See JSC DOD Rules, specifically Rule 704. Immunity

(Pages 108 and 110) which reads in part:

(a) Types of immunity. Two types of immunity may be granted under this rule.

(1) Transactional immunity. A person may be granted transactional immunity from trial by court-martial for one or more offenses under the UCMJ.

(2) Testimonial immunity. A person may be granted immunity from the use of testimony, statements, and any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or statements by that person in a later court-martial.


The Government also filed (in three parts) in their response to Manning’s Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena. Document Numbers 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7, respectively, These three documents are mostly unreacted transcripts of Manning’s Article 39(a) session February 28 2013.


The fact that these were added to the EDVA Grand Jury Docket is in fact bad news for Assange and others. Yes it is my opinion based on a careful and fulsome review of both Assange and Manning’s EDVA dockets. There’s a high probability that others will have their sealed Indictments unsealed in the coming months. Tomorrow I’ll drill down on the February 2013 Hearing Transcripts. I’ve read them but want to reread them to ensure that I’ve extrapolate pertinent details...for example on my second reading I found I missed Manning stating that there was a second software that was used, it’s not Wget

“I use a compression algorithm called "BZIP2." The program used to compress the data is called "WinRar." WinRar is an application that is free and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Nonsecure Internet Relay Protocol Network, or NIPRNE”


From what I can tell “WinRar” appears to be Wget extension but what intrigues ms is RarCrack is known for its “brute force algorithm that cracks forgotten or lost passwords” for archived and compressed Rar files. It’s unclear to me if this connects the “hash-Post” to crack the passwords. I’m still researching that particular data point but that requires additional time to read the various Court filings and marry the statement of facts with Open Source data. For now put a pin in this because I’ll address it in a more fulsome manner in follow up entries, at a later date TBD.


It’s also worth noting that last month (before I was permanently banned from Twitter) that I said “pay close attention to the dates in the bates numbering header” of Assange’s Indictment, unsealed on April 10, 2019. I specifically pointed out the December 2017 and March 2018 dates.  



 In my industry those details matter, particularly in the retrospective context of Manning and Adrian Lamo interpersonal relationship.  For those who are unaware Adrian Lamo’s moniker was the “homeless hacker”. I’m also holding myself to the societal rule that: “you never ever speak ill of the dead, ever”. I really dislike I’m referencing both Wired and Salon but each of these publications amplified a narrative that Manning is a whistleblower and Assange is a journalist. Notwithstanding in 2011 Wired published the “Manning & Adrian Lamo” chats. It’s this particular exchange within the 2011 chats that conveyed (to me) a sense of intimacy.



In the Assange Affidavit the Government slightly tips their hand. They elude to the existence of another party who was (Notice the tense, it’s past tense) a hacker. Maybe someone should teach Defend Assange Campaign the societal lesson that you never speak ill of the dead. Because even for Assange and WikiLeaks this is unseemly and vulgar. You can go search Twitter and See this Tweet is still up on their account.




Adrian Lamo was a prolific user of Quora. Some of his post fill in a few gaps, informational speaking and a reflection of regret for some decisions he made in life. To date I have been unable to find any reliable and reputable news outlets that confirmed Lamo’s untimely death. Although after a bit of digging I found an entry by Lamo in February of 2016, where he disclosed that:



“I haven't been around lately since both of my computers crapped out. I also recently had a grand mal seizure and spent some time in the hospital.  


As previously mentioned and widely known Adrian Lamo was a prolific Quora user, this link should take you to his entries. Admittedly I haven’t taken the time to read all of his entries and I probably won’t. Although Lamo posted some interesting answers. For example this July 2017 entry:

Nonetheless in Volume II - I plan to go into further detail of the Lamo, Manning and Assange interrelationships. It’s complicated. And yes I know my opening salvo might sound like fringe nonsense but when all other rational arguments fail to explain why Manning is so loyal to Assange. Common sense dictates that perhaps the underlying reason is there’s a deeper intimacy between Assange and Manning. Beyond my spouse or my children those are the only ones that I could consider defying a Grand Jury Subpoena, to protect.


And my final morsel of Spicy can be found on pages 8 thru 10 of the Government’s response to Manning’s March 2019 Motion to Quash. Essentially I see your First Amendment “claim” and raise you:

“Reporters enjoy no special solicitude vis-a-vis the grand jury.” Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669

See pages 20 thru 23 - in particular last paragraph on page 20 - United States v. Sterling, (4th Cir. 2013)


Branzburg v.Hayes (1972) SCOTUS held: “Court found that requiring reporters to disclose confidential information to grand juries served a "compelling" and "paramount" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment”

In the coming days I’ll push Part II, where I plan to walk you through the various software Manning used and what if any public data gives us an indication of Assange & Manning’s conspiracy to crack the DOD passwords aka “hash post”. Until then I think this entry is heavy on documentation and appropriate questions.

-SpicyFiles Out (for now) 

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.



  • NS Bundy: May 29, 2019

    You have given us amazing detail in case against Manning. Fear of Russia enforcement against herself or her mother maybe stronger than love – except child/parent love – to keep Manning from testifying against Assange, who has been so valuable to Russia.

  • George Proust: May 29, 2019

    So – did Obama release Manning knowing that they would re-start their conversations? Which would be tracked by the FBI? And lead to evidence against Assange?

Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing