| In
CIA Leak Trial Defense Closing Calls
Schulte A Difficult Employee But Says
Michael Is Suspect
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Thread
BBC
- Decrypt
- LightRead - Honduras
-
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
March 2 – In the end game of
the trial of accused CIA
leaker Joshua Schulte, on the
afternoon of February 28 the
US in an emergency hearing
dropped Count 2 against
Schulte, and admitted that it
can never be revived: jeopardy
has attached. Inner City Press
has obtained the transcript
and tweeted
and uploaded it here
on Scribd, on Patreon here.
On March 2
came the closing arguments,
which Inner City Press
tweeted, thread here.
AUSA Laroche: Joshua Schulte - King
Josh, he thought he was - reinstated his
privileges without authorization. It was a
huge red flag. So the CIA acted - it tried to
keep him out. But it left a backdoor, that he
used...
Schulte was so focused on getting his
privileges back he is willing to lie again.
He's logging in and out all day. This is his
IP address - he's logging in. He's using that
key, that session, to view log files.
Let's recap what happened. At 7:17 pm he
logged in again. Then 7:44 pm he's using that
left-over key to view log files as an
administrator with absolutely no reason. He
was planning to steal the information.
The information WikiLeaks published must have
come from back-up files, and we know the dates
of the files... Defendant reverted the files
to a time when he had full access. Minutes
later, he steals the back ups. And he deletes
log files.
AUSA Laroche: You know it was the defendant -
this 766 number, it is his session. It was
stored in his unallocated space. You will see
that the defendant searches again and again
for it....
Schulte's lawyer Sabrina Shroff: DEVLAN was
wide open. Passwords were leaked. There were
not audit logs. The witnesses told you DEVLAN
was the Wild, Wild West.... They called DEVLAN
a "dirty network." It had very easy passwords.
Simply carrying the data out the door on a
hard drive would not be difficult.
Shroff points at the AUSAs - "They don't
know." They look down at their hands. Shroff:
He tells you, the Alta backups were wide open.
Shroff: Michael was present at his desk when
the government says the data was taken. The
computer evidence they claim points to Mr.
Schulte, it fails to support the government's
case.... The thumb drive was removed 26
minutes *before* the reversion. And it was too
small, and write-protected. Maybe the culprit
is the one living at home on paid
administrative leave.
Shroff: Let's look at Government Exhibit
1207-27. Mr Denton told you March 3 was the
very day Mr Schulte felt the CIA had wronged
him. But there's nothing in the evidence that
Mr. Schulte viewed March 3, 2016 as
particularly significant.
Did he use a cell phone? Sure. But
that's not what he's charged with. Your job as
jurors is to put the government to these test.
I told you at the beginning of the trial, Mr.
Schulte was a difficult employee. That is all
the government has shown in over the past four
weeks....
AUSA Kamaraju: Ms Shroff spent a lot of time
talking about this thumb drive, more time than
we did. We told you he was nervous and wiped
it even that it wasn't plugged in during the
key time ... These is only one conclusion:
Joshua Schulte is guilty of the charges.
Judge Crotty: We'll have a half an hour break
then I'll instruct you on the law.
Back when the
trial set to begin February 3,
a public hearing was held on
January 27 about the US
Attorney's requests to seal
the courtroom for some witness
and limited media attendance
to a single pool reporter
banned from reporting any
physical characteristics of
the CIA witnesses.
On
this issue, Inner City Press
before the public hearing
filed three one-page letters
in opposition, the last one here.
At
the end U.S.
District Court
for the
Southern
District of
New York Judge
Paul A. Crotty
asked
Assistant US
Attorney
Matthew
Laroche if his
Office
objected to
live video
feed to the
SDNY Press
Room, not
showing the
witnesses'
faces. AUSA
Laroche said
no objection -
which should
mean feeds for
this all other
proceedings,
when
requested. On
February 4, Inner City Press
live-tweeted the opening
arguments, here.
And here
a song.
On February
24, while an FBI agent
testified about ham-handed
interview of Schulte, Inner
City Press live tweeted thread
here,
the US Attorney's Office as it
is required made available
some exhibits, which we'll
make available without paywall
here on Patreon. But it
still did NOT provide the
audio files it played the
jury. This violated Judge
Crotty's order.
So on
February 24 Inner City Press
wrote another formal letter to
Judge Crotty, here,
cc-ing the US Attorney's
Office and Schulte's lawyers,
urging release of the audio
and video exhibits.
And lo and
behold on February 25 some
were released: a video Inner
City Press published here,
and here,
and a series of audio
exhibits, for example here
and here.
Now five more here.
And the February 26 exhibits,
in near real time, here.
On
February 26 the US put in as
exhibits emails involving
journalist Shane Harris, some
arbitrage of whether to send
to him or NYT, while opposing
admission of the CIA memo
about suspending Michael. Feb
26 thread here.
So will Michael be a witness?
Watch this site.
Early on
February 26, Schulte's lawyers
wrote to Judge Crotty that
"the defense is unable to call
its computer expert, Dr.
Steven M. Bellovin, as a trial
witness. As we have previously
explained, Dr. Bellovin,
despite repeated requests, was
never permitted access to the
full 'mirror images' of the
CIA’s ESXi and FSO1
Servers—images to which the
government’s expert has long
been granted full and
unrestricted access." Grounds
for appeal, if necessary?
On Febuary
25, a witness was whisked away
to the US Attorney's Office,
letter below; this after the
Press was told to leave the
14th and 5th floors, and the
complaint letter still not put
in the docket.
Meanwhile
on the witness stand the
cooperator who told the
government about Schulte's
illicit use of a cell phone in
the MCC, live tweeted thread here.
We'll have more on this.
On February
22 Schulte's lawyers have
pressed harder for a mistrial
based on the government's
withholding information. On
February 23, the US Attorney's
Office responded: "Dear Judge
Crotty: The Government writes
respectfully to address
certain inaccuracies in the
affidavit of Steven M.
Bellovin, submitted on
February 22, 2020 (the
“Bellovin Affidavit”)
regarding the Government’s
discovery productions in this
case. The Bellovin Affidavit
asserts that the log files
from the ESXi server produced
by the Government in discovery
were “demonstrably damaged” as
a “result of prior forensic
examination.” However, on or
about June 14, 2019, in
response to the defense’s
request, the Government
produced unmodified copies in
their original format of both
log files and unallocated
space from the ESXi server.
The Bellovin Affidavit also
asserts that the Government
only provided “heavily
redacted” versions of the
Confluence databases, and not
“a full copy of the SQL file.”
On or about November 5, 2019,
the Government provided
defense counsel and the
defendant’s expert access to a
standalone computer at the CCI
Office containing, among other
things, (1) complete,
unredacted copies of the March
2 and 3, 2016 Confluence
databases (i.e., a “full copy
of the SQL file”) and all of
the Confluence data points
used by Michael Berger, one of
the Government’s expert
witnesses, to conduct his
timing analysis; (2) complete,
unredacted copies of the Stash
repositories for the tools for
which source code had been
released by WikiLeaks; (3)
complete, unredacted copies of
all Stash documentation
released by WikiLeaks; and (4)
all commit logs for all
projects released by
WikiLeaks, redacting only
usernames. The Government
understands that Dr. Bellovin
examined the standalone
computer at the CCI Office in
December 2019. Copies of the
relevant discovery letters are
attached as classified
enclosures. Finally, the
Government does not address
Dr. Bellovin’s incorrect
assertions regarding Michael’s
access to the Altabackups in
this letter." And here
again, the song,
with a stanza about Michael,
suspect and witness. Watch
this site.
Exhibits
and transcripts first tranche
here.
A second tranche of exhibits
is here.
And a 3d tranche
here. And a fourth
here.
But it's not
enough. On February 20 the
government played extensive
audio to the jury, and these
are exhibits. They are the
type of exhibits released in
the Avenatti and even the
first part of the OneCoin /
Mark Scott trial. But despite
Inner City Press politely
contacting the Office on
February 21, and some written
exhibits in response being
provided, none of the audio
files were.
Judge
Crotty on January 29 ruled
that "[t]he Government is
directed to make transcripts
and exhibits available no
later that the evening after
the day of testimony." Even
read as allowing a one-day
delay, this is written on the
evening of February 21 after
the February 20 playing of
audio files. Where are they?
Where is Judge Crotty on this?
Watch this site.
Now
Schulte has moved
for a mistrial,
based on the
government
withholding
material
information
until the
middle of the
trial:
"Dear Judge
Crotty:
Defendant
Joshua Adam
Schulte
respectfully
moves for a
mistrial
because the
government has
improperly
withheld
critical
discovery and
trial
materials,
including
exculpatory
information,
in violation
of the Fifth
and Sixth
Amendments and
the Federal
Rules of
Criminal
Procedure.
First, the
government
failed to
disclose an
internal
August 2019
memorandum
from the
Deputy
Director of
the CIA for
Counterintelligence
to the
Director of
Security
requesting
that one of
its employees,
known to the
jury as
"Michael," be
placed on
enforced
administrative
leave because
of suspicion,
inter alia,
that he was
involved in
the theft and
disclosure of
the Vault 7
and Vault 8
information
(the "CIA
Memorandum").
The request
was granted
and Michael
has been on
paid leave
ever since.
This
information
and any
related
documents
should have
been disclosed
to the defense
pursuant to
Brady v.
Maryland and
Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16 promptly
in Augl,lst
2019-not in
the middle of
Michael's
crossexamination
six months
later. See Tr.
1333. Second,
despite
repeated
requests, the
government
improperly
refused to
permit the
defense to
inspect or
copy the
"mirror
images"1 of
the CIA's ESXi
Server and
FS0I Server
(also known as
the "NetApp"
Server)
(collectively,
the "CIA
Servers")."
We'll have
more on this.
On
February 19,
Schulte's
lawyer Sabrina
Shroff during
cross
examination
asked the CIA
witness, Do
you know how
many people
died in Pearl
Harbor? Yes.
And how many
in Vault 7 or
Vault 8? No
answer. How
many CIA
personnel put
at risk? No
answer. But
didn't you
compare them?
And so it
went. Feb 19
thread here.
On February 18,
Schulte's lawyer Sabrina
Shroff during cross
examination of one of his many
supervisors got at least two
admissions of interest: that
the CIA "typically" does not
use offensive cyber tools
against friendly foreign
nations - what does it? - and
that he considered contractors
to be the same as the CIA.
Inner City Press live-tweeted
thread here.
We will continue on this case.
Previously, AUSA David Denton
said Schulte committed this
most damaging leak because he
was angry that his false
accusation against a co-worker
was rejected by the CIA.
Schulte's
lawyer Sabrina Shroff in her
opening emphasized that the
CIA had not idea information
had been taken, and still
doesn't know who did it, or
when. Instead, she said, the
prosecution will focus on
Schulte's time in the MCC. But
she asked the jurors to
consider if they too wouldn't
be desperate if in the MCC, to
reach out and prove their
innocence.
The
government put forward as a
proposed first witness and
expert Paul Rosenzweig of GWU
Law School among other
affiliations. Shroff objected
to him being deemed an expert.
And the trial was off - Inner
City Press will live tweet it
as much as possible. Watch
this site.
More on
Patreon here.
Back
on January 24, for which a
feed was denied, an issue that
arose was Schulte's letters
complaining that his assigned
counsel James M. Branden is
not providing assistance of
counsel. Now in the docket is
a letter from Branden, dated
January 24, stating that
because of a hearing in White
Plains he could not attend the
final pre-trial conference for
Schulte. Something is very
wrong with this. And this:
A basic
PACER search by Inner City
Press finds that Schulte in
April 2019 filed a civil
lawsuit against the US
Attorney General. There is a
docket number: 19-cv-3346.
Photo here.
But even
on the SDNY Press Room PACER
terminal when Inner City Press
clicked on the Complaint, it
replied, "You do not have
permission to view this
document." So who does? And is
this a public court system? We
will have more on this.
Assistant US Attorney Matthew
Laroche argued that while
prospective jurors will be
shown witnesses real names, it
will only by in hard copy and
thereafter some 17 of them
will be referred to by
pseudonyms.
Schulte's
lawyer Sabrina Shroff, still
with the Federal Defenders for
purposes of this case,
insisted on calling these
"fake names," and complained
about the difficulties imposed
in conducting basic research
on potential witnesses.
US Attorney for
the Southern District of New
York Geoffrey S. Berman is
asking to have the public
excluded from the courtroom
during the testimony of
several of these CIA
witnesses: ten called by the
prosecution, and seven the
defense seeks to call.
See Inner City
Press filing into the docket
on Big Cases Bot, here.
Watch this site. The case is US
v. Schulte, 17-cr-548
(Crotty).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
