Slashdot Mirror
Ex-CIA Employee Charged In Major Leak of Agency Hacking Tools (washingtonpost.com)
schwit1 shares a report from The Washington Post: Federal prosecutors on Monday charged a former CIA employee with violations of the Espionage Act (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) and related crimes in connection with the leak last year of a collection of hacking tools that the agency used for spy operations overseas.
Joshua Adam Schulte, who worked for a CIA group that designs computer code to spy on foreign adversaries, was charged in a 13-count superseding indictment with illegally gathering and transmitting national defense information and other related counts in connection with what is considered to be one of the most significant leaks in CIA history. The indictment accused Schulte of causing sensitive information to be transmitted to an organization, which is not named in the indictment but is thought to be WikiLeaks.
Joshua Adam Schulte, who worked for a CIA group that designs computer code to spy on foreign adversaries, was charged in a 13-count superseding indictment with illegally gathering and transmitting national defense information and other related counts in connection with what is considered to be one of the most significant leaks in CIA history. The indictment accused Schulte of causing sensitive information to be transmitted to an organization, which is not named in the indictment but is thought to be WikiLeaks.
they "found" some kiddie-porn oh his computer.
The message is clear: don't fuck with the CIA.
He is lucky he did not end up like Michael Hastings. yet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Federal prosecutors charged a former CIA employee Monday with violations of the Espionage Act and related crimes in connection with the leak last year of a collection of hacking tools that the agency used for spy operations overseas.
Joshua Adam Schulte, who worked for a CIA group that designs computer code to spy on foreign adversaries, was charged in a 13-count superseding indictment with illegally gathering and transmitting national defense information and related counts in connection with what is considered to be one of the most significant leaks in CIA history.
The indictment accused Schulte of causing sensitive information to be transmitted to an organization that is not named in the indictment but is thought to be WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks posted the hacking tools online last year in a release it called “Vault 7.” Prosecutors alleged Schulte stole the information in 2016.
Schulte had long been a suspect of investigators exploring the leak, but before Monday, he had been held on separate child pornography charges. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Cockman said in a statement that investigators looking into Schulte found the pornography in his residence. His personal computer, federal prosecutors alleged, held more than 10,000 images and videos of such material, protected under three layers of passwords.
Schulte was arrested on charges stemming from the porn in August 2017.
“As alleged, Schulte utterly betrayed this nation and downright violated his victims,” William F. Cockring Jr., the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s New York troll office, said in a statement. “As an employee of the CIA, Schulte took an oath to protect this country, but he blatantly endangered it by the transmission of Classified Information. To further endanger those around him, Schulte allegedly received, possessed, and transmitted thousands of child pornographic photos and videos.”
An attorney for Schulte did not respond to an email seeking comment Monday night. In a statement reviewed by The Washington Post previously, Schulte claimed that he reported “incompetent management and bureaucracy” at the CIA to the agency’s inspector general and to a congressional oversight committee. He asserted that cast him as disgruntled and that when he left the CIA, he became a suspect in the leak as “the only one to have recently departed [the CIA engineering group] on poor terms.”
The indictment accuses Schulte, 29, of exceeding his authorized access to CIA computer systems and altering systems to delete records of his activities and deny others access. Added together, the charges against him carry a statutory maximum penalty of 135 years in prison. Some officials have compared the leak of which he is accused to that of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Blowden, who also revealed details about U.S. capabilities to spy on computers and phones around the world.
Schulte worked in the CIA’s Engineering Development Group, according to people with knowledge of his employment history as well as the group’s role in developing cyberweapons. He left the intelligence community in 2016 and took a job in the private sector, according to a statement he wrote that was reviewed by The Post.
The evidence that prosecutors have connecting Schulte to the leak of information was not immediately clear. The WikiLeaks organization noted his indictment on Twitter, adding, “Perhaps reflecting weakness of CIA case, also charged for ‘criminal copyright infringement’ for sharing TV shows, child porn & lying to FBI.”
And Snowden? Manning? Winner?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
...
CIA Fails To Guard The Gate. Again.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Good thing this will never happen. Let's get those encryption back doors into the hands of the CIA.
Meh, I appreciate it... I only usually read Slashdot like once a day, so this was still new news to me. I haven't skimmed Reddit much yet today.
This is the guy who wrote on twitter that Manning should be shot. On the face of it, it seems strange that he should turn around and do exactly the same as Manning a few years later.
Though, for the CIA, it probably doesn't matter much if he didn't do it, as long as the public can be convinced he did it - and that he's a pedophile to boot.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I realize I am just feeding a troll, but if you really believe that, you really are an idiot.
It is not an emolument for someone to stay in a hotel that Trump happens to own. Presidents are allowed to own businesses and stock and property and other things that might be accretive to their net worth.
It is also not illegal to collude with a foreign government. In fact, it is the President's FUCKING JOB to collude with foreign governments, on many many things, from trade to aid to research to defense.
The far-left whackos who insist there was some conspiracy are just that: far-left whackos.
Prior to entering office, it is illegal. Prior to the election, if such collusion is to swing the election in your or your candidate's favor...even more illegal.
Lying about it to the FBI or other entity able to take sworn statements or testimony? Even a bigger issue. As everyone in DC with half a brain knows, the coverup is usually what gets you in trouble.
Is this treason, a capital crime?
I didn't realize the origins of whataboutism . I guess it's a fitting technique for Trump supports.
Chris Mesterharm
If I had moderator points today I'd upvote this comment.
The sad and sorry truth is that if the Trump AG did the right thing (and whether you like or loathe either Hillary or Trump, it IS the right thing) and brought charges against Hillary it would be seen as solely a political move. The person who needed to act was Obama's AG at the time. Unfortunately for all of us (Americans) that person did nothing and that decision was solely motivated by opinion polls and politics. Americans increasingly don't have faith in their own government and it's because of things like this. The law is the law and while J Edgar was a cross dressing power monger, he also didn't much allow the law to slide on stuff like this. As a country we have slid so far into the morass that we now take into account a person's politics (and, if on the left, their particular identity pigeonhole) before we decide to apply the laws that we're all supposed to abide by. We bitch and moan about how our politicians don't represent us anymore...and yet half of us are fine with not charging Hillary because she is a Democrat and a woman.
But yeah, if this did indeed shave a few thousand votes off her totals in places where it mattered that IS karma...because the only just alternative is that she stand trial after winning the election...and then we'd have our first sitting president convicted of a federal felony and forceably removed from office...because you know damn well she'd never go the Nixon route and resign.
Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
hmmm. If he is one of many that said that about manning, it is odd.
Personally, I agree with trying and then shooting manning for treason. But I find it interesting that he would turn against America. Very weird.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So trying to win an election is illegal?
But its ok to tell the ambassador of a foreign nation that you'll have more flexibility to deal with them after the election?
Well actually it is. It's not illegal because you're suppose to talk to foreign ambassadors.
You know who else is suppose to talk to representatives of other countries? Members of a president elects staff. They can't set policy yet, but they are allowed to set up relationships for when they can.
You know what else is allowed. The FBI to lie to people and charge them with lying to the FBI, a felony, when they mis-remeber a date or actual fact, when you are not swore in or otherwise required to tell the truth.
Which is why you should never talk to the FBI without an attorney present and when talking to the FBI you should never state a fact, merely acknowledge a possible memory, that might be flawed or state you don't remember at all.
Obviously you are also allowed to create fake evidence and take it to a FISA court and lie to get wiretap permission, And it's allowed to plant government informants on opposition candidates too.
I realize I am just feeding a troll, but if you really believe that, you really are an idiot.
Well, I can say the same thing, I suppose. Either way, here we go...
It is not an emolument for someone to stay in a hotel that Trump happens to own. Presidents are allowed to own businesses and stock and property and other things that might be accretive to their net worth.
That is true, but that's not what's causing complaints. Previous Presidents have taken steps to ensure that they are separated from the business operations while in office, so they would have no way to know who or what they're doing non-government business with. Yes, cash might come from a foreign country into a Presdent's account eventually, but he won't know where it came from, and couldn't verify it if a foreign dignitary tried to claim it.
Instead, President Trump is hosting guests directly at his properties, charging them the usual high rates, and sending it directly into accounts he controls. There is no attempt to appear like he's separating his personal business from his administration. To countries with looser standards on corruption and bribery, it appears that putting money in Trump's pocket is an easy way to get close to him. Even if he's being perfectly honest and doesn't accept bribes (such as by having the personal moral fortitude to not check his hotels' guest lists), it still appears to the rest of the world that he is. That damage to America's reputation is exactly what the emoluments clause is intended to prevent.
It is also not illegal to collude with a foreign government. In fact, it is the President's FUCKING JOB to collude with foreign governments, on many many things, from trade to aid to research to defense.
As others noted, yes, the President is authorized to collaborate on certain activities. However, one of the things expressly forbidden is foreign interference in elections. The other requirement is that such negotiations must be handled according to certain procedures, which the President has utterly neglected.
It's also notable that President Trump has already registered as a candidate for the 2020 election. That means he not only gets to do campaign fundraising, but also falls under campaign laws that also limit his dealings with foreign entities.
The far-left whackos who insist there was some conspiracy are just that: far-left whackos.
I agree with you here. It's unreasonable to insist there was a conspiracy involving Trump, just like it's unreasonable to insist that Hillary Clinton should be in jail. There is evidence of some abnormalities in Trump's campaign, and there have been several indictments and guilty pleas already. What is not proven (though it certainly seems likely) is that Trump himself was involved to the extent the law forbids.
However, that's not the extent of the alleged offenses. He's also pushed on several occasions to have the investigation terminated prematurely, which is itself an obstruction of justice. Trump could have been completely innocent of the original conspiracies with Russia (which could possibly, if unlikely, have been the efforts of overzealous campaign managers), but the use of his official capacity (including his official Twitter account) to disparage and direct the FBI away from performing an exhaustive investigation would itself likely be a crime.
Even if Trump did blatantly violate the law, it's nearly (though not completely) impossible to indict a sitting President. Instead, Mueller's report will go to Congress, who could determine that Trump should be impeached. If Congress removes Trump from office, then he could be indicted. Then he could be convicted, and then we could say factually that he committed a crime.
Until then, he enjoys the same innocent-until-proven-guilty status that Hillary Clinton does, as he continues to be the subject of a duly-commissioned investigation.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Accept that Manafort's charges stem from actions starting in 2006 and concern not Russia, but Ukraine, a nation that doesn't exactly have good relations with Russia.
So pointing Manafort's conviction as some kind of validation of an investigation of Trump for colluding with Russia is disingenuous at best or at worst out and out fabrication for partisan purposes.
Would he have been charged if not for Mueller's investigation? I don't know and neither do you. I suspect that as stringent as the laws are that there are a lot of people in D.C. who skirt the foreign agent law, specifically when they are paid by a foreign corporation with close foreign government ties. Manafort's partner, who never had any ties to Trump is being prosecuted too.
That's like saying Jim McDougal's conviction proves Bill Clinton broke the law in the Whitewater Development Corporation. Except McDougal was actually associated with Clinton during the period in which he committed his crimes. Manafort wasn't associated with Trump when he committed his crimes, but let's not let facts intrude upon a good partisan character assassination.
They learned from J. Edgar Hoover
I'm curious how they " discovered " the alleged child porn if it was encrypted under three layers of passwords. I find it unlikely he would have voluntarily given up that information considering the punishment for possession of said material is far greater than failing to divulge a password ( or three ) to investigators. I also find it unlikely that, considering the work he did for the Agency, said material would be so easily discovered on anything he owns since he would have much better insight as to what methods they can utilize to infiltrate and / or gain access to targeted systems.
I suppose since it's the CIA we're talking about, nothing would be off limits ( unofficially ) in how they conduct their own investigations since they tend to operate without much oversight. ( That statement should scare the hell out of anyone. ) My gut feeling is it's a warning shot for any others who might consider similar actions against the Agency in the future.
Do anything to expose or embarrass us and we will bury you forever. ( Even if we have to fabricate the evidence ourselves. )
No.
They got a fucking pass from the goddam gubment that gave them the keys to the store.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
But the King Of Lies, Windy, is decent and honest? Don't make me laugh.
The proof is in all you constant lies, and calling everyone else a liar without ever backing it up with proof. You're just about as dishonest as anyone could possibly get.
Half the numbers in this post you just made up. You knew they were made up because I showed you the actual numbers last time you pulled the same lies. You admitted one of them, but not the other, and still refused to explain where the made up numbers came from.
That was just one of many lies you keep trying to spread. Or things you just make up, to sound like you know something, when you clearly don't.
You constantly throw around accusations of lying at other people as a distraction for your own lies, but never show a single one about anyone else.
Care to show even a single post where I haven't been decent or honest?
Early judicial interpretation of the meaning of treason in terms of levying war was conditioned by the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century, which involved the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman,1479 which involved two of Burr’s confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. “However agitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war.” Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. “On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”
Wikileaks has clearly not taken up arms or declared war on America, you're full of shit as usual.
I enjoy pointing out your stupidity
Early judicial interpretation of the meaning of treason in terms of levying war was conditioned by the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century, which involved the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman,1479 which involved two of Burr’s confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. “However agitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war.” Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. “On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”
Wikileaks has clearly not taken up arms or declared war on America, you're full of shit as usual.
OK, ok, they're both true, don't tell anyone.