Title: Volume FOIA 003

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 00640



Volume 3 of 111
SJAR ROT
FOIA Version

VERBAT IM 1

RECORD OF TRIAL2

(and accompanying papers)















of
(Name: Last, First, Middie initiai) (Sociai Security Number) (Rank)
Headquarters and
Headquarters Company,
United States Army Garrison U-S- Army Fort Myer, VA 22211
(Unit/Command Name) (Branch of Service) (Station or Ship)
By
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
convened by Commander



(Titie of Con vening Authority)

UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
(Unit/Command of Con vening Authority)

Tried at

Fort. Meade, MD on see below

(Piace or Piaces of Triai) (Date or Dates of Triai)







Date or Dates of Trial:

23 February 2012, 15?16 March 2012, 24?26 April 2012, 6?8 June 2012, 25 June 2012,

16?19 July 2012, 28?30 August 2012, 2 October 2012, 12 October 2012, 17?18 October 2012,
7?8 November 2012, 27 November 2 December 2012, 5?7 December 2012, 10?11 December 2012,
8?9 January 2013, 16 January 2013, 26 February 1 March 2013, 8 March 2013,

10 April 2013, 7?8 May 2013, 21 May 2013, 3?5 June 2013, 10?12 JUne 2013, 17?18 June 2013,
25?28 June 2013, 1?2 July 2013, 8?10 July 2013, 15 July 2013, 18?19 July 2013,

25?26 July 2013, 28 July 2 August 2013, 5?9 August 2013, 12?14 August 2013,

16 August 2013, and 19?21 August 2013.

1 insert "verbatim or "summarized as appropriate. This form be used by the Army and Navy for verbatim records of triai oniy.)

2 See inside back co ver for instructions as to preparation and arrangement.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000 PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE Front Cover



00641

3. Nothing contained in this ?ling should be construed in any manner as a concession by PFC.
Manning or his defense that the originally requested defense witnesses were not relevant. The

defense maintains that its requested witnesses should have been produced in person at the Article
3" hearing.
. k?

DAVID EDWAR l) COOMBS
Civilian Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYEH - HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYEFI. VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLY TO
ATTENTION 0F



N00



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Exclodable Delay - United States v. PFC Bradlev Mannine

I. On 16 October 201 l, the prosecution submitted a request to exclude the period between the date of this
memorandum and 16 December 20] as excludable delay under RCM 7070;). The reasons lor the
request were for the proseCution to obtain the final classi?cation review from an Original Classi?cation
Authority and to provide the command adequate time to execute OPLAN BRAVO. See Enclosure 1. On
to November 201 l, the defense objected to the government?s proposed start date and proposed the Article
32 start on 12 December 201 1. Additionally. the defense maintained its previous position that any
additional delay should not be excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial 707w). See Enclosure 2. I
reviewed both the prosecution?s request and its enclosures and the defenses response.

2. This request is:

i] approved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart no earlier than 1s December 20! l.
The period between 22 April 201 and 16 December 20] is excludable delay tinder RCM 707(c].

approved. in part. The Article 32 Invesdgation will restart no earlier than [2 December
20] l. The period between 22 April 20] and 12 December 201 is excludable delay under RCM 'i'O'itc).

disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart no earlier than 12 December 201 I.

disapproved. The Article Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.



2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1- Prosecution Request, 16 Nov COL, AV

2. Defense Response, 16 Nov 1 Commanding
DISTRIBUTION:

l-Article 32 IO
l-Trial Counsel
l-Defense Counsel

Int. EXHIBIT 52

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Jomr EASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

TO
AT TE OF

23:55? 31W





MEMORANDUM FDR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Delay of Article investigation - United States v. PFC Bradley Manning

1. On 26 September 21:? l, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32
investigation until the completion of Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA) disclosure requests, DEA
classi?cation reviews, a ?nal determination of derivative classifications, receipt of signed protective
orders from the defense, and properly portion-marked classi?ed documents by the National Security
Agency (NSA), or '27 October 201 1. See Enclosure 1. On 27 September 201 l, the defense maintained its
previous position that any additional delay should not be excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (REM)
7070:). See Enclosure 2.

2. This request is:

W), approved. The Article 32 investigation is delayed until the earlier ofthe completion of the
OCA disclosure requests, OCA classification reviews, a ?nal determination of derivative classi?cations,
receipt of signed protective orders from the defense, and properly portion?marked classi?ed documents by
the NSA, or 27 October 2011. The period between 22 April 201 and the restart ofthe Article
investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution is required to provide me an
update no later than 25 October 201 l.

disapproved. The Article investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.

3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le and receiving an update of the procedures being
followed in this case, it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. in light of the
national security concerns and ongoing investigation?), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 4052-, RCM
701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. in addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.

2 Encls C??t FL COFFMAN, IR.

1 Prosecution Request, '26 Se]: ii COL, AV
2. Defense RcSp-CInse, 27 Sep 1 Commanding
DISTRIBUTION:

l-Article 32 i0
i-Trial Counsel
i-Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JDNT MYER - HENDERSUN HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER. 22211-1199

REPLY TO
AT OF



HKND-MHH-ZA 13311

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley Manning

I . On 25 August 201 1, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 investigation
until the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence and
information, as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (DCAs) involved in this
case to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure 1 . 0n
August 201 ,the defense maintained its previous positionthatany additional delay should not be
excluded under Rule for Courts-Martial (RCMJ See Enclosure 2.

2. This request is:

approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completiOn of the
OCA Disclosure Requests and DCA Classi?cation Reviews, ?nal determination of derivative
classi?cations, final review of the CID case ?le by the NSA, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassi?ed information, or 27 September 201 I. The period between 22 April 201 and the
restart of the Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under RCM 707(c). The prosecution is required
to provide me an update no later than 23 September 201 l.

disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.

3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le and receiving an update of the procedures being
followed in this case, it is my understanding thatongoing national security concems exist in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light of the
national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure of information, but will comply with its obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 4115, RCM
701 RCM 103, and applicable case law. In addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will 'do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.

2 Encls CARL R. CUFF MAN, JR.
1. Prosecution Request, 25 August 201 COL, AV

2. Defense Response, 27 August 201 Commanding
DISTREBUTION:

l-Article 32

I-Trial Counsel
l-Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT ease NIYER- HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE avenue
FORT VIRGINIA 22211-1195

REPLY TD
A11 Elem OF



26 July 2U11

WMORANDUM FOR SEE. DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Delay ofAricle 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. On 22 July 201 l. the prosecuion submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 [nvesigation
unil the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi lied evidence and
information. as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cal'on Authorities (OCAs) involved in this
case to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure 1. On 25
July 2o] 1. the defense renewed its request to order the United States to provide either a substitute for or a
smnmary oftlie information for the relevant classi?ed documents; to allow the defense to inspect any and
all unclassi?ed documents. tangible items. and reports within the government?s control; to provide
discovery to the defense either previously denied or not provided; and to provide access to all CID and
other law enforcement agents who have worked on this case. See Enclosure 2.

2. This request is:

approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
DCA isclosure Requests and OCA Classification Reviews. and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassified information, or 2? August 20] l. The period between 22 April 201 and the restart
ofthe Aricle 32 Investigaion is excludahle delay under Rule for Courtdeartial (ROM) 7070:}. The
prosecuion is requiredto provide me an update no later than 25 August 201 l.

disapproved. The Article 32 investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.

3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case file and receiving an update ofthe procedures being
followed in this case. it is my understanding that ongoing national security concerns east in this case, as
well as an ongoing law enforcement investigaion(s) into PFC Manning and others. In light ofthe
national security concerns and ongoing invesigation[s). the prosecution will cautiously proceed with the
disclosure of infonnaion. but will comply with its obligations under Article 46. UCMJ. RCM 405. RCM
701, RCM 1'03. and applicable case law. In addition. once the prosecution receives the authority to
disclose previously undisclosed information to the defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any
unnecessary delay.



2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
1. Prosecuion Request, 25 July 201 COL. AV

2. Defense Response. 25 July ?20] Commanding
DISTRIBUTION:

l-Article 32 IO
l-Trial Counsel
l-Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
tocrr ass :3 acres HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE avenue
roar siren. vmonna 212 199

TD
OF

MND-MHH-ZA 2 Him 354



MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Delay of Article 32 hivestigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. On 22 May 201 l, the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives proper authority to release discoverable unclassi?ed evidence and
information, as well as consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (DOM) involved in this
case to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense, whichever is earlier. See
Enclosure I. On 24 May 2011, the defense provided a response which maintained its 26 April 201
position acknowledging the need for additional discovery and noting the potential for ?nther delay for
defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32. See Enclosure 2.

2. This request is:

approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier of the completion of the
OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews, and authorization is granted to disclose
protected unclassi?ed information, or 25 June 2011. The period between 22 April 2011 and the restart of
the Article 32 Investigation is eacludable delay under Rule for Courts-Martial (RUM) 707(c). The
prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 25 June 2011.

disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.

3. After reviewing pertinent portions of the case ?le, it is my understanding that ongoing national
security concerns exist in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC
Manning and others. In light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigation(s), the
prosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of information, but will comply with its
obligations under Article 46, UCMJ, RCM 405, ROM 701, RCM 703, and applicable case law. In
addition, once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to the
defense, it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.

2 Encls CARL R. COFFMAN, IR.
1. Prosecution Request, 22 May I COL, AV

2. Defense Request, 24 May 1 Commanding
DISTRIBUTION:

l-Article 32 IO
l-Trial Counsel
l-Defense Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE avenue
MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199

TD
ATTE NTIDN DF



29 APR 201i

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Delay ofArticle 32 Investigation - PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. On 25 April 20] I. the prosecution submitted a request to delay restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the United States receives consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities (OCAs) involved
in this case to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. See Enclosure 1.
On 26 April 2011, the defense provided a response which acknowledged the need for the classi?ed
information and made three specific requests. See Enclosure 2.

2. This request is:

approved. The Article 32 Investigation is delayed until the earlier ofthe completion of the
OCA isclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews or 25 May 20] l. The period between 22
April 20] and the restart ofthe Article 32 Investigation is excludable delay under Rule for Court-Martial
(RCM) TOTE). The prosecution is required to provide me an update no later than 23 May 201 l.

disapproved. The Article 32 Investigation will restart within thirty days of this
memorandum.

3. After reviewing pertinent portions ofthe case ?leI it is my underStanding that ongoing national
security concerns calm in this case, as well as an ongoing law enforcement investigation(s) into PFC
Manning and others. In light of the national security concerns and ongoing investigation(5). the
prosecution will cautiously proceed with the disclosure of information, but will comply with its
obligations under Article 46, UCMJ. RCM 405. RCM RCM 703, and applicable case law. In
addition. once the prosecution receives the authority to disclose previously undisclosed information to the
defense. it will do so expeditiously to minimize any unnecessary delay.

2 Encls CAEE COFFMAN. JR.

1. Prosecution Request. 25 Apr 1 COL, AV
2. Defense Request, 26 Apr 1 1 Commanding

DISTRIBUTION:
l-Article 32 IO
l-Trial Counsel
l?Defense Counsel

FOR OFFICIAL use

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
us. new MILITARY DISTRICT OF wasmnorou
210 a STREET
LESLEY J. MCNAIR. DC anew-son

T0
ENTIDN DF

ANJA-CL 35 April 2011



MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall, 204 Lee Avenue. Fort Myer.
VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Request for Delay ofArticle Investigation - US. v. PFC Bradley E. Manning

1. PURPOSE. The prosecution in the above-referenced case requests you delay restarting the Article 32
Investigation until the United States receives consent from all the Original Classi?cation Authorities
(OCAS) to release discoverable classi?ed evidence and information to the defense. This consent is
necessary in order for the United States to fulfill its discovery obligations under Article 46, UCMJ and the
Rules for Courts?Martial (RCM), as well as for the defense to adequately prepare for the Article 32
Investigation.

2. BACKGROUND. Under Executive Orders 12958 and 13526 (as applicable) and Army Regulations
380-5 and 330-67, the United States cannot release classi?ed information originating in a department or
agency to parties outside ofthe executive branch without the consent ofthe OCA or their delegate. Since
11' June 2010, the United States has been diligently working with all ofthe departments and agencies that
originally classi?ed the information and evidence sought to be disclosed to the defense and the accused.
Enclosed are redacted copies ofthe OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Review Requests
without their enclosures, respectively. However, because ofthe special circumstances ofthis case,
including the voluminous amounts of classi?ed digital media containing multiple equities and the
subsequent discovery ofrnore information helpful to both the United States and the accused, more time is
needed for executive branch departments and agencies to obtain the necessary consent from their OCA or
authorizing of?cial.

3. EXCLUDABLE DELAY. As the convening authority, you have the authority to grant a reasonable
delay under the facts and circumstances ofa particular case. Reasons to grant a delay include, for
example, the need for time to complete other proceedings related to the case, or time to secure the
availability of evidence.

4. REQUEST. The prosecution requests a reasonable delay of restarting the Article 32 Investigation
until the earlier ofthe completion ofthe OCA Disclosure Requests and OCA Classi?cation Reviews or
25 May 201 1. For the reasons stated above, the United States requests the period between 23 April 201
and 25 May 201 1, or earlier, be designated as excludable delay under RCM T07(c). The prosecution will
provide you an update no later titan 25 May 201 I.

5. The point ofcontact for this memorandum is the undersigned a?


Encls
as CPT, 1A

Trial Counsel

CF:
Defense Counsel twiencls)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

26 April 201 I

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. Joint Base Myer -4 Henderson Hall. 204 Lee Avenue, Fort
Myer. VA 22211-1199

SUBJECT: Government Request for Delay ofArticIe 32 Investigation. United States vs. PFC
Bradley E. Manning

I. On 25 April 201 I. the Government requested that you delay restarting the Article 32
Investigation until the United States received consent from all ofthe Original Classi?cation
Authorities (OCAs) to release discoverable classified evidence and information to the defense. It
appears that no OCA has given such approval since the Defense has yet to receive any classified
evidence or information. Without this information. the Defense is unable to adequately prepare
for the Article 32.

2. In order to avoid any additional unnecessary delay. the Defense requests that you order the
Government to:

a. Provide either a substitute for or a summary of the information for relevant classified
documents;

b. Allow the Defense to inspect any and all unclassified documents. tangible items. and
reports within the Government?s control, which are material to the Defense's preparation. Rule
for Court-Martial and 701(a). The standard set out in R.C.M.
405 and R.C.M. i'Ol requires the Government to turn over items that are within the
?Government?s control.? This means that the Trial Counsel. upon Defense request. has an
af?rmative obligation to seek out requested evidence that is in the possession ofthe
Government even if that evidence is not already in the immediate possession of the Trial
Counsel. United States v. Williams. 50 MJ. 436. 44I (C.A.A.F. 1999). The "prosecutor will be
deemed to have knowledge ofand access to anything in the possession, custody. or control of
any federal agency participating in the same investigation of the defendant.? United States v.
868 F.2d 1032. 1036 Cir. 1989); Williams. 50 MJ. at 441. The Defense speci?cally
renews its request for discovery previously either denied or not provided by the Government.
See Attachment A F: AND

c. Ensure the Defense has equal access to CID and other law enforcement witnesses by
requiring the Trial Counsel to make available any requested witness. R.C.M. 405tg}(l MB) and
establishes that the prosecution and defense "shall have equal opportunity to obtain
witnesses and evidence." See also Article 46. UCMJ. The Defense has attempted to interview
several ofthe CID agents in this case. On l4 April 2011. the Defense received an email from
Deputy Director Daniel T. Andrews ofthe Computer Crime Investigative Unit, requesting that
the Defense coordinate all witness interview requests through DW Trial Counsel. Specifically,
the Defense requests the ability to speak with SA Toni M. Graham. SA Thomas A. Smith. SA
Kenneth A. King. SA Charles T. Antes Jr. SA Mark A. Mander. SA Randall A. Bethke. SA



Government Reques't for Delay of Article 32 Investigation, United States vs. PFC
BLadlev E. Manninu



Matthew J. Haywood. SA Jennie R. Liseiandri. CW2 Nathan E. Langley. SA Calder 1..
Robertson 111. SA David S. Shaver. and SA Ronald Rock.

3. Due to the limited discover}; provided so far, it is liker that the Article 32 will need to be
delayed again unless the above information is provided in a timely manner. The Defense
requests that an}: additional delay be credited to the Government.

4. The point ofeontaet for this memorandum is the undersigned a?

Encls DAVID EDWARD coon-res
As Civilian Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
159TH JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DETACHMENT (LSD)
MG ALBERT C. USAR CENTER
6901 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA. 22310-3329
new To
ATTENTION oz:



ARRC-CAR-LSQ 12 August 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander. U.S. Army. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer.
VA 2221]

SUBJECT: Delay ofArtiele 3E Investigation of PFC Bradley Manning

1. 0n 1 I August 2010, the defense submitted a request For delay in the Article. 32 investigation
pertaining to PFC Manning. The defease requested that the delay be granted until the Rule for

Courts-Martial 706 Sanin Board is completed. I recommend that you approve the defense delay.

2. ll" you approve the defense request. I recommend that you attribute any delay to the defense.

3. Point ofeontaet is the undersigned at?

PAUL R. ALMANZA
LTC. .IA. USAR
Investi gating Of?cer



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED sures new "raw. DEFENSE ssevrcs
DEFENSE counsm. ASSISTANCE Paoonm
ARLINGTON. 22203



REPLV TO
ATTENTION DF:

JALS-TD 11 August 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU LTC Paul Almanza, 150ih judge Advocate General Detachment,
Legal Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road,
Alexandria, Virginia 22310

FOR Commander, United States Army Garrison, loint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 204 Lee
Avenue, Fort Myer, Virginia 2221 1*1 199

SUBJECT: Delay Request, United States v. Private First Class Bradley Manning,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, US. Army Garrison, loint Base MyeruHenderson
Hall, Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

1. The Defense requests a delay in the subject court~martial until the inquiry you ordered
under the provisions of Rule for Court-Martial 706 is completed. The defense maintains
responsibility for this delay because Captain Paul Bouchard initially requested the inquiry
from PFC Manning's previous chain of command. This delay would terminate on the date
the results of the inquiry are received by PFC Manning?s detailed defense counsel.

2. i am the point of contact for an uestions or concerns regarding this request. I may be
contacted at

THOMAS F. HURLEY
MAI. IA
Defense Counsel



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
150TH JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DETACHMENT
MG ALBERT c. usAR CENTER
5901 TELEGRAPH ROAD

ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22310-3320
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF



AF RC -M.IVA .lanuary 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR US v. Manning, Article 32th) Participants

SUBJECT: Excludable Delay

1. The Article 32 hearing in this case concluded on 22 December 20] 1. On 23 December 20l l,
I reviewed evidence. Between 24 December 201 I and 2 January 20l2 I did not work On this
investigation. Of these ten days, six (24-26 December 20] and 3] December 2 January 12)
were federal holidays or weekend days. I worked on this investigation on 3-6 January 2012 and
again from 9-l 1 January 20l2. but not on 7-8 January 2012. which were weekend days.

2. The period between 24 December 20] and 2 January 20l2. and between 7-8 January 2012. is
excludable delay under R.C.M. 707(c).

3. FCC for this memorandum is the undersigned.



PAUL R. ALMANZA
LTC. JA. USAR
Investigating Of?cer

Page 1 of 12

Subject Determinations and Evidence List (UNCLASSIFIED) Dare; 12t14l?11 14:18
To: "Almanza. Paul" From: paulralmanza
I



23 use Legislative History incite) us v. Gunderman to? MJ easier (415k8j

Nissho-iwai Kline (845 F2d 1300).th {dg?kBl Hart Hairston {343 F?d 2003.rtf [432kB}

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Counsel

Three issues, listed below. And in addition to attaching the documents referenced in 1., below, I am also
attaching my determinations regarding defense objections to government evidence and my evidence list.

i. Statements under penalty of perjury. I received legal advice from my legal adviser yesterday concerning
whether a statement under penalty of perjury constitutes a "sworn statement? permitting it to be considered over
defense objection if the witness is not reasonably available. The advice was that in accordance with the text of 28
U.S.C. Section 1746. a declaration under penalty of perjury is legally given "like force and effect" of a sworn
statement and for purposes of consideration as an alternative to testimony at the Article 32 may be considered as
a sworn statement. LTC Holzer also advised that the discussion to Article 131 {see para. 5'i'ct3j} mentions
signing a summarized transcript of Article 32 testimony under penalty of perjury, which indicates that such
statements signed outside of an Article 32 hearing but associated with such an investigation can be considered. I
also note that the classi?cation review statements at issue all indicate that they are in the "course ofjustice" as
they all indicate the persons making the statements knew they were being prepared for use in this case. As such,
consider these statements to have the same indicia of reliability as sworn statements.

Based on his advice and my review of the indicia of reliability, I intend to consider the statements made under
penalty of perjury provided by RADM Kevin Donegan, Mr. Robert Betz. LtGen Robert Schmidle, VADM Robert
Harward, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, RADM David Woods, and the person subscribing Bales numbers 00378148-
00378175 and 00410623-00410634.

LTC Holzer provided four documents, attached. supporting his advice:
a. The legislative history of 28 U.S.C. Section 11MB.

b. US v. Gunderman, 67 MJ. 583 (ACCA 2009)

c. Nissho?lwai v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1983)

d. Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762 t5th Cir. 2003}.

2. Request for reconsideration of closure determinationfrequest for media exclusion and gag order. I recognize
that the defense disagrees with my determination that reasonable alternatives to closure, such as thorough voir
dire of the panel members and appropriate rulings and instructions by the military judge, would ensure that should
this case be referred to trial, PFC Manning would receive a fair trial. However, I do not believe that the defense
has shown why these alternatives to closure are insuf?cient. Additionally, with respect to the defense's reference
to "high?ranking officials havjing] made improper comments concerning PFC Manning's probable guilt and
appropriate punishment," in Mr. Coombs's 131621 December 2011 email, i find that thorough voir dire and
appropriate rulings and instructions by the military judge will adequately address the risk of unlawful command
influence. I therefore deny the defense's request for reconsideration of my closure determination. With respect to
the defense's request to exclude the media from discussion of the five topics at issue and to issue a gag order
preventing other witnesses from discussing those topics, those requests are denied.

3. Invocation of Article 31tFifth Amendment rights. The recommendation i received from my legal advisor was
that once witnesses invoke their Article 31 or Fifth Amendment rights, these witnesses are not reasonably
K-

IHV. UFCR.

oft-.701 i

Page 2 of 12

1-..- \r
available. LTC Holzer also recommended that counsel for the witnesses be contacted to determine whether there
are any areas of inquiry that the witness could respond to questioning without invoking their rights. Should it be
the case that counsel indicate there are no areas that the witnesses will discuss without invoking their rights, LTC
Hoizer recommended that the witness be called in lieu of relying on a written statement of their intent to invoke
their rights. Accordingly, I intend to sail both SFC Adkins and W01 Batonek as noted below.
Thank you.

LTC Almanza

On 12t14f11. wrote:

LTC Almanza.

lwitl be available on my cell at 1500.

Best.

David



3'

3 David E. Coombs. Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317

a Providence. RI 02906

It



Toll Free: 14300-58341 56





a Local: (508] 689-4615

33-



Fax: (508) 689-9232

com]
3:








?*Con?dentiality Notice: This transmission. including attachments. may contain con?dential attorney-client

I 6.0 I #22 723 12/161201

.v


Page :01

.r

information and is intended for the personts) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or use of this information may be
unlawful and is prohibited.*?








a Original Message

Subject: Re: Telephonic 802

a a From: "Almanza, Paul"

2 Date: Wed. December 14, 2011 1:03 pm

courtmartialdefense corn





3:

2'

Counsel -



Would you be available for a telephone conference at 1500 today? l?d like to discuss the issues concerning
witness availability mentioned below.



1 am working on the other outstanding items.


2? LTC Almanza
3'
?2
J- ?b
3;
2}




From:

blockedrnailto courtmartialdefensecmn):
2- To: Almanza, Paul





(1t_l]_321733 I 2r 1 65201 I

Page 4 of 12




an ec .-
Subject: RE: Telephonic 802
3* 2)





1?

LTC Almanza.



2?
3'



a
a The defense objects to having the listed OCA witnesses testify by telephone. The defense's ability to question
these witnesses will be frustrated by not having them in person. The defense intends to discuss cfassified
information with each witness. In order to adequately do so. the defense will need to hand classified information
each individual witness. As such. having the witness testify by telephone will not ensure a thorough and impartial
Article 32 hearing.



3s

29 2)





Additionally, the defense objects to each of the government's requests below concerning CPT Keav. SGT
Padgett. SFC Adkins. Batonek. and inmate Whit?eld. The government has had more than enough time to
ensure these witnesses were available to testify. The fact that a particular witness has made alternative plans
should not be held against the defense given our timely request for the witness.



?9



2.



Best.



I)

David

:David E. Coombs, Esq.

a a Law Office of David E. Coombs

2? 2: 11 South Angeli Street. #317

Providence, RI 02906





Toll Free: 1-800-588-4155



b-

Local: (508) 689-4616



2b

a Fax; (508) 6899282



2r

1*

armvcourtmartialdefensecomr}

3-.-



123] 6:90] I

?15
DJ
.J
r'ti
LII

"h
tJ

t?

WV






Notice: This transmission. including attachments. may contain con?dential attorney-client
information and is intended for the personls} or company named If you are not the intended recipient. please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure. copying or use of this information may be
unlawful and is prohibited.*?

2}



IIJOriginal Message --

a a Subject: RE: Telephonic 802

a ?a a From: "Fain, Ashden CPT USA

2* ate: . ecem er am
a To: "Almanza, Paul"




2? Sir,

3*

a a Good morning. The government was without email from at least 1937 Fast night
a until 1030 this morning. This email serves as an update to your witness

a a 2- request and other administrative issues up to 193? last night. Email is

sporadic but we should be able to continue communicating through email.

'3

Witness List. The government is working to finalize whether witnesses will

a be available for telephonic testimony. We do not anticipate any issues with

telephonic testimony of the witnesses you ruled "not available" except the

a below witnesses.

a a 1. We do not know whether the different original classification authorities

a (OCAs) will be available for telephonic testimony and will likely not know

until 13GB on 15 Dec 11

a 2. The United States requests CPT Keay be deemed not reasonably available
a a and testify via telephone. CPT Keay is currently scheduled for block leave

a ?a during the hearing and already has airline tickets and other non-refundable

a reservations. We are working to obtain copies of his leave form and other

a travel documents.

3. The United States requests SGT Padgett be deemed not reasonably available

16.0] _2-21 723 12H 6J?2ili

Page 6 of 12-



and testify via telephone. SGT Padgett just returned from a five month TDY
for MOS re-classification training He just returned to the unit and

a we expect more information from the command in the next few hours. I will

a 3? forward the commander's decision about his physical presence and reason. once
:2 we receive it.

4. The United States requests Mr. Adrian Lamo's be deemed reasonably

available. Mr. Lamo is diagnosed with asperger This is a high

2? functioning form of autism. Based on his medical condition. he will not

a 2- likely be able to relay meaningful testimony over the telephone that should

2- assist you in your investigation. and allow the prosecution and defense to

adequately question him. Additionally. the witness would likely be

non?responsive if testifying over the telephone. Rather than rule him

a reasonably unavailable but available for telephonic testimony, the United

2' States requests the ability to produce him for in-person testimony. if he is

a willing to participate in the hearing.

a 5. The United States requests SFC Adkins be deemed not reasonably available
based on the previously provided memorandum stating he intends to invoke his
rights under Article 31. witness who is unavailable under Mil. R. Evid.

2* is not 'reasonably available.? RCM 405tglt?lth} MRE

a 804(ajt1) incorporates in the claim of privilege against self-incrimination.

6. W01 Balonek is not available for telephonic testimony based on the

attached email stating he intends to invoke his rights under Article 31.

witness who is unavailable under Mil. R. Evid. 804tait1}?t6}. is not

'reasonably available.? RCM MRE 804(a)(1) incorporates in

the claim of privilege against self-incrimination.

7. As of three months ago. Inmate Whitfield was a represented party and the
United States is working to contact his civilian defense counsel to first

a determine whether he is still a represented party, and then to request inmate
Whitlield's cooperation with your order. The confinement facility is prepared
to provide him access to a telephone for testimony.



vir

CPT Fein



Message?~??

Sent: Wednesday. . .

a To: coombs arm courtmartialdefensecom blockedma?tocoombs?armi courtmanialdefense.com);
















Fein. Ashden CPT USA JFHQANCRIMDW Holzer. Mark LTC MIL USA OTJAG
Subject: Re: Telephonic 802

?2
a Counsel -


This provides notice that i intend to ask my legal adviser whether SFC Adkin
should be produced at the hearing in light of his memorandum indicating that





he intends to invoke his Article 31 and 5th Amendment rights and. if so.
whether he may be ordered to testify given that the matter cited in his
a memorandum is an administrative one.

2>

a a Thank you

2?

LTC Almanza

11>



?2



a From: coombs@armycourtmartlaldefense com)

1 6.01 _22 1 723 12116/201

Page 7? of? 12

comia



2" To; Almanza. Paul: Almanza. Paul LTC RES USAR USARC



Sent: Tue Dec 13 08:3?331 2011

a a Subject: RE: Telephonic 802





LTC Almanza.

2*

a The defense requests that SFC Adkins be produced at the Article 32 hearing
The basis that SFC Adkins is attempting to avoid testifying is not a proper

invocation of his Article 31 rights or his 5th Amendment right against

a seif?incrimination. The Fifth Amendment protections only apply to in a

custodial interrogation and when the individual questioning is law

a enforcement. Article 31 applies only when the military questioner is acting

or could reasonably be considered as acting in an official law enforcement or
a disciplinary capacity. United States v. Bell. 44 Md. 4013 1996}

(Article 31 requirement for warnings does not apply at trial or Article 32

a 2? investigation). SFC Adkins is attempting to invoke his Article 31 rights in

a a noncriminal matter (administrative reduction) and when he is not the

a subject of any questioning designed to elicit incriminating statements. He

a should therefore be ordered to testify.





in the alternative the defense requests that the government provide a grant
a of testimonial immunity to SFC Adkins under ROM. Yer-tie). SFC Adkins is a
a material witness at the Article 32 hearing. The fact that he is appealing

?2 his reduction in rank should not provide him with the ability to avoid

a testifying.

r:

a Best.

a a David

3-

David E. Coomos. Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coomos

11 South Angeli Street. #317

a a Providence. Rt 02906

Toll Free: 1-800-588?4156

Local: {508) 689-4616

Fax: (508} 639-9282

a
ermycourtmartiaidefense *1th
?Confidentiality Notice: This transmission. including attachments. may

3* contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the

personts) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient. please

notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure. copying or
use of this information may be unlawful and is










221723 tensor?:
13 - .

Page 8 of 13

2b a? :r
Original Message --
Subject: RE: Telephonio 802





eer- ae: on. ecem er . pm
To:
"Almanza. Paul"



3- 3- Sir.

2*

As for those witnesses you determined to be reasonably available. the

2- United States agrees with the defenses interpretation.



Based on the attached memorandum. SFC Adkins is invoking his Article

31 rights. The United States will produce him it you determine his presence

is required to invoke his rights. Otherwise, all the government's offered

witnesses are available and the United States will check on the status of CPT
Keay and SGT Padgett (defense offered witnesses} tomorrow morning. DTS should
not be an issue. it they are available.



Astor any witness designated as not reasonably available. the

government requests to call them as telephonic witnessesconsidering their sworn statements.



The United States joins the defense in the request for you to

annotate for the record which witnesses you deemed not relevant or relevant
but cumulative.

23'

Finally. as we discussed earlier today during our conference call.

the United States stands ready to coordinate the travel for those witnesses

that are reasonably available or alternative testimony of each witness that

a you deem relevant and not cumulative. from both the government?s and

defense's witness lists.

1} 2'

Thank you

J-

vr'r

2- CPT Fein

:5 23

Message--?--

From: com}

Sent; Monday. December 12. 2011 9:42 PM

2: To: Almanza. Paul; Fein. Ashden CPT USA SJA


CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA JFHO-NCRIMDW SJA.

(ill 1 _22 723 12116320! 1

Page 9 GHQ

-

?Whyle. Jeffrey H. cm

USA JFHO-NCRIMDW SJA

3* a Subject: RE: Telephonic 802

3* 33

LTC Almanza.



The defense received your list of intended witnesses. it is the

defense?s understanding that the listed witnesses are those that you would
a want to hear from during the hearing. If a speCific witness is listed as

reasonably available by you. then this witness is to be produced as a live

a witnesses. The defense is unsure of your intent regarding a witness that is
a on your list but is listed as "not reasonably available." it appears that you

are deferring to the government regarding whether these witnesses will be

produced and in what manner. The defense believes that this determination
a must be made by you and not the government.

25'

a if the defense?s reading of your memorandum is correct. it appears

that only 12 witnesses will be called at the Article 32 (one of which will

invoke his 5th Amendment Right). The remaining witnesses, under the above
a understanding. will testify if at all. at the government's discretion.



With regards to the witnesses not listed by you. the defense requests

a a ruling regarding whether these witnesses have been deemed as either not
relevant. cumulative or not reasonably available. Under ROM. 405(gll2llDl.
a the defense objects to the determination that its listed witnesses are either
not relevant. cumulative or not reasonably available.



Best.

a David

3!

a David E. Coombs. Esq.

a Law Office of David Coombs

a ll South Angeli Street. #31?

a Providence. RI 02906

2? Toll Free: 1-800-538-4?l56

a Local: {508) 889-4616

Fax. (508) 6899282


a a com")
?Confidentiality Notice' This transmission. including attachments.

a may contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the

a personfsl or company named. if you are not the intended recipient. please
notify the sander and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure. copying or
a a use of this information may be unlawful and is prohibited.m







Original Message

Subject: Re: Telephonic 802

From: "Almanza. Paul?

a a Date; Mon. December .










>39}

>23}

131632011

Page 10 oil?



a a a i just sent the witness list i mentioned in my conversation with Mr
Coombs and CPT Fein from ai. As
a a haven't yet received it on my DOJ email to which i sent it as :3 cc. just
wanted to let you know it's on its way.
?9
Also. counsel. I intend to ask my legal advisor for advice on whether
a a statement under penalty of perjury should be considered a "sworn statement"
a a that can be considered by the ID over defense objection if the witness is not
reasonably available.





i} :a :2

a Thank you.

3! 25* 3*

2? LTC Almanza

2:

a a a Original Message

:To: ensecorn

we comla;
Almanza. Paul

I




3 en on so
a Subject: RE: Telephonic 802
:3

a Sir.

23*

a a The United States maintains its previously stated position on both

a the validity of the sworn statements and keeping the hearing open to the

a public in order to reduce public scrutiny and ensure transparency of the

2? military justice process.

23*

Our systems were down tonight. and we will send a copy of the email

a 2? the defense referenced tomorrow.





:r CPT Feih

.3

??-?-Original

From:

2?
a Sent: Monday. December 12. 2011 5:44 PM

To: Almanza. Paul; Fein. Ashden CPT USA SJA

Cc: Matthew kemkes. ?mlli Morrow

JoDean.



-



Subject: Telephonic 802



a LTC Almanza.
:2 J-
21-

16.01 22172 3 12!] @301 1

Page. 11 ofll



a 28 U.S.C. 1MB Statements

?2 In response to your request for us to look at 2010 WL 2285833 and

a 2002 WL 243445, the defense's position is that both cases are inapplicable to
the situation at hand. In Faison. the ID found that TRD was unavailable and
that her videotaped statement was sworn. Such a determination was appropriate
given the fact TRD responded to questions indicating that she knew the

a difference between the truth and a lie and promised to tell the truth. As the

2? IO and the AFCCA correctly concluded, this colloquy more than adequately
satisfied the oathiaffirmation requirement so as to make TRD's videotaped

1* statement a sworn statement under R.C.M. tn the instant

case, unsworn statements under 28 U.S-C. 5 1?48 do not share any of the same
a 3- hallmarks of a sworn statement. The statements are not made in front of

anyone and the statements are not simitar, in that they are not made in front
of a person authorized to administer oaths.



Likewise. Elsevier dealt with a videotaped interview that was done

a without a formal swearing or oath. However, it qualified as a sworn statement
in accordance with REM. since on a later date the

unavailable witness did swear to the truth of the statements contained

therein. The ID correctly found this to be a sworn adoption of the videotaped
interviews that, pursuant to United States v. Wood. 36 MJ. 851 (ACME.

1992), rendered it admissible. None of the individuals who provided the

a unsworn statements under 28 US. C. 1748 have subsequently provided a sworn
adoption of their unsworn statement in accordance with R.C.M.

405(c)(4liBliil-



An unsworn statement provided under 28 U.S.C. 1T48 does not qualify

as a sworn statement. In order for an unsworn statement provided under 28
U.S.C. 1T48 to be admissible, it must be subscribed and signed "in a

judicial proceeding or course ofjustice" at the Article 32 hearing. A plain

reading of 28 U.S.C Section 1?48 and R.C.M. undercuts any

a argument to the contrary.

21>

Closure

a a While the Defense acknowledges the general right of the public to

attend criminal proceedings, such right is not Unfettered and must be

balanced by the right of the accused to a fair trial. Specifically, the

Defense maintains that the public's interest in five discrete pieces of

evidence, which may or may not be admissible if the case proceeds to trial,
a is not sufficiently overwhelming to override the accused's right to a fair

trial. It is important to note that all of the cases in this area involve the

government attempting to close the Article 32 hearing while the accused was
attempting to assert the right to a public hearing. Here, it is the accused

who is asserting his right to close parts of the hearing in order to preserve

the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure his right to a fair

2' trial. The Government can point to no harm to its case based upon the

defense's request. lnstead, the discussion seems to be centered on subsequent
steps that a military judge can take to cure any error at the Article 32.

a This analysis is misguided given the relative ease of avoiding the harm and
the limited nature of the defense's request. Certainly, to the extent that we

are going to err, we should err on the side of caution. In this instance.

2? a that would mean closing the hearing during those limited times requested by
the defense.

?2

3

AIT Training

a? The defense has attached the referenced email regarding the IT

training.

23-

Best,

a David

31-

_221723 1316901 I

Page 12 of 12

a Dauid E. Coombs, Esq.

a Law Office of David E. Coombs

11 South Angel! Street. #31?

Providence. RI 02906

Toll Free: 1-800-583-4156

Local: {508) 889-4616

Fax: (508} 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments.

2' may contain con?dential attorneyaclient infon'nation and is intended for the
2? personis) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient. please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure. copying or
2- use of this information may be unlawful and 23-



Iassification: UNCLASSIFIED

12/1680] I

US. v. Manning

Article 32 Investigating Of?cer?s Chronology









































DATE EVENT

Late Jul 10 Contacted by then-Chief Trial Judge Henley to inquire whether I
would be available to serve as investigating officer (did not make
note of date)

4 Aug 10 Appointed to investigate original charges

5 Aug 10 Telephone brie?ng on Article 32 Investigations by original legal
advisor, Mr. Mike Egan

15 Oct 10 Telephone consultation with Mr. Egan concerning status of delay,
advised that the original defense delay request still stood

15 Feb 1 1 Telephone consultation with Mr. Egan concerning contacting
counsel to let them know of upcoming activation and asking about
length of government?s case

17 Feb 1 1 Received defense request to compel discovery

25 Feb 1 1 Received government response to defense request to compel
discovery

23 Feb 1 1 Telephone consultation with Mr. Egan concerning contacting parties
regarding defense discovery request

28 Feb I 1 Responded to counsel concerning defense request to compel
discovery

20 Mar 1 1 Received directive to investigate additional charges and charge sheet
with additional charges

14 Nov 1 Telephone conference with Mr. Coombs and CPT Fein regarding
scheduling of hearing

16 Nov 1 1 Received special instructions for conducting the investigation

2.1 Nov 1 1 Reviewed memoranda directing investigation to take place and
providing special instructions

22 Nov 1 1 Reviewed defense discovery request; received defense notice under
M.R.E.

23 Nov 1 1 Provided Article 32 noti?cation memorandum to PFC Manning
through counsel

28 Nov 1] PFC Manning provided noti?cation memorandum and motion for
closed hearing under R.C.M 405(h)(3)

30 Nov 1 1 Introductory telephone consultation with second legal advisor, LTC
Mark Holzer

1 Dec 11 Reviewed defense motion to compel and government response to



request for production of evidence, submitted status email to parties



1
INF. DFER.





5Dec11

Reviewed evidence at MDW



6Decll

Introductory telephone conference with security of?cer, Mr. Prather;
telephone brie?ng on Article 32 investigations by LTC Holzer



7Dec11

Reviewed administrative matters, email to counsel regarding same



9Dec11

Reviewed defense request concerning administrative matters, email
to counsel regarding same



10Dec 1]

Reviewed defense request for Article 32 witnesses, government?s
requested evidence list, and additional requested evidence list



llDecll

Reviewed ?lings concerning defense request to close hearing and
defense request for witnesses



IZDecll

Telephone conference with counsel discussing defense closure
request, defense objections to evidence and witnesses, and
consideration of statements under penalty of perj ury; telephone
consultation with LTC Holzer regarding defense closure request;
continued reviewing evidence at MDW



13Decll

Telephone consultation with LTC Holzer regarding consideration of
statements under penalty of perjury; continued reviewing evidence at
MDW: issued 10?s witness list; issued determination on defense
request for closure; defense request that SFC Adkins be produced at
hearing



14Decll

Issued determinations concerning defense objections to government
evidence, 10?s evidence list, considerations of statements under
penalty of perjury, request for reconsideration of denial of defense
closure request, defense request for media exclusion and gag order,
and effect of witness invocation of Article 31/Fifth Amendment
rights on their availability; provided counsel LTC l-Iolzer?s advice
regarding the effect of the invocation of Article 31/Fifth Amendment
rights and on statements under penalty of perjury; provided revised
list of witnesses to appear in persomr by telephonefby statement under
penalty of perjury; participated in telephone conference with counsel
concerning witness availability and closure issues, determining that
SFC Adkins, SGT Padgett, and CPT Keay would be produced in
person and W01 Balonek was not reasonably available and would be
available by phone





lSDecIl



Issued determinations regarding defense-requested witnesses and
evidence; telephone consultation with legal advisor regarding
R.C.M. and provided notice to counsel of
reconsideration of determinations concerning CPT Liebman, CPT
Worseley, and CPT Critch?eld; received government notice of



l-J





classi?ed hearing; provided draft Article 32 hearing script to counsel
for review; participated in rehearsal of classified closure and opening
proceedings; provided revised list of witnesses to appear in
person/by telephone/by statement under penalty of perjury; issued
determination as to defense request for reconsideration of closure
request and request for media exclusion and gagorder



16Decll

First day of hearing; provided rights advisement to PFC Manning
and answered voir dire questions by counsel; received defense
request for recusal; informed counsel of seeking legal advisor?s
advice concerning request for recusal; considered and denied defense
request for recusal; defense ?led writs with Army Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking a stay of proceedings and my recusal, which were
denied; issued revised determinations as to defense requested
witnesses



ITDecll

Second day ofhearing; received defense request to consider sealed
stipulation of expected testimony for Ms. heard testimony of SA
Graham (telephonic), SA Robertson (telephonic), SA Mander (in
person), SA Bettencourt (in person), SFC Madrid (telephonic), and
CPT Lim (in person); issued revised determinations as to defense
requested witnesses



lSDeclI

Third day of hearing; discussed issue of proffered stipulation of
expected testimony with counsel; heard testimony of CPT Fulton (in
person) SGT Maderas (telephonic), Mr. Millman (telephonic), CPT
Cherepko (telephonic), SFC Adkins (in person invoked); W01
Belonek (telephonic invoked), SA Shaver (in person); conducted
classi?ed closure hearing



19Dec11

Fourth day of hearing; heard testimony of SA Shaver (in person)
SPC Baker (in person); Mr. Johnson (in person); discussed issue of
Ms. Showman?s testimony, determined to reconsider defense request
to close hearing for a portion of Ms. Showman?s testimony; received
defense assertion of communications-to-clergy privilege under
M.R.E. 503 for chats with Mr. Lamo





20 Dec ll



Fifth day of hearing; received government?s response to defense?s
M.R.E. 503 assertion; denied defense M.R.E. 503 assertion; heard
testimony of Ms. Showman (telephonic); conducted unclassi?ed
closure hearing to reconsider defense?s closure request and took 5
minutes of Ms. Showman?s testimony while closed; heard testimony
of SSG Bigelow (telephonic); SA Williamson (in person); SA
Shaver (in person); SA Edwards (in person); Mr. Lamo (in person);
parties agreed at end of day to do closing arguments at 1000 22



3





December; issued reconsideration of closure determination
concerning Ms. Showman?s testimony

























21 Dec 1 1 Sixth day of hearing; heard testimony of SGT Padgett (in person);
CPT Keay (telephonic); reviewed evidence; drafted written response
to defense assertion of communications-to-clergy privilege under
NLRB. 503 for chats with Mr. Lamo

22 Dec 1 1 Seventh day of hearing; heard closing statements by counsel; closed
hearing; reviewed evidence

23 Dec 1 1 Reviewed evidence at received defense notice of evidence

3 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; drafted 10 Report

4 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; drafted 10 Report

5 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; dra?ed 10 Report

6 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; drafted 10 Report

9 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; drafted 10 Report

10 Jan 12 Reviewed evidence; draftele Report; drafted memorandum
excluding the days between Completed and submittele Report






UNCLASSIFIED (SECRETHORCONINOFORN WIENCLOSURES)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
150m JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DETACHMENT (LSD)
. am no ALBERT c. LIEBER CENTER
,i 5901 TELEGRAPH ROAD
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA 22310-3329




TO
on:

- e'
--





AFRC-MJVA I I January 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Recipients of Article 32 Investigating Of?cer?s Report. US v. Manning

SUBJECT: Classi?ed Annex to Article Investigating Of?cer?s Report. US v. Manning

I. The classi?ed annex to this Investigating Of?cer?s Report contains the following documents:

a. Four classified documents marked as 10 Exhibits. IO Exhibits (CI 1 and (C I 2 are
classi?ed at the level: IO Exhibit (C) 3 is classi?ed at the
CONFIDENTIALINOFORN level: and 10 Exhibit (C) 4 is classi?ed at the
SECRETNORCONINOFORN level.

b. The summarized transcript of the classi?ed portions of the Article 32 hearing held on
18 and 19 December 201 1, marked as 10 Exhibit (C) 5. classi?ed at the SECRETWNOFORN

level.

2. POC for this memorandum is the undersigned

am/

Encls PAUL R. ALMANZA
as LTC. USAR
Investigating Officer

UNCLASSIFIED (SECRETHORCONINOFORN WIENCLOSURES)

luv. arse. EXHIBIT 47??

00671

Exhibit 55 of the
Investigating Of?cer?s Report
(DD Form 457) is classi?ed
and stored in the
classi?ed supplement to the
original Record of Trial

[Court Reporters Note: verbatim transcript of 16 December 2011

proceedings produced by order of the Special Court-Martial

Convening Authority.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0907, 16 December

2011.]
I0: Good Morning.

PFC Manning, I am Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza. By

order of Colonel Carl R. Coffman, Jr., I have been appointed as

Investigating Officer under the provisions of Article 32(b} of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice to conduct an investigation

into the charges which have been preferred against you. Before

proceeding, I would like to advise the participants and persons

observing that this is a formal investigation. In order to

protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings, I would
ask that all present refrain from interrupting or otherwise

disturbing the investigation. Should any person, nevertheless,

engage in speech or conduct that interferes with the dignity and

decorum of the proceedings, they may he removed from this

courtroom. Additionally, the rules of the hearing provide that

cell phones, blackberrys, or similar devices are not authorized

in the hearing, if any person, with such a device, may be

removed from this courtroom.

PFC Manning, let the record show that Mr. David

Coombs, civilian counsel, Major Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul

m. 55oz. Ewan 5G

Bouchard are here present with you; and I'd note that I received
Mr. Coombs notice of appearance and it will be entered into the
record.
IO: On 23 November 2011, I advised you of this
investigation and your rights to counsel in this investigation.
As you are in pretrial confinement, I provided that notification
to your counsel.
Counsel, when was your client provided with that

notification?

CDC: My client received notification on 28 November 2011.

ID: I've read the written documents provided to your
counsel for the sole purpose of determining which witnesses and
evidence would be necessary to conduct a thorough and impartial
investigation. Your counsel have examined those documents. I
will not consider those documents for any other purpose, and I
will make my findings, conclusions, and recommendations, based
only on the evidence presented during the course of this
investigation. After I have heard the evidence presented by
both the government and your defense counsel and arguments by
the government and the defense counsel, I will forward the
results of this investigation and my recommendations to the
Appointing Authority.

Do you have a copy of the charge sheet in front of

you?

ACC: Yes, sir. I do.
IO: The general nature of the charges in this case are one
charge and its specification alleging aiding the enemy, in
violation of Article 104, one charge and sixteen
specifications alleging causing intelligence belonging to the
United States Government to be published on the Internet,
transmitting national defense information to a person not
entitled to receive it, and stealing a record or thing of value
of the United States, in violation of Article 134, and one
charge and its five specifications alleging failure to obey a
lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.

The acouser for those charges was Lieutenant Colonel Cameron

Leiker.

I am now going to advise you of your rights in this

investigation. You have the right to be present throughout the
taking of evidence so long as your conduct is not disruptive; to
cross?examine any witnesses if any are called against you; to
present anything you might desire in your own behalf in defense,
extenuation or mitigation; to have a lawyer represent you at the
investigation; to have me examine available witnesses requested
by you; to make a statement in any form at the proper time, or

to remain silent, or to refuse to make any statement regarding

any offense that you are accused or suspected of, or concerning

matters for which you are being investigated; should you choose
to remain silent or to make unsworn statement, I will not hold
that against you in any manner.

IO: In addition, you are advised that any statement made
by you may be used as evidence against you in a trial by court?
martial. Before I begin the formal investigation and
examination of any of the witnesses in this case, I must inform
you that yOu have the right to be represented at all times
during this investigation by legally qualified counsel. This
means that you have the right to be represented by civilian
lawyer of your choice, but at no espense to United States; the
military counsel of your own selection if that counsel is
reasonably available; or by counsel detailed by the Trial
Defense Service to represent you during the investigation.
There is no cost to you for military counsel.

PFC Manning, do you have any questions about any of
the rights I have described for you?
ACE: No, sir.
IO: Do understand those rights?
ACC: Yes, sir.

IO: By whom do you wish to be represented in this
investigation?

ACC: By Mr. Coombs and by my military counsel, sir.

IO: And that's Major Kemkes and Captain Bouchard?

ACC: Yes, sir.

IO: Do you wish to be represented by anyone other than
those individuals?

ACC: Not at this time.

IO: Do you still wish for these three attorneys to be your
lawyers in this hearing?

ACC: Yes, sir.

10: Are you satisfied with the work they have done for you
up to this point?
ACC: Yes, sir.

ID: PFC Manning, as the Investigating Officer in your
case, it is my duty to thoroughly and impartially investigate
the charges against you. This investigation shall include
recommendations concerning the disposition which should he made
of the case. It is my duty to impartially evaluate and weigh
all of the evidence. I will consider the testimony of the
witnesses and will also consider the evidence of which I?ve
previously notified your counsel. You and your counsel will be
given full opportunity to present anything you may desire in
your own behalf, either in defense, extenuation, or mitigation.

Do you understand?
ACC: Yes, sir.

I0: I can recommend that the charges against you be

referred for trial to a general court-martial or to a different

type of court-martial or that the charges be dismissed or
disposed of without proceeding to a trial by courtsmartial.
IO: It is not my purpose during this investigation to act

as a prosecutor, but only as an impartial fact finder.

I am currently assigned to the 150th Judge Advocate
General Detachment (LSO), United States Army Reserve. At the
time I was appointed to this investigation, I had no detailed
knowledge of this case, having only seen limited coverage in the
media concerning the allegations against you. As I previously
mentioned, I have reviewed the documentary evidence provided by
the government to both me and your defense team, but solely for
the purpose of determining which witnesses and what evidence
needed to be produced during this investigation. Other than
those actions, I have no substantive knowledge of the actions
alleged, and I do not know any of the witnesses or persons
involved in this hearing. I have had several written
communications with counsel regarding administrative and
scheduling matters related to this hearing. I have not acted in
any way that would disqualify me from conducting this
investigation.

Does either side wish to question or challenge me?
TC: No, sir.
IO: Defense?
sir.

CDC: Yes,

IO: Please.
CDC: Just a few questions, initially.

CDC: Do you know how the Convening Authority was made aware
of your name?

I0: I do not know how that occurred.

CDC: Please describe to the best of your knowledge how you
became involved as the ID in this case.

IO: I received a call from Colonel Henley who was then the
Chief Trial Judge of US Army Trial Judiciary, asking if I was
available to serve as an Investigating Officer in this case.
After informing him that I was available to serve, shortly
thereafter I received, I believe it was in August of 2010, an
appointment memorandum appointing me the IQ.

CDC: And who notified you of this appointment in August?

IO: That was the--the memorandum came from--it was signed
by Colonel Coffman, if my memory serves, and I believe it came??
the email transmitting it came from Captain Fein.

CDC:

Your legal advisor is Lieutenant Colonel Mark Holzer?

IO: Correct.

CDC: Have you sought his legal advice on any issues?
10: Yes, I have.
CDC: And briefly, could you explain which issues?

I0: I sought his legal advice on several issues. As the

parties know I have provided by notification as to the issues

that I scught advice for as it occurred by email and through
conversation.

ID: The first issue that I sought advice from the legal
advisor on was the issue as to the defense request for?-
temporarily, I might have them out of order as there were a
number of issues. It was a defense request for closure of these
proceedings, I requested the legal advisor's advice on that
matter. I requested the legal advisor?s advice on whether a
statement made under penalty of perjury could be considered as a
sworn statement over objection by the defense. Actually, I may
supplement these responses later after going through my email to
make sure I got them all. I also received advice from the legal
adviser concerning the-?I received a communication from the
legal advisor concerning the rule, provisions for defense
admission of extenuating and mitigating evidence at an Article
32 proceeding. That is what I recall at this moment. I will go
through my notes and supplement that answer, if necessary.

CDC: Have you received advice from any other sources?

ID: No.

CDC: You indicated that you are a Military Judge. When did
you become a Military Judge?

ID: I became a Military JUdge in June of 2009.

CDC: When did you attend the Military Judges course?

attended the Military Judges course ins-correction,
June 2010. So I attended the Military Judges course in 2010.
CDC: And when was that?
ID: That was April-May.
CDC: During your time in the JAG, have you ever come to the
JAG school for instruction, other than the Judge?s course?
ID: Yes, I have.
CDC: I was an evidence professor there from 2007 to 2009.
Did I ever teach you in a class?
ID: I do not recall. I do not, because I do not think
that I attended any courses at the JAG school during that time
I attended the

frame. I attended the Basic Course in ?96.

Reserve Advanced course in 2004. Then I attended the Judge's
course in 2010.

CDC: How many courts?martial had been presided over as a
Military Judge?

IO: Six.

CDC: Briefly, can you tell me what types of courts-martial?

IO: They were BCD special courts?martial. They were all

guilty pleas.
CDC: They were all what?
as well.

IO: Guilty pleas. One was a mixed plea,

CDC: The mixed plea, did that involve a panel?

ID: No.

CDC: Who is your civilian employer?
ID: The Department of Justice. I work for the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Criminal Division.

CDC: And what is your position there?
IS: I am a Deputy Chief.

CDC: How long have you been working for the Department of
Justice?

IO: Since November of 2002.

CDC: How many cases have you prosecuted as a member of the
Department of Justice?

IO: I was a trial attorney from 2002 to late 2004 and
probably prosecuted in the neighborhood of 20 cases.

CDC: Are you aware that the Department of Justice has an
ongoing criminal investigation involving the conduct of my
client?

ID: Yes, partially through??I'm not sure if I was aware
before reading the files in this case, but I am aware now that
the Department of Justice has an ongoing investigation based on
the information that I?ve read in this case.

CDC: Have you been exposed to any information from this
ongoing investigation?

ID: No, I have not.

CDC: Have you spoken with anyone within the Department of

Justice about the ongoing investigation?

10

have not.

CDC: Has anyone within the Department of Justice, after
your appointment as the 10 here, discussed your service as the
Investigating Officer?

10: No, with the exception of, of course, informing my
supervisor that I needed to take military leave to conduct this
investigation.

CDC: Did you inform your supervisor as to the nature of
what you would be doing?

IO: My supervisor is a former Judge Advocate, so he knew
what an Article 32 investigation was

CDC: No. My question was did you inform him of the nature
as far as for this hearing that you would be the Investigating

Officer in the case of the United States v. PFC Bradley Manning.



IO: Yes I did; and it is also in my orders that I had to

submit to get military leave, it states~?my activation orders

for this proceeding states, "32 Officer, U.S. V.Manning."



CDC: Speaking of the orders, were you mobilized or were you
just put on orders for this?

IO: I was put on orders for this.

CDC: When were you put on orders?

IO: Wait one.

[The Investigating Officer reviewed his materials.]

IO: My orders are dated 2 December 2011.

11

CDC: So up until 2 December 2011, you were working as a
prosecutor within the Department of Justice?

IO: Correct.

CDC: After 2 December 2011, being placed on orders-?--

IO: Correction, or just for clarification; my orders are
dated 2 December 2011, I reported for and I was trying to do
this hearing on 12 December 2011.

CDC: Okay, so between 2 December 2011 and 12 December 2011,
you were still working at your primary civilian position?

ID: Correct.

CDC: And since being placed on orders and actually here 12
December 2011, have you responded to any emails or done any work
for the Department of Justice?

IO: No. I have been fully engaged in this proceeding.

CDC: So you?ve responded to no emails from your civilian
employment?

ID: I believe that is correct. I do not think that I have
responded to a single one.

CDC: Are you performing any work since 12 December 2011,
for the Department of Justice?

ID: No.

What

CDC: You indicated that you had some prior knowledge.

prior knowledge do you have about this case?

12

was appointed as the Investigating Officer in August
2010 and I believe I was aware since the case received media
generally,

coverage, as to the nature of the allegations against

PFC Manning. I can't give you a specificity which articles I
read, or which TV coverage I may have seen, but I know I saw
some articles and I know I saw some TV coverage. Since being
appointed the Investigating Officer in August 2010, I've made
every effort to not--like when I'm reading The Post in the
morning on the way to work, or if I saw a headline that
pertained to this case, I did not read the article.
CDC: So prior to being appointed, what initial impressions
did you have about this case based on what you heard or saw in
the media?
IO: Prior to being appointed? I know I recall thinking
that if these allegations are true, it was a serious matter.
CDC: Did you ever have any discussions with any friends or
associates about WikiLeaks, PFC Manning, or the alleged leaks in
this case prior to being appointed as the Investigating Officer?
IO: Frankly, I don't recall.
CDC: Did you form any opinions based upon what you read or
saw prior to being appointed as the Investigating Officer other
than this was a serious matter?

ID: No, because??generally no; because, although something

is reported in the paper that doesn't necessarily mean

13

conclusively it?s accurate or it?s the full story? So, I did
know if true this was a serious matter but I don't believe I
formed any opinions as to whether PFC Manning was guilty or
innocent of these accusations.

at this time the defense

CDC: Lieutenant Colonel Almanza,

does not have any further questions of you. However, under

R.C.M. 902(a), the defense would move that you recuse yourself.
A Military Judge shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding which the Judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. Case law applies that requirement and that
obligation also to an Investigating Officer. The important part

here is the test under R.C.M. 902(a), is not actual bias but
just the mere existence of a reasonable question about bias.
The defense believes there are four reasons which independently
would support you recusing yourself, but collectively mandate
that you do so.

The first, your position as a prosecutor within the
Department of Justice. You are a career prosecutor, you have
been a prosecutor with the Department of Justice since 2002. By
your own admission you have prosecuted over twenty cases. This
fact coupled along with the fact that the Department of Justice
has an ongoing criminal investigation involving this case; which

if the Department of Justice has its way, based upon the

witnesses they have dragged in for grand jury testimony, that

14

they would get a plea in this case, involving my client, and

have my client be one of the many witnesses that they would use
in order to go after Mr. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

CDC: Additionally, the Department of Justice has not ruled
out the fact that they would take over this prosecution from the
military and, in fact, prosecute PFC Bradley Manning on their
own.

The fact that you denied a defense request for a copy
of the Department of Justice investigation, saying that it was
either not relevant or too difficult to obtain also would out
against the fact that you should be acting here today as the
Investigating Officer. A reasonable person based solely upon
this fact, listening to these facts in this case would question
in fact, impartial.

whether or not you are,

Second, your ruling on defense witnesses. The

government submitted a witness list of 20 witnesses. Every one

of the government?s requested witnesses was granted, either in

person or by telephone. As typical of the government, the

government?s witness list just listed names, no real basis for
and yet you

it, just names. No basis of relevance whatsoever,

granted all of their witnesses. The defense, on the other hand,
submitted afterwards a witness request of 48 witnesses. A 19
page witness request listing the relevance of each of the

witnesses. 10 of the witnesses were in common with the

15

government; of course, those were granted. Of the 38 witnesses

that were not in common, only 2 were granted, 2 out of 38. Then

this morning, magically, perhaps 2 more will be granted.

CDC: To the detriment of the defense and its ability to
preparecase in which the government has
An offense that

charged my client with aiding the enemy.

carries a maximum, right now, of death, unless the government
decides it does not want to go forward with a capital offense.
2 out of 38. An individual looking at this from the outside, a
reasonable person would say, clearly in this case the
Investigating Officer is biased.

Third, your ruling on closure. The government has
given notice to the defense of uncharged misconduct and other
information which the defense believes would not be admissible
at trial, but if made public would seriously impact PFC
Manning's ability to obtain a fair trial. The defense filed
well in advance a motion requesting that you close the hearing
for a limited portion of that testimony. It in the defense?s
mind was a no?brainer motion. No prejudice could happen to the
defense if it's closed, no prejudice would happened to the
government if it is closed. The only prejudice that would
happen in the case is if you allowed it to remain open, and
inexplicably you ruled just that. Even though the defense

requested for you to reconsider that three times. Three times

16

you came back with the same ruling. No. You know what,

defense, you can do voir dire at trial in order to try to find

it prejudicial. Or, you can request the Military Judge give a

limiting instruction.
CDC: Anybody who has practiced more than a day knows both

of those things are very, very unlikely to eliminate and to

bring out prejudice if an individual hears something in the

press and wants to hold onto. The surest way to prevent

prejudice is to prevent it in the first place; which would be to

close the proceeding. Which, again, with the exception of being

a career prosecutor, an individual would say, ?Yes, that is a

common sense outcome here.? That is the resolution that an

unbiased Investigating Officer would conclude.

Third [sic], your ruling with regards to the sworn

Many people have wondered why we are here,

statements. a year

and a half later. Why we here a year and a half later, why has

it taken so long? Because the government, has asked for a

delay, after delay, after delay, and the Convening Authority has

granted it over the defense objection. Time again, time again,

time and again. Why have we had this delay, because the
government needed to get original classification authorities?
determination on whether or not this information was classified,
That is what we waited a year

and would it cause any damage?

and a half to hear from the original classification authorities.

1?

the government has finally given us this list,

we've asked, ?Let?s get these witnesses up here. Let's put

these witnesses on the stand, and let's require these witnesses
to say, ?why is the stuff classified.'"
CDC: ??Why is this stuff going to cause harm.?" And yet,

inexplicably, the government does not want to produce these

witnesses. And when the defense has asked you to do that, you
have denied that. Instead, you said these witnesses could
testify telephonically, maybe. The defense has said, ?That we

can't do that, we need them here in person." And ultimately,

you ruled that, ?No, I'm going to consider unsworn statements
from these witnesses,? and when you made that ruling, the
defense said, ?Wait a second, RCM 405 clearly states you cannot
consider unsworn statements over the objection of the defense."
The government responded to that, and the defense maintained its
position.

You, independently, went out and found two cases to

support the government's position. When you served that on the

defense, the defense responded by saying, ?Look, those cases can

easily be distinguished based upon the facts; they do not

support that position.? After doing that you, independently

again, went out of found three additional cases supporting the
government?s position, never putting the burden on the

government to argue its position. The defense was placed in

18

position, not only having to argue against the government, but

now arguing against another prosecutor, the Investigating
Officer.

CDC: Ultimately, you concluded against the clear language

of RCM 405. Against the clear requirements for unsworn

statements over the defense's objection, that these statements

from the OCA had the indicia of reliability. A test that is

nowhere in the manual, you made up a test all on your own, and

ultimately concluded that, ?Yes, I am going to consider this.

I'm going to consider these OCA statements thereby eliminating
the defense's ability to question even why the stuff is

All of this has been leaked, a year and half

classified.?

later, this is what we are doing. Where?s the damage? Where is

the harm? That's what defense wanted to get cut today and in

this hearing. And yet you, again, ruled, ?No, I?m not going to
hear that."

Independently, the fact that you are a career
prosecutor, or the fact that you only gave 2 out of 38 witnesses
requested by the defense, or the fact that you determined that,

?No, I'm not going to close the hearing, I'm going to allow
prejudicial information to impact PFC Manning's right to a fair
trial." Or the fact that you ultimately determined that you're
going to consider unsworn statements over the defense objection.

Any of those would independently support you recusing yourself,

19

collectively they mandate it. The defense is filing a motion

here for you to recuse yourself, along with legal argument. One

case in particular that you should pay close attention to is,
United States v.

George, which almost mirrors this eerily, in



which ACCA said, reserve judge, a civilian prosecutor, should

recuse themselves.? We request that you consider this motion,

and, in fact, after doing so you recuse yourself in this case.
IO: Government, do you have anything that you wish to be
heard?

TC: Yes, sir. The government wishes to be heard but we
would ask for a short recess to review this motion that just
landed on our desk.
IO: Absolutely, I intend to take a recess to consider the
motion but I just want to know if you wanted to be heard now
before we take a recess?
TC: Sir, we could wait for the recess or if you would like
to we can rebut these possible issues.

ID: I anticipate that this will not be a short recess, so
I'm going to put the hearing on recess and we will let the
parties know when we will reconvene.

16 December 2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 0934,

[The Article 32 hearing reconvened at 1135, 16 December 2011.]
I0: This hearing is now in session. All parties present

when the hearing recessed are again present.

20

00692

Government, have you reviewed the defense's motion?

TC: Yes, sir, we have.
IO: Do you wish to be heard?
TC: We do, sir.

CDC: Sir, prior to that, I just wanted to make sure at this
point that you have not made up your mind?

ID: I have not made up my mind and after he speaks, I
intend to hear from you, if you have any points in rebuttal.

Then I intend to take a recess to make a determination. At this

point I have not made up my mind.
CDC: Very well.
I would also like to put on notice?? the parties

IO: Oh,

notice, that I intend?- when I recess to deliberate, I intend to
ask my legal advisor for advice as to this issue.
CDC: The defense would also request that you contact the
Chief Trial Judge at US Army Judiciary on the issue.
IO: Okay, will do.
Captain Fein.
TC: Yes, sir.
Sir, the purpose of this portion of the investigation
we're at, is to determine whether you can make an impartial
recommendation as to the charges against Private First Class

Manning. The United States would like to ask you a few

21

questions and eXplore any potential bias in this voir dire
process.

First, regarding your position at the Department of
Justice is in civilian capacity, not your US Army Reserve
capacity.

Are you currently a trial counsel at, or trial
attorney excuse me, at the Department of Justice?
ID: No, I am not.
TC: What is your current position?

IO: I'm deputy chief and my work concerns policy and

So I do not supervise any prosecutors on a daily

legislation.

basis. Occasionally, I have cause to assist-?advise the trial
attorneys on an occasional basis, but not on a day-to-day basis.
TC: On a limited basis or even on a daily basis, at the
Department of Justice, do you or have you reviewed any material
dealing with Private First Class Bradley Manning?
ID: No.
TC: Sir, in that same capacity, at the Department of
Justice, have you reviewed any material dealing with WikiLeaks?
ID: No.
TC: And while at the Department of Justice, have you had
any conversations with any individual at the Department of

Justice or any of its subordinate organizations such as the

22

Federal Bureau of Investigation, regarding Private First Class
Manning?

ID: No.
TC: In the same regard at the Department of Justice, have

you had any conversation with any individuals dealing with

WikiLeaks?
ID: No, I have not.
TC: Sir, do you believe that you could thoroughly and

impartially investigate the charges against Private First Class

Manning?
IO: I do.
TC: Sir, in reference to the witness list determinations

that you've made over the past two weeks, you chose to hear in-

hearing and telephonic testimony of 15 witnesses the defense
requested, correct?

IO: Correct.

TC: Did you follow the procedures set forth in Rule for
Court?Martial 405(g)(2), on determining the witness
availability?

ACC: I did.

TC: Did you determine if the significance of their
testimony either in-hearing testimony or if they are not
outweighs the

reasonably available telephonic testimony,

difficulty, expense, delay, and effect on military and

23

government operations as set forth in Rules for Court-Martial
405?

ID: I did, in my determination document, which counsel
have seen, I make determinations as to those specific issues

with respect to what the defense requested witnesses.

TC: Okay, sir. So did you make written
IO: Yes.
TC: fact for the record on the relevance and or

cumulative nature of the evidence or testimony that is required
under the rule?

IO: Yes.

TC: Is that decision, sir, subject to a Military Judge or
Appellate review?

ID: Yes.

TC: And did you consult with your legal advisor in making
that determination?

ID: I consulted with my legal advisor as to the standard,
like during the initial briefing, one of the things we discussed
were the rules for determining availability of witnesses and
I did not consult with my legal advisor on any

evidence.

specific matters. As I noted to counsel this morning, last

night the legal adviser contacted me and just asked if I??there
are two R.C.M 405 provisions and the other one escapes

The two R.C.M. 405 provisions concerning and

me at this time.

24

wanted to make sure that adequately considered those, and

on the basis of that conversation, I reconsidered my
determinations as to three witnesses this morning and so
informed counsel.
TC: So sir, you did consult your legal advisor on ensuring
your interpretation of the rule that you were following a proper
interpretation.

IO: Correct.
TC: Sir, in reference to the closure determination. When
reviewing the defense's request for closure of this hearing to
the public and media, did you follow the rules set forth in
Rules for Court?Martial 405 and 806?
IO: Yes, I did.
TC: Did you follow the test outlined in Rule 806?
ID: Yes, I did, and the main issue that was the basis for
my determination was the factors as to whether other measures
beside closure were considered and whether they were inadequate
or not.
TC: Sir, I assume, the factor that you are talking about
is the test that is outlined in the Rule-?
ID: Correct, and
TC: Did you make a written finding?
I0: I did.
on that?

TC: A fact that is reviewable, sir,

25

did.

TC: And then, in addition to that, in that written

finding, did you actually outline this Rule- the court?martial
used in this hearing? the Article 32 shall be open to the

public. Unless one, there is a substantial probability that
overriding interest will be prejudiced if the proceedings remain
closure is no broader than necessary to protect that

open. Two,

overriding interest. Three, reasonable alternatives to closure

were considered and found in adequate. Then four, that you as
the Investigating Officer make a case specific finding on the
record, justifying that closure.
10: I did, and in that written discriminatiOH I found the
first two elements met I found that through voir dire and
appropriate instructions for the Military Judge were a measure
that will be adequate to protect PFC Manning?s right to a fair
trial should this case be referred to trial.

TC: Sir, in that written finding, is it accurate to say
that you considered the annotated discussion found in Rule for
Court-Martial 806.

10: Yes, I did.
TC: And sir, did you make written findings based off that
discussion and the Rule in 806?

ID: I did.

26

TC: And sir, did you consider, specifically, the portion

of the rule that says, "By opening trials to public scrutiny,
reduces the chance of arbitrary and capricious decisions and
enhances the public confidence in this court?martial or Article
32 process."

ID: 1 did.

TC: Sir, did you consult with your legal advisor when
making this determination?

IO: I did.
TC: And finally sir, did you consider reasonable
alternatives to closure as required in the test, in the Rule
under R.C.M 806?
ID: I did, specifically; I considered and made findings as
to voir dire and appropriate rules and instructions of the
Military Judge.

TC: And those are written findings in the record that will

be reviewed by the Military Judge or appellate court later?

10: Should this case be referred for trial? Yes.
TC: Yes, sir.
Sir, now I am referencing sworn statements. In making

your determination with respect to alternatives to testimony
during this investigation, did you consider the rules outlined

in Rule for Court-Martial 405(g}?

ID: I did.

27

TC: And did you consult with your legal advisor on this
issue?

ID: I did.

TC: Did your legal adviser provide you with legal research
concerning this issue?

ID: Yes, he did, and I provided his advice in the
documents he provided me to counsel.

TC: And sir, with this legal advice, did you determine
that you would consider the original classification authority
statements made under the penalty of perjury pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ?lT46, in lieu of their testimony, because they are not
reasonably available?

IO: Yes, that is the determination that I made.
TC: And you did that, sir, pursuant to the rules set forth
in Rule for Court-Martial 405?

ID: Correct.

TC: And finally, sir, did you make those written findings
of fact concerning that decision?
Yes.

IO: Yes, I believe so.

TC: Thank you, sir.
IO: There are number of emails between the counsel, so I
believe that was contained in an email.

TC: So it is documented for the record?

IO: Correct.

28

TC: Thank you, sir. I guess, the final part to just

respond to the defense. To orally reapond, given that it is his

request of you. First, this hearing, as you know is an Article

32 investigation, it is not the court-martial; therefore you are

detailed here by the Convening Authority and are not, as you
The defense relies

know, sitting as a Military Judge at trial.

on United States George. George is the basis of its argument.



United States Army Court of Military Review decision was
centered on reviewing the actions of the Military Judge, acting
in the capacity of a Military Judge, at a military court*

martial. This case did not concern a preliminary investigation-

10: But don't the rules as to recusal apply to

Investigating Officers, counsel?

TC: Sir, they do. The rules for recusal, but actually the

holding in the case is not about recusing for impartiality. It
is only dicta under Judge Johnston's opinion in the concurrence.

And that opinion states, Judge Johnston?s, "That the Military

Judge abandon his impartiality and became an advocate for the

prosecution, as shown by his openly adversarial relationship

with the trial defense counsel." Again, dicta by Judge

Johnston, sir, this dicta stands for the possibility of a

Military Judge, at a court-martial being openly hostile towards

the defense and openly supportive of the government. The

29

defense's position using this case would be that any unfavorable
rulings by Investigating Officers, or at least the ones
proposed, that were made with advice of a legal advisor would be
the basis recusing yourself, and the United States disagrees.
Additionally, there is no prohibition with you
receiving legal advice, including legal references 0: citations
from your legal advisor and you relying on their legal research,
and in the end, sir, the United States does not believe you have
exhibited any bias in any form that you can conduct a fair and
impartial investigation.
IO: Yes, but isn't the test not whether the United States
believes something or whether--they haven't alleged actual bias,
they have alleged the appearance of bias, but isn't the test of
whether a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances, would
reasonably believe that the impartiality of the Investigating
Officer could reasonably be questioned?
and the United States

TC: Sir, it absolutely is the test,

believes, sir, you based off of your written findings, that are

reviewable by Military Judge. This open process right now, that

the public can scrutinize, that a reasonable person would
believe that this voir dire process would sift out any potential
bias and by your background at the Department of Justice that
from having access to anything dealing

precluded you, almost,

30

with Private Manning or WikiLeaks, that alone, a reasonable

person would believe that you can remain unbiased.

IO: Thank you, Government.

TC: Thank you, sir.
IO: Mr. Coombs.
CDC: Just to pick up where you

10: Just a second, please.

CDC: Just to pick up from where you left off with trial
counsel.

CDC: Again, the defense's position isn?t that in the
adversarial process rulings that go against the defense would
necessarily require the ID to step down. Obviously when you
have a hearing and it is adversarial you are going to get
rulings for you and rulings against you; and that is natUral.
But as you correctly pointed out, the proper test here is not
whether or not you believe you can be impartial. Certainly not
whether or not the government: and certainly they do believe
that you can be impartial. The test is whether or not a
reasonable person would believe that you can be impartial based
upon all of the facts and all of the circumstances that are
known. Here it is without a doubt that you are a member of the
Department of Justice. The simple fact that you are a part of
the Department of Justice that has an ongoing criminal
could

investigation involving my client, that simple fact alone,

31

reasonable person questioning your
impartiality?

IO: Mr. Coombs, in the Marit, case, The Court found that

the Investigating Officer in Marit was a prosecutor in another



Air Force Base from where the investigation occurred. The Court
essentially disagreed with the notion of the fact that the ID
was a prosecutor at the time in the same entity of the Air
Force, that was prosecuting the accused caused lack or of an
appearance of loss of impartiality.

IO: I?d note that the Department of Justice is large. I
am in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity section. Our purview
does not include anything related to National Security or
classified material or anything that would be investigated by
these allegations against the accused. So, what I ask you to do
is address magi; to the point that says being a
prosecutor is another?~does it create the loss of appearance of
impartiality. Isn't that relevant here since I am not in any
part of the Department of Justice that investigates the types of
matters that PFC Manning is accused of?

CDC: You'd have to take it in its proper context. ygrit,
obviously, deals with an instance in which you have a civilian
prosecutor in a totally separate case. In this instance you are
The Department of

a member of the Department of Justice.

Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation. Whether or not

32

the Department of Justice is large or not is not relevant. What
is relevant is what with these people here View when they look
at you. Do they see an impartial person or do they see a member
of the Department of Justice that as of 12 December was working
out of his office.

IO: But in

CDC: defense received emails from you from your
Department of Justice-?-?

ID:

CDC:

--~4email address, not from your U.S. Army AKO

address. Clearly indicating you still had the hat on your head
as a member of the Department of Justice. That simple fact
alone without anything else would cause a reasonable person to
I question his impartiality.?

say, ?You know what,

In fact, the media has already done so. If Your Honor
would??or you would like to take a look, the media has already
published multiple accounts on questioning whether or not you,
as a member of the Department of Justice, should even have been
detailed to this case. And clearly the government?-the IO had
many??the Convening Authority had many people he could have
chosen from. Hundreds of people he could have chosen from, and
yet he chose you; a Department of Justice person.
IO: I'm going to go back?-?-

CDC:

33

IO: I?m going to go back to Merit, because in MErit, the

United States Air Force was prosecuting the accused. The same
entity with the??the Investigating Officer in ge??E_was a
prosecutor for the United States Air Force which was also
prosecuting Egrig on another Air Force base. That fact, it was
not found to create a reasonable-?a loss as to the reasonable
appearance of impartiality. That which seemed to be on point.

CDC: It?s not on point. And the reason why it's not on

point is because Marit didn't involve a civilian prosecutor.



The prosecutor actually prosecuting or investigating a case

involving the accused. I guarantee you if that prosecutor in

Marit was from an office, a civilian office, in which they had



an ongoing case against Marit, you would have had a totally
different outcome.
ID: All right.

CDC: That is something that

That is the problem here.
cannot be erased and a reasonable person would say, ?You know

what, I have a problem with that." Especially with the fact
that you??then coupled with that have ruled consistently against
the defense.

IO: All right.
CDC: And most importantly, it is the investigation that the
defense has asked for. Multiple investigations that would

undercut much of what the OCAs have opined in their unsworn not

34

sworn, unsworn declarations. Yet, the defense gets none of

them. Now as of 12 December, as you correctly noted, you were

sending emails, even after that fact, from your Department of

Justice email address, correct?
IO: Right. Related to this matter from my blackberry.
Correct.
CDC: And Department of Justice email is your email address,
obviously, as a member of the Department of Justice?

IO: Correct.

CDC: So even at that point you were not responding from
your U.S. Army.mil address or from any other military email
address?

10: Certainly the emails that I sent because of the

internet access here, I had sent from DOJ blackberry, which I
have with me.

CDC: And all of the voir dire, including the argument of
the government, goes towards whether or not they believe you
might actually have a bias, but do you sitting there see how a
reasonable person could question whether or not you are biased?

IO: Well, that?s what I am going to be deliberating on
when I go deliberate.

CDC: Well, you responded to the government by saying,
don?t believe I am biased."

IO: No. I don't believe I am biased.

35

CDC: And now I am asking as the defense do you see a
reasonable person, how they could question whether or not you
are biased?
IO: 1 have not yet determined that issue. That is the
issue--you asked me had I made up my mind about this issue. The
issue is whether I believe a reasonable person knowing all of
the circumstances would reasonably believe that I lack
impartiality in this matter.

CDC: Well, could you see that-?--
IO: That is the determination I have not yet made.
CDC:

a hypothetical, could you see a person

saying, ?You know what, the government got all of their witness
and the defense got 2 of its 38 witnesses.? Could you see that
as a fact that would cause a reasonable person to question?

ID: Yes, that is one of the things that I will consider
when I deliberate.

CDC: Could you see where the government asked you to
consider and I?ve seen the accounts~+the defense is not asking
for this to be closed. We want an open hearing. We want the
public to see everything. What we?re asking is for very limited
pieces of information that can do nothing but taint my client?s
ability to get a fair trial, that that be closed so that the
Could you see where a reasonable

press doesn?t publicize that.

person would say your ruling allowing that to come out and

36

saying well, the defense can clean up the mess afterwards might
cause somebody to say they're not fair?

IO: That is also a matter I will consider when I
deliberate.

CDC: And lastly, given the fact that this case rises and

falls on whether or not information is properly classified;

whether or not it could cause harm. Could you see a reasonable

person going, the determination that these people are too
important to come here. The espense and the time and effort to

bring Lieutenant Generals, Rear Admirals, and Vice Admirals here
to back up their unsworn declarations might cause a reasonable

person to say you know what, that this whole case. And now the

defense can?t cross-examine any of the people who are supporting

the 22 specifications against this man [pointing to the

accused]. Would that cause somebody to
IO: The test-?--
CDC: know what?--?

ID: The test does

CDC: wonder if he could be biased or not?
IO: The test is not whether somebody is too important to

be brought to testify but rather whether the significance of

it's in the

their expected testimony outweighs,

there is no

CDC: Exactly. These people are so important,

expense, time and delay that would authorize them not being here

37

today. So could you see how somebody then might say, ?You know

what, I don?t think this guy can be impartial."

Lastly, the government has said a [Article] 32 is not

a court?martial. A [Article} 32 is part of the military justice

system. This courtroom is beautiful. Everything they have done

here is to show the best face of the military justice system.

This is the best we can do [turning to speak to the spectator



IO: Mr. Coombs, who are you addressing?

CDC: I?m addressing the public because this is a public
hearing. What I am saying is if this is the best that we can

do, military justice? This is an Article 32 hearing. It should
be a thorough and impartial hearing. _We should go out of our
way, especially given all the comments by the Secretary of
State, by The President of the United States, by multiple
members of the Department of Defense as to whether or not there
is blood on the hands of the people who leaked this information:
whether or not my client should be executed. All the public
comments, all of the statements that were done initially should
beg for the fact that we have a thorough and impartial hearing
to actually get to the facts. Not to further hide it. Not to
say, you know what he will have his day in court but the Article
32 is not going to be it. That is unacceptable.

IO: Thank you both.

38

will now take a recess. Before I take the recess, I

do want to note one other matter. I received a Petition for

Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of Writs of Mandamus and
Prohibition for action by a certain party and their counsel to
After--I?m just putting the parties on notice

this proceeding.

of that, should he wish to be heard concerning that we could do

that in a conference right now, okay?

CDC: On that same note, dependent upon your ruling, I?ve

contacted Lieutenant Colonel Peter Kageleiry, the all writs
coordinator; along with Colonel Patricia Ham, the Chief of

Defense Appellate Division. They have agreed to file a writ,

assuming your ruling is not in favor of the defense to stay the
proceedings in order to seek an order for the Convening
Authority to remove you as the Investigating Officer. So,
again, if your ruling is to recuse yourself, which the defense

believes is appropriate, that won't be necessary. If not, the

defense will be asking for a stay while ACCA considers the stay

request.
IO: Okay. Thank you.
We are in recess.
[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1153, 16 December 2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1341, 16 December

2011.]

39

ID: This hearing is now in session. All parties present
when the hearing recessed are again present.

I have been informed that there are parties in the
gallery that were not here earlier and so I will, again, read a
brief admonition.

I would like to advise the participants and persons
observing that this is a formal investigation. In order to
protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings, I would
ask that all present refrain from interrupting or otherwise
disturbing the investigation. Should any persOn, nevertheless,
engage in speech or conduct that interferes with the dignity and
decorum of the proceedings, they may be removed from this
the rules of the hearing provide that

courtroom. Additionally,

cell phones, blackberries, and similar devices are not
authorized in the hearing; and if any person with such a device
may be removed from this courtroom.

With respect to the defense's request that I recues
myself under R.C.M. 902(a), before making my determination I
consulted with my legal adviser who advised me as to the

a recusal is required if my

standard of R.C.M. 902(a),

impartiality may reasonably be questioned. He also advised that
the test is any conduct that would lead a reasonable man knowing

all of the circumstances to the conclusion that my impartiality

might reasonably be questioned.

4O

IO: Does either counsel have responses to the legal advice
that I received?

TC: No, sir.
CDC: No, sir. But again my understanding is that you
haven?t sought out or seeked advice from the Chief of the Trial
Judiciary.

ID: Right. As I noted in the brief session before the
hearing continued; in response to the defense?s request that I
also seek the advice from the Chief Trial Judge, I have
attempted to contact him and that had not been successful during
the recess.

CDC: Given the fact that your appointment or at least the
direction was from the former Chief, Trial Judiciary, your name
was offered up?

ID: No. What I had said was that-?the way that I had
learned about my appointment was that the Chief Trial Judge had
asked me if I??the former Chief Trial Judge had asked me if I
was available to serve as the IQ in this case. After that
conversation I received the appointment orders.

CDC: Then again the defense would request that if the
ruling isn't one that you are recusing yourself shortly that you

hold off issuing a ruling until you have spoken with the Chief

Trial Judge.

41

believe I can make the determination on the facts
known to me and that request is denied.

I have considered the matters raised by the defense
and I am mindful of the admonition in Judge Johnson's
concurrence in the George case. With that said, I do not
believe a reasonable person knowing all of the circumstances
would be led to the conclusion that my impartiality might be
reasonably questioned. I, thus, deny the defense?s request that
I recuse myself as Investigating Officer in the hearing.

Now I will prepare a written determination in the
response to the defense?s request and will attach that to the
report of investigation.

CDC: The defense would request that you also now stay the
proceedings and order a verbatim transcript of today in order
for that to be given as part of the defense writ to ACCA so that
ACCA can consider everything that was said here today in order
to determine whether or not your determinations along with your
legal findings and conclusions are, in fact, appropriate.

IO: Government?

TC: Sir, the United States argues that we do not need stay
these proceedings. We can continue with the proceedings,

pending a decision by ACCA on whether to accept the writ and

make a decision on that.

42

Secondly, as far as the verbatim transcript;

administratively you could request the Convening Authority to

order a transcript to be created, but currently under the

current order it is a summarized transcript only.

IO: On that note, I understand that the defense would like

a brief recess to contact counsel concerning filing the writ?
CDC:

If your determination is that you will not stay the

proceedings, then yes. I would want to have a brief recess in

order for them to file the writ in order to try to obtain an
order from ACCA today.
ID: Right.

My determination is that it is not necessary

to stay the proceedings. Therefore, I will grant a recess so

that defense can file the writ.
CDC: I believe I would only require about 10 minutes to
contact appellate counsel.
IO: Okay.
CDC: If for some reason I need more time than that due to
where they are at, I will let the Court know.

IO: Okay. Thank you. With

The other thing with regards to

CDC: And then, I am sorry.

the verbatim transcript. We would request and Defense Appellate

Division has requested that we obtain a verbatim transcript in

order for ACCA to make the ruling.

43

would join in that request, noting that my authority
does not extend to that. But I join in the request that a
verbatim transcript of today be prepared.

TC:

Sir, the prosecution will take that request to the

Convening Authority.

10: Do we have anything further? Counsel?
TC: No, sir.
CDC: Nothing from the defense.

ID: This hearing is in recess.
[The Article 32 hearing recess at 1347, 16 December 2011.]
[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1509, 16 December
2011.]
I0: This hearing is called to order. All parties present
when the hearing recessed are again present.
Before we reconvened, the counsel and I had a brief
session in which we discussed various issues including the
mechanics of the defense's filing a writ with the Army Court of
Criminal Appeals concerning my determination or my determination
as to the defense?s recusal request. As part of that
conversation the defense requested that I make an essential
finding of facts supporting my determination and I will now do
50.

ID: I have previously stated the test for recusal as

stated by my legal advisor. In addition to making these

findings of fact and my conclusions of law on the record today,
I intend to append a written determination to the report of
investigation.
First, as a civilian, I am employed by the Department
of Justice as a Deputy Chief in the Criminal Division?s Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section. My section does not handle
cases involving conduct of which PFC Manning is accused.
Second, I was not aware of the specifics of
investigation into the WikiLeaks matter before reviewing
materials in my role of as Investigating Officer.

Third, I sent emails to counsel concerning this matter
from my usdoj.gov email account.
Fourth, I stated the reasons for my denial of the
defense request to produce the DOJ file in this case in my
written determinations as to defense requested evidence.

Fifth, while I am employed as a civilian by the
Department of Justice that is investigating this matter, no
aspect of my Department of Justice work in the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section is involved with or otherwise
relates to the allegations against PFC Manning.
IO: Sixth, I made written determinations as to defense+
requested witnesses in writing based on my determinations as to
whether the exPected testimony was necessary to make an informed

recommendation as to the truth of the charges, the form of the

45

charges, and the disposition of the charges; and also determined

whether witnesses were reasonably available. I also considered
whether the expected testimony was cumulative to the testimony
of other witnesses.

after my legal adviser called me on 15

Seventh,

December 2011 to discuss R.C.M. 405(f)(1l) and to

ensure that I was properly considering them, I reconsidered my
earlier determination as to three defense requested witnesses.
During that conversation my legal adviser made no
recommendations as to my determinations on defense requested
witnesses.

Eighth, my determination as to the defense?s closure
request was made after consulting my legal adviser and providing
his advice to the parties. That determination was consistent
I provided the reasons for

with the legal advice I received.

that determination in writing, applying R.C.M. 806(bli2}.
Ninth, my determination as to my ability to consider
statements under penalty of perjUry under 28 U.S.C. ?1746 was
made after consulting with my legal adviser and after providing
his advice and cases and legislative history he provided me to
the parties; and my determination was consistent with my legal
I provided that determination in writing to

advisor?s advice.

counsel via an email on 14 December at 1418 [hours]. I did

46

limited research into the matter before seeking my legal
advisor's advice.
10: Tenth, I conclude that a reasonable person knowing all
the above facts would not conclude that my impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
Counsel, at this point is there anything further to
address?
TC: Sir, the United States would like to just reflect for
the record that also during the recess that the trial counsel
contacted the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority and
advised him of the defense?s request for a verbatim transcript
and the Investigating Officer?s concurrence and the trial
counsel?s concurrence. He ordered the verbatim transcript to be

created but only for the sole purposes of the filing this writ;

and it will only include the portions of this hearing up to this

session. It will be produced tonight.
IO: Thank you, trial counsel.
Defense?
CDC: Nothing further from the defense.
10: Okay. At this point, we are in recess.

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1514, 16 December 2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 152B, 16 December

2011.]

47

IO: This hearing is called to order. All parties present
when the hearing recessed are again present.

At this point we are going to continue with the

introductory advisement pending the matter that is being
presented to the Army Criminal Court of Appeals through the writ
process. Then we will recess and we will reconvene tomorrow
morning at 1000 hours.
PFC Manning, I want to remind you that my sole
function as the Article 32 Investigating Officer in this case is
to thoroughly and impartially gather, weigh and evaluate all the
relevant facts of this case, and to make a recommendation
concerning the disposition of the charges which have been
referred against you.

Excuse, me. Do you have a copy of the charge sheet?

ACC: Yes, sir. I do.
IO: Okay. One second.
TC: Sir, here is a copy.

IO: That is okay.
[The hearing briefly paused while the Investigating Officer
retrieved a copy of the charge sheet from chambers.]

IO: I apologize.

I0: I have before me the charge sheet containing the
I understand

charges which I have been directed to investigate.

you have a copy. Do you want the charges read to you?

43

ACC: No, sir.
IO: Do you understand what you are charged with?
sir.

ACC: Yes,

10: PFC Manning, I advise you again that you do not have
to make any statement regarding the offenses of which you are
accused and that any statement you do make may be used against
you in a trial by court-martial. You have the absolute right to
remain silent regarding the offenses with which you are charged.
You may, however, make a statement either sworn or unsworn and
extenuation,

present anything you may desire, either in defense,

or mitigation. If you do make a statement, whatever you say
will be considered and weighed as evidence by me just like the
testimony of other witnesses. Should you choose not to make a
statement, I will not draw any adverse inference from your
Silence.
You have previously been given a complete copy of the
investigative file that has been compiled in your case. It
contains many documents as they were provided, both to me and to
your defense team by the government. I have previously notified
both your defense team and the government of the witnesses and
evidence that I wanted produced and the government counsel,
Captain Fein, has indicated those witnesses and evidence will be

presented at this hearing.

49

IO: PFC Manning, before proceeding further I now ask you
again whether you have any questions concerning your right to
remain silent, the offenses of which you are accused, your right
to make a statement either sworn or unsworn, the use which can
be made of any statement you do make, your right to cross-
examine witnesses against you, your right to present anything
you may desire on your own behalf and your right to have me
examine reasonably available witnesses requested by you either
in defense, mitigation, or extenuation.
Before continuing, I note that classified information
may be??well, first do you have any questions regarding any of
those things I just stated?
ACC: No, sir.
ID: Before continuing, I note that classified information
may he presented during this investigation. All participants in
this investigation should remain aware of their duty and
responsibility to protect any and all classified information
entrusted to them; and also of their responsibilities in
accordance with the three protective orders applicable to this
investigation. Should the need arise during testimony to
discuss classified information, the participants should notify
the ID and the Court Security Officer so that a determination
can be made whether to close a portion of the hearing for such
Additionally,

classified testimony. should any participant be

50

aware that testimony appears about to discuss classified matters
in an unplanned fashion, the participant should immediately
inform the Investigating Officer so that a determination can be

made about whether to close a portion of the hearing.

IO: Are there any other matters for me to decide?

TC: No, sir.

CDC: Nothing from the defense.

IO: Okay. We are then in recess until 1000 tomorrow
morning.

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1532, 16 December 2011.}
[Court Reporter's note: Summarized transcript format from this
point forward under previous order of the Special Court-Martial
Convening Authority.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1037, 1? December
2011.]

SPECIAL AGENT TONI GRAHAM, U.S. Army, was called telephonically
as a witness for the government.

The Investigating Officer instructed the witness to Speak
up and inquired as to whether she was somewhere where she would
have privacy.

The witness informed the Investigating Officer that she was
located and her office and that there was no one else in the
building.

Assistant Trial Counsel 2 inquired as to whether the
witness had any notes on materials that were relevant to this
case in front of her.

The witness informed Assistant Trial Counsel 2 that she did
in fact have some notes that were relevant to this case in front
of her. She provided the numbers that were stamped on the
bottom of the documents.

51

mummbLoMI?i




Assistant Trial Counsel 2 instructed the witness that if
she was asked any questions anticipated the need to disclose
classified information to respond that she should inform the
Investigating Officer before responding.

The defense counsel requested that the witness set the
notes aside and that if she was to refer to the notes, prior to
doing so, inform the Investigating Officer.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

My name is Special Agent Toni Graham; I am currently the
Chief Warrant Officer Two assigned to the 102nd Military Police
Detachment, Criminal Investigation Division at the Schofield
Barracks in Hawaii.

I have been a CID agent for over 6 years and have been in
military law enforcement for almost 12 years. I attended the
CID Special Agent?s Course, from February until June 2005. The
training included gathering and collecting evidence and how to
protect, preserve, and collect, computers and electronics,
storage media devices for their forensic examination. I was
also an MP before I became a CID Agent. As a CID Agent, I have
worked at least 100 cases per year for the last 6 years, so
approximately somewhere between 600 to 1000 cases.

On 27 May 2010, I received information on the investigation
of this particular case from our headquarters at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, which forwarded it over to our Battalion in Baghdad,
Iraq. Then we reviewed the information there at our Battalion,
which was the 11th Military Police Battalion, Criminal
Investigation Division. They received the information from Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, which currently transferred over to Quantico.
My headquarters got the information from a confidential
informant. After I got the information from our Battalion, I
confirmed that I could obtain a search authorization from a
military magistrate.

I developed a team and an investigative plan for the
handling of this case before heading to the location where PFC
Manning was deployed at FOB Hammer. The team included me,
Special Agent Thomas Smith, he was prior Military Intelligence,
and another CID Special Agent. We acquired a Counterintelligence
Agent from_Langley who also assisted us.

52






From there, we traveled to FOB Hammer and briefed the chain
of command and the SJA at that location with certain information
we had received. We also provided them with our investigative
plans, which was collecting all of PFC Manning's personal
computers, government terminals, and searching his workstation,
his home, and any other personal storage locations that he had
on the FOB.

The first investigative step taken upon arrival at FOB
Hammer was canvassing his coworkers, supervisors, and any
colleagues in the area that knew him and what they knew about
him, just so we could have intel on who PFC Manning was, and
what he did at the SCIF. We conducted two crime scene
examinations while at FOB Hammer, one at his workstation at the
SCIF, the 82 section, and also one in his personal quarters.
The examination of the SCIF revealed where he was located, where
he sat within the SCIF, the computer that he used in the SCIF,
and just a general layout of the SCIF itself. The digital
evidence that my team collected from that SCIF was two SIPR
computers that were assigned to PFC Manning. We also collected
one unclassified computer that was reported that he would use
from time to time.

From his GED we collected storage devices and computers.
We also collected his personal computers, a hard drive, a
camera, a cell phone, and I believe we collected maybe ten
that were unclassified/unmarked, and we collected one
secret CD that was located within a commercial CD case inside of
a US Postal shipping box. A CHU is a Containerized housing
unit. It is where PFC Manning and his roommate lived. The
approximate distance between the containerized housing unit and
the SCIF, I would say is about 100 yards, it could be a little
more or it could be a little less.

It was determined that PFC Manning was moved from this SCIF
approximately 2 weeks before we arrived, and he was reassigned
to the supply section. In the supply section there was one SIPR
and one unclassified computer, which we collected. He was also
known to use Staff Sergeant Bigelow's personal computer, Staff
Sergeant Bigelow was the supply section NCOIC. We asked him for
his consent and collected his computer. It was also determined
during the course of our investigation at FOB Hammer that PFC
Manning had used a paralegals secret scanner to scan documents
twice. We also collected her government computer.

We collected the evidence on document vouchers. We
collected all evidence on the Department of the Army Form 4137.

53






Not only did we receive authority to seize all the evidence, but
we also received authority to search all of the evidence that we
seized. We obtained search authorizations for all of the items
collected during the course of the investigation for further
examination of all the items. We received authorization in two
ways; we received it from the Commander for all of the
government computers that we collected, and we also received
consent from Staff Sergeant Bigelow for his personal computer.
Afterwards, we did a search authorization to double check
everything, and we listed everything on a search authorization,
which allowed us to search all of the items through magistrate
consent.

The case was switched to CCIU, the Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit, for them to be the primary investigative
agency. It officially happened on 11 June 2010, and on 12 June
2010, they initiated a case number. The case was switched,
because CCIU is CID's technical experts for computer crimes, and
we determined that the evidence involved computer crimes, and it
fit their purview more than it would have ours. When we hand
off the physical evidence we do a controlled transfer, where we
send all of the documentation that we had collected to the other
office. So I first scanned all of the information to them, the
unclassified information, and after that we mailed it by
registered mail. They have all the paper documentsthe physical evidence was concerned they were hand?
delivered. From the Baghdad office it was transferred to Kuwait
by Special Agent Robinson, who was with CCIU, and from_there it
was transferred to our evidence custodian who transported it to
Virginia.

CROSS-EXHMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I was the first lead agent that investigated this case. I
searched the accused's CHU, I interviewed witnesses, and then I
provided input that helped get search authorizations, as well as
led to his initial pretrial confinement. In short, I was an
essential figure in the early stage of the case, so much so that
the government has made me their lead witness today. I found
out about today's hearing about a week and a half to two weeks
ago. I was asked if I could attend, but I am not there today
because I needed approval before I could submit a travel request
to that location.

OBJECTION

54

a?mewat?J




Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to the relevance of that
line of questioning.

The defense counsel stated that he was only trying to find
out if the government offered to make this witness available for
today's hearing. The defense stated they had requested that
this witness appear in person so that they would be able to
cross-examine her.

The Investigating Officer stated that he had already made
the determination that this witness was not reasonably available
due to her location in Hawaii.

The cross?examination by the civilian defense counsel continued
in substance as follows:

Before my testimony today I have reviewed all of the
information that I provided CCIU. I do have that information,
but I would have desk. I only
reviewed the exhibits, not any of the notes before the hearing
today.

The military magistrate gave me authorization to search PFC
Manning's CHO. I was the one who sought the authorization for
the search, and I was also the one who provided the
justification for the search. I do recall signing an affidavit
dated 29 May 2010 which was used to support the reasonable
belief that PFC Manning had classified information, had sent
classified information, and would attempt to send more
classified information. I have reviewed the affidavit within
the last two weeks. In the second paragraph, it states,
Manning is believed to have unlawfully obtained and released
sensitive data including, but not limited to, and cable
clearance documents onto the Internet.? In the second
paragraph, I also talk about the Confidential Informant Agency
that brought this information to CID. I do not know when the
confidential informant brought that information to CID, I only
know when I received the information, and that was 27 May 2010.
I received it from my headquarters at Fort Belvoir which sent it
to my Battalion at Baghdad, and I received it the same day.

The third paragraph mentions, "a classified video of an
Apache weapons team airstrike on l2 July 2007 which was
subsequently found and reported by Reuters and is to this date
available for viewing on the Internet. The video depicted an
Apache helicopter firing upon civilians is released to the

55

mummanI?t




public on or about 5 April 2010." I remember that. The last
paragraph of the five paragraph affidavit that justified the
search authorization, Stars Stripes published an article
called, Wiki for a World of Secrets," on 27 May 2010. That
was in my affidavit, because I thought it was ironic that it was
in the newspaper the same day that we received the request and
the fact that we received it from a confidential informant and
it was also in the military news. It just shows that
information was leaked, which Bradley Manning was saying that he
did, was leaked and now over 5 billion people have viewed, and
these five billion people or five million people, whatever the
number was, are all unauthorized individuals. And they are
unauthorized because they saw the video of the 12 July 200?
attack of the Apache weapons team, because it was leaked onto
the website.

I used the above information to obtain a search and seizure
authorization for the search of PFC Manning's work terminals and
a search of his designated living area, which would be his CHU,
for any and all electronic media storage equipment/devices.
Those were the reasons that I gave to get the search
authorization, but there are other reasons that I gave that are
not in that affidavit due to the nature of their classification.
The five that were just mentioned do appear in my affidavit, and
that is a sworn affidavit that was provided on 29 May 2010.

I stated that, information
had been leaked onto the Internet." I stated that because that
was information that I was provided with at that time. I don?t
know exactly what CCIU has received from the evidence that I
collected, I can only say that was the information that I had at
the time that provided that affidavit. In the second paragraph,
that was simply just background information about the
confidential informant. The third paragraph talks about a
classified video of an Apache weapons team. I did not know that
video was an unclassified video. There were several things that
the confidential informant provided us that would support an
affidavit for probable cause for the search and seizure
authorization that I received. I was taking the word of this
confidential informant that the video that I received was
classified information. I could not verify that, I could verify
that Bradley Manning was deployed to FOB Hammer, he was in the
military, he did have a top secret clearance, and he was a
military intelligence analyst. The information that was
provided to me that was information that I provided to the
military magistrate to support my probable cause request. I did
not know for sure whether PFC Manning was penetrating smil.mil

In the first paragraph,

55





LLoNr?l







Lou.)
{Ill-b

eammwm
Moroccan".

IbLh-Lblbob-nb-


and sgov.gov networks for over a year, but I do know that he was
deployed as of November 2009 or sometime around that timeframe
through at least May I can't say for sure that he was doing
it for over a year, but I do know that he was a military
intelligence analyst for over a year, that was the job he was
supposed to do. I wrote that based off the affidavit of the
information that we received from the confidential informant
that had direct communication with PFC Manning. Using this
information that we just went over, the military magistrate
authorized a search of the CHU, and I found things that I just
discussed with Captain Overgaard, one being the DVD label 12
July 2007 chopper Reuters with the secret label on it. The DVD
had a secret label on it, and you are not Supposed to have
classified information in personal areas. This should not be
outside of the SCIF unless he had Courier orders. He should not
have had that CD in his GED in the first place. At that time I
did not know that that video, and honestly still I am not sure
if the video was unclassified when he released it. In my search
of his CHU I only inventoried the items that I seized. We came
across information that discussed gender identity disorder. We
came across a folder that your client had printed about gender
identity disorder, but I don't remember any articles in
particular. I'm not sure whether or not he printed those
articles while he was deployed. I do not recall a medical
pamphlet from Canada that provided information for people living
with gender identity disorder because I wasn't really focused on
that.

OBJECTION

Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to the relevance to this
line of questioning.

The Defense Counsel stated that he was first trying to see
how thorough the investigation was conducted of the accused's
CHU as well as the CID investigation as a whole. But also,
gender identity disorder would be relevant in that whether PFC
Manning had diminished capacity at the time of the alleged
offenses, which would also help to explain the circumstances
surrounding the commission of this alleged offense.

The Investigating Officer stated that the objection is
overruled, instructing the defense counsel to focus on the rest
of the investigation.

The CROSS-EXAMINATION the civilian defense counsel continued as
follows:

57






I remember seeing several things about homosexuality and
gender assignment, but I really was not focused on that. I was
only focused on the gathering and disseminating of classified
information aspect of the investigation. I am a criminal
investigator, so I only focus on that. Yes it is nice to know
everything about someone when you are interviewing them so you
can get to know them and talk to them, but I was not focused on
that particular aspect of his life because we had already
advised him of his rights and he invoked. I left that
information in his room because it was not particular to my
investigation. I was the one that determined that it was not
particular to my investigation.

OBJECTION

Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to the relevance of this
line of questioning.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection stating
that this line of questioning expands beyond the investigation.
The Investigating Officer instructed the defense counsel to
continue with the line of questioning as to it applied to the
investigation.

The CROSS-EXAMINATION by the civilian defense counsel continued
as follows:

We skimmed through the information in the folder and then
we put it to the side with the rest of his belongings. Anything
that didn't pertain to the specific reasons why we were there
for the investigation we set it to the side.

We concluded that it didn't pertain to the investigation
because we already knew prior to arriving at FOB Hammer that PFC
Manning was a homosexual and that he was interested in those
topics. My team and I conducted several canvas interviews and
we interviewed approximately 5 people on sworn statements,
everyone else was canvas interviews. All of the interviews were
done face to face. I do believe that PFC Manning did not have a
lot of friends in the unit, he had very limited amount of
friends.

OBJECTION
Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to the relevance of this

line of questioning.

58






The defense counsel stated that he was going through the
steps in which the special agent conducted her interviews.

The Investigating Officer granted the defense counsel

limited leeway for that topic.

The cross-examination by the civilian defense counsel continued

as follows:

I did not ask the people during my interviews whether or

not PFC Manning was gay.
interview,
time was don't ask don't tell.

They did not bring it up during the
in fact I still think that the Army policy at the
No one that we interviewed in a

unit mentioned to us that he may have had behavioral health

issues.
investigation.

I have never attended a pretrial confinement hearing,

We did not find that out until later on in the

did not attend the pretrial confinement hearing that was done

for PFC Manning. I was aware
confinement hearing on 29 May
some paperwork for them. The
affidavit was the information
the affidavit.

that there was a pretrial
2010.
information that was contained in
that I had at the time I drafted

I do know that I drafted

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

At the time that I made and signed the affidavit,

the

information was received from a confidential informant who had

direct contact with PFC Manning.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to Assistant Trial Counsel 2's

line of questioning stating that it was leading the witness.

Assistant Trial Counsel 2 stated that the rules do not

apply at an article 32 hearing.

The Investigating Officer stated that he realized that the
rules do not apply but asked that Assistant Trial Counsel 2 use

open ended questions.

59

and I


OmmquIanH


or?I



l?lHHi?l
rho-loo:




MNr?il?I


FR)


NM
bu}




LAJLLILAJLU





?ab-bitude
LuMi??Clk?m

phi-thun-
some.

The redirect examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 2 continued
as follows:

The information that I based the majority of the affidavit
on was provided by the confidential informant, who had direct
contact and communication with PFC Manning. To verify the
information given to us by the confidential informant we were
able to run military checks which is basically finding out who
PFC Manning was, what he did in the military, and certain
background things on FaceBook. Also, I believe the FBI had
direct contact with the confidential informant, and the FBI is a
reliable source in our investigation or in any investigation
that we do. So the confidential informant reliability was
verified in my mind.

At the time, I thought the Apache to be classified, and,
even at the time I was conducting the investigation, I believe
everyone was under the assumption that it was classified
information. I don't know when it was unclassified. There was
evidence that it came from a classified system, I spoke to a
captain in the 82 section, who said that when she returned from
block leave in April 2010, she had a conversation with PFC
Manning about the Apache video that was leaked;

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to this line of questioning
stating it was hearsay. The defense counsel went on to say that
hearsay is allowed in an Article 32 hearing if the source is
deemed reliable.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The redirect examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 2 continued
as follows:

I believe her name was Captain Martin, who worked in the 82
shop, when she returned she had a conversation with PFC Manning
where they discussed the leaked video that was on the news. PFC
Manning informed her that he thought the video was real, she
said, "No, I do not believe the video is real." So at that
point he sent her an e?mail on SIPR, pulling the video from
their SIPR shared drive and e?mailing it to her so she could
compare it to the news article. In my mind it meant that video
was on the SIPRNET at that time, so it was secret.

60

mdmmubLUMH




The Investigating Officer informed the government of his
determinations concerning evidence, that the defense has certain
objections concerning the CID case file and that one of them was
based on authentication, that he would consider documents
subject to authentication.

The defense counsel stated that it was strange that the
Investigating Officer would tell the government that it was
their chance to get a document authenticated to this witness.

Investigating Officer stated that he was simply reminding
the parties of the determinations that he has made and
objections that were made concerning evidence.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
ended the phone call.]

SPECIAL AGENT CALDER ROBERTSON, U.S. Army, was called
telephonically as a witness for the government, was sworn,
testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I am the special agent in charge of the Europe branch
office, CCIU, department CID. I have been a special agent for
CID for 10 years. As a CID agent, I have worked about 350
cases. I have been a CCIU agent since March 2006 and that is
the Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. CCIU's primary mission
is the criminal investigation of intrusion and related malicious
activity involving U.S. Army computers and networks. I have had
approximately 660 hours of training at the Defense Cyber
Investigative Training Academy. The training included pretty
much everything from this is a computer all way up to conducting
full forensic examinations. I am currently a certified Digital
Forensic Examiner. I have worked approximately 120 cases as a
CCIU agent. I became involved in the investigation of PFC
Manning in late May 2010 because I was the closest CCIU agent to
Iraq. I was notified to travel around that timeframe, it was
about 29 May 2010. At that time, I traveled to Iraq in which I
made contact with elements of the special Baghdad CID office and
the lead investigators. That is when I took control of the
digital evidence that had been seized concerning the
investigation. I preserved that evidence, conducted preliminary
examinations as time permitted, and then ensured that evidence

51






got to the controlling evidence room. I believe the evidence was
transported to Camp Liberty by the agent from the central
Baghdad CID office that traveled out to question him. It was
secure when I arrived. I never traveled to FOB Hammer. Camp
Liberty was the best location to do the work at the time; it had
the most base and the best security. Captain Cherepko, who is
located at FOB Hammer, assisted me. He was the Brigade
automatiOn officer and collected some logs for me at FOB Hammer.
I believe Captain Cherepko collected or preserved the NIPR and
SIPR legs at FOB Hammer. I didn't collect the evidence
specifically, at least not the original media. My role was to
obtain forensic images of the evidence and then conduct a
preliminary investigation if time permitted. Before I started
to assess the evidence, I verified that the evidence vouchers
didn't have any attachments.

OBJECTION

The defense objected stating that if the witness was going
to testifying from the documents, the witness needs to have his
memory refreshed in the proper format.

The Investigating Officer stated that the rules of evidence
do not apply at the Article 32 proceeding; however, if the
witness can review the document to testify on the basis of his
memory, that would be preferable to him reading from the
document, and that once he has finished reviewing the document
to set aside his notes.

The witness informed the Investigating Officer that he was
finished reviewing his notes and that he has set them aside.

The direct examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 2 continued as
follows:

The physical evidence that was collected and set aside for
me when I arrived was the laptop of Staff Sergeant Bigelow, the
personal laptop of PFC Manning, the personal external hard drive
of PFC Manning, several optical discs, to include one that was
marked secret, we had two SIPR machines and one NIPR machine
that were assigned to PFC Manning from his unit, we had a NIPR
and a SIPR machine from the supply room where PFC Manning worked
for a time, and we had the SIPR machine of the Soldier from PFC
Manning's unit. All of the evidence was assessed, and I
obtained forensic images of the evidence and then as time
permitted conducted preliminary forensic examinations on working
copies of the forensic images. At that time, the evidence was

62

mdmt?meD-t




sealed for transport to the CID office. Imaging the evidence
entails removing the hard drive from the particular device. Or
if the hard drive was already out of the device they don't have
to remove it, you take the hard drive and connect it to a
forensic computer. For this investigation, I was using forensic
laptops, so I connected it to the forensic computer, at that
time you use a program called, to obtain a forensic
image. A forensic image is a bit for bit copy of information
that is on the device, and then we move a copy off for the
collection of evidence and a copy off for transport for
redundancy. We do that to ensUre that we do not have a
catastrophic loss of evidence en route back to the laboratory.
To verify that we made an exact copy we use two different
methods; we have an MDS and a method that produces either
a 32 or a 40 character alphanumeric unique representation of the
data on the device. In layman's terms, it is a unique
representation, a digital fingerprint, of the data that is on
the device. The software reports that the forensic image is an
exact match of the data that is on the device. We had proper
authorization from the military magistrate. I took forensic
images from all the devices that I mentioned, and only one of
the optical disc, the CD that was seized from PFC Manning's room
marked secret. I also did a cursory analysis of that evidence.
I had a certain amount of time to perform preliminary analysis
on some of the evidence. The goal of a preliminary forensic
exam is essentially to give the investigators a head start to
come up with any of these that are obvious that you could pick
out relatively quickly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel.

I was not involved in the collection of the evidence. I
did the forensic imaging of that evidence; it was mostly
procedural. I collected the hard drives from the laptops,
all of the evidence was collected by other agents. When I
traveled from Germany to Iraq to collect the evidence it was all
ready for me to do my analysis, that is, of the evidence
presented to me secured and sealed. I do not know that this
computer was assigned to PFC Manning directly. I took the word
from the investigating agents on ground at the central Baghdad
CID office. I do not know if his computer was used by other
Soldiers, that information would have been discovered during a
full forensic examination as I stated earlier. The difference
between imaging and analysis is imaging is simply obtaining a
copy of all of the data that is on the device. A full forensic

but

63






examination can take anywhere from weeks to months, that is a
scientific process where we go through the media and attempt to
determine whatever the forensic request is for. I did
preliminary analyses on some of the devices, but I was not
involved in the full forensic examination. At the time that I
did the forensic imaging my certification was up-to-date and in
good standing. All of the forensic imaging that was done in
Iraq was done by me with the help of others. Forensic imaging
was done by me in Iraq, not at Fort Belvoir. Beyond forensic
images, I did a preliminary forensic examination, the
information that I found was recorded in the agent investigation
report that I referenced. Just to clarify, I did a preliminary
report not a full forensic analysis report. Whether or not the
computer that I did the forensic imaging on were CAC card access
computers would have been brought out during full forensic
examination it wasn?t something that I was able to pull. I can
only say that at least one of the computers was not password?
protected, that would be the laptop of PFC Manning, the personal
laptop. I did not have Captain Cherepko involved with one of
the forensic images. I did have a telephone conversation with
Captain Cherepko; I had several telephone conversations with
him. I did not, during any of those telephone conversations,
instruct Captain Cherepko on how to conduct forensic imaging,
and I believe the other individuals from my unit walked Captain
Cherepko through the process of obtaining and securing network
logs. A good deal of the time, my unit has asked individuals
that have IT training or an IT background to obtain network
logs. If we are on ground we will go get it ourselves but a lot
of the times we have to have those log secured very quickly. I
do not recall sending any software products or instructions to
Captain Cherepko. During my work on this case, I do not recall
coming across any evidence that PFC Manning suffers from gender
identity disorder; I don't believe that I am qualified to make
that determination. I am familiar with the name Breanna Manning
though I cannot say in what context, during my work on this
investigation I can?t say that I came across any information
that would lead me to conclusively say your client created
another identity. I know that PFC Manning had a history of
disciplinary problems within his unit. I know that PFC Manning
referred to himself as fragile in his chat logs, and I know that
he had disciplinary problems at his unit; but, outside of that,
I don?t know. I don't know if PFC Manning was gay; it was not
the focus of my investigation.

OBJECTION

64

ooqoxmemMI?I




Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to the line of
questioning stating the defense oeunsel needed to focus his line
of questioning to specifically the evidence that was obtained
and reviewed.

The defense counsel stated that he believed that he was
asking whether during the witness?s work on this case whether he
came across any evidence that indicated the question that was
asked.

The Investigating Officer stated that the defense counsel
needed to keep his questions focused on the investigation that
was conducted and what was determined as a result of that
investigation. And that since the investigation conducted by
the witness could have found information pertaining to the
sexual orientation of PFC Manning the witness was instructed to
answer the question.

The cross-examination by the assistant defense counsel continues
as follows:

During my work on this case I did not come across any
information that would indicate that PFC Manning was gay. I am
familiar with what is called the Global Address List. It was
not a part of my work on this case. I do not recall coming
across any evidence that reference the Global Address List. On
the computers that I worked on I found that with some of the
computers PFC Manning had an account on those computers. I
don't recall there being other user profiles on the computers
that I worked on in this case.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:
Captain Cherepko was the Brigade automations officer. For
CCIU, Captain Cherepko secured some network logs, these are
essentially the digital communication between computers and
devices on networks. To my knowledge, Captain Cherepko did not
image anything. I did not travel to FOB Hammer, because it was
decided by my leadership that the mission could be handled by
the individuals there.
and

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned,
ended the phone call.]

65

momma-Lower




[The Article 32 hearing was recessed at 1232, 17 December

2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1349, 17
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the Article 32 hearing to
order, and stated that all parties that were present prior to
the hearing being recessed are again present. The Investigating
Officer then advised the spectators that all media devices were
not allowed in the hearing.

SPECIAL AGENT MARK HARDER, Computer Crimes Investigative Unit,
was called as a witness for the government, was sworn, and
testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I initially became an Army CID Special Agent in 1994. I
have been a military agent as well as a Army reserve agent, and
now a civilian agent during that time with a break of about
seven years total, so approximately 10 years. As a CID agent, I
have investigated approximately 200 cases; these were cases that
were assigned to me as well as other CID agents. I have been
with CCIU for 4 years in February. CCIU agents attend training
at an organization called the Defense Computer Crimes Center,
and we take courses that relate to collection of digital
evidence examination of computers and forensic software as well
as computer network investigations, so in total probably in
excess of 300 hours of training. I have worked approximately 20
cases as a CCIU agent. I became involved in this particular
case from the initial notification, which then resulted in the
Camp Liberty CID office opening an investigation, and when the
investigation was transferred back to CCIU, I was involved from
pretty much the beginning. My role was that I was one of the
case agents on the investigation. Initially, the allegation was
that there was a Soldier in Iraq that was committing various
crimes and CID typically by policy, if there is information that
comes into one office relating to another location, it is
typically the CID office closest to that location where the
suspect is that will initially open up the investigation. So
that was the reason why the Camp Liberty office initially got
it. It was transferred to CCIU because after the Camp Liberty
CID office did their initial investigation it was determined
that there was going to be a need for federal magistrate search

56






warrants to compel companies such as Google and other providers
in the United States to provide information. And a federal
magistrate or federal judge would not be available to the agents
and Iraq, generally speaking. Additionally, there were going to
be CONUS based leads, people that we want to talk to for
information to be gathered in the United States as well as the
technical subject matter was most suited to CCIU. The majority
of the evidence was hand carried by the evidence custodian from
the CID element in Iraq to Dulles International Airport when I
met him on ll June 2010, then I personally took custody. We
inventoried all of the items that he hand-carried and then I
took possession of them and turned them into the CCIU evidence
room.

investigative plan for this case.
Because the investigation was transferred to CCIU before we
physically obtained the items that were collected in Iraq, the
majority of the investigative plan was based off of the Internet
chats between Mr. Lamo and PFC Manning as well as other
documents that were obtained from PFC Manning's personnel file.
CCIU obtained the Internet chats between Mr. Lamo and PFC
Manning from Mr. Lamo. One of the agents in our office had
traveled to California to where Mr. Lamo lives and collected a
computer as well as hard drives in another computer that Mr.
Lamo used and on those hard drives were the versions of the
chats. It is my understanding that corresponding versions of
the chats were found on the property collected from PFC Manning.
In the chats between PFC Manning and Mr. Lamo were mention of
numerous subjects, specifically a 2007 Apache airstrike video,
there was information about Iraqi war event logs, information
about a video of an airstrike that occurred in a place called
Gharani, Afghanistan, there was mention of documents pertaining
to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the last thing that I
remember was the mention of State Department cables.

At this point, we had an

The Gharani video was believed to have been on a folder, Or
a set of shared folders, that was owned and managed by the
organization Central Command. Initially, one of the agents from
CCIU attempted to go to that location across the SIPRNET network
from a computer at CCIU and download those documents. He then
took the documents and preserved them on an optical disc and
that was collected as evidence. As a result of that, the
forensic team at CCIU looked at the collected information and
determined that it was not sufficient?-there was not a complete
copy apparently. So several weeks later, two agents from CCIU
were sent to CENTCOM headquarters, in Florida, where they
obtained log files as well as copies of the folders the files

6?

mummanH




the documents that we were interested in that were related to
the investigation. Several weeks later another agent had gone
to CENTCOM and met with the deputy SJA of CENTCOM, Lieutenant
Colonel Schmiddle, and interviewed him and he provided
background information in regards to the Gharani airstrike
incident as well as he also provided a password to an
file. In the file name was and that was believed
to be the Gharani airstrike video.

At the end of July 2010, Mr. Lamo had contacted CCIU
related that he had become aware of chats on the Internet that
were being conducted by someone he did not know and he could not
identify, and the individual is basically bragging that he was a
part of the original effort related to that video
because it was as well as the individual had mentioned
that he worked for DOE at the time which we believe was the
Department of Energy. After several days of follow-up
investigation, Mr. Lamo was able to provide additional
information which identified the individual who was chatting as
a Mr. Jason Katz. We had been in contact with the Department of
Energy previously about the information but with the name we
were able to identify the person, Mr. Jason Katz, who has been
employed at the Brookhaven National Labs, in New York, it is a
facility that is run by the Department of Energy. He was
employed there from approximately February 2009 until March 2010
and we learned that he was fired or terminated from his position
in March of 2010, and the reason for the termination was him
engaging in inappropriate computer activity on the Brookhaven
National Laboratory network. And we learned all of this from
the Department of Energy. Additionally, as a part of their
investigation into his computer misuse, they had obtained a
forensic image of his personal computer, a laptop that Mr. Kats
owned, and apparently connected to the network at Brookhaven
National Labs. They also obtained a forensic image of the
government workstation that Mr. Kata had been assigned. The
image of the government assigned computer was through some sort
of user agreement that was preSumably signed by Mr. Katz on
condition of his employment there, as well as the personal
computer was also imaged under a similar agreement which he had
signed and related something to the effect that any devices or
computer connected to the network they would have the ability or
authority to search and seize. As a follow-up to the
information that I just mentioned CID and the FBI obtained a
federal magistrate search warrant to seize and search the images
that were mentioned. On the government workstation that was
assigned to Mr. Katz, or on the image of the government

workstation, when it was examined was a file called B.zip, and

58






within that file was another file called which is a
video file. The file was and password protected. The
file was believed to be the Gharani video file. The password
obtained from the Lieutenant Colonel at CENTCOM opened the file
that was found on Mr. Katz's computer, and the file appeared to
be the same video.

About the second week of June, two CCIU agents were sent to
the State Department, and they obtained server log files showing
all IP addresses or accounts that were connected to the location
where the State Department cables were stored. Several weeks
later we also obtained the firewall logs from the State
Department showing connections into and presumably out of their
network. During the initial attempt to get log files in June,
one of the personnel who worked at the State Department that was
assisting in the effort had also identified that PFC Manning had
an Intelink account. Intelink is essentially a search engine
that resides on a SIPRNET network that allows us to search for
classified documents on the SIPRNET network. Then the CID
collected the Intelink logs; there were several efforts to
collect logs from Intelink; I went to the office which manages
Intelink and collected a disk containing log files from the
personnel there. Those log files were based on IP addresses
that we believe PFC Manning?s assigned government workstation in
Iraq had used. I went to, I believe it is the office we've
referred to as the ODNI, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. We also collected logs from the CIA. The other
efforts to collect additional logs from DDNI related to the
Intelink account of PFC Manning or the IP addresses that he used
or keywords that we were interested in knowing if someone
searched for them. Yes, we also collected Centaur logs also
based on IP addresses that we believe PFC Manning's government
workstation in Iraq had used. Centaur is the government's name
for essentially what in the industry we would probably refer to
as net flow logs, and essentially they are connection logs
showing the to or from IP addresses and the amount of traffic
and the times and dates at which connections are made to and
from government networks.

About 18 June 2010, I was involved in contacting and
interviewing PFC Manning?s aunt Ms. Deborah Van she
lives in Potomac, Maryland, and that information was identified
through Manning's personnel file, because her address I believe
was his home of record at the time. Yes, four other agents from
CCIU as well as Department of State and I interviewed her. We
had traveled to her home and interviewed her in regard to PFC
Manning. We discussed a situation that he was involved in that

69

mummwaI?a




happened 18 June 2010. We discussed a wide range of topics,
basically how PFC Manning grew up, his family, where his mother
was from, his father, how he had grown up, his time before he
had joined the Army, as well as the circumstances which led up
to him joining the Army and then we also discussed some contacts
she had with PFC Manning while he was in Iraq. Specifically,
prior to his apprehension in Iraq he contacted her and asked
about the 200? Apache video in regard to how the release of the
video is being received in the United States. The second
contact that he had made that we discussed here was shortly
after his apprehension by CID in Iraq, he had apparently
contacted her and asked her to make a posting to his Facebook
page also referencing the 2007 Apache video. We also searched
PFC Manning aunt's house since it was listed as his home a
record. Again, there were four other agents and I and PFC
Manning?s aunt identified his property or things that he had
left behind before he deployed were contained in a basement room
of the home. Three of the agents had gone down to that room and
look through the various items that were there. Specifically,
we were looking for any digital media or potential packages that
he may have mailed that we were aware of that she said that she
had received during the time that he was in Iraq. Ms. Van
had identified a computer in her bedroom that had been
powered on and connected to the Internet, belonged to PFC
Manning; however, she said that she did not have any access to
it and did not know the computer?s purpose or what was contained
on it, and we collected the computer.

Several months later, I believe it was in October, we were
concerned at the time about a package that had been sent from
the confinement facility in Kuwait where PFC Manning had been
held. It was our understanding that when PFC Manning was
apprehended, after his apprehension he was transferred to Kuwait
and placed in a confinement facility in Kuwait. As procedure,
they collect all of your personal items, clothing, your wallet,
things of that nature, and they are then placed in the
container. We were concerned about those items because we
didn?t know if perhaps there could be something in those items
of value to the investigation. So we made every effort to get a
military magistrate search authorization to look into that
container. Unfortunately, due to administrative issues, that
could be completed prior to PFC Manning being transferred to the
United States to another confinement facility. As a result of
his transfer, the standard operating procedure for the
confinement facility is to ship that personal container with the
personal items to the prisoner?s home of record. So, based on
that, we had identified that that box had been received by his

70






aunt; it was signed for by PFC Manning's father and consequently
we made another attempt to contact her to see if she had
received that box, if it was still intact as well as also
concerned about potentially looking for any other items that may
be in the basement room since it was several months from the
initial investigation, we knew more about the case at that
point. The aunt had basically saved the box. The container of
the personal items that was shipped from Kuwait was intact in
the box that they were sent in. The box had been unopened. She
also allowed us to go into the basement room and conduct another
search of any items that may be of value. During the initial
time that we had been out to PFC Manning's aunt's house in June,
we had been in the basement room, prior to her mentioning the
computer upstairs. In June, basically there were items thrown
about, clothing, books, various things; there was no
organization. The second time that we had been to her home she
had organized all of PFC Manning's personal items into plastic
containers and during the process of looking through those items
those containers and furniture we identified numerous pieces of
digital media various memory cards as well as hard disks and
various optical media discs and all of those items were
collected. Of the various memory cards there was one card which
was an SD memory card which contained various bits of
information but some of the information was classified.

During the search, myself and Special Agent Wilbur, who
also works at CCIU, had split up the room into two parts and
each of us searched one half, and as we identified digital media
we would photograph it where it was found and then all of the
digital media was placed on the bed that was in the room and at
the end of the search we asked Ms. Van if she could look
at the items and ensure that all of those items were the
property of PFC Manning versus one of the other family members
or herself, because we didn't want to collect any extraneous
property that was not related to the case. All the items that
were collected she verified as belonging to PFC Manning to
include the SD card.

CHESS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:
I was a case agent on this case. Normally, in a CID
investigation you have typically one agent who was assigned the
case. They are the case agent and generally manage the leads

and other investigative activity involved in the case. However,
this case was unlike any other case that I have been involved in

71






my career as a CID agent, in that it was fairly complex, there
were numerous locations where activity occurred, investigative
activity, as well as the case was very high profile case. In
this particular instance, I would describe myself as the case
agent on paper; however, supervisors took a more active role in
kind of managing the case such as leads and information related
to the investigation. Generally speaking, either Special Agent
Ames, who was the acting special agent in charge of our office,
or Special Agent King, who was the acting operations officer.
What I did in this investigation was I secured search
authorizations, to do interviews of unit members and others,
performed administrative tasks, and on the first item I would
say not just search authorizations but federal magistrate search
warrants as well. In some cases, such as the computer that was
mentioned that was taken from the first visit from PFC Manning's
aunt house, we actually collected the computer with her consent
and then obtained a federal magistrate warrant afterwards and
then we were able to search the contents of the computer, but
generally speaking yes we would obtain the search authorizations
or warrants first and then collect the items later. I did not
perform any of the analysis that was done on the media that was
found in Iraq by Agent Shaver, Mr. Johnson, or Special Agent
Williamson. And that would include the chats there were
discovered from Mr. Lamo, the mention of the information about
the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Gharani video, the cables,
and the July 2007 Apache weapons team strike. I did not conduct
analysis to get the information. I was not the agent that went
to look at the paths for the Gharani air strike, and that same
agent had to go to CENTCOM headquarters, that was not me, I
believe it was Special Agent Wilbur from CCIU and at this time I
do not remember the other agent's name; however, all of that
should be in the various reports that were published on those
activities. Later on, when and agent went back to CENTCOM
headquarters to talk to the deputy SJA, that was not me, that
was Special Agent Ames. Special Agent Ames was my supervisor at
that time the other agents were peers, coworkers. I was not the
team leader that directed those other agents to go and do
different tasks. Mr. Lamo was primarily contacted or interacted
with Special Agent Edwards of CCIU, and in regards to Mr. Kat: I
do not believe that any members of CCIU directly contacted Mr.
Kata, I believe that was the FBI. I do not know when Mr. Katz
had or how he obtained the zip file or the .wav file that I
mentioned earlier. Mr. Katz, as far as I know, didn't contact
Mr. Lamo. I don't know if they had any direct communication. I
do not know if they ever spoke at all. Mr. Lamo probably
started cooperating with CID at the end of May 2010; he had
provided us the information which initiated the investigation.

and

72






I did not accompany either group of agents that went to the
State Department in the first group agents that went there to
collect log files and then the other files provided to us by the
State Department. I did not do the forensic analysis, I did not
do the leg work as far as the Gharani airstrike, the stuff
dealing with Mr. Lamo, or the cables: this is just information
that I hear because I was part of the team. I did go collect
Intelink logs, and I did follow up on of the CONUS leads. When
I went to go see PFC Manning's aunt and we talked about a wide
spectrum of things involving PFC Manning.

That information, about how he grew up and why he joined
the Army, did not appear to be relevant to our investigation, it
may have been the reasOn why they asked us to find out if there
is any information that would identify or be of evidentiary
value, such as previous foreign contacts, maybe friendships that
he had with foreign nationals, things of that nature. Because
at the beginning of this investigation, when were we talking
with PFC Manning's aunt, there was a great deal of concern that
there could be a foreign intelligence service involved. My main
purpose in conducting the interviews was to look for information
to prosecute PFC Manning or others who may be involved. I
thought it was relevant to look into PFC Manning background as a
child and right before he joined the Army, because that could
give me some leads. In one of the things that we identified I
believe it was through his military records was that he had
lived overseas over in the UK and nearly immediately prior to
joining the 0.8. Army. In the course of this investigation
there were approximately 100 people interviewed by CID. In
several instances we would call back for a follow?up interview.
We interviewed some people five or six times and they became
irritated by the amount of times that we interviewed them, but
it is not typical for us to call someone back five or six times
and as I mentioned this is not the typical investigation. One
of the issues that we had was that when people were initially
interviewed, we had not, in some cases, conducted any forensics,
or in other cases, we have conducted forensics, and they will
still ongoing. So what would typically occur was the agents who
were conducting the forensic examinations would identify
information that they thought would be relevant, maybe an e-mail
sent to someone, or some other bit of information that we would
then go back and contact people that we have spoken to before
with new information to ask them about so that would be the
reason why we have spoken to people numerous times. At one
point this was the only case that I was working on personally.
Probably from 9 June until probably sometime in November I would
think, full?time. I had other cases that I had prior to this

73

mummawmw




case beginning and I would try to keep Up with those to try to
keep those moving forward. There are several other people that
are identified as civilians which I believe the FBI has the
primary responsibility for as far as investigating further those
people were identified as potentially involved, I don't know the
status of those investigations those are with FBI as well as
depending on if you want to consider the founders, owners, or
managers, of the website WikiLeaks involved. It is my
determination that the founders and managers of WikiLeaks were
involved in this case. They are involved in certain aspects.

It would depend on which charge we are talking about there were
some things that he had done that I believe he could've done by
himself that do not involve others and other charges would
require some interaction with others. From my law enforcement
background, training, and experience, I do believe with your
client possessed the ability to upload hundreds of thousands of
documents to the world from his CHU in Iraq. He could have
uploaded it to an infinite number of websites. To me, the
capability would include a connection to the Internet, the
information, and the knowledge to do so and I say that he does
possess all three of those. He would not require the
cooperation of the person who ran the website if he was the one
who owned the website. I do not remember if he did possess a
website which would allow him to do that while he was in Iraq.
Well let me rephrase that I do believe at one point that there
was some discussion about a Mobile Me account which is an Apple?
based cloud computing type area that you can post files to. I
did not find any evidence that PFC Manning had done that. Mr.
Lamo had contacted CCIU and indicated that an unknown individual
was chatting with someone else that I believe he knew in some
regard. I don't know if he had ever met that other person. The
other person was boasting that he was involved in an effort to
a video file. I am not fully aware of how Mr. Lamo came
to the information. The initial information which started the
investigation was brought to our attention from an individual
that Mr. Lamo had talked to. As a matter fact, there were two
avenues which this information was reported. Mr. Lamo had
apparently told a gentleman that he worked with on some type of
project as well as he also told the individual that was a friend
of his that had been formerly in the Army and both of those
individuals independently contacted law enforcement. The person
that he knew that used to be in the Army contacted the FBI and
the other individual contacted CID by sending an e?mail to us,
to our office account. It was not an anonymous tip because he
left his name. I am not aware of any benefit that Mr. Lamo
received.At the beginning of the case, in the investigation,
when CCIU first received it from Camp Liberty it was only the

74






Army CID and the Department of State that were looking into the
matter. And at some point, I would have to go back and look at
the investigative case file, the FBI became involved as a joint
investigation. The State Department was involved nearly
immediately because of the nature of the information that was
contained in the chats seemed to be fairly obvious that involved
classified data which belonged to the State Department, so they
were brought in very early, I think maybe a month into the
investigatiOn, when CCIU had begun the case is when the FBI
became involved. It may have been a little bit shorter, I have
to go back and look at the case file. I know that we had spoken
with advisers from the Department of Justice early on in the
investigation and I know that one of the Us Attorney Offices was
involved in doing some investigative activity. I believe the US
Attorney Office that was involved was the Eastern District of
Virginia. Their advisers along with us had ongoing discussions.
Their practices ranged from kind of knowing their best practices
and kind of how to investigate this type of case with classified
information. The US Attorney Office was advising the U.S. Army
CID. I would say that they were considered the experts in this
type of investigation.

EXAMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

When PFC Manning was confined in Kuwait there was an
attempt to get a search authorization for his material there but
that didn?t occur. Essentially, we identified that there was
this container, these items, his personal effects, and we had
contacted the Kuwait confinement facility and asked them about
being able to search through those items, to obtain those items
and have them sent directly to us, but probably more likely we
would have had an agent from one of the CID offices in Kuwait go
there and collect items directly. It's my understanding that
they said that we would need to have some type of search
authority to do that. So to follow that we contacted a military
magistrate in Kuwait and described the circumstances and
attempted to get a magistrate search authorization from them,
and what occurred from that was some type of a legal
disagreement in regards to the magistrate felt that we did not
need a search authorization to search those items because PFC
Manning was in custody and they believe that we would have the
ability to search those items due to his status as being
confined. That led to going back to the confinement facility
and them saying that it was true but only in regards to issues
of safety and security. For example, in prison his property
could be searched for weapons or contraband things of that

nature that relate to violations of his confinement status, but

75






when it comes to an investigative matter, things that are
outside of things related to safety and security, then you would
need to have a search authorization and about the time that we
figured that out essentially PFC Manning had been transferred
and the possessions were no longer there.

REDIRECT EXHMIHAIION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

Forensic examinations of the digital media that is
collected is generally kind of a slow process of looking through
items, especially if there is a lot of data to look through. As
items of investigative importance were identified on digital
media they would provide this information to the investigative
team which would then take that information depending upon what
it was contact the appropriate person--coworker of PFC Manning,
friend, relative, and then asked them if they knew about that
bit of information. I cannot think of any specific examples at
the moment, but that was how our process worked during the
initial stage of the investigation. We were trying to identify
all of the evidence or testimony related to this investigation
that would show what occurred.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

The defense stated that based upon the testimony of the
witness who just testified, they requested that the
Investigating Officer compel the production of collateral
investigation evidence from the government.

The trial counsel responded by stating RCM 701 does not
apply until referral of this case, and that the government does
not have approval from the Department of Justice or the FBI to
turn over such files if they exist, but the Department of State
case file has been turned over to the defense.

The Investigating Officer did not take the defense request
stating that the collateral investigation evidence was not
necessary for the Investigating Officer to conduct a thorough
and impartial investigation.

[The Article 32 investigation recessed at 1443, 17 December
2011.]

75






[The Article 32 investigation was called to order at 1459,
17 December 2011.]

Investigating Officer called the hearing to order, and
stated that all parties that were present prior to recess were
again present.

SPECIAL AGENT TROY BETTENCOURT, United States Treasury
Department, was called as a witness by the government, was
sworn, and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I began working for the Treasury Department just this
month. I am assigned to the computer forensics team providing
computer forensics support in support of criminal investigations
into civil and criminal infractions. Before I started working
for the Treasury Department I used to work for the Army's CID,
Computer Crimes Investigative Unit, I actually have two tours
there. One of my tours was from November of last year until
December of this year and then the other tour was from 2001
until 2005. On my last tour I was a special agent assigned to
the intrusion team and was primarily assigned to this particular
investigation. I do have a background in computers. I have
received training from both government and commercial providers
specifically. I have earned my computer evidence recovery
specialist certification from FLETC at the federal law
enforcement training center in Georgia, I earned my network
security certified professional certification from learning
center international, my EnCase certified examiner certification
from guidance software, my access data certified examiner
certification from access data, as well as a digital media
collector certification from the 0C3, the defense cyber crime
center. I have testified before in a computer crimes case in
front of a federal grand jury for an international computer
hacking investigation and than multiple times in support of
general crimes, drugs, and sex crimes investigations.

WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange, he is an
Australian national. They describe themselves and Mr. Assange
describes them as an intelligence agency of the people.
Basically, they aren't bound to any government Or corporate
entity, sort of like an open source intelligence repository.
About the same time that the organization was established and
the website was established, the website solicited submissions

77






of information that would be of interest to them specifically at
the time - for classified, censored, or otherwise restricted
information. can go to the WikiLeaks website, they have a
link that you can click on to submit. Once you went to the
submission page you will see a button that would allow you to
browse your computer looking for the documents you wish to
submit. It?s sort of like attaching a document to a web-based
e?mail. Once you clicked on that you identify the documents on
your computer then hit submit and the website would transmit
those documents to WikiLeaks via communication
WikiLeaks is basically a website, the technical side of it is.
They reported their servers being all over the world. They have
identified locations in Sweden, Iceland, England, Germany,
Texas, so they have multiple servers, sort of like disaster
planning. Make sure that if one server goes down they have
others to back them up; in fact they used the Amazon servers for
a period of time. Essentially the physical base of operations
is wherever Mr. Assange is located. So currently, England where
he is awaiting possible extradition. He did for a period of
time use Iceland as a base of operations. Since early 2010,
WikiLeaks has been a big proponent of the initiative in
Icelandic called the Icelandic modern media initiative.
Iceland's Parliament would reform certain laws within Iceland to
make it more favorable to journalists. They've described it as
sort of making Iceland akin to journalism what Switzerland is to
banking. WikiLeaks did solicit information that they were
looking for, they published an updated list, which they would
frequently update on their website, broken down by country of
what information they wanted. They called that their, ?Most
wanted list."

The image on the screen looks like the most wanted leaks
it said 2009, so by the archivss it looks like 30 August
2009. Websites change over time, there is an Internet archive
one of them is called, "Way back machine," and what they do is
that they periodically create snapshots of certain websites on
the web and at any time you can go back and query the archives
to see what was posted on a particular day that they archived.
That image is another one from 2009, based on the URL, the
archived date for it was May 22, 2010. That is as it appeared
on the web on 22 May 2010. That image is the list and the date
is 5 November 2009, and that is as it appears the date that the
snapshot was taken by the Internet archive. The list is broken
down by particular countries that they are interested in and
under the country grouping and under the country name they will
have specific documents pertaining to that country. And they
have a United States section as well. Intellipedia is

Pager

78

macaw-n.me




essentially the classified intelligence community's version of
Wikipedia, if you're familiar with it. A place to sort of get
information, it is sort of a fairly good resource updated by
intelligence professionals. Also, Opensource.gov, which is the
CIA open source center. As you can see there is basically an
unclassified database where the CIA gathers open source
information from arOund the world and publishes it in that
location. Further down, You will see a federal politics section
and then under military intelligence you will see a few things
that pertain to this investigationfocused primarily on the military and intelligence community you
will see that stuff pertaining to CIA, detainee interrogation
videos. Further down there are some rules of engagement
pertaining to Iraq and Afghanistan. You will see references to
Camp Delta for their standard operating procedures as well as
their interrogation standing operating procedures. That?s
referring to the operation at Guantanamo Bay. If you scroll
down a little further I think is the last entry, again it asked
for the Afghanistan/Iraq rules of engagement in there. The
first one I believe is just for Iraq, the second one has both of
them together.

The Investigating Officer instructed the trial counsel to
slow down due to the nature of the material and the amount of

material that was being covered at that time.

The direct examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 1 continues as
follows:

Right below the sixth and seventh bullet down is the Iraq

ROE. Then if you go down five more, once again you will see
mention of Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, the SOP for
interrogations, and regular 8093. Then, two below that you will

see Iraq and Afghanistan rules of engagement. And those are the
ones that are specifically pertinent to this investigation.
WikiLeaks has used social media and they still do, they are
fairly active on twitter. Twitter is sort of a very real?time
way of providing very short concise updates to people that wish
to follow your organization or you as an individual. What we
are looking at right now is a WikiLeaks tweet, as you can see in
the lower left from January 2010, in this case they are saying
that they had videos of a US bomb strike, and if you
click on that link it will take you to a wired.com story about
an incident that occurred; it is commonly known as the Gharani
incident. The bottom line there, actually it is an expired
domain that no longer is active, but at one point I checked the
Internet archive and it was a WikiLeaks website. Now the image

79

mr-JmU'I-waH




that we're looking at now is a twitter feed, you can see at the
top left it mentions WikiLeaks, it has their logo, or one of the
logos that they were using and it says that they are looking for
a database called, "Treasure Map," regarding IP, meaning
Internet protocol addresses that they want access to and it
appears that they are soliciting someone to provide it to them.
That feed was provided 16 February 2010.

That image is an additional tweet from WikiLeaks which is
dated May 7, 2010, and they are asking for a list of as many
.mil e?mail addresses as possible, so meaning e-mail addresses
relating to military domains.

I am familiar with the charges and specifications. 18
February 2010, they released a Department of State cable
entitled, "Reykjavik 13," it was a Department of State cable
that documented what is commonly referred to as the, "Ice Save
Incident," it was a failing Icelandic bank that caused some
problems between Britain and the Netherlands and Iceland. On 15
March 2010, they released an Army Counterintelligence Center
report pertaining to WikiLeaks. On 5 April 2010, they released
an edited version of an Apache weapons team video of an incident
that occurred in Iraq along with the Iraq rules of engagement.
They both were released on the same day. WikiLeaks termed it,
"collateral murder," that is sort of the commOn term for it.

On 25 July 2010, they released what they have called, "the
Afghan war diary." It is approximately 76,000 out of 90,000
incidents that were in the CIDNEIAfghanistan database. On 22
October 2010, they released the corresponding, "Iraq war diary."
It is about 400,000 incidents that came from the
database. The reports ranged from 1 January 2004 until 31
December 2009. On 28 November 2010, just after Thanksgiving
they started to release the Department of State cables, they
commonly referred to it as, "Cable gate," and that release
continued for quite some time.

Between 24 April and 21 June 2011, they released detainee
assessment briefs, documents pertaining to detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In total they released 765 detainee
assessment briefs out of 779 they claim to have in their
possession. They were released in small batches, large batches,
it just sort of trickles out. On 20 August 2011, they released
the entire amount of documents in their possession, 251,287
Department of State cables and they were in unredacted form.
They made that available on the Internet.

80






k'

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

During our work on this case we did work with other law
enforcement agencies. We worked with the FBI, we worked with
the Department of State, and we worked with ICE. I interviewed
many individuals as part of my investigative work; I would say
more than ten. We interviewed individuals pertaining to this
case that were part of PFC Manning's chain of command, or served
with him, or contractors, basically people that knew him. I
interviewed all but one with other agents. I believe there were
only CID agents present during the interviews that I conducted,
I don't recall anyone else being present. I did take notes
during interviews. None of the interviews were audiotaped or
videotaped. What determined whether an interview was going to
be audiotaped or videotaped was partially facilities, if it was
available, we do have to get approval from our supervisor. In
this case there were no audio or video statements taken. During
my work on this case I did come across evidence showing that PFC
Manning did desire to create an alter ego of Breanna Manning.

He had an e?mail address; I believe he may have had two, but at
least one that I know of. He had a Facebook profile also name
Breanne; there is an e-mail that he sent to his chain of
command showing him dressed as a woman. So yes, we were aware
of that. During my work on this case I was aware that PFC
Manning was gay. I have served in the military, I served for 12
years. During my investigation on this case I did not find any
evidence that showed PFC Manning had ties to a terrorist group.
There was evidence that indicated PFC Manning could be
interested in politics. There were several individuals, I would
have to look at my reports to see which ones, very often people
in the SCIF said that downrange they would have discussions
pertaining to politics, just sort of passing the time and he
would be active in those discussions. There were times during
the investigation where I saw evidence that suggested PFC
Manning exhibited odd behavior. There was an incident where he
assaulted his supervisor and reCeived punishment for that. And
there was another incident when he threw his computer monitor
off the table in sort of a fit of rage, and then there was an
incident where a member of the unit found him curled up in a
ball while downrange.

I would say that I have an opinion but my opinion is
definitely colored with the benefit of hindsight. I would like
to think that had I been in the chain of command I would have
done things differently. Ideally, I would have been aware of

31






everything we now know as far as his behavior to prevent him
from deploying. Again, that is with the benefit of hindsight.

REDIRECT EXAMINAEION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I was a CID Agent, I had to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
I do have a government security clearance. I do believe
individuals have a personal responsibility to safeguard
classified information.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating relevance as to what this agent might believe at this
point regarding responsibility, guilt, or anything regarding my
client.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection stating
that the trial counsel can ask the witness if he believes that
individuals have an obligation to secure classified material,
questions as to guilt or innocence are not for the witness.
[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

BRIAN MBDRID, Civilian, was called as a witness for the
government, was sworn, and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I retired in the middle of September 2010; I served in the
Army for 22 years. I was a 35T, which is a Electronic Warfare
Military Intelligence System Integrator and Maintainer. I
worked on all of the MI collection systems, computers networks,
communications equipment, and we were also evolving into the
exploitation of captured enemy equipment such as FDA, laptops,
and phones. I was PFC Manning?s AIT Platoon Sergeant; he
attended advanced individual training at Fort Huachuca. He
attended training there, I believe, from April until August
2008. I was in the Platoon Sergeant position from between
February 2008 until August 2010; that's about 2 1/2 years.

82

mumm-e-Lumr?l




PFC Manning is a 35F, a Military Intelligence Analyst. I
am familiar with the 35F block of instruction. The first block
of instructions that they received I believe it is called,
and it is basically instructing the military analyst
how to handle and the safeguarding of classified information. I
know that is the first block of instruction because I would talk
to the instructors, and students would always come back and say
how much they enjoyed the class. In order to attend that AIT
they have to have an interim security clearance. The
accused was required to do corrective training in AIT. I believe
that was in June 2008. Some Soldiers had come to me one
afternoon explaining that Private Manning had been posting
videos on YouTube, and he was using words such as top secret,
secret, classified, and SCIF which he was taught not to do.
Allegedly, there were three videos; because of the limitations
with our local network, we had YouTube blocked, so we had one of
the Soldier's laptop and used the wireless Internet to see one
of the videos. The video was of him inside of his barracks room
speaking about his daily life: then he began to branch off onto
subjects like well I work at this secret SCIF, I handled this
classified information, using buzzwords like that. The
corrective training at the time that he was required to do a
presentation to the company, and whenever we had the Soldiers do
that type of corrective training, he would have presented it to
us first to ensure that the Soldiers were going to present an
informative product. I also had him present me with a type
memorandum stating that he basically understood that he wasn't
supposed to do that type of thing. He wasn't supposed to expose
himself, a person with clearance with access to that type of
information. The presentation in front of the unit was about
information security, how to handle it, and especially if you
are a person with access to this type of material you are not to
expose the material or that you have access to it. And that it
can be dangerous to personnel that are in the military and that
there are people, enemy forces that are trying to collect
information on the US military. The substance of the type
product was basically what secret information is, the type of
people that are trying to collect against the government such
as, foreign governments, enemies, Spies, hackers, items like
that. The PowerPoint was very similar to the written product
but it had more reference to regulations. He did three total
types of corrective training-the presentation in front of the
platoon, the PowerPoint, and the memorandum.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

83

mqunpb-mMI?I




The AIT course Intel analyst is 16 weeks and 3 days. And
part of the AIT instruction is done in the classroom, and part
of that instruction is done in the field. Me being a platoon
Sergeant I had anywhere from 140 to 150 Soldiers. I do get to
know an occasional Soldier depending upon the situation, there
are some Soldiers that you have to dedicate a lot of your time
to, and then there are some Soldiers that are really low
maintenance. I generally get to know most of them. It would be
a fair assessment to say that I do not get to know them all very
well. The training that they received consisted of a lot of
training, there is a lot of training compacted. I don't think
that is unreasonable to say that it is firehose mentality. This
is the initial course for someone being trained as a military
intelligence analyst. At the end the AIT students conduct a
ten-day field exercise. Once they complete that then they
graduate and go on to their first duty assignment. Once they
graduate they have a basic understanding they are by no means an
expert in that field. The expertise for the Intel analyst comes
as they learn on?the-job training through time. After I watched
that video I showed to Captain Ogletree, the video did not
discuss any specific operational security, but he was using the
buzzwords top secret, classified, words of that nature. This
video was intended for friends and family, that was the target
audience. I do not recall him saying anything about him missing
his family but I do recall him talking about barracks life in
the video. Those buzzwords in and of themselves are not
classified, they are pretty well known. Just referencing those
words in the video is not a security breach because it
referenced those words and he was an AIT student he had to do
some sort of corrective training. I personally do not have any
ability to suspend his clearance, even though he was counseled
for this incident he did not lose his security clearance over
it, had it been suspended he would not have been able to
complete his training.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

Those Soldiers are taught not to use those buzzwords
because if they were to identify themselves to outside personnel
they give themselves an element of possible compromise.

Somebody on the outside could find out that they had a security
clearance, they could target the individual because they have
access to a certain level of infermation.

34






OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected and asked the Investigating
Officer to voir dire the witness.

The Investigating Officer granted the defense counsel's
request.

VOIR DIRE

I was an AIT platoon Sergeant who
I had nothing to do with the
35F trainer.
was in charge of those students.
setting up of classes, but I sat through a class.
any of the instruction for those students.

The defense counsel objected stating that this witness was
not an eXpert in the training of the HIT students.

The Investigating Officer instructed the trial counsel to
lay a proper foundation before asking those types of questions.

The redirect examination by.?ssistant Trial Counsel 2 continued
as follows:

I did not sit through all of the classes that the students
attended but I sat through about 3 or 4 classes for each block,
and the length of each block varied. I did sit through the
first portion of instruction which discusses classified
information. And in that first block of instruction they stated
that you can't transmit classified permission to someone who is
not authorized to have it.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
ended the call.]

CAPTAIN STEVEN LIM, Division East, Fort Hoade, Maryland, was
called as a witness by the government, was sworn, and testified
in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:
I am the deputy 62 for 1st Army Division East, here on Fort
Meade. I plan, resource and train Reserve and National Guard

Soldiers on intelligence training before they deploy. My branch
is military intelligence. It is our job to present comprehensive

85

OOH-Jmmeer?I




intelligence products to our commanders so we can make decisions
on whatever he needs to decide on. From my job, we take
different forms of intelligence and create a product consisting
of multiple forms of intelligence to meet the commands needs and
to help him make a decision on whether it be to move on a
certain mission or to move forces to a certain place or not.

The product we give him will help to make that decision.

I had been an intelligence officer for five years. I have
been in the Army for 9 1/2 years. Prior to this I was an air
defense officer. I attended the military intelligence officer
transition course and the military intelligence officer course.
The transition course was designed to give those officers who
were not military intelligence to a good introduction of MI and
how works the basic forms of it. The Captains career course
also known as the advanced course gave us graduate?level classes
on intelligence preparation of the battlefield and to perform
other duties as future Battalion 82 or intelligence officers, it
also gave us a little background on Company Commander. I was an
infantry Battalion 52 officer for 2?14 Infantry, 2nd Brigade,
10th Mountain. And I was the 2nd Brigade Combat Team 82, 10th
Mountain Division. I was also double hatted as the assistant
Brigade 82 and the MI Company Commander 2nd Brigade, 10th
Mountain Division. I have been deployed three times, two times
as an intelligence officer. All of my deployments had been to
Iraq. The last two deployments were with 2/10 Mountain. I
arrived to 2nd Brigade in March 2006. A Battalion 82small staff of intelligence analyst to provide him
a combat ready intelligence so that we could conduct combat
related operations. It is also accurate to say that the S2 is
the Intel officer for the organization. I was in 2nd Brigade,
10th Mountain Division as a Company Commander. My first duty
was taking care of Soldiers within my company and their welfare,
for tactical employment it was my job to manage the MI company?s
collection assets, because once we deployed we were directly
underneath Brigade, and my assets were at the Brigade's disposal
for collection. I met Private First Class Manning at Fort Polk,
in July 2009. I was confused about the rotation because we did
two rotations about six months apart. Originally in 2008, we
were scheduled to go to Afghanistan and then after we attended
our first JRTC rotation our orders changed to Iraq and we had to
go back to JRTC to recertify as a unit. JRTC stands for the
Joint Readiness Training Center, at Fort Polk, it is where major
units go to validate their mission rehearsal exercise prior to
deployment and to become certified to deploy. When I met PFC
Manning at the second rotation we were practicing to go to Iraq,
because we were on our way to Iraq shortly after.

36

mummwaI?t




During the rotation I was the MI Company Commander but I
was also pulled into the Brigade 52 shop, to serve as the
assistant Brigade 52 at the same time. PFC Manning was an Intel
analyst within the Brigade 82 shop. He handle all sorts of
intelligence, his MOS is 35F. Some of the prerequisites for a
Soldier to become a 35F is to have to graduate basic training,
and then successfully pass AIT, and with that comes a top secret
security clearance as well._ Generally speaking you have to have
good credit, good background information, as far as no past
felonies, a character in good standing. You have to be an
American citizen as well. Usually to become a 35F for any
intelligence MOS you have to have a higher GT score than other
specialties. Generally, they are smarter than most Soldiers.
35F should receive basic intelligence preparation of the
battlefield MI systems, collection assets capabilities,
resources, and some basic security training as well.

Collection systems are different forms of defense systems
whether it is aerial forms or ground-based systems that the
military uses to conduct intelligence analysis. The system that
all-source intelligence analyst use is the Distributed Common
Ground System Army, it is simply a laptop terminal hooked up to
a server where intelligence analyst has all the resources to
conduct a good analysis at his disposal using multiple databases
standard Microsoft office suite and other geo?plotting software
as well. This system is found on the SIPRNET network, which
stands for basically a secret network. They should receive some
security training, basic classification principles, how to
properly mark and understand classification data. When you're
doing research on your pulling information from different places
you're making sure the information that you hold is labeled
correctly from what you pulled it from. Labels are classified
properly, if you pull something from a secret document, you have
to make sure the document is labeled secret. They do show up
trained in recognizing those documents from AIT. I?m not 100%
on sharing of information. In order for an Intel analyst to
share classified information with someone else they have to
ensure that that person has the proper access or clearance to
read said material. That is something that a 35F in general
should know, due to the fact that we deal with more classified
material than most other MOSs. The 35F is the enlisted
equivalent to my branch.

There is a multitude of systems that Intel use, we

fly UAVs also we also have other groundsbased assets that talk
to airplanes and pull data that way. There are multiple

87






databases that we datamine through to pull information to do
specific work. Datamining, is a simple process of conducting
research through multiple avenues taken a database and plugging
in certain words trying to narrow down exactly what you are
looking for through a big amount of data.

When you're making a product for your Commander you need to
tailor it to exactly what he is looking for, sometimes that
requires searching for one specific person place or thing.
of the resources that I found on the SIPRNET that we used to
datamine are CIDNE database, query tree, Intelink, and other
smaller databases that are out there also. It is the combined
information data network exchange, it contains reports of all
kinds, everything from human intelligence reports patrol
debriefs, civil affair debriefs, State Department Provincial
Reconstruction teams debriefs, and a whole lot more. The CIDNE
database is not just used by Intel analyst. It is used by almost
everyone nowadays there is even medical personnel that are
filing IED traumatic brain injury reports in there as well. 35F
use CIDNE to datamine. Intelink is a secret version of what we
call Google. You click on a search box type in a word you enter
and then you get a swath of links that match the word that you
search for. And on the SIPRNET the information would be secret
information. 35F use CIDNE and Intelink, in a combat
environment every day, to include the multiple deployments to
Iraq. There is a distinction between combat environment and a
garrison environment because the duties differ pretty
drastically. In a garrison environment intelligence Soldiers
are more likely doing administrative based jobs, physical
security, personnel security, assisting with the processing of
security clearances for other Soldiers, assisting on inspections
of subordinate units and not as much analysis and a garrison
environment. So a 35F in garrison is typically at the Brigade
and Battalion level assisting other Soldiers and getting their
clearance. They should be doing a for specific data to
make sure that it all lines up, passes the test and then working
with the higher headquarters who processes the security
clearance to get updates status reports, has it made it through,

Some

and he rejects, any errors, what do we need to fix. The
stands for quality assurance quality control. A good S2 shop
would always have Soldiers staying current on events, the

majority of units will start really focusing on the enemy as
they are ramping up towards deployment 4 or 5 months out, it
depends. I do not remember a whole lot about PFC Manning. We
were very undermanned during that rotation, I was working long
hours, so I don't remember a whole lot about him. A multitude
of individuals rely on the work product of 35F. I know that the

88






Commanders rely on the products that Intel analyst give them
because as a Battalion and Brigade 52 it was my job to make sure
that he had those products in his hand that he request.

If we are conducting an operation somewhere what we would
do would be provide only the historic information for that area
historic enemy activity attacks sniper, ID and stuff like that
combined with other reporting of that area. We are going to put
it all on a product, I will probably assign it to a team leader,
a team leader would then assign it to one of his Soldiers to do
and then we will go through and make sure along the way more
progress charts, make sure the product is in line with the
Commander's intent and then once it was complete more often than
not I would take it and conduct any final analysis and follow?up
with the team leader on the analyst who worked on the product
and make sure it was the we need to be and then presented to the
Commander in some form of briefing. After that JRTC rotation
the next time that I worked with Private Manning was once we
deployed to Iraq at the end of 2009.

I became the Brigade 82 in January 2010. The original
Brigade S2 was relieved and sent to a transition team to work
with Iragi's. He was moved to that position because he couldn't
properly explain information the way the Commander needed it, so
they put me in the position instead. We were primarily enemy
focused supporting our troops on the ground at the same time you
were partnering with Iraqi Army and Iraqi police exchanging
information helping them build their training in intelligence.
PFC Manning was on the Shia threat team, because we had both
Sunni and Shia threats in our area. That type of work entailed
focusing mainly on specific areas where we had Shia threat based
out of conducting analysis of certain type of attack patterns
and also analyzing other forms of reporting. This office was
located on FOB Hammer but my actual office was located in the
command group. PFC Manning and the rest of the S2 shop was
located in what we call the SCIF, it stands for sensitive
compartmented information facility. Only the signal
intelligence Soldiers had direct access to top secret
information. In an unclassified environment they specifically
worked on signals intelligence products they received specific
training above and beyond what in all?source intelligence
would do. All source intelligence could have
access to top secret information but not direct access. I could
not get on the computer that was on a top secret network. There
was a network that was present that had top secret access. There
were multiple networks that had that type of access.

89






We had SIPRNET and NIPRNET, which is a secret
classification network and an unclassified network. SIPRNET was
the network that the all source intelligence analyst used every
day. The computers that we have were on an internal network, I
know this because we will all network to a classified hard
drive. Individuals in the Brigade 32 were authorized to remove
classified information fIOm the computers we had to take
information that was releasable to Iraq, specifically classified
for that. We had to take the information to give to
translators, to translate products in Arabic so that we could
release the information to Iraqi Soldiers. It was a specific
caveat with our mission there we partner with the Iraqi's there
was information that could of been specifically releasable to
Iraq which means that we were authorized to release the
information to Iraqi military. That happened all the time
almost every day. Because that was part of our mission was to
train and share information with the Iraqis. The Shia posed
typical threats gunshots, sniper attacks, and direct fire and
the most lethal was IED attacks. It was common to our Brigade
at the time. When we first started out it was more than when we
left but approximately I to 5 attacks a day. They were able to
pull the significant activity of historic events from the CIDNE
database and conduct analysis of any type that was necessary.
PFC Manning had to do this type of research. He also had to
research the effect of

An individual cannot create that work product without
understanding what they are looking at. Because as intelligence
analyst we make a product based off of what the Commander needs
we are not going to create a product of something that we don't
understand, and that is true for even the junior Soldiers.
Private Manning's was he was very good at statistical
analysis putting numbers together creating graphs showing
historical events over time which would in turn help us to do
pattern analysis. He was very good at putting their data on to
a system we call Arc map, which is just a simple digital map to
give a visual picture of what his analysis portrayed.

The statistical analysis part is a little bit easy, but
actually being able to manipulate the system the way he did was
not easy to me it was a very challenging system to use. It
could be referred to as data mining. It was difficult to use
because it was a very technical system, we didn?t use it a lot
it was kind of a perishable skill and it wasn't just simple as
clicking and shopping and dragging it took some technique to
use, it took a lot of practice.

90

mummthI?I




PFC Manning weakness was public speaking or briefing trying
to get a point of course specifically. PFC Manning used CIDNE,
query tree, the biometrics database and a whole bunch of other
networks. I don't think there was a need for him to use Net
Centric Diplomacy. I don't know what that is.

In my office classified information is protected by first
and foremost we had a cipher lock on the outside within access
roster so those who do need to have access didn?t have the code
to get in. The second was the top secret being in the back and
only those certain Soldiers had to login to get on system.
Nothing preventing a Soldier from burning a CD for their own
purpose, because we can watch every single person twenty?four
hours a day, we were just too busy to do that. And I believe
that there comes a level of trust with a top secret clearance
when you are awarded one, and we all signed a nondisclosure
agreement stating that we would not do that.

From my knowledge Specialist Padgett was the nighttime
supervisor and I believe he was counseling PFC Manning on
arriving late and PFC Manning flip the table and it stopped at
that. The outcome of that was we gave PFC Manning some down
time so you can cool off and then someone took him to behavioral
health. We did not remove them from the SCIF at that timer 1
was not in charge so it was not my call. I can only guess that
it wasn't drastic enough to fully remove him we also needed the
to help us continue the work. When I came back from
environmental leave PFC Manning was no longer working in the
SCIF he was working in the supply section for our headquarters.

His security clearance was flagged with derogatory
information. so it was recorded within his files and his
security clearance, and he was also charged with UCMJ. This all
stemmed from his assault on Specialist Showman. We moved him
out of office because we felt that it was not good for him to be
around the other Soldiers in it was not safe for the other
Soldiers. I have had other Soldiers that have minor
disciplinary problems but I didn't remove them from the office,
depending on the case, most people are able to be rehabilitated.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating relevance.

The trial counsel stated that it is an element of sixteen
specifications.

91






The defense counsel renewed his objection stating that the
witness should not he asked the question to make the ultimate
conclusion on that.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense counsel's
objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel was continued as
follows:

Yes I do believe what PFC Manning has done has brought
discredit upon the armed forces.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

I entered the Army in 2002. I was assigned to 2nd Brigade
since 2006. My duty position at that time was to be Battalion
82. I have been in my current branch since 2005 the end of
2005, which is an all source intelligence officer. I switched
over from air defense artillery. MI Commander is multiple
platoons, it is Brigades collection assets, there is a human
intelligence platoon, there is a UAV platoon, a signal
intelligence platoon, and other comes packaged, and a simple
headquarters.

The original guidance for selecting personnel who were not
deployed with the Brigade was we would take all able bodies
pending medical issues that prevented them from deploying. The
order was given for us to take as many people downrange as we
can. In order for me to take someone off the list off the
deployment I would have to submit it up to the chain of command.
The Brigade Commander was the approval authority to leave
someone behind.

Once we deployed I was the MI Commander and the assistant
Brigade 52, in October 2009. As the assistant Brigade 82 it was
my job to attend meetings that the 32 was not able to attend and
to brief the 82 on all the information that he needed. Once we
deployed I have very little interaction with BBC, 2nd Brigade,
my NCOIC dealt with them. Yes two shops to go will for the unit
that was leaving when we deployed in October, and I also worked
as the assistant Brigade 82 from October 2009 until January
2010, then I became the Brigade 82, and so for about a month I
had three jobs. So in the beginning of February 2010, I was
freed up to just do the job of Brigade 32. I was assigned at
the Brigade because at the time I was the assistant Brigade 32

92






so I was the next in line, and I believe that my command felt
that I was qualified to do the job. The major that had a job
before me was removed which is not common in a deployed
environment.

My office was not in the SCIF, I worked within the command
group, the SCIF was a very far from where I worked at. I had
about ten working for me in the S2 shop. From the
beginning of the employment the person in charge of the night
shift were Specialists, and towards the end of the deployment
the NCOIC in charge of the night shift was a Sergeant First
Class. It was a NCO on the night shift because we didn't have
any more NCOs to be in charge of the night shift. When we first
started our deployment PFC Manning worked the night shift with
no NCO supervision. I worked with PFC Manning during the
deployment. This was not his first duty assignment he had been
assigned to Fort Drum he had been in the Army for a few years.
Other than a standard training that they do it the Brigade I am
not sure what the training PFC Manning had.

Once we arrived in Iraq we got some additional training on
classification and then a few of us got even more training after
that. The class was not designed for the Soldiers it was
designed for the senior leadership. I will work with PFC
Manning occasionally, to give him more guidance.

The goal of the night shift was to do the task that the
dayshift could not complete, and to do more research. We had
two teams on the night shift the Sunni team and the Shia team.
During the deployment PFC Manning was promoted specialist, due
to it being his time to get promoted, basically it was automatic
due to the amount of time he served in Army. PFC Manning was
very good at using the computer programs for his job but he was
not good at giving briefings. If PFC Manning didn't know what
to do he would stop working and sometimes it would take him all
along time to complete this task, but that is a common
occurrence with junior analyst. PFC Manning was not one of my
better he was moved to the dayshift so he can get more
guidance. Then he was eventually moved back to the night shift
but I do not know the reason why.

Major Clausen was moved out of the 52 position, from what I
was told, because he could not convey the information to the
Brigade Commander. Major Clausen was not a hands?on leader he
went into the SCIF a couple of times a day, but he let Master
Sergeant Adkins run the SCIF. When I took over he did not
briefed me on any administrative issues. At the time that I

93






took over I was not aware of any emotional issues with PFC
Manning other than what I had observed from working around him.
I was not present when PFC Manning had that emotional outbursts,
but I heard about it. Both of these emotional outbursts occur
before I became the Brigade 52. During the incident with SPC
Padgett I was told of a lot of things that happened but not
everything that happened, like the computer being broken due to
PFC Manning flipping the table over. I was not told that PFC
Manning had to be restrained due to the fact that others believe
he was heading towards the weapons rack during the incident.

Had I been told about this incident I would not have considered
it a minor incident. I would consider that an incident that
should have resulted in derogatory information in his file, and
if the proper authority being so it could have resulted in the
termination of clearance.

After the incident I believe PFC Manning received a
negative counseling and was taken to behavioral health. I do
not know if the personnel involved reported this incident up
higher. I do recall saying that I gave my input to the chain of
command, but other actions were taken. Had I been the Commander
at that time I probably would have done derogatory information
in his file if the appropriate personnel wrote statements, when
I gave this information to the chain of command they did not
follow it. I did not hear about the incident where Master
Sergeant Adkins was counseling PFC Manning and he became
emotional and shove the chair.

I do know that Master Sergeant Adkins wrote several
memorandums regarding the emotional problems of PFC Manning.
I've seen those memorandums after PFC Manning was detained. I
do not know why it was Master Sergeant Adkins who was handling
all the issues with PFC Manning. He had a sensing session and
Soldiers talk about grievances in the shop, mostly complaints
about the need to enforce the NCO support chain. There were
complaints about Master Sergeant Adkins stripping everybody in
leadership positions of their leadership roles.

I received a letter of admonishment and in that letter it
indicated that I should have been aware that Master Sergeant
Adkins usurped the responsibilities of first?line and midline
supervisors when dealing with day care and discipline of
enlisted Soldiers. When I read those letters I was shocked, I
was shocked that he did not share those memorandums with the
chain of command before. I counseled Master Sergeant Adkins as
soon as I read those memorandums, because he forwarded me an e?
mail from PFC Manning that was sent to him months earlier.

94

mummwaH




In the e-mail PFC Manning stated that he was suffering from
issues with his gender identity and how it affected him in his
duty performance and impacting his ability to actually think,
also attached to the e-mail was a picture of PFC Manning dress
as a girl. Master Sergeant Adkins did not send that e-mail to
me until after the arrest of PFC Manning. Based upon the e?mail
I knew immediately that PFC Manning had issues with his gender
identity, that the chain of command should have known, and that
he should have been removed from the SCIF. Had it been informed
of the e-mail and everything that happened after the e-mail was
sent PFC Manning definitely would not have been in the SCIF and
as the Brigade security manager, Master Sergeant Adkins had a
duty to report derogatory information of anyone. The
memorandums that Master Sergeant Adkins shared with me predated
the deployment, and the privilege of having a top secret
security clearance is basically an ongoing thing. The SS could
have turned off PFC Manning access to computers almost
immediately if they were instructed to.

Somebody told me that there was a standard operating
procedure for the SCIF, but I'd never seen, if there wasn't one
that will be a problem. In order to get a SCIF accredited you
have to have an SOP and ours was accredited. There wasn't any
training on key SCIF rules and regulations. The SSR, the
special security representative, they are responsible for the
day?to?day management within the security of the T-SCIF. I'm
not sure this Master Sergeant Adkins went to any training for
the SSR position. The formal training for the SSR position was
only about a hundred slides, it can be done within an hour.

CDs and DVDs that are secret and top secret are supposed to
be specifically labeled so they can be easily identified. CD's
lying all around the TSCIF, although I have not seen it, sounds
about right. The CD5 were used for a multitude of things all
classified and even though they were not labeled they should
have been. Soldiers were only allowed to bring in closed loop
music CDs into the SCIF, but I am not sure how that was
enforced. So you were allowed to leave the SCIF with writable
CDs but it had to be for official purposes only. So we could
burn things onto a writable CD but there was a SOP in place
instructed them of what they could burn and had to be for
official purposes only, and we would review it before they were
burned so they didn't have to burn multiple CDs so we can save
on supplies, and that happened more often than not.

95






I not all of them.

Soldiers were able to listen to music in the SCIFclosed loop CDs, or already on the SIPRNET, but
that really was and by the rules and it should not have
happened. I have also seen Soldiers watching movies in SCIF.
Some movies were stored on the SIPRNET. I have seen games
stored on the SIPRNET but I have not seen any of my Soldiers
playing games in the SCIF due to the fact that we never had time
for that sort of stuff. I never heard a Soldier say that they
had to add a program to the system for operational purposes.

I did not make classification determination as a part of my
job, I did make classification decisions. Whoever originated
the report or all when we have a particular piece of information
is classified the person who generated the report made their
classification determination. We would use his intelligence
reports for the release to Iraq information. We labeled it, REL-
Irag. We would extract the data and put it on products. We then
would put the information below the tear line. The tear line is
a quick reference on the document so you know everything below
that line is a certain classification and everything above the
line is a different classification.

The S2 shop worked off the classification guide, and I had
not seen anything that was unclassified that was marked
classified, but we have had discussions about that sort of
thing. We either used the CENTCOM classification guide or the
MNCI classification guide, everyone had access to it. Mostly
only the foreign disclosure officers used those guides, they
were available to everybody. The following disclosure class
lasted about an hour and contained about maybe one hundred
slides. Over a period of time a document could be deemed
unclassified. We put declassification dates on some items but
There really wasn't a time limit for how long
something needed to be classified. The research and
create a product, they do lots of reading. A good analyst has
comprehensive writing skills, good briefing skills and the
ability to think outside the box, and listed the information
from various types of databases.

The CIDNE databases are similar to the Google function, you
type in the word and you got hits. It was the analyst?s job to
filter down and report the important information. The CIDNE
database has all types of information. The analyst use
significant acts for historic representation. So in other words
significant acts are one big historical database. It is
possible that something could be written into significant acts
that discusses future operations, but less often. The

96

memo-Lbme




significant acts are created by usually the forces that are on
the ground the unit that it happened to. It would be created
for situational purposes, for historical documentation. No
personal information is put into significant acts.

A HUMINT report, which stands for human intelligence
report, is a report of one Soldier's interaction with another
person. We don't even put names in HUMINT reports because we
put numbers, so we definitely will not do it for a significant
acts report. Since significant acts are generally reported as
soon as the incident happens they are initially wrong, then we
might go back and correct information in the significant acts.

I do know that had access to diplomatic cables. I
did not know that those cables were for on the Net Centric
Diplomacy. I gave the link through e?mail which I had
so they could have access to diplomatic cables. I found out
about it from higher headquarters. I sent it out to my
because I wanted them to see the bigger picture. I did not
restrict them as to what they could look at on that link. There
was no sort of password that was required to access that link.
The diplomatic cables can be accessed by anybody who has a SIPR
account, and they are a lot of people that have a SIPR account.
Top secret information is not on SIPRNET.

I do recall an equal opportunity complaint being filed
during the deployment, it was filed somewhere around March 2010.
I believe it had to deal with vulgarity, language and excessive
cursing. I never found out what that complaint was about and I
never found out who made the complaint either. I talked to
Master Sergeant Adkins about the letters that he wrote and I
asked him why he didn?t share this with the command. He told me
that he was trying to handle it himself, and the medical
professionals. He should have gave the information to someone
who could take care of the situation. Master Sergeant Adkins
was reduced to Sergeant First Class by an administrative
reduction board. But I don?t know the specifics of what was
said in that board.

OBJECTION
The trial counsel objected to the line questioning stating
that the Investigating Officer knew what a senior

noncommissioned officer is.

The cross-examination by the defense counsel continued as
follows:

97









In the SE section Master Sergeant Adkins was the highest
enlisted person in that shop. He is an individual who sets the
tone for what is and is not to be done in that office. Once I
had opportunity to read the letters I knew that is not what he
did.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

PFC Manning was a smart Soldier. He was someone that I
could rely on. I did rely on information that he provided to me
during that deployment. He understood the information that he
provided to me because that is the specific type of training
that he went through and that is something that he did every
day. There was no Soldier that was authorized to burn
classified information onto a CD in the SCIF and take it to his
room.

RECROSS-EXAMINATIOH

I thought PFC Manning was intelligent. After reading the
memorandum by Master Sergeant Adkins I do now know that PFC
Manning was suffering from gender identity disorder, but I did
not know how it impacted him during the deployment. After
reading the letters and seeing his conduct I do see how it
impacted him during the deployment.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]
17 December

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1717,

2011.]
[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0942, 18
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the Article 32 hearing to
order, stating that all parties that were present prior to the
hearing being recessed were once again present.

The Investigating Officer advised the defense and the
persons observing that this is a formal investigation and in
order to protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings he
asked that all that are present refrain from interrupting or
otherwise disturbing the investigation. Should any person
nevertheless engage in speech or conduct that interferes with

98





TQH







LA)








?arrived at that unit my job was the S2 plans.

the dignity and decorum of the proceedings, they may be moved
from the court. Additionally, the rules of the hearing provide
that cell phones, blackberries, and similar devices are not
authorized in the hearing and any person with such device may be
removed from this courtroom.

CAPTAIN CASEY FULTON, U.S. Army, was called as a witness for the
prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:

I am assigned to 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Infantry
Division. At the time of the investigation, my name was Captain
Casey Martin. I am an officer in charge of a squadron
intelligence section. I am responsible for all of the collective
fusion of multivintelligence disciplines, intelligence
surveillance and reconnaissance collectiOn efforts and the
analytical evaluation of intelligence in order to answer
Commander?s priority information requirements. That was a
description of what an all source intelligence officer does.

I have been an intelligence officer for six years this
coming January. I went to the officer basic course as a
lieutenant, and I had been to the military intelligence captain
career course. I was an assistant officer in charge of the
Battalion, I was a platoon leader in a military intelligence
Company, and I was a Brigade assistant officer in charge as well
as the 82 plans officer. I was the Brigade assistant 82. I was
deployed with PFC Manning for some of the deployment. I have
deployed twice as an intelligence officer, the first one was to
Afghanistan and the sec0nd one was to Iraq. I deployed to
Afghanistan from 2007 until 2008. I deployed to Iraq from 2009
until 2010.

I arrived at 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain, in the middle of
September 2009. We deployed in October 2009. When I first
I was responsible
for writing the intelligence section of the operation order, the
deployment operations order. That basically gave us all a task
and instructions that we needed to get into the country. The
first time that I met PFC Manning was when I asked the shop for
information regarding threat in Iraq and I was directed to PFC
Manning because he had a good understanding of the enemy threat.
I was directed to PFC Manning because I was told he had better
understanding of the threat than anyone else. I used information

99






00771

to an extent to prepare the operations order. Prior to
deploymeht PFC Manning was an all source analyst. They do the
same thing that all source officers do but without the
managerial aspect, the responsibility is to gather intelligence
from all the different disciplines.

Generally to become an all source intelligence analyst they
generally have to have a higher score on the ASVAB, and you have
to hold a top secret clearance. To obtain a top secret
clearance you have to be able to pass the background
information, you have to be a United States citizen. 35F need to
have top secret clearances because in order to fuse multi?
intelligence disciplines some disciplines operate in the realms
of top secret, so they have to be able to pull information from
different types of classification levels. 35F for the
operational security training is basically training that
illustrates how the things that you do on a day?to-day basis may
compromise current operations. Information security

OBJECTIDN

The defense objected to the line of questioning and asked
to voir dire the witness.

VDIR DIRE

I have never been an instructor at the BIT for the 35F. I
have assisted in the training of those Soldiers at AIT.

The defense counsel objected to this witness testifying to
the actual training that 35F received in AIT.

The trial counsel requested the opportunity to ask
additional foundation questions for her to have an opinion as to
what they were taught.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

It is likely that more than 10 Soldiers arrived to my units
straight from AIT. They did not receive any training in between
AIT and arrived to the first station.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating that he the trial counsel was leading the witness.

um

oo?JmmanH




The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

My understanding is that the only training that the
Soldiers get while in AIT is the only training that they have
before they come to the first duty station. Information security
training is training on the safeguarding of information,
classified or unclassified. Top secret is labeled top secret,
confidential as labeled confidential, secret is labeled secret;
etc.

If we had an unclassified document it will be marked on top
and the bottom of the document, it is generally green. The same
thing with confidential and secret documents, in a digital
environment things are marked the same way as well.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning,
stating that the witness can speak about her experience but not
about the training that a Soldier has received.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense's objection
stating that the trial counsel laid adequate foundation.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

I have received and taught information security training.
It is taught that when Soldiers comes across a document that is
marked as classified that it needs to be safe guarded from
unauthorized disclosure. Once a document is marked classified
that is what it is. I did not have the authority to make a
document originally classified nor did any of the Soldiers. I
think that in order to make the decision whether document needs
to be classified we have to have the appointment from the
Secretary of the Army so only a Corps Commander or a Division
Commander has that authority.

The main system that the have, have the ability to
chat with other analyst, it pulls data from databases, it
provides maps, and it has a link diagram program on it as well.
The primary database that the system pulls information from is

101






00773

CIDNE, there are others but that is the one that majority of the
people use.

I'm not sure if CIDNE is just an intelligent based
database, there are a lot of human intelligence reports, signal
intelligence reports, significant activity reports are in there
as well. The reports in CIDNE database should be marked top and
bottom as to their classification. All of the significant
activity reports are stored on the CIDNE database, IED, direct
fire, indirect fire, assassinations, threats etc. DUSTWUN is
when we have a US person get kidnapped, and that may have been
on this CIDNE database. They're all types of information that
could be on the CIDNE database that is of a sensitive and secret
nature. CIDNE contains multiple types of reports on the
database.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating the witness was speculating as to quite a few of the
questions that was asked.

The Investigating Officer instructed the trial counsel to
elicit from the witness more definitive answers.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

The CIDNE database contains information about the current
position of US forces. Between December 2009 January 2010 CIDNE
contained information about how units reacted to IEDs.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating relevance.

The trial counsel stated that multiple specifications on
the charge sheet referred to this CIDNE database, and the trial
counsel wanted the Investigating Officer to understand the vast
amount of information that is in the database.

The defense counsel renewed his objection.

VOIR DIRE

102



The CIDNE database is huge. There are a lot of sources of
information on the database. Significant acts in the CIDNE
database is just a small part of the CIDNE database. Significant
activity reports should not have names inside of the reports.

The trial counsel stated that the specification on charge
sheet is for 380,000 records without limitation as to
significant activity, the entire CIDNE database.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense's
objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel was continued as
follows:

The CIDNE database contained a vast amount of information,
pertaining to enemy tactics, US Armed Forces responses to those
tactics, the different procedures that the United States Army
used to rescue their Soldiers that were kidnapped, under DUSTWUN
procedures, but I'm not too sure about the DUSTWUN procedures.

Intelink is a search engine, it could be found on the
SIPRNET which is a classified computer system that we use.
Intelink works like a search engine, if you're trying to find
information about a certain subject type the subject in and try
to find information on the subject that you typed in. Then the
information that will come back would be used in PowerPoint
slides were documents Excel spreadsheets and that is the type of
system that 35F would use on a weekly basis.

When I arrived in Iraq on my second tour I was the S2 plans
officer, basically it entailed me doing all of the analysis of
the enemy threat for future operations. The analysis contained
everything that we could find out about the enemy, and that 35F
junior enlisted Soldiers would assist me with that. We had
mission analysis and projects and we had very condensed
timelines, so it was not common for 35F to get different parts
of the project and then I will put it all together for one end
product, and then I would present it to the Commander. If we had
a situation that happened due to enemy contact, we would take
all of the information that we could gather on the enemy and
then we would put all that information on what they see on a map
in order to try to determine the enemy?s approach and potential
cache locations in which the information presented to the
Commander.

103



n.n a a a n-dlw w-m
a 4

Disruption zones are where the enemy would conduct the
tasks to disrupt the units on the ground but not necessarily try
to defeat them. An overlay is taken information and laying it on
top of each other so that you can see a pattern. A situational
template is the disposition of enemy forces in the operating
environment, with their location and where we think they are
operating. Cache locations are where they store their munitions.
That 35F would pull the significant activity from the CIDNE
database. In order to pull information from the system one would
have to know how to use the system.

I became the assistant Intel officer for the Brigade maybe
late January or early February. Our mission was to provide the
best threat picture to the Commander. Our focus was election
security at the time. The elections were in March 2010. Our day?
to?day operation consisted of us constantly updating the enemy
threat Intel assessment in order to maintain a good threat
picture and disrupt enemy operations.

My office was located in the SCIF. All of the all-source
Intel analyst work in the SCIF. My office was a room with
computers. The main section was open. there was an additional
room off to the side that nobody worked in, and the back room
had all the signal intelligence personnel. There were two
networks where PFC Manning and I worked at, the SIPR and the
NIPRNET workstations. Neither my team nor I had access to
systems that had a higher classification level than secret. We
had the ability to talk about it, to look at it, but we could
not directly access information higher than secret. The highest
level of information that I could access was secret information.

We had to burn CDs because we needed to share information
with the Iragi?s, so for that purpose we were also allowed to
burn CDs. While we deployed we often had discussions about
operational security and it was understood that you were not
supposed to do certain things that could compromise operational
security.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating that the witness was speculating.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

104

UB?mUiL-mMr?i




The computers that that 35F access was on the shared
network, which was the SIPRNET and its classification was
secret. There weren't any restrictions for accessing the shared
network due to the nature of our jobs. The general rule was that
if you pulled information off the SIPRNET at work that he had a
secret classification and it was only done for operational
purposes. Once something is on a classified system, it is
assumed to be classified and you can't take it off of a
classified system and put it on unclassified system. That is
considered spillage. Something that you are prohibited from
doing is taking information off of a classified system and
putting it on a personal computer, the Soldiers that worked for
me knew this, because they signed a nondisclosure agreement.
That rule was not supervised all of the time due to the fact
that we had very few people that could supervise the Soldiers in
doing that so we relied on the Soldiers training.

PFC Manning was very good at compiling data. He was very
good at importing and exporting Excel spreadsheets. PFC Manning
did this type of work occasionally for me, and he was given
understanding on what he was looking for in order to do this for
me. PFC Manning was a part of the team that evaluated the
violent extremist threat.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line the question
stating that it led to speculation.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

For the mission in Iraq PFC Manning did not need to be
looking at the Guantanamo Bay SOP, or Iceland.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel renewed his objection to the line of
questioning.

The Investigating Officer noted his objection.

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

105

mqmm-n-LuMH




PFC Manning look for and pulled several things from the
SIPRNET that did not pertain to his job, or was not relevant for
him to perform his duties.

I am familiar with the Apache video which is commonly
referred to as, "Collateral Murder." I became aware of it when
one of the Soldiers in the office was looking at it on a
workstation computer which is connected to the SIPRNET, which
was before April 2010. I do know that that video have been
released before PFC Manning was arrested, I had a conversation
with him about this video around the April timeframe. I was
speaking the section because I
like to know what they think, and I asked him what he thought
about that video that was released and PFC Manning stated that
he thought it was the same video from the SIPRNET, and I
disagreed with him. That was not the last time that I had any
communication with PFC Manning about that video. Then he sent me
an e?mail with two videos attached to it side?by?side one from
our SIPRNET and the other one that was released. He sent the e?
mail to me on SIPRNET, and the video that was released to
WikiLeaks was also now on SIPRNET.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I became a part of 2nd Brigade in September 2009, and my
duty position at that time was the assistant 82, and we deployed
to Iraq in November 2009. When we arrived in Iraq I was the 82
plans officer. And during that time my focus was on election
security. I did not have any Soldiers working directly for me as
the 82 plans officer. One of the Soldiers helped me with these
important projects was PFC Manning. I saw computer skills as a
strength and I use those strength as a part of my work as to
plan projects. When he was assigned project he completed the
project in a timely fashion. From November 2009 until March 2010
that was the bulk of the work that I was doing. PFC Manning
would also engage with me on other topics because he was
interested in topics that we discussed. Sometimes he would find
information for me based upon the things that we talked about.
Even though PFC Manning did a very good word for me I did not
believe that he was a very good analyst. But that is not
surprising because all Intel on this need to grow in the job of
being an analyst is not an easy one. Because PFC Manning was
still a junior I never asked him to do any analytical
work I just asked him to collect the data. My way of training

106

mummammr?J




PFC Manning would be to explain to him after the project was
completed the reason why needed the data for him to collect for
me. They would go to analyst in the entire shop, Staff Sergeant
Balonek that was because he was the most eXperienced. I have
seen Soldiers listening to music in the T-SCIF, because it was
on the shared network, the SIPRNET. And it was common for them
to transfer music from the SIPRNET to another network, but that
was not an acceptable process. No one ever told me that music on
the SIPRNET was a violation of the information assurance
security procedures.

Soldiers would watch movies and play computer games on
their computer workstations, and these were movies that they
would pull from the shared drive. The machines that we worked on
did not have MIRC chat on it but I believe it to be mission
essential. And I also believe that Google Earth was mission
essential as well. I'll use Google Earth to do analysis on
terrain. Master Sergeant Adkins was speaking to PFC Manning
within the SCIF but off to the side, and the conference room.
When I went in there I seen PFC Manning was upset sitting on the
floor and Master Sergeant Adkins was talking to him, he was
sitting on the floor with his hands wrapped around his knees,
kind of like curled up in a ball. I did not speak but Master
Sergeant Adkins later on that day to find out what was going on.
I brought Specialist Showman in later on that night because I
needed her to find a certain product. No one else in the SCIF
could find that product, I had someone go and wake her up, she
was not happy about being woken up and having to come back and
work.

At the time of the incident I had my back to both PFC
Manning and Specialist Showman, because I was on the phone.
Specialist Showman was upset with PFC Manning due to the fact
that he was playing a game on the computer, and I overheard PFC
Manning say, "You need to calm down because Captain Martin was
the one who brought you back in here." Then I heard curse words
and some shuffling then I turned around, and I saw Specialist
Showman with PFC Manning pinned on the ground. Later, after
everything calmed down Specialist Showman stated that PFC
Manning struck her in the face. Then I spoke to Master Sergeant
Adkins and told him that PFC Manning needed to be moved from the
SCIF, and that his weapon needed to be taken from him, and that
he needed to go to behavioral health. I viewed this as a
standard response of any Soldier that shows violence towards
another Soldier. I also felt that PFC Manning needed to have
derogatory information put into his file, which could have
resulted in him having his security clearance suspended and

107






00779

ultimately revoked. Basically the derogatory information
process as a way of tracking Soldiers with security clearances.
Since Master Sergeant Adkins was the SSR it was his duty to
report that information. I was aware of a previous incident
between PFC Manning and Specialist Padgett, it occurred early in
the deployment. I believe that derogatory information incident
should've been filed on that incident as well. 86 has the power
to suspend access to classified information for Soldiers who
have derogatory information in their files.

OBJECTION

The trial counsel objected to this line of questioning
stating relevance.

The defense counsel stated that he was asking the witness
to tell the Investigating Officer about the derogatory
information process and how quickly it could be implemented.

Investigating Officer stated that he made a ruling as to
the relevance of this line the question earlier before the
defense counsel to keep his questions brief.

The cross-examination by the defense counsel continue as
follows:

Once the Soldier clearance is suspended by the Commander
they do not have access to classified information.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:

After the incident between PFC Manning and Specialist
Showman I recommended that he be removed from the SCIF, and he
was removed from the SCIF which happened while Captain Lim was
on leave. I was not a part of any punitive measures so I'm not
sure what happened to PFC Manning for that incident. The proper
handling of classified information is a fundamental principle
that all Soldiers, regardless whether or not they are 35F,
should know.

RECROSS-EXAMIHAIION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

108




MI?lcakomcmmawmr-ono

Having a security clearance is not a right, it is a
privilege whether you are able to keep your security clearance
depends upon your actions. If you have adverse action you will
lose your security clearance.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.}

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1103, 18 December
2011.]

[The Article
December 2011.]

32 hearing was called to order at 1120, 18

Investigating Officer called the hearing to order, and
stated that all parties that were present prior to the recess
were again present.

SERGEANT FIRST CLASS PAUL ADKINS, U.S. Army, was called as a
witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

The witness stated that on the advice of his counsel he
invoked his Article 31 rights.

The defense counsel stated the witness invoking his Article
31 rights is an improper basis at this point.

The trial counsel
not intend on granting

stated that the Convening Authority did
the witness testimonial immunity.

The Investigating Officer stated that since the witness
invoked his Article 31 rights he is unavailable for questioning.

WARRANT OFFICER ONE KYLE BALONEK, U.S. Army, was called
telephonically as a witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and
testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

109






The witness stated that on the advice of his counsel he
invoked his Article 31 rights.

The defense counsel stated the witness invoking his Article
31 rights is an improper basis at this point.

The trial counsel stated that the Convening Authority did
not intend on granting the witness testimonial immunity.

The Investigating Officer stated that since the witness
invoked his Article 31 rights he is unavailable for questioning.

SERGEANT CHAD MADARAS, U.S. Army, was called telephonioally as a
witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I am assigned to 2/10 Mountain in Fort Drum, New York. I
met PFC Manning at Fort Drum and I worked with him on one JRTC
rotation and then I worked with him in Iraq. I met him in
either the summer or fall of 2008. I am a 35F, intelligence

analyst, PFC Manning has the same M05 as me. I attended AIT at
Fort Huachuca, Arizona. We learned how to read military signals
on a map, how to read a map, do PowerPoint presentations, and we

learned about classified information as well. I arrived at this
unit in November 2007. PFC Manning and I attended several
classes in the summer of 2008. At JRTC they just push down
information we analyzed and performed our jobs in an environment
that was simulated to what it would he like in Iraq. At JRTC we
both were different shifts. Then I deployed with PFC Manning, I
went in October of 2009 and he showed up a few weeks later. I
worked in the Brigade SCIF at FOB Hammer. PFC Manning worked at
the same place. I was a Shia team analyst and so was PFC
Manning, but we worked different shifts; he worked the night
shift and I worked the day shift. We shared a workstation, we
shared computers as well. We supported Mr. Balonek in finding
any information that he had on Shia targets in our area.
Typically, we would just read reports and try to link together
any targets that might be operating together. The majority of
the tasks that we did not complete on the daytime were left for
the night shift. PFC Manning often did not complete the tasks
that were left for him. We used Intelink, ArcMap, and CIDNE
Iraq to do our job. Never searched for WikiLeaks, Iceland,
Julian Assange, retention, Birgitta Jonsdottir, or Rekyavik.

110



00782

Sometimes we would use Intellipedia, to search for groups and
names and find out if there is any more information on a group,
terrorist groups. I never use PFC Manning's user profile for
anything. I didn't know any of his passwords either. My
computer operated out of the ordinary all of the time, and
whenever that happened I would have Mr. Milliman get it Up and
running again for me.


Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I first met PFC Manning in 2008, from what I remember of
him he was interested in US politics. At JRTC, if the computer
wasn't working PFC Manning would be the one to try and fix it.
I'm not really a computer guy, so I don't know much about
computers other than the basic operating systems.

The training that PFC Manning and I had at Ft. Drum did not
instruct us as to what we could and could not put on the
computer. I was a part of the advanced party for Bravo Company,
I left Fort Drum in October 2009 and I arrived at FOB Hammer
around 15 October 2009. During deployment I worked at the SCIF,
I worked as part of the Shia group, as did PFC Manning. I
worked day shift and PFC Manning worked the night shift, there
was no NCO supervisor during the night shift. The night shift
was tasked with finishing up the work that the day shift was
unable to complete. I do not know if during a deployment PFC
Manning was suffering from any issues. I saw a couple of
emotional outbursts that PFC Manning had during the deployment.
Sometime around December 2009 January 2010 Master Sergeant
Adkins had asked PFC Manning to remove a curtain that was
covering up a map I stood up to go and do it Master Sergeant
Adkins told me that he instructed PFC Manning to do it then PFC
Manning stood up slammed his chair on the ground and that is
when Master Sergeant Adkins took PFC Manning outside and tried
to calm him down. To the best of my knowledge no disciplinary
action happened to PFC Manning because of the incident. To my
knowledge out of all of the incidents that PFC Manning had while
in Iraq no formal punishment was done on him.

OBJECTION
Assistant Trial Counsel 2 objected to this line of

questioning stating the Investigating Officer already made a
ruling on this type of questioning.

111






The defense counsel stated that his line of questioning
goes to what the witness actually saw happen in the SCIF.

The Investigating Officer instructed the defense counsel to
limit his questions to only what the witness saw.

The cross-examination by the defense counsel continued as
follows:

Based upon PFC Manning?s actions from what I've seen I did
not believe that he would cause harm to himself or others. I do
not think that PFC Manning had friends within the unit.

The Investigating Officer informed the defense counsel that
his line of questioning seemed attenuated.

The defense counsel stated that according to RCM 405 he was
allowed to perform discovery and given latitude to cross?examine
witnesses.

The cross-examination by the defense counsel continued as
follows:

My personal knowledge is that it seemed as if PFC Manning
was an outcast within the unit, because he kind of separated
himself from other people in the unit. I do not recall any
training being done on SCIF rules and regulations. I did see
some Soldiers display movies, listen to music, and play games on
their workstations in the SCIF. One of the reasons why the
computers that PFC Manning and I worked on crashed could be
because there was too much stuff saved on the desktop. MIRC
Chat was on our computers; it allowed us to communicate with
other units. It was added to our computers only after we got to
Iraq. I don?t know how someone would add a program to the
computer only because I do not know a lot about computers.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:
PFC Manning and I both have the same MOS.
OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to that line of questioning
stating Assistant Trial Counsel 2 was leading the witness.

112






The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The redirect examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 2 continues
as follows:

PFC Manning and I both signed nondisclosure agreements.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]
[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1157, 18 December

2011.]

[The Article
December 2011.]

32 hearing was called to order at 1336, 18

The Investigating Officer called the hearing to order and
stated that all parties that were present prior to the recess
are once again present.

The Investigating Officer advised the participants and
persons observing that this is a formal investigation. In order
to protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings I would
ask that all present refrain from interrupting or otherwise
disturbing the investigation. Should any person nevertheless
engage in speech or conduct that interferes with the dignity and
decorum of the proceedings, they may be removed from this court.
Additionally, the rules of the hearing provided cell phones,
blackberries, and similar devices are not authorized in the
hearing and any person with such device may be removed from this
courtroom.

JASON MILLIMAN, Civilian, was called telephonically as a witness
for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:

I am currently a network engineer working with Task
Incorporated. I served in the military for twenty-one years.
Two years and seventeen days as the 723, a combat
telecommunications center operator and 33T is an electronics
repair guy. The electronics repair technician is responsible

113






for repairing electronics for military intelligence. We
repaired all of their electronic equipment.

At that time that job you had to have a top secret
clearance, but now I believe they only have to have a secret
clearance right. I retired from the Army 31 August 2005, then I
took a job working for General Dynamics, after that I took a job
at Sparta, and after Sparta I worked for C282. I was deployed
from November 2007 until December 2010. While I was deployed in
Iraq I was stationed at several different bases. I was at FOB
Hammer for about a year from July 2009 until July 2010, but I'm
not positive. While I was there I was a field software
engineer, I worked seven days a week. I was there the entire
time 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division was deployed to Iraq.
DCGS A, which stands for distributed common ground systems or
station I can't remember which one. It was the system in which
the use to keep databases on so they can obtain
information about threats in the area and it was my job to
ensure that the system_stayed up or never broke down. Basically
there were only two people that were able to perform system
maintenance on the laptops if anything happened, those two
people were me and what they called a mentor.

Typically I would have to work on one computer a day, and
that is in approximation. Corrupted PST and other information
happen quite often with people who are afraid to delete anything
off of the computer. Depending upon the nature of the problem,
if it was a fairly simple problem the mentor could handle it or
if the computer would not boot up or anything then I would have
to take the computer to my office to work computer could not be fixed and I would take the hard drive
out and I would replace it with another hard drive that was
working and get the computer back to the Soldier. I know
Private First Class Manning is one because he was one of the
in the SCIF where I worked. I did not interact with
PFC Manning every day I saw him every day but majority of the
time I would interact with PFC Manning is if he had a problem
with his machine. I saw Sergeant Madaras more than I seen PFC
Manning due to the fact that he worked on dayshift. Their
computer seemed to be the one that had the most issues, when I
asked them about it neither of them knew what was wrong with the
computer and PFC Manning said he didn't touch the computer to
try to fix it. The other interactions that I had with PFC
Manning would be that we may sit at the same table at chow not
very often. I really didn't have that much communication with
PFC Manning. I really don?t know too much about PFC Manning's
skills on working'on the computer.

HA

mameLuMnm.m

OBJECTION

Defense objected to this line of questioning stating
speculation.

The trial counsel stated that he will withdraw the
guestioo.

The direct examination by trial counsel continued as follows:

PFC Manning made known on the first day he used to have a
computer repair business of his own, which would've further he
has some sort of knowledge more than the average user. PFC
Manning has made the statement that ?if people knew what I could
do with the computer they would be amazed," I just chalked it up
to him bragging.

I know of the program WGet, but I never used it myself. I
was the only one authorized to install programs on those
computers, well also and some limited cases the mentors. I'm
not sure if Wget was an authorized program on that system. I
did not recall installing a program on the system.

MIRC chat was given the authorization to be installed on
those systems due to the fact that majority of the units use it
to communicate with one another. Soldiers could install that
software to the desktop, they were not supposed to but they
could have done it if they wanted to.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I retired in 2005. At the time that I retired I was an E7.
Eventually I got a job as the field software engineer, which job
I did from November 2007 until December 2010. I was not the
only field software engineer in Iraq there were others that were
out there that could lend a helping hand if I needed. Heat was
a major problem for those systems. They would run hot even in an
air?conditioned room. Prior to me having Soldiers place
Gatorade caps underneath their systems so air could get to them
they would crash quite often. I did not only work on them when
they crashed but with a lot of problems I had to work on. But
when they did crash they had to be repaired by me.

115

mummari00787

There were a lot of profiles on those machines for various
reasons. If there was a lot of stuff saved on the desktop it
would have a problem logging onto their profile so we would have
to delete their profile and create a new one sometimes that
fixed the problem. Those systems crash for numerous reasons.
Sometimes when those systems crash you will be able to recover
the information of the hard drive and then sometimes you would
not be able to become information. One of the ways that would
be able to recover the information of the hard drive after it
had crash would be by using a universal driver, which would
allow me to connect to the hard drive as if it was a external
hard drive, then I would be able to get the information off the
hard drive the same way you would get information off a thumb
drive. If Soldiers wanted software added to the system they
will come and asked me to add that program to their system since
I was basically the only one who had administrative rights to
add programs to that system. I was asked to install the
software that would allow the Soldiers to shrink the file so
that it could be sent over e?mail.

There was a series of channels that was required to be gone
through in order to install software on their system that was
not already approved and get. We took a couple of days to get
the software approved. I don't know if anybody who approved the
installation of the software was in the military. I was asked
to install MIRC chat, it is very similar to instant messenger it
was not part of the original baseline program. I did request to
have software programs installed on the system that were denied
that was initially, I don't recall what the name of the program
was. The determining factor for adding a software program to
the system was whether or not it worked well with the other
programs that were already on the system. Sometimes software
pregrams would be installed on the system without me knowing it,
but it was not a common occurrence. I did not recall seeing
WGET on those systems.

REDIRECT EXAMINAIION
Questions by the trial counsel:
a self executable program could be run from a CD and not
from the desktop. I was never asked by PFC Manning to install

WGET onto his machine.

EKAMINAIION BY THE ARTICLE 32 HEARING

Questions by the Investigating Officer:

115



r?lr?I
HOW




A ?mentor? is a subject matter expert on intricacies
usually of a program called ARC GIS, this one program is so
complicated you can get a masters degree in this program alone.
It takes a long time to become an expert in that program and
they would help Soldiers use it.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

[The Article 18 December

2011.]

32 hearing recessed at 1417,

[The Article
December 2011.]

32 hearing was called to order at 1428, 18

All parties that were present prior to the recess are again
present.

CAPTAIN THOMAS CHEREPKO, U.S. Army, was called telephonically as
a witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:

I am currently assigned to US forces I'm the deputy
CIS officer for Force Command Madrid. A CIS officer is a
computer and information systems officer, my duty here is to
assist the CIS officer in planning and executing for training
exercises and contingency operations for multinational NATO
forces. My branch in the Army is a functional area 53, an
Information Systems Manager. There are several different jobs
that we can hold so it depends on what your duty description is
at the current position your working.

I have been in the Army for 16 years; I have been and
automations officer since 2009. Prior to this MOS I was an
engineering officer. I did that for approximately 4 years.
Before becoming an officer I was a 19K that is an armored
crewman. The training that I received was I went through the
function area fifty?three overview training at Fort Gordon
Georgia, the information systems manager course. That course is
broken down into three phases the first phase is basically
networking the second phase is server systems, and the third
phase is information security.

U3






00789

My first assignment upon graduation was with 2nd Brigade,
10th Mountain, as the Brigade automations officer, and my
subsequent assignment is here at NATO as the deputy CIS officer.
I have deployed before to Iraq three times, in 2005, 2006 until
2008, and then again from 2009 until 2010. On my last
deployment I was stationed on FOE Hammer, Iraq. I first arrived
at that Brigade on October 1, 2009. We arrived at FOB Hammer
after the bulk of the main body had arrived, a few days after
TOA had occurred. While I was deployed I was the Brigade
automations officer, I was responsible for the NIPR and SIPRNET.
The NIPRNET is used strictly for unclassified information, while
on the NIPRNET you can surf the Internet basically the same
websites that you could go on at home you could go on using the
NIPRNET but with some restrictions, you're not supposed put
classified information on the NIPRNET. The SIPRNET is a global
intra?net for the Department of Defense, it is a closed network
that is classified up to secret. In order to have a separate
account you had to have a secret classification, completed the
required training, and shown a need that you needed to have
access to the SIPRNET for operational purposes. An AUP is an
acceptable use policy, it is a document that you review and sign
and it tells you what you can and cannot do on the network. I
don't remember if there's anything specific on classified
information while I was taking the information assurance
training online, it is just centered on all information security
within the government work area.

Several of my Soldiers and I were the administrators for
the SIPRNET. A network administrator monitors, maintains, and
ensures that there is communication twenty-four hours a day.

The system administrators were the only ones that were
authorized to install software programs on SIPRNET. I have
heard of the program WGET, that program was not authorized to be
installed on SIPRNET.

I am familiar with MIRC chat. It is a program that allows
you to communicate with a different end terminal, similar to
instant messenger. There was an operational need to use MIRC
chat, without it we would not have been able to communicate with
the aviation community. To my knowledge I do believe it was
authorized on the system. There is a requirement in the Army
regulation for everyone who uses the system to sign an AUP.
Private First Class Manning was already in theater when I
arrived in Iraq. I could not find PFC Manning's AUP when we
were asked to produce it. We were unable to find a few others
as well to include mine.

118




00790

Basically, an tells you what you are and are not
permitted to do on the network, and that the ultimate
responsibility of enforcing these rules falls upon the user. A
shared drive is much larger than a thumb drive that you have a
home, it is a server and is assessable to everyone on the
network connected by an IP address to the main server of the
network and uses it to connect to that drive and use it as a
hard drive for their work as well. Everyone referred to that
drive as the drive, the classification of the drive was
secret. The drive has been passed down from unit to unit for
the past several years, there were movies, music, and games on
that drive as well. There was no technical restriction to
prevent a Soldier from burning a CD of information that came
from the SIPRNET, there was no requirement and there was no need
to. There was nothing to prevent a Soldier from burning a CD
with classified information on it and taking it to his CHU.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I worked as the automations officer from my arrival in 2009
until I just last summer. The job of the Brigade
automations officer entailed this to establish manage maintain
and secure the Brigade's digital communications. My day will
begin by most people on the staff, I would check to ensure all
the backups have been installed, I would check my e-mails, then
I will proceed to check with the Soldiers at the help desk to
see what the major problems were, and then the rest of my day
consisted of troubleshooting networks and doing everything that
I could to keep the network operational. The functional area 53
course overall focuses on the technical aspects of running the
server running the network the course of the to give a fairly
good, it is the civilian Cisco Academy, the civilian Microsoft
Academy, that we attend for the courses it prepared us about as
well as you could in a nine-month course. The course is sort of
like any basic course, they train you on the most common aspects
of the job.

I could have possibly given a sworn statement on January 6,
2011. I don't recall everything that I said in my sworn
statement. I do not have my sworn statement or any notes
available to me because that is what I was instructed to do.

The course that we went to did not teach us the way the way the
Army does things. I arrived at FOB Hammer I believe it was the
middle of November 2009. I arrived after RIP TOA. Immediately

119






after I graduated from the course I worked as the Brigade
automations officer. When I got to the Brigade and Iraq I was
officially assigned the information assurance manager job I have
orders assigned to that job, I didn't have the official orders
until after I got in and got settled in that job.

I was the person in charge of ensuring the information
assurance practices were in place and that training was being
done as required. I did not conduct any additional training
that was required for the Brigade as a whole but for the
Soldiers that work for me I did conduct additional training for
information assurance. I coordinated through Brigade and II
Corps to have a team come in and assist the security of the
system that we were working on at FOB Hammer. Personally I
believed that we would be fine, but I was told that the tactical
network at 2nd Brigade was not accredited.

A package? is the collection of documents that are
submitted through Division to Netcom that would verify that the
systems and network is for software all whatever piece of
equipment that you are attempting to accredit meets the DOD
requirements for security and is therefore accredited through
the accreditation process. I did not complete a DIACAP package
I had not been trained in the preparation of a DIACAP package
either.

In March 2011, I received a letter of admonishment in that
letter was for failing to ensure that the Brigade network was
properly accredited. I would occasionally go to the TSCIF to do
some troubleshooting and to pick up other officers to go to
lunch.

OBJECTION

The trial counsel objected to the line the questioning
stating the defense had not laid a proper foundation.

The defense counsel responded by saying he was asking
information assurance questions of the witness.

Investigating Officer overruled the trial counsel's
objection.

The cross-examination by the civilian defense counsel continued
as follows:

rm




00792

I did not receive any inspections while I was
downrange, and I do not know why. DAIG-IA stands for the
Department of the Army Inspector General inspection, the Brigade
went through one well after we deployed. I never inspected the
SCIF. I did view inspecting the TSCIF as a part of my job. I'm
not sure if the TSCIF was inspected but I think that it was. I
do not know the TSCIF conduct itself inspections. I do not know
if there was the information assurance officer that was
specifically assigned to the TSCIF while we were deployed. I do
not know what the special security representative is so I am not
sure if the TSCIF had one.

I did know that there was music on the drive, there was
not one central location for where the music was stored. Music
was not authorized on the drive, and whenever I saw music I
would take it off. I?m not sure if anyone was punished by
having music on the drive, I made a recommendation as to
keeping music off of the drive but other than that, that was
about as far as it go. Movies, music, games, were not
authorized to be on drive and as a matter of fact it
specifically violated the agreement. I alerted my chain of
command of all the unauthorized programs on the network and I
requested that they put a stop to it. I'm not sure what actions
came out of it but I do know that it stop once we disconnected
the drive when reading when we redeployed to come back home. I
cannot say for sure whether or not 2nd Brigade was undisciplined
in their enforcement of information assurance, because I have
nothing else to compare it to.

Depending upon what type of program they wanted to install
there were different ways that they could go about doing it.
They will program the ticket at without going through an
administrator and in other programs they had to go to an
administrator to add that program. There was no memorandum that
stated will not put executable files on your system, besides the
AUP and the information assurance training that everyone
received.

If I would've found something light on authorized software
that was on if Soldiers computer the first thing that I would do
would be to notify their supervisor and inform them of what I
found informed him of the repercussions of what I found could be
and then I would leave it up to the first line supervisor to
determine what to do from there. This supervisor told me that
it was a mission essential program then I will have to call up
higher to get approval to have'the software left on the
computer. I am not all that sure about how the process worked

121






to get unauthorized software left the computer I would have to
look it up, but offhand I cannot tell you that right now is not
a quick process. More likely it would not have gotten approved
during a deployment. I have seen programs that are run as
executables from the desktop, I was given the CD from CID that
was an executable file, but I'm not sure whether or not it was
an authorized program.

If I was actively looking for an executable file on the
shared drive it would not be hard for me to locate that file. I
do know what a DEROG report is, and if the form is filed the 86
will be responsible for suspending that access to SIPRNET, and
it can be done in less than a minute. I tried to get rid of the
login accounts because it is just good practice to have
someone's name associated with account instead of just their
duty position. With role+based accounts I never really knew who
was actually using that account. Whenever the computer is
reimaged, all the user profiles that were on the computers and
then my Soldiers would have to go in and create a new user file
underneath their profile to ensure that the computer was
reimaged properly.

I was notified of PFC Manning's arrest the night that it
occurred. I do not know the exact day I just know that it was
the end of May 2010, by Captain Lim. I spoke to several CID
agents about PFC Manning's arrest. They were asking me about
these server logs that would show activity on the network and
activity on shared drive and e?mail logs that would show
activity on e?mails. I was able to pull some of them up but we
did not maintain all of them, we only had a limited amount of
space so we only focused on the ones that pertain to fixing a
computer. CID did ask me to make an image of the computer, they
asked him to do that the same night they showed up to our camp
to arrest PFC Manning.

One of the Soldiers created that image I'm not sure which
one but I know it was one of my Soldiers who created it. I
don't recall exactly which one they asked me to make the image
for but I believe it was for the supply Sergeant?s computer. I
was concerned about making a forensic image due to the fact that
I assisted in an investigation prior to this one and I just
wanted to ensure that whatever I did would not taint the data
collected in any way. In response to that the CID agents told
me that the computer has not been seized yet so there is no need
for you to worry about messing up the computer and it has been
so long since the incident has happened it is probably already
corrupted. I was asked to make a copy of PFC Manning folder and

122





log files from the server after the arrest of PFC Manning. I
spoke with the agent from CCIU who walked me through the process
of how to make a copy that maintains the metadata, and that is
when the CID agent sent me the executable program.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the trial counsel line of
questioning stating that he was leading the witness.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The redirect examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

I am not entirely sure what the log data contained.
OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the trial counsel's
questioning stating releVance.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The redirect examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

Nothing happened to my system per se, but a week or two
later the Brigade executive officer had a meeting with the staff
to figure out what we can do to prevent this from happening
again.

OBJECTIOH

The defense counsel objected to the trial counsel's
questioning stating that it was argumentative.

The trial counsel stated that the defense asked the same
question to the witness during cross?examination.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense counsels
objection.

The redirect examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

123









To my knowledge I do not believe any Soldier had
disciplinary action taken against them for violation of the
information assurance rules.

RECROSS-EXHHINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

During our meeting with the Brigade executive officer we
put together a sort of corrective training for the derogatory
report process, basically that was designed to reemphasize to
leaders that they needed to follow the proper procedures when
Soldiers.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
ended the phone call.]
[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1538, 18 December
2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1551, 18
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the hearing to order and
stated that all parties that were present prior to the recess
were once again present.

The trial counsel requested that the Investigating Officer
close the hearing to determine if any classified information in
this case should be heard in a closed session.

The Investigating Officer closed the hearing to determine
if any classified information in this case should be heard.

[The Article 32 hearing closed at 1553, 18 December 2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing opened at 1745, 18 December 2011.]

Investigating Officer called the hearing to order reflected
on the record that the hearing is now open. All parties that

were present prior to the hearing being closed are now again
present.

The Investigating Officer stated that during the closed

hearing he made the determination that classified evidence was
properly classified and that protecting classified information

124






is an overriding interest that outweighs the value of an open
proceeding and considered other methods of protecting classified
information and determined that no other means other than
closure can protect an overriding interest. There will be a
closed hearing tomorrow morning no earlier than 10 AM.

The defense objected to the closed hearing.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was called as a witness
for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by assistant trial counsel 1:

I work for the Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit. I
began working for them in 1999, at the time I was in the
military as a CID agent and an investigator. I am in a
supervisory position now, I am the Special Agent in charge of
the digital forensics and research branch. Our job is to
conduct examinations of digital media in support of CCIU cases.
The primary mission is to investigate any intrusion into any
Army computer worldwide, however we are tasked to do other
stuff.

I have received training from several locations. The first
would be the Law Enforcement Training Center, in Glencoe,
Georgia; the Defense Cyber Crime Center in Maryland, and I have
been trained on various commercial products as well. Products
such as a forensic product called ENCASE, which is a computer
forensic program that allows you to examine digital media. I
received training on Windows, Unix, Linux, and Macintosh. I
hold several certifications; I am a certified computer crime
investigator, an ENCASE certified examiner, and net plus.
The certification is a hardware?based certification. Net
Plus is a network?based certification. I have published
articles related to the field of computer forensics. I co-
authOred a chapter on Windows forensics in the handbook of
digital forensics investigations. I have given several
scholarly presentations. A virtual machine is where we
developed a process to take a forensic image and turn it into a
virtual machine on your host computer. By using a virtual
machine you can gain the perspective of examining the computer
as a subject has used it.

125








nomadic?













I was notified of this case in late May of 2010, I examined
pieces of media related to this case. The first things I
examined were two SIPR computers. They were his primary and
secondary computers. An IP is an Internet protocol address,
which is a set of numbers that are unique to each computer. I
am familiar with Intelink, Intelink is Google of the SIPRNET. I
examined Intelink logs, those log files ranged from October 2009
until May 2010. From the logs I was able to obtain the majority
of the activity that happened on the computer. I identified
some kind of query and then I ran a search against log files for
that query, after that I verified it as well. I put them into
an Excel spreadsheet for ease of review. I noticed that there
were a lot of searches that seemed out of place, the keyword
searches that he was using seemed out of place for his job.

[The trial counsel published screenshot documents for the
witness to view on a monitor.]

That is a screenshot of the Excel spreadsheet that I
created called keywords. It is a filtered spreadsheet of the
keyword searches for WikiLeaks. From November 2009 through May
2010, I found over one hundred searches for WikiLeaks under PFC
Manning's profile. This is a different screenshot from that
same Excel spreadsheet; this time we filtered on the keyword
Iceland. The first search for Iceland was 9 January 2010, it is
only filtered on the keyword Iceland and this came from PFC
Manning's profile. This is another screenshot from the same
Excel spreadsheet; this time I filtered on the keyword
retention, and it was searching for the retention of
interrogation videos. That search was done 28 November 2009,
that was the first time that he searched for it.

The Intelink program also the captured the use of a WGET
program to download a large number of files. WGET is a command
line utility to download files from a Web server. Command line
means it is non graphical, meaning that you have to open up a
command prompt and then you are able to type the commands, it is
like a 003 program. WGET is not a standard program on an Army
computer. As part of my job to investigate intrusions, I get a
list of authorized software and WGET is not on that list. The
first time that I saw PFC Manning access WGET was March of 2010.
This is another portion of the screenshot of the Excel
spreadsheet that I created for Intelink. This portion is
filtered on the word WGET. The server in question was a
SharePoint server, so it stores files by ID number, it is a
database. The numbers beside the file ID number represent the
action that was taken for the searches, if a document was

126






downloaded, if the search came back, file not found, things of
that nature. There were over seven hundred examples of the
computer using WGET commands for the month of March pertaining
to JTF Guantanamo Bay detainee suspects. I know this because I
downloaded the same documents using the same program, and I used
the same path. And I know that they were the same documents
that were on the WikiLeaks website because I compared the two.

When we conduct a forensic examination, the first thing we
do is we verify the hashes, that the acquisition matches their
verification hashes. We scan the computer for antivirus and
then we generally conduct keyword searches. So when I began my
forensic examination the first thing that I look at is the hash
values of the images. The hash values have to match because if
they don't match, then there is a problem with the image. The
hash values of the acquiring image and of the image that I
looked at matched. The primary tools that I use to examine
computers are ENCASE. I plug keywords into ENCASE and then I
search for keywords, I search both the allocated and the
unallocated spaces. Allocated space is places on the hard
drive, files that are created that you can see, such as a Word
document or e?mail. Unallocated space is places on the hard
drive which have not been used yet or it may contain deleted
files. I was also able to recover deleted files, because
deleted files are still on the hard drive until something is
written over top of them.

With respect to the [dot] .22 computer, I was given a
series of chat logs, they were statements concerning the
Department of State, JTF Guantanamo Bay Cuba, things like that,
so that is where I started my keyword list. The chat logs were
collected from Mr. Lamo, I was looking for things that were
identified in the chat logs. I did a search in the allocated
space, and I found four complete JTF Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
detainee assessments. I knew that they were detainee
assessments because I read them. They were under PFC Manning's
user profile. This computer had two web browsers on it,
Internet Explorer and Firefox. The configuration for the
Internet explorer web browser was a standard Army configuration
where the user could not clear the Internet history. The
Internet history on a Windows computer would be stored in a file
called index.dat. It stores Internet information as well as
files that were opened up on the computer. The other web
browser on the computer was Firefox, it was configured to have
Intelink as its homepage and to auto start private browsing when
it started.

12?






I found a [dot] .zip file under PFC Manning's user profile
and inside of it were over ten thousand complete Department of
State cables, web pages. I also found an Excel spreadsheet, it
was a spreadsheet with three tabs, the first tab was WGET, the
second tab was 0310-0410, and the third tab was 0510. In the
second tab was Department of State message record numbers that
were published between March 2010 until April 2010, they were
sequential, whoever did this was obviously keeping track of
where they were, the first number was 251,288, and then a
sequential number after that. To my knowledge WikiLeaks has
released 251,287 cables. On a third tab it was all of the
Department of State cables that were published in May 2010. It
was just message record numbers not the full cable.

There was a WGET tab in there as well, it was over ten
thousand message record numbers, the second column was the
command line using WGET that downloaded that message record
number from the Department of State net centric server. The
first column is the message record number, and there's about ten
thousand there. The next column is a script, it's a
mathematical computation basically saying take everything that
is in column A and put it in column B, but in the right path.

The Investigating Officer stated that it would be easier to
understand if they were able to see the document that the
witness was talking about.

The trial counsel informed the Investigating Officer that
although the document is not classified it is currently marked
as classified and that is the reason why he was not able to
display the document in open court.

The defense counsel objected to all parties viewing the
document from the jury box stating that it would be better for
everyone to recess and reconvene tomorrow when the problem is
fixed.

The trial counsel stated that his direct line of
questioning would not take that much longer and requested to
continue with the questioning of this witness.

The Investigating Officer stated that it would be better

for all if the trial counsel just continued with his line of
questioning explaining the document in detail.

128

memmemloua




The trial counsel gave the document number to the
Investigating Officer so that he would be able to review it once
he went back to his chambers.

The direct examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 1 continued as
follows:

In Column it is an Excel formula, to take what is in
Column script so it could identify the
file. After you have all of column filled, you would be able
to copy that column as text and put it in a batch file: and run
the batch file in a command script. There were about ten
thousand commands in that batch, and I saw those message record
numbers on the left, they were downloaded into the original zip
file I discussed earlier.

This is all under PFC Manning?s user profile. In the
Windows prefetch folder there were several instances of WGET
being run. Prefetch is a Windows feature to speed up the
computer. The computer will identify programs that you use on a
regular basis, so the next time you run the program it will load
quicker. You can run that program WGET at the same time from
various locations; that way you will be able to download a lot
of files simultaneously.

WGET was in PFC Manning?s profile, it appeared 4 May 2010.
It was not the first time that he used that file because there
were prefetch files predate that. Within the Windows temp
folder there were two files, these files each contained
approximately 100 complete Department of State cables, these
files were in CSV format and they contained a base 64 encoded
version of the cables. A CSV file is a Comma Separated Value.
It is just a way of moving files from one database to another.
Base 64 is an encoding scheme, it transforms data and documents
into a different format. Someone would do that to streamline
the process of taking the cables out; it took away all the
punctuation, all the spacing, and just put the information in
straight base 64. I found evidence in the unallocated space; I
identified thousands of the State Department complete cables.
They were unclassified or secret. They were not all complete.

Other information that I found relating to detainee
information was ISNs, the Internment Serial Numbers, which are a
unique pattern of characters. I did a search for them and I
found hundreds of documents with that convention. The ISN is
the internment serial number and is used as an identifier. I

129






00801

found ISNs on PFC Manning?s computer.
index.dat file-

They were found in the

I am familiar with the charges and specifications. I found,
in the allocated space, the movie, actually several movies: one
was the released version from WikiLeaks and there was another
version which appeared to be the source file for it. The first
instance of that video being there was March, through
examination of the restore points I was able to determine that.
Restore point is another Microsoft feature and they are created
when an operating system is updated or program is installed so
if there's a problem with the computer you can go back in time
and get your computer to work again.

I do recognize that image, this is a screenshot of the
ENCASE program displaying from left to right the filename which
is the restore point, the middle column shows you the 12 July
2007 CZ engagement zone file was present under PFC Manning's
profile. I believe the first time it was viewed was 2 March
2010. There were no restore points before the month of March
due to the fact that the computer had problems and it was
reimaged prior to that.

I found information relating to an investigation done on a
military operation in Afghanistan. Within the index.dat file
there were hundreds of files which appeared to be part of the
incident, and I recovered deleted PDFs and JPEG images
pertaining to the Gharani incident. That is an image of the
index.dat which I put into an Excel spreadsheet for ease of
viewing. It is just a snippet of it. From left to right you
have the date column and to the right of that you have the URL,
what sites were visited. The date is April 10, 2010, says
Bradley.Manning as a file. That means that it is a file on the
computer not a website and then you continue reading and it
gives the path. It appears that somebody using the
Bradley.Manning user profile downloaded a large number files
concerning the Farah incident and at the end created a
Farah.zip. All of this was time sequential. In unallocated
space I recovered numerous JPEG images and PDF files, they
appear to be from presentations, screenshots of presentations,
pictures from aircraft, reconnaissance over the combat zone.
[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1834, 18 December

2011.]

130

mummieme

00802

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0934, 19
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the hearing to order, and
stated that all parties present prior to the recess were once
again present.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded that he was still under oath,
and testified in substance as follows:


Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I did the COmputer forensics on both of the computers that
were sent to my office that PFC Manning usedbit analysis of all the SIPR computers in the SCIF. I do
not know the total number of SIPR computers in the SCIF. I do
not know if the program WGET was on the other computers.

WGET is a program that is used for data miningdata mining. Yesterday I stated that
WikiLeaks released over 250,000 cables. And during my analysis
I found diplOmatic cables in the file called files.zip, that
file was found in allocated computer space. I did not compare
the cables that I found in the file with the cables that were on
the WikiLeaks website. None of those cables that I found in the
files.zip folder were on the WikiLeaks website. The computer
that I found these cables on was a SIPR computer. I was not
aware that were directed to look at these cables. I
was not aware that no password was required to access these
files. I did not know that there was no prohibition for any
analyst to download these files.

you cannot date and timestamp things that are in
the unallocated space. And with unallocated space there is
nothing that you can tie to one particular user. I found the
video that has been called the Apache video; it was on one of
the SIPR computers. I did not know that the Apache video was a
topic of discussion among the at FOB Hammer. I did not
know that these were talking about and watching this
certain Video back in December 2009. If a file has been deleted
and the space that was allocated and has been written over I
cannot find out what that file was. I testified that WGET was
used to download hundreds of files onto the allocated space of

Generally,

131



c.cthe computer.
assessments,

In the allocated space I found four detainee
and in the unallocated space I found zero.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:
The cables in the files.zip folder were not released.
OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating it was cause for speculation.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense's
objection.

The redirect examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

When the files.zip was created there was something wrong,
there was a problem with it, if a person using WinZip tried to
open it, it would not open because it was a corrupted file. So
you would need special tools in order to open the files in that
tip folder.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected stating the trial counsel was
asking leading questions.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

The redirect examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

I did find files related to the Farah investigation in the
unallocated space. I found four detainee assessments in the
allocated space. I did find evidence of the detainee
assessments in the index.dat file folder. The detainees have a
unique naming system, the I looked for the pattern fur that
and there were hundreds of those in the index.dat. The
index.dat file is a Microsoft file used to log all of the
websites and files viewed by the user.

RECROSS-EXBMINATION

132

moonimtnemmrQuestions by the civilian defense counsel:

I was not able to open the form of file on unallocated
space. I testified that the files.zip folder was corrupted I
was not able to tell when it was corrupted.

The Investigating Officer closed the courtroom.

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1012, 19 December
2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1016, 19
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer opened the courtroom.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was called as a witness
for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by assistant trial counsel 1:

An IP address is an Internet protocol address. It is a
unique set of numbers that is assigned to a computer so that it
can talk on the network. The [dot] .40 machine was the machine
that PFC Manning?s user profile was on. That was his secondary
computer. I verified the acquisition and verification hashes,
the hashes matched. Then I scanned it with antivirus, then I
conducted my examination._

The configuration of this computer was that it was a
classified computer, a Windows operating system on the Army
domain. It has CD burning tools, it had Roxie that was
installed on the computer. Roxie is CD burning software. Roxio
was on the other computer, the [dot] .22 computer that also had
PFC Manning's user profile on it. USB ports were disabled for
storage, it is an Army policy. On both computers the USB ports
were disabled. When you burn a disk using Roxio, the CD has to
be named and it was named by date. This image is an artifact,
the naming of a CD that I burned when I re?created, I turned the
[dot] .22 computer into a virtual machine. A virtual machine is
a bit by bit image of a computer, it converts it to a running
computer within your computer which acts as a host, so it is
running virtually in the memory of the host computer. I wanted
to verify that a CD could be burned from this computer and so I

EB






turned it into a virtual machine,
burned a disc.

logged on as a user and then I

My investigative plan for the[dot] .40 computer was the
same thing as the [dot] .22, to see if there were any
Department of State cables, see if there were any Guantanamo Bay
detainee assessments on there. I approached it the same way.

In the unallocated space I located a deleted CSV file containing
over 100,000 complete Department of State cables, which had been
converted to Base 64 format. A CSV is a Comma Separated Value;
it is just a way of transferring data from one database to
another area. The utility of a CSV is a common format, and
between each field there is a comma. Base 64 is just a way of
encoding information, the benefit for it in this case would be
to remove all of the characters, all of the grammatical

characters. When something is base 64 encoded it looks like, to
the untrained eye, gibberish. I found more than 100,000 full
cables.

The image is a very small portion of the recovered CSV

and what I've done for this one is, to keep it presentable
in open court; I filtered it on some of the unclassified
Department of State cables. On the left, the first field would
be the numbers, the person who was doing this wanted to ensure
that he obtained all of them, so each one of them had a unique
number. The second field is the date of when it was published,
when the actual cable itself was published on the Department of
State server, this is the Message Record Number, MRN. A message
record number is how the Department of State labels their
cables. And to the right of that is the base 64 stuff that I
spoke of. There is a reverse process to decode base 64. It
presents the information in plain text. And I was able to
decode these cables.

file,

I found this deleted CSV in unallocated space, but I could
not associate that with a user profile. You can decode manually
One at a time, but that would be very time-consuming and prone
to errors. Through scripting you can create an automated process
to decode for you in a very quick manner. I did not find a
script to decode it on this computer. I did not find any other
data sets on the [dot] .40 computer.

I do recognize that image, which is the warning banner for
the computers, [dot] .22 and the [dot] .40 computers. When you
first start the computer and try to log on, you are presented
with this warning banner. The first sentence states, "You are
accessing a US government (USG) information system that is

134

mummemMI?l




provided for US government authorized use only." When a user
first logs on to the computers that I examined, you?re first
prompted with this warning screen and then you have to press
okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

The CSV file that I just discussed was in unallocated
space, so I cannot say that it was PFC Manning that accessed
this information. I do not know whether usernames and passwords
were shared at the on FOB Hammer. The unallocated space
with the cables cannot be date and time stamped. I found this
information on a classified computer; there is nothing wrong
with this information being on a classified computer. I did not
find any forensic evidence that this information was sent to
anyone.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

SPECIALIST ERIC BAKER, U.S. Army, was called as a witness for
the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I'm assigned to the 62nd MP Detachment at Ft. Drum, New
York. Currently I am an investigator on the drug suppression
team; I am a military police officer, 31B. I have been the Army
for 3 years and 11 months; I have been an MP the whole time. I
know PFC Manning because he was my roommate in Iraq, and he was
in my unit, HHC, 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain. I first met PFC
Manning October 2008 before deployment. Yes, we went on both of
the JRTC rotations together. I think one was in October and then
I don't know when the other one was.

The first JRTC rotation was October 2008; we were training
for Afghanistan, and then the second one we were training for
was Iraq. We didn't have too much interaction at all during the
deployment; we were just roommates. I noticed that PFC Manning
would use the computer quite often, basically any chance that he
could get he would be on the computer, I never noticed what was
on his screen. I do not remember exactly when PFC Manning went

135






on his mid?tour leave but I do know that it was two weeks before
I took mid?tour leave which I took at the end of January.

My mid-tour leave lasted from the end of January until the
beginning of March. He was alone in our CHU for most of
February. PFC Manning had a MacBook Pro, a microphone, an
external hard drive, and a Ipod Touch. I had a laptop and an
external hard drive for my movies. I never used his computer;
he had his iPod touch, and some of the CDs which were out of the
plastic wrap, and I?m not sure what type of CDs they were. I
did not have any rewritable CDs inside of our CHU, I never
brought CDs that were marked secret into our trailer, I never
marked anything secret inside of our trailer.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating relevance.

Assistant Trial Counsel 2 stated it goes to the accused's
state of mind.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The direct examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 2 continued as
follows:

I didn't know too much about his feelings in the military,
but I do know that he planned on getting out of the military. I
remember him mentioning that the military was not for him.

CROSS-EXBMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

Since I was the last lower enlisted to get FOB Hammer, the
First Sergeant told me that was the only room available for me.
Even though PFC Manning and I were roommates we were not
friends, we hardly ever talked. One of the first things that
PFC Manning spoke about gave me the impression that he was gay,
and after that I told him it would probably be better if we just
didn't talk to each other. When PFC Manning was not at work he
was in the room on his computer, the only people that I seen him
associate with were the ones that he worked with and that was
only during chow time. I do have a laptop and an external hard
drive, I did not have any CDs I could have if I wanted to but I
chose not. I went on mid?tour at the end of January, and it

136






came back the beginning of March. I do not know exactly when he
came back. PFC Manning made the statement to me that he did not
think the Army was for him, when he made that statement I did
not think that he said it because he was gay.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

MARK JOHNSON, Civilian, was called as a witness for the
prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I work for Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit; I began
working for them in June 2006. I am not a special agent for
CCIU, I am a contractor, and I work for Man tech International.
I am a computer forensic examiner, I'm assigned to the digital
forensics and research branch, my supervisor is Special Agent
David Shaver. Before working for them I worked for a different
defense contractor, in information assurance and network
operations. I have been through the defense cyber crimes
curriculum that includes a number of courses; I'm certified as a
digital media collector, the forensic examiner, and the computer
crimes investigator. The Defense Cyber Crimes Center is also
known as DC3. I am a certified information systems security
professional, also known as CISSP.

I examined a forensic image obtained from PFC Manning's
personal laptop computer; it was an Apple Mac Book Pro. After I
received the forensic image we validated the MD5 hash that was
included within that to verify that it had not been changed and
that it was the correct image. I verified that image. The
normal procedure for me after that would be to run an antivirus
scan to ensure that there was nothing on it that didn?t belong
there. Once we completed that then we will begin our
examinations depending upon what we are looking for. In this
case we were looking for two specific things, we were looking
for evidence of Internet chats. We were also looking for
classified information or US government information.

The first thing that I did since I knew that I was looking
for Internet chats I looked for the presence of instant
messaging programs on his computer, and I found the installation
of Adium, it is a chat program designed for the Mac is a multi?
protocol Internet chat program that works with a number of

13?

00809

different applications. Multiprotocol means that it works with
different networks, so you can sign in on Adium and chat under
any number of instant messenger usernames. We would be able to
see the profile for Private Manning if he had it configured and
if it was configured if any logs were associated with the
account. We found chats, chat logs in question here were with
Mr. Adrian Lamo. I do recognize that image this is a screenshot
of the chat logs that we recovered from PFC Manning?s machine.
This chat is between PFC Manning and Adrian Lamo.

The defense counsel requested a brief conference.

The Investigating Officer granted the defense counsel's
request.

[The Article 32 hearing was recessed to order at 1046, 19
December 2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1343, 19
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the hearing to order.

MARK JOHNSON, Civilian, was recalled as a witness for the
prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

The username of the two personnel in the chat logs as I can
recall was bradass87 referring to Bradley Manning, and Adrian
for Adrian Lamo.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating the witness was making an assumption as to who the
username belonged to.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

The direct examination by Assistant Trial Counsel 1 continued as
follows:

The content was of various topics, WikiLeaks, government
information, as well as topics related to general interest. I

138






also found a buddy list, Adrian was listed in there, and we also
found one named Press Association. The alias that is associated
with Press Association at the time was Julian Assange.

I do recognize that image, it is a screenshot of the buddy
list in the XML file for Adium. this
refers to the account Manning was using on his computer to
communicate. The Press Association is the recipient or the name
in the buddy list and the alias is the name that was associated
with that it, that nickname if you will. This was in the
allocated space.

In the un-allocated space we found the alias Nathaniel
Frank which is also associated with Press Association. Once we
found that we looked for other references to the press
Association account on his computer in conjunction with
Nathaniel Frank. We found a large collection of further Adium
logs in unallocated space with that combination. These were
chat logs between Bradley Manning and Press Association with the
alias Nathaniel Frank.

Adium stores its logs in XML format and the version in the
unallocated space was in that format. The substance of the chat
was predominantly discussions of government information and
specifically receiving or sending the information. And these
chats were found in unallocated space, there was a date
associated with these chats but I do not recall. This is a
screenshot of a cleaned up version of the logs that were in
unallocated space, without cleaning it up you are able to read
but it would be hard to understand. What you see here is the
spreadsheet version of the chat logs, the headings have been
bolded for readability. We were able to extract between 14 and
16 pages of chat logs. I read the chats, and the people in the
chats seemed to be familiar with each other. In the chats they
did discuss WikiLeaks, and various other things that I do not
recall at this time.

I did find evidence of connections between other computers,
in both the chats with Nathaniel Frank and the previous ones we
had noticed the conversation about SFTP, it is a function of the
SSH communication protocol used for transferring files, it
stands for secure file transfer protocol. SSH is a way of
communicating with a remote computer using an
communication point. When we did this we found in the Bradley
Manning home folder, the known host file SSH in his home
profile. This is a screenshot of that known host file obtained
from Bradley Manning's computer. That is an IP address on the

139



00811

top left, that particular address resolves to the ownership
of PRQ, our investigation revealed that it is an ISP based in
Sweden which is known to be affiliated with WikiLeaks. The
second IP address resolves back to Verizon communications and
through our investigation we traced it back to Bradley Manning's
aunt. Once we found those IP addresses we looked for other
references to those addresses, we did find some in unallocated
Space which referenced back to the collateral murder video.

Thunderbird is a client e~mail program for various

operating systems to include OS X. An e~mail cache keeps a copy
of local e-mail from your online account; PFC Manning's online
account was a Gmail account. We looked through his e?mail cache
and found a number of PGP e-mails, PGP stands for,
"Pretty good privacy," it provides eemail messages.
There are affiliated versions such as GPG and open GP. I believe
GPG is Gnu Privacy Group. PFC Manning sent Eric Schmiedl an
message using GPG. I found one message
between PFC Manning and Eric Schmiedl. There were also messages
between PFC Manning and Eric Schmiedl. The
message was a failed act by PFC Manning to enable
the In order to read a message I needed to have and
obtain PFC Manning?s private key and also the password to unlock
the private key. With that I was able to do read the email.
The password was the same as his PGP, as well as the 08 ten. He
has his computer set to automatically log himself on so because
of that I was able to access his information through forensics.
His password was When I typed it in I was able to
receive the output text.

Macbook Pro had a way to insert CDs, we found that a number
of CDs have been burned and erased over time. This is a
screenshot of the disk utility log maintained by the Mac GB
system it shows where a CD rewritable media had been burned and
where it had been erased. I cannot tell what kind of files were
on the CDs. During the investigation a CD had been found in PFC
Manning?s housing unit that contained a file name, "The
engagement zone," we looked for that same string on his hard
drive and we found that name in conjunction with the string, it
was a CD that was marked secret. In 08X, in order to attach a
disc of any kind to the system it has to have a mounting point.
Mac uses this last volume as that mount point name, think of it
as a starting point of the directory. We wanted to see what
other discs may have been attached to this computer at some
point so we looked for the string, "Volumes," and we found
evidence of this. This is a screenshot of the unallocated space
of what I just explained; in the next section would be the disc

um






00812

name and the file. The last part is the file name. We found a
list of disks and also a list of files that were attached at the
time. This is a screenshot of an output of some of the volumes
that we found in unallocated space that references that string.
All these have to have a name of some sort in the Mac OS, the
next thing after that would be your disk name. If a user had
not specified a disk name that would be the exact same way that
Roxio would do it. The date of the first disc would be February
15, 2010. Then following the disk name you would have path and
file name for whatever was on a particular optical media. The
disc names were found to be a match to the same discs that were
burned on the SIPR computers. The last volumes record in this
screenshot is files.zip. That was burned May 4, 2010. This was
found in the unallocated space, which means that it was deleted.
The allocated and unallocated space on the Mac is similar to
that on windows. We exported out the unallocated space and we
examined it in a forensic tool to attempt to identify files that
may have existed in that space at one point. HTML is the
language of the web, the webpage if you will. These HTML files
were of web pages obtained for the Net Centric Diplomacy
website, otherwise known as the Department of State cables. I
recognize this image; this is an unclassified cable that we
obtained from Private Manning?s laptop in unallocated space. We
have various terms down here that would be consistent with the
cable; we have an Embassy name in part of the MRN number. This
particular cable is unclassified but we did find numerous
references for other cables from unclassified through secret. I
searched further for MRNs on this computer: we identified
approximately 16,000 unique MEN numbers in unallocated space on
the computer.

We found CSV files in the unallocated space. I found a
script, which is a miniature program designed in this particular
case to process input files to output files. It appeared to be
a PHP formatted script, PHP is a scripting language more
commonly used on web servers but it can also be used on a
standalone computer. I recognize this image, it is a screenshot
of a script that we found in unallocated space, in this
particular case it is designed to take an input file and output
a comma separated value file. In this case HTML formatted files
and the output would be comma separated values. Once we found
this script we exported out this script and then we put it into
an environment so we could execute it in the same environment
that PVT Manning would have. We were able to boot his hard
drive using our investigative Mac, an alternate boot if you
will. We ran the script and it outputted the CSV file as
expected when provided with an input file of cables provided by

141






Special Agent Shaver.
on the SIPRNET.

The input came from the classified cables

I recognize this image, that is a screenshot that we
obtained during the execution of this script. For each line,
every time it processes a cable it outputs sort of a status line
to the console screen. We found web pages in the unallocated
space referencing the WikiLeaks upload page. We found what
appears to be status or progress excerpts, this is a collection
of URLs on the WikiLeaks upload webpage with an upload
identifier. I recognize this image, this is the progress
screen, it is all in unallocated space as you can clearly see
the URL being used. We found additional references to the same
progress for the remaining parts. This image is a screenshot of
the files that we were able to find in unallocated space on a
status screen. This is a cleaned up copy, and information on
the left is like I just described it. A rar archive file format
is designed to take multiple input files and consolidate them
into a single archive, and it can also compress them, it is very
similar to zip format which is more commonly seen. The
extension at the end, NC is commonly used with the
program. is a program designed to data. This
image is a screenshot taken from the allocated space, which
indicated the command used to execute the program. AES
stands for advanced standard, it is a highly secure
algorithm developed by an open competition on the
net. I found other references to the rar archive on the
computer, we found references to it in conjunction with
unallocated space, but it is a path pointing to Private
Manning's desktop. We extracted the UC from everything else
using a tool called steg carver, which is a tool to examine a
file or component of other files. It is designed to find files
within other files. Using this tool we found remnants of a rar
archive, it was corrupted and in unallocated space, which is not
uncommon, but by executing the repair function within the winrar
program we were able to recover it enough to open the contents.
It appeared to be some discussions of a military nature, a
briefing, it was clearly marked classified. We also found these
pictures on the SIPR computer.

We found a text based file in unallocated space, a string,
it appeared to be a tasker, something they wanted to obtain was
a global address list for Iraq. The image is the tester that I
just described. I found other evidence of the global address
list on PFC Manning?s computer; I found a number of exchange
formatted e?mail addresses in the unallocated space as well,
thousands of them. We found several items that were on the

142






WikiLeaks website that were also on PFC Manning?s personal
computer in the unallocated space of his computer. There was
evidence that his computer had been wiped or erased, first the
machine had been wiped in January 2010r during that time the
operating system had been reinstalled. We found references to a
disk utility log that indicated that the unallocated space had
been erased in later January, but it had not been completed.
What that means is that everything on the computer had been
erased and written over before 25 January 2010, and the
unallocated space had been erased and written over on 31
January 2010.

The witness authenticated the following documents:

00409680
00409681
00409682
00409683

CROSS-EXAMIHATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

I am certified in computer forensics through 0C3. My work
generally is with Windows?based products; prior to this case I
have never done computer forensics on an Apple computer. PFC
Manning?s personal computer did not require a check card login,
it was set to automatically log on, and it is possible that
anyone could have had access to his computer.

I only examined his personal laptop; I did not discover any
evidence that the global address list was released. During my
work I do take notesr that is my customary practice. I did the
work at Fort Belvoirr Virginia. I don?t recall who specifically
assigned me to this case but my supervisor is Special Agent
Shaver.

OBJECTION

Assistant Trial Counsel 1 objected to the line of
questioning stating basis.

The defense counsel stated that there was a basis due to
the witness?s extensive work that he has done on this case.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

143











The cross-examination by the assistant defense counsel continued
as follows:

I may have come across references in allocated space to web
pages, and things of that nature about PFC Manning?s gender
identity disorder but we were not looking for that information.
My understanding is that PFC Manning had an alter ego by the
name of Breanne Manning. As to the chat logs I mentioned user
profiles but I do not know who was doing the actual Chatting.
[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in

substance as follows:
DIRECT EXHMINATION

Questions by the Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I am familiar with the SD card that was found in PFC
Manning's aunt's house, I did an examination of that media.
investigative plan for that media was the same as before;
however, I did the image of this one andcreated a forensic bit
by bit image, again I verified that the hash values matched the
acquisition, I worked off that image file. In the unallocated
space deleted space, I recovered over 100,000 CIDNE document
reports concerning both Iraq and Afghanistan. I found some
deleted photos and movies of PFC Manning. In the allocated
space on the card, there was only one file in the allocated
space I believe that it was called, ?Yada.tar.bz2.nc." I was
able to the file, it contained four files, two CSV
files, one containing the CIDNE database reports for Afghanistan
about 91,000 individual reports, the next CSV was all of the
CIDNE Iraq reports, approximately 400,000, a temporary file, and
a readme.txt. I the file using the password that Mark
Johnson had identified from examination of PFC Manning's
personal computer, the password was, ?Twinkl492ll.? I simply
took the program and told it to the file using that
password. These are screenshots of everything that I just
explained to you.

The

I had the opportunity to compare the reports from the CSV
files that I found to the reports posted by WikiLeaks. Although
I didn?t do a line by line comparison, it appears that these
were the source files that were released. The ones that were

144



GUI-H.101

00816

released were less Iraq ones, a few thousand less, and

there was only 75,000 released from the Afghanistan theater.
The witness authenticated the following documents:

00376856
00409685
00409684
00409686
00409718

The defense counsel stated that they were missing the
document ending in 9684.

The trial counsel stated that they would be able to get the
document to them and that the defense has been in possession of
them for over a month.



Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

I believe that we got the search authorization to search
the SD card December last year. I do not know how it got to his
aunt?s house; I obtained it in the 0.8. I do not know who
handled this SD card between the time of PFC Manning?s arrest
and the date that I obtained it.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.1

MARK JOHNSON, Civilian, was recalled as a witness for the
prosecution, reminded of his oath, and testified in substance as

follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by the assistant trial counsel:

I examined other pieces of media related to this case, a
forensic image of an external hard drive obtained from Private
Manning. I think it was found in his CHU. On the external hard
drive I found some information of a F000 nature and a text file.
There was also a text file that was found on the drive as well,
it appeared to be contact information.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

145

mummemMI[The Article 32 hearing was recessed at 1446, 19 December

2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1510, 19
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer called the hearing to order.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1;

I am familiar with Centaur, it is a net flow log. A net
flow log is a part of the intrusion defense system, it captures
IP addresses, times and dates. It captures connections between
two different computers. There is a sensor somewhere on the
network to capture the traffic, it just captures data, log
files. It will tell you how much data transferred between the
sensors. I examined a Centaur log in this case, we collected
Centaur logs for the time period of [dot] .22 and [dot] [dot]
.40, and those are the IP addresses for PFC Manning's SIPRNET
computers.

OBJECTION

The defense counsel objected to the witness?s testimony
that the [dot] .22 and the [dot] .40 were PFC Manning?s
computers.

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

The direct examination by the Assistant Trial Counsel 1
continued as follows:

The [dot] .22 and the [dot] .40 were SIPRNET computers that
were located in the SCIF where PFC Manning worked, and other
users could log on to those computers. My investigative plan
for the log files were since it was net flow data I would see
which computers and how many times and how much data was
transferred between the [dot] .22 and [dot] .40 and other
government computers. I sorted the excel spreadsheet from the
highest transfer data at the top and working its way down. From
the logs that I created it I have the top 15 listed on this
Excel spreadsheet.

146






I was the forensic examiner responsible for examining the
Department of State logs; I collected two sets of logs. The
first set was a set of fire wall logs, and the second set was a
set of Web server logs. A fire wall is a device which allows or
disallows network traffic. The log files were collected based on
an IP address, [dot] .22. The information that was captured in
the Department of State fire wall logs was only connections
there wasn't data transferred. I can just tell you that there
was communication between [dot] .22 and the net centric server.
The log files demonstrated a sort of pattern, I don?t remember
the dates but some days there was a large amount of traffic and
other days there was not that much traffic. I cannot determine
how long the connections were for: I can just say that it was a
lot of connections. I counted that there was somewhere around
800,00 connections between the [dot] .22, the [dot] .40, and the
Department of State fire wall log, from approximately 7 March
until 3 May. There were some logs that were collected from the
Department of State logs as well. A large number of files were
downloaded to [dot] .22 using the WGET program, the timeframe
was from 3 to 4 May. There were not any server logs before
May, because there was a problem with the server and there was
no logging.

I examined CENTCOM logs in this case: the CENTCOM server in
Florida had hosted the Farah Afghanistan incident, the
investigation. Because of the examination of the index.dat
within PFC Manning's user profile on [dot] .22, there was a path
to a very specific folder structure throughout the SJA folder,
Investigations. So we were authorized to image those files that
were contained within that path, just the files in question, the
Farah investigation folder, underneath the SJA staff section.
Index.dat is a windows feature, a log file that captures URL or
file viewed within the user profile. I looked at that image, it
contained files and folders of a unique structure that were
similar to the files that were found on the CENTCOM server,
Farah investigation folder, they were found in the index.dat
folder on PFC Manning's user profile. The examination of log
files, the CENTCOM log files are a little bit different, because
they were set to capture internal not external IP's. It
was collecting the dates and times of files requested and the
files that were requested to be downloaded. I did an
examination of the log files and determined that with one of the
files, a power point presentation, it was identified in the
index.dat of PFC Manning's user profile on [dot] .22. That file
was only downloaded one time from the CENTCOM server, on 10

the

147

mummewMH




April 2010. On 10 April 2010, I saw hundreds of other files
being downloaded at the same time.

I examined the log files collected from the CIA, the
websites that were associated with these logs files were the
open source center and CIA wire. Open source center is
reporting on open source media, TV, documents. CIA wire is
their world intelligence review, their reports on various
matters, various topics. PFC Manning had an open source center
account, the username for that account was, ?bradass87," the
audit logs captured the IP requesting the information, the
username requesting the information, the date, the time, and the
files viewed and files searched for. These were linked to a
SIPRNET email account. PFC Manning searched for keywords like
Iceland and WikiLeaks, about 30 times for each.


Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

Regarding the Centaur logs, they covered the time period
approximately 1 October 2009 through the end of May 2010. For
me to get information from the Centaur legs I would have to
request it. We did not look at all of the computers in the T-
SCIF, we just filtered on the [dot] .22 and the [dot] .40 IP
addresses. The two workstations were accessing this information
and these workstations are classified workstations, and the
activity that was on those workstations were authorized, the
same with the Department of State logs.

The Farah folder I found three videos inside. I have
served previously in the military; Iraq is within the area of
operations of CENTCOM. The [dot] .22 and the [dot] .40
workstations are classified workstations, and an all source
analyst could have to access this to complete their job. It was
okay for an Intel analyst to look on these servers: they had
authorization to look into this data.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Assistant Trial Counsel 1:
Oh the [dot]

had a user account.
enter a password.

.22 and the [dot] .40 computers, PFC Manning
In order to use that computer you had to



148

to?Jmmwat-e




00820

Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

More than one person was assigned to thoSe computers.
[The Article 32 hearing was closed at 1537, 19 December
2011.]
19 December

[The Article 32 hearing was opened at 1605,
2011.]

The Investigating Officer opened the hearing, and the trial
counsel stated that this portion of the hearing is unclassified.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I examined NIPRNET computers, which is the unclassified
network; it was a U.S. Army computer that was in the SCIF the IP
address ending in .139. This computer also required a username
and password to logon. I used the same process to examine this
computer as 1 did the other computers. I wanted to see what
keyword searches were done on this computer and if any
classified information was on this computer, I searched the
entire computer. Under PFC Manning?s user profile I didn?t find
any classified material, but he did searches for WikiLeaks and
also for and Base 64. These were Google searches on 3
May 2010: PFC Manning searched for WGET and downloaded the file
to his profile. WGET was transferred from the NIPRNET to the
SIPRNET on 4 May 2010, under PFC Manning's user profile.

CROSS-EXKMINATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

Regarding the WGET program, it is used to gather data, it is a

data mining tool.
OBJECTION
Assistant Trial Counsel 1 objected to the line of

questioning stating that the witness has no basis for knowing
what Intel do.

149



w-w m-m m-m


00821

The Investigating Officer sustained the objection.

The defense counsel requested to revisit a line of
questioning with the witness.

The cross'examination by the defense counsel continued as
follows:

The activity pertains to the Farah folder, containing three
videos. This happened in April 2010, there is no evidence that
this activity took place prior to this date. I was aware that
WikiLeaks claimed to have possession of those videos in January
2010.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

[The Article 19 December
2011.]

32 hearing was recessed at 1613,

[The Article
December 2011.]

32 hearing was called to order at 0934, 20

All parties present prior to the recess were again present
in the hearing.

JIRLEAH SHOWMAN, Civilian, was called as a telephonic witness
for the government, was sworn and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant trial counsel:

I am Jirleah Showman of Syracuse, New York. I left the
Army in the rank of Specialist on 25 June 2011 after serving 4
years and 2 months. I was in the same unit and intelligence
shop with PFC Manning. I was also his team leader. I first met
the accused when I arrived in the unit in March 2009. We were
both 35F MOS. I attended HIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona in July
2007. I was trained as an all source analyst on how to handle,
disseminate and destroy classified information. I also received
training on all of the computer systems we use to gather
intelligence. You need at least an interim SECRET clearance in
order to initiate training. I attended some training with the
accused at the Division Headquarters prior to JRTC. We both

rm






00822

attended the JRTC rotation for Iraq. I deployed with the
accused to Iraq in October 2009 where we both worked in the
Brigade TSCIF on FOB Hammer. I worked directly with the accused
for the first two months as NCDIC of the night shift. The
accused was a Shia analyst. He would gather intelligence
information for products and projects that would be placed on
the Brigade shared drive for use by the Brigade Commander.

We used DCGS as a tool to do our job but we also used CPOF
strictly to communicate with the Battalions and the Companies.
I don?t know what WGET is. I never used that to do my job. The
accused always had computer issues on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis. The DCGS contractor would have to correct his system
before it crashed. The accused left the Brigade SCIF on 9 May
2011, the morning after he assaulted me. He was removed for
punching me in the face and displayed uncontrollable and
untrustworthy behavior. I worked with the accused in a
supervisory capacity during the first few weeks of the
deployment.

The trial counsel announced the defense requested a closed
unclassified session. The government requested a closure
determination hearing.

The Investigating Officer closed the hearing.
20 December

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 0947,
2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0952, 20
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer announced this was an
unclassified closed session; and the parties present were
counsel for both sides, hearing security officer, the accused,
personnel detailed to the defense and prosecution teams,
representative of relevant government agencies, and the
Investigating Officer?s Legal Advisor and support staff.

The Investigating Officer announced the defense requested a
closed session to discuss disloyal statements made by the
accused to the witness that would be prejudicial if heard in an
open forum, which was denied.

The Investigating Officer announced he would reconsider the
denial.

151

00823

Both parties maintained the previous positions submitted to
the Investigating Officer for consideration.

The Investigating Officer placed his findings on the record
reversing the denial of the defense request to close the hearing
citing the accused?s right to a fair trial was an overriding
interest.

JIRLEAH SHOWMAN, Civilian, was recalled as a telephonic witness
for the government, was reminded of her previous oath, and
testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I discussed PFC Manning?s opinion about the military with
him. He told me he joined to earn money for college and to get
computer knowledge and training. When he was asked what the
U.S. flag meant to him he said it did not mean anything to him
and he held no allegiance to this country or its people.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the defense counsel:

That conversation took place during a verbal counseling

session between me and PFC Manning. It was during a counseling
session; his behavior initially indicated that he didn?t care
what I was saying; I wouldn't say that he was happy about being
counseled. He was rarely happy, and I do not know if his mood
changed during the counseling session. PFC Manning showed a
lack of respect towards anything that occurred. I do agree that
at the time I was counseling him he was not happy. I was trying
to see where he was coming from, so I asked him why he joined
the Army, and that is when he reSponded to the flag meant
nothing to him and he no allegiance to the United States.
upset when he said that, I raised my voice, but I do not
remember exactly what I said. I believe I said that he had no
business joining the military. I don't know PFC Manning's
intentions for anything he said. I am not sure if he was saying
to push my buttons. Regardless it was something that he knew
not to say. That is not a joking matter for an Intel analyst.
I told Master Sergeant Adkins that I did not trust PFC Manning
and he should not deploy with us. I was not aware that Master
Sergeant Adkins denied hearing it from me. It does surprise me
that he denied me telling him that.

I was

152

Myer?n



woodmme


mutabJMI??CD







EXAMINATION BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER

Questions by the Investigating Officer:

This conversation took place following the JRTC rotation
within months of us deploying.
[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 1004, 20 December
2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1013, 20
December 2011.]

The Investigating Officer opened the hearing, and stated
that the closed session determination will be put on the record.

JIRLEAH SHOWMAN, Civilian, was recalled as a witness for the
prosecution, was reminded of her previous oath, and testified in
substance as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I supervised PFC Manning before deploying: I became his
supervisor in March 2009. I had daily contact with PFC Manning.
There was an incident in where he did not show up for PT. I
went to his room to find out where he was. When I got there he
appeared to have just woken up; he was still in civilian
clothes. I told him to get dressed and to get downstairs right
away. He walked from his barracks room to formation. PFC
Manning did not respond to anything that I was telling him. I
asked him why he was not in formation. I do not remember him
responding to anything that I was telling him. I had to counsel
him and require him to show up early to formations for
corrective training. PFC Manning screamed and started jumping
up and down, flapping his arms. He was extremely loud, swinging
his hands around. His body language was very aggressive. I
stepped back from him. His screaming lasted several seconds.
Master Sergeant Adkins approached PFC Manning and then he
quieted down. PFC Manning was frustrated. Master Sergeant
Adkins asked PFC Manning what the problem was, and PFC Manning
reaponded that he was frustrated. PFC Manning said that he did
not like to mess up, I counseled him after that incident. I
also recommended UCMJ action, because he disrespected Master
Sergeant Adkins and me. He lost his military bearing. Master

153






Sergeant Adkins recommended UCMJ but he did not follow up on
those.

I required PFC Manning to go to
behavioral health. To my knowledge, no one in the chain of
command alerted the Commander of the incident. I recommended to
Master Sergeant Adkins that further action was needed and PFC
Manning was a threat and he should not be handling classified
information and should not deploy.

Following that incident.

OBJECTION

The trial counsel objected to the line of questioning
stating lack of foundation.

The civilian defense counsel replied that the purpose of an
Article 32 hearing is discovery for the defense.

The Investigating Officer informed the civilian defense
counsel to limit his line of questioning.

The cross-examination by the civilian defense counsel continued
as follows:

I do not know if Master Sergeant Adkins informed the
Commander. I believe PFC Manning was unstable as one of the
reasons why he should not deploy. I saw PFC Manning freeze when
he was asked a question by the Lieutenant. He was
nonresponsive. I asked him what was wrong and he didn?t speak.
I felt he was not processing what I had said. I told Master
Sergeant Adkins what happened. We both asked PFC Manning what
was going on. PFC Manning said he felt paranoid and people were
listening to his conversations. He did not trust anyone in the
unit or around him. He said he was not suicidal and did not
want to hurt himself. I asked him if he heard voices he said
no. I was trying to determine if he had. I am not a medic,
I was trying to see if he had issues. He had an
elevated level of paranoia.

but

PFC Manning was not functioning in the office. He was not
able to do simple tasks. I confronted him about not getting
work done. He used the excuse for being tasked for a cleanup
detail. He showed no indication of gender identity disorder.
Based on all of this I recommended to Master Sergeant Adkins
that PFC Manning not deploy or have access to classified
information. Master Sergeant Adkins told me he Spoke to someone
but I do not know if it was the commander. I told Master

154






Sergeant Adkins that PFC Manning should be command directed to
behavioral but it did not happen. I was not happy when
PFC Manning?s name was on the list to deploy. I talked to
Master Sergeant Adkins again and was told the decision was made
and I had to deal with it.

We deployed to Iraq on 11 October 2009. I was the night
shift NCOIC of the I had PFC Manning and PFC Cooley
under me. Master Sergeant Adkins decided who would be on
dayshift, but I could be wrong. Master Sergeant Adkins was the
overall NCOIC. He decided who would be on the We
did not have much say over the Soldiers we were in charge of.
Everything went through Master Sergeant Adkins. Master Sergeant
Adkins oversaw all equipment and Soldiers. Soldiers were not
being counseled as they should have been. Major Clausen was the
Brigade 82. He was not in the SCIF and was in his office. CW2
Hack did not have the authority to counsel me. I was counseled
by Master Sergeant Adkins. I was counseled once during the
entire deployment.

I witnessed the incident between PFC Manning and SPC
Padgett. It happened towards the end of December. I heard PFC
Manning screaming. I walked to the door to see what was going
on. I saw PFC Manning on one side of the table and SPC Padgett
on the other. I saw PFC Manning flip the table. The computer
hit the ground. I found out later that it was broken. I saw
PFC Manning approach SPC Padgett, and he was trying to talk PFC
Manning down. PFC Manning looked around the roomJr he was about
to reach for an M4 rifle. CW2 Ehresman grabbed PFC Manning from
behind and locked his arms up. PFC Manning was in the full
nelson position. There was no formal punishment to my
knowledge; I don?t know why. I told Master Sergeant Adkins
about the incident and told Master Sergeant Adkins that PFC
Manning had no business in the SCIF.

I know what the DEROG process is. We have a responsibility
to report DEROG information. When PFC Manning?s clearance was
suspended I helped the Commander file the paperwork. To
initiate a DEROG the Commander will indicate what the action was
that lead to the DEROG, make a recommendation, and check a box
if the individual clearance should be suspended or terminated.

I felt they tried to keep everything that happened within the S2
internal. The incident between PFC Manning and SPC Padgett
should not have remained in house. The 18G found out about the
incident from CW2 Hack. PFC Manning and I had to go see 138.
After seeing a short time later in the deployment I saw PFC

155




Homm?d?mwat??DLO

DJ




Manning rolled up in a ball. I reported it to CW2 Ehresman. I
told him to be ready for something to happen.

I left the TSCIF at the end of my shift. I was called back
there around midnight. I was assaulted by PFC Manning. I stood
up and pinned him to the ground after he hit me. PFC Manning
told me he was scared of what behavioral health would find out
and that he would be removed from the Army.

I found what later became known as the Collateral Herder
video. I was going through some folders that belonged to the
fires section working for CW2 Hack. I came across the video
while I was training to improve professional development. Chief
and I watched the video and he would go over how his section
responded. Chief was grooming me to be a target analyst for
future deployments. There were other people that watched it
with us. They were discussing what we were seeing in the video.
There was no Rules of Engagement discussion that I recall.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

PFC Manning helped me put MIRC Chat on my computer. He had
the most knowledge of computers. I used it to talk to fellow
targeting sections. PFC Manning never told me he was chatting
with Julian Assange. We were never allowed to take classified
information outside of the SCIF. We all signed Nondisclosure
Agreements.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:
I don't remember what regulation was behind the NBA.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and

ended the phone call.]

[The Article 32 hearing was recessed at 1055, 20 December

2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1113r 20
December 2011.]

All parties present prior to the recess were once again
present.

156



00828

STAFF SERGEANT PETER BIGELOW, U.S- Army, was called
telephonically as a witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and
testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I am currently assigned to AFSOUTH Battalion Naples Italy,
Army Element of NATO. I knew the PFC Manning in Iraq. He worked
for me after fight with Showman in the SCIF. I was the HHC
Brigade Supply Sergeant. He worked for me until May and he was
taken into custody. He came to work for me maybe in April. I
can?t honestly tell you, but I know it was after the
altercation. I had a SIPR and NIPR computer in the supply room
and my personal laptop so I could search websites where the Army
blocked. My personal computer was used to help me do my job. I
did not log into PFC Manning?s accounts, to include his AKO, his
gmail, and his Amazon account. I did not know any of his
passwords. I did not search for or View the WikiLeaks.org
website. I did not search for Julian Assange on the supply room
computer. I have not googled the Global Address List on the
sopply roOm computer. I never downloaded emails on the
Iraq.centcom.mil domain. I only emailed the theatre PBO on the
NIPR computer.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

My personal laptop was not password protected. I gave
instructions to check personal email on my laptop, but do not
download crazy or unauthorized sites on my laptop that could get
me in trouble. I never gave access to other Soldiers. My clerk
had access, but she had her own NIPR access. She went to her
room and used her personal computer. I don?t know if she used
it when I was not there.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and

ended the phone call.]
SPECIAL AGENT ALFRED WILLIAMSON, U.S. Army, was called as a
witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in

substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

157

mummthI?i




Questions by the assistant trial counsel:

I have been working for Army CCIU since September 2006. I
am a Digital Forensic Examiner; Special Agent David Shaver is my
supervisor. Prior to CCIU from 2002-2006 I worked for DHS
Customs. From 1992-2002 I was a Police officer in State of TX.
DHS training received Treasury CFP, 9 designated as a
computer forensic agent, Initial portion Comp TOD curriculum.
DHS training, CCIU numerous DOD courses, DCITA 3 certifications
that DOD issued Comp A plus NET plus, MS Windows Tech, AC
Council certification. I observed digital media for this case,
Supply annex NIPR computer.

My process to verify image of computers was correct using
ENCASE, searching the medium. The initial search located user
account for PFC Manning and internet history under that profile,
it was created 21 May 2010. I located a Google search for the
terms WikiLeaks, open closed Article 15 hearing. Also, a web
history for a web page related to Article 155. I was approached
by Special Agent Shaver to re-examine image of the computer to
specifically look for Iraq SharePoint exchange server?s global
address list.

The second search I conducted located text files in the
computer of Staff Sergeant Eigelow?s account. The files
contained .mil email addresses, unit names or email names.
of the file located in the My Documents folder, remaining in
recycle bin to be recycled. 2 archive zip files. They used the
same naming convention, blah.zip. Inside those were text files
containing extracts of global address list. In the recycle bin
tmp.pdf 18 pages of UCMJ records, counseling statements and the
enlisted record portal. In Staff Sergeant Peter Bigelow?s
account someone searched for Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, Global
Address List, macro outlook, and BDA text files. The last 3
that I mentioned were searches that indicated the user was
beginning to research a way to find and extract information from
the GAL and download it to a file. In Peter Bigelow's account
there was access to AKO for account profile. Access to PFC
Manning?s G?mail account was also under that profile. The
webpage on computer was for amazon.com, the user was PFC
Manning. The Google search page login user was PFC Manning?s
mail account. Invoice purchase order for a book, billing
information was for PFC Manning?s Maryland address. As far as
the internet activity, AKD and G-mail located in index.dat file
which is an internet explorer history record. The searches for
the GAL were one of the first things then there were creation of

One

158

co-dmmetumH

00830

file done within a minute or two of the PFC Manning Gmail
account.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

There were other pieces to the story, so I put them all
together. It was likely it was removed. Forensics can only say
it was created and saved forensics indicates it was removed, I
can't say definitely if it was. The searches were for gender
identity disorder, adjustment disorder was done on the Wikipedia
page. There was a book about feminine facial surgery. It was
shipped to PFC Manning's address in Maryland.

I prepared a report of findings on the Supply Annex NIPR
computer. I stand by the findings in the report. There are a
couple of ways to show that the accused account was created 21
May 2010. I can tell when an account was created using forensic
tools. You can tell when it was accessed by a user, which is
one thing. The Microsoft operating system have a tendency to
access a lot of files so it is difficult to say what someone may
claim is an access date.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in

substance as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I examined a computer seized from Jason Katz. To my
knowledge he was a former employee of the Department of Energy.
I examined a work computer belonging to him, it was a Linux
computer, to determine if a file called b.zip was present on
that computer. I conducted my search the same as I did before
on the other computers. B.zip was a password protected zip
file. With the password I was able to open it, which I obtained
from another CCIU agent. In the zip file was a movie file, it
was an aircraft battlefield video. It was a part of the Farah
investigation folder; it was placed on the computer on 15
December 2009. I cannot determine if the user of the computer
got the password to view the file.

159






42
43
44
45
46
47

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

I have seen this video before; it took place in May 2009.
The video arrived on computer 15 December 2009. WikiLeaks had
similar video around that time frame the movie was the same. I
do not know date folder was placed on CENTCOM server. It is not
the same that is on the [dot] .22 computer, it is a different
video.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

The movie file was the same as the one on the CENTCOM
server. I know this because both were the same hash value and I
watched both videos.

[The witness was temporarily excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

[The Article 20 December
2011.]

32 hearing was recessed at 1151,

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1351, 20

December 2011.]

All parties present prior to the recess were again present
in the hearing.

Assistant Trial Counsel 1 moved to have the following
documents considered by the Investigating Officer:

IA Exam (00375768-00375771)

IA Training requirement (00375772)

IA Virtual Training (00375773)

IA Virtual Training #2 (00375774)

Test Results (00022348)

Al?Qa'ida Recruiting Video

Al?Qa'ida in the Arabian Pennisula Magazine
00012711)

Enemy #1 Possession Evidence

IIR 6 089 0563 11 (Redacted) {0041660~00410664)

Metadata display {00410658-00410659)

Forensic Ally Recovered Material {00410654-00410657)

C3 Document {00378141-003378147)

(00408202?00408236}
(00012570?

150

00832

PFC Manning?s Military Intelligence Work Product

(00410607-00410609)

100112 (00410613-00410614}
(004106132-00410618)
(00410600-00410602)
{00410668?

Range Story Board
SIPRNET Email
Multiple SIPRNET Email
SIPRNET email 091130
Afghanistan War Logs Posted by WikiLeaks
00410670)

IIR Bates 5 332 0069 10 {00410619?00410622)
Defense Info System Agency Doc

DISA Trickler Report (00410653)

CIDNE Data on the Internet (00410554)

NCD Valuation Documents (00410556?00410560)

The civilian defense counsel had no objection to the
documents being considered by the Investigating Officer.

SPECIAL AGENT ANTONIO PATRICK EDWARDS, U.S. Army, was called as
a witness for the prosecution, was sworn, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the trial counsel:

I am an investigator with CCIU of Army CID. I have been a
CID agent for a little bit longer than 3 and half years. I have
been involved in law enforcement for approximately 12 years. I
have had extensive training that qualifies me for this job. I
became involved in this case on 25 May 2010, when the CCIU
received an e?mail from Mr. Chet Uber. In the email Mr. Uber
related that he was aware of an individual who was in contact
with the United States Army, Military Intelligence Analyst, who
was releasing classified information to an Australian national
associated with WikiLeaks. I subsequently contacted Mr. Uber,
who put me in touch with Mr. Adrian Lamo, who confirmed he was
the individual in contact with the United States Army Military
Intelligence Analyst. I came in centact with him physically 11
June 2010. I met him in Carmichael, California. The general
nature of that meeting was to collect evidence pertaining to the
chat logs that he alluded to. I was able to collect one
removable hard drive that Mr. Lamo had in his possession. Also,
an HP mini laptop which had a hard drive in it, those devices
were then kept in my custody and returned to CCIU and turned
over to the forensics examiner for evaluation.

151

can-ammo:me




He was to
He was

Mr. Lamo was a confidential informant for CID.
collect whatever would assist us in the investigation.
given reasonable expense reimbursement. Information was
provided in exchange but it was not substantive to this
investigation. He is not a confidential informant. When Mr.
Lamo removed a hard drive, we purchased a hard drive in order to
not leave Lamo without a computer.

CROSS-EXAMIHAEION
Questions by the assistant defense counsel:

Mr. Lamo was confidential informant for CID the latter part
July 2010 and ended 3-4 months ago (August-September 2011). Mr.
Lamo consented to exam of both items. I concentrated my
investigation to specific search to chats and communications
with PFC Manning. I am familiar with a Mr. Danny Clark; I
attempted to interview him in Boston. I was not able to
interview him he invoked his right to counsel. Mr. Clark did
have communication with Mr. Lamo. Mr. Lamo provided a chat log
between him and Mr. Clark. No one from law enforcement
suggested communication between Mr. Clark and Mr. Lamo. If Mr.
Lamo communicated with Mr. Clark we wanted that information but
we also advised him to tread On 25 May 2010, I
communicated via phone with Mr. Lamo the conversation lasted
minutes. Basically, establishing he was the individual in
contact with the Army Intel analyst. We had periodic
communication with Lame to set up stuff.
[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

ADRIAN LAMB, Civilian, was called as a witness for the
prosecution, was sworn, and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by the trial counsel:

My name is Adrian Lame; I live in San Francisco, CA.

OBJECTION

The civilian defense counsel objected stating that the line
of questioning cause for speculation.

162

mummemmH

00834

The direct examination by the trial counsel continued as
follows:

I communicated with bradassBT; the emails were tied to 10th
Mountain to where PFC Manning was stationed. I don?t recall the
[dot].mail address. But the other emails were from
Bradley.e.manning@gmail.com. I responded to email. I
could not read the emails because they had been
enciphered using an outdated key. We made contact over AOL
instant messenger on 20 May 2010. We used IM because it was
using software called Off The Record. It is installed
manually on certain clients and automatically on others. I use
because I value my privacy as a citizen. PFC Manning
identified himself, when I asked them if they use Facebook and
they indicated that although I could not search for their
account because it was set up so that only their friends could
see it. But they could search for mine, and I subsequently
received a friend request additionally I was provided with
authentication credentials for the AKO portal. I did not log
into PFC Manning?s AKO account. I sought verification because
at that point he had made a number of claims that caused me to
believe that I might be misled as to the identity of who I was
speaking with and I desired verification of the identity of the
remote party and the claims that they were making. We were
chatting over a period of about 20 May through 26 May. The
key never changed. Special Agent Edwards responded
to my reports of PFC Manning?s actions and he came to California
to interview me. I provided Special Agent Edwards with one 500
Gigabyte hard drive, a net book and hard drive and two thumb
drives.

I did not alter the chat logs and I did not manipulate them
either. I am aware of Jason Kata. I was informed by a user of
a chat network there was an individual that was attempting to
a video. And that they were using federally funded lab
resources to do so. I have Asberger?s it does not
affect my memory. I have used drugs in the past. I did not use
drugs when I was in contact with PFC Manning. My medicine
regime allowed me to function normally. There is necessity to
stay ahead of a story before it develOps a life of its own to
ensure the facts are correct. I have not received any
compensation.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

163

00835

I have been convicted of a felony, in 2000, I did a string
of hacks against large companies, and in 2004 I was found guilty
of computer fraud. I received six months house arrest and 2 and
half months probation. I had to pay restitution as well. In
April 2010 I was involuntarily institutionalized. After I
called the police due to a dispute over the possession of my
medications, I thought someone stole my medications and my
backpack. I called the police and shortly after they arrived is
when I was institutionalized for nine days. I was released I
May 2010.

I do computer work at odd jobs. I am not employed full
time. I am not receiving any benefits for my testimony today.
No promises have been made by the government, and I am not
receiving any money for my testimony. I am here to ensure the
truth is preSented.

[The Article 32 hearing was recessed at 1425, 20 December
2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 1433, 20
December 2011.]

All parties that were present prior to the recess are once
again present.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

We exchanged emails but I do not know the exact number.
The bulk of the emails were and not readable. I did
not read the emails. Instead we used AOL IM. It was my idea to
talk on AOL IM. We began chatting 20 May 2010, we chatted over
the next five days. I was living with my parents. I decided to
contact the Army authorities through a third party as to the
seriousness of the admissions made in the chats. At that time I
made communication about the communications that were made to
me.

The day after my first chat with bradassB? what I saw in
the chats were egregious and required my reaponse. The day
after my chats I reported them to law enforcement. I recall
chatting with Danny Clark on 21 July 2010. I contacted him
because I was curious about his role in the WikiLeaks affair. I
received no active direction to engage in anything to do with
WikiLeaks. The law enforcement officers stated that if I

164

mummthI?I




observed any wrongdoing to report it. That if I saw or heard
anything to let them know. I emailed the chats to Agent
Edwards; I was not pounding on any doors. At that time I was
not working with law enforcement for the purpose of getting
information from Clark, until it was apparent that he was
involved in sensitive activity. I found it unusual that an
individual would install software on an Army computer

and had to have a civilian to help him do it.

I was not familiar with the organizational structure of
WikiLeaks. From a professional perspective I am curious how
server was I asked questions out of curiosity.
Curious individuals ultimately cooperate with law enforcement
officials. is a public peer to peer network.
Someone attempting to covertly share a file would not use this
as his first choice. There are a number of previous statements;
I am not sure whether it was by bradassB7 or someone else. I
was asking all of these questions out of my own curiosity, I
have no particular love for law enforcement. I was working with
law enforcement when I asked PFC Manning those questions.

I have worked in journalism and when I see stories I pursue
them. I do see myself as a reporter. I have written some
articles that would qualify as journalism. There is a
requirement to protect confidential sources. At the time I
provided itlr I was concerned by the depth of the unsurpassed
leakage evident in the admissions made.

?Off The Record? is an automated or manual
service, you use it you are using it to your IM.
individual that I was chatting with intended for this
information to remain confidential. The chat logs dealt with
sensitive subjects regarding bradass87. I believe they were
reaching out for a likeminded individual that would act as a
similar figure. I believe that the person that I was speaking
to was coming to me for motivation moral and emotional support.
I do not believe that they were looking for guidance so much as
they were looking to brag about what they had done. I do
consider myself to be a minister; I am recognized as a minister
in the Universal Life Church. A person might come to a minister
as a formal act of religion or a matter of conscience.

The

REDIRECT

Questions by the trial counsel:

165





PRf)





UJM


CID-.Joxma




use-.1:






.4

00837

The first person that I met with after chatting with PFC
Manning was Timothy Douglas Webster. At that time he was a
student at U.C. Santa Barbara. He is not a member of the U.S.
Government. I met with a CID Agent or law enforcement officer.
I believe that it was the 23rd or the 24th, but I do not have it
marked on a calendar.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

[The Article 32 hearing was recessed at 1518, 20 December
2011.]

[The Article
December 2011.]

32 hearing was called to order at 1531, 20

All parties that were present prior to the recess are once
again present.

SPECIAL AGENT DAVID SHAVER, Civilian, was recalled as a witness
for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and testified in
substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I examined two computers, I imaged them, verified hash
values, followed my normal procedures and I had a limited search
for these pieces of media. I was only authorized to search for
any communication between Mr. Lamo and bradassd?. I found
communications on the windows computer, there were four chat
logs. On the Linux computer there were several files of copies
of the chat logs which appear to have been modified. I
believe those were the ones that were released to the press. I
compared the chat logs found on Mr. Lamo?s computer to the ones
found on PFC Manning?s computer. At some point in time the chats
on PFC Manning?s computer had been enabled and from that point
on they basically matched word for word.

[The witness was permanently excused, duly warned, and
withdrew from the courtroom.]

SPECIAL AGENT TROY BETTENCOURT, v.3. Army, was recalled as a
witness for the prosecution, was reminded of his oath, and

testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

166






Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 1:

I am familiar with phishing or spear phishing; it is an
attempt by an individual to gain personal information or
financial information from a victim through electronic
communication. Spear phishing is more targeted, they will get
more information on you so that it appears to be legitimate. To
make spear phishing more effective you need intelligence about
your target. If you are going to craft a message that somebody
is going to fall for, the more information that you know about
them to make it seem like it is a legitimate message the more
effective you will be. Spear phishing in most cases is done for
financial gain. The only way that we have seen is not through
the public but they have had some dissention within their ranks
and they have had people leave WikiLeaks and at some point Mr.
Assange had an NBA agreement drafted up for his employees.

OBJECTION

The civilian defense counsel objected to the witness?s
testimony on the grounds of hearsay.

The Investigating Officer overruled the objection.

The direct examination by the assistant trial counsel continued
as follows:

Mr. Assange demanded his employees sign a NDA that they
would not disclose any of the information in the possession of
WikiLeaks.

EXAMINATION BY THE ARTICLE 32 HEARING
Questions by the Investigating Officer:

All of the information in possession of WikiLeaks is of
great value.

[The witness was permanently excused,r duly warned, and

withdrew from the courtroom.]
The government rested.

{The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0906, 21
December 2011.]

157

mummemMH

00839

All parties present prior to the recess were again present
in the hearing.

The Investigating Officer advised the spectators
unauthorized or disruptive behavior would result in removal from
the courtroom.

SERGEANT DANIEL BADGETT, U.S. Army, was called as a witness for
the defense, was sworn and testified in substance as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

I am Sergeant Daniel Padgett of Bravo Company, 2d Brigade
Special Troop Battalion, 2d Brigade, 10th Mountain Division
(Light). I have been in the Army 3 years. I have prior service
as a Marine from January 2001 through January 2005. My current
M08 is 35L, Counter Intelligence Agent, but I was previously a
35F when I initially entered the Army. I am outprocessing from
my current unit and will be PCSing next month.

I deployed to Iraq in October 2009. I was assigned as the
night shift NCOIC in the TSCIF. I helped oversee operations and
execute the missions at night. I took over that role shortly
after we got in country and arrived at FOB Hammer. I never
received any initial counseling from my supervisor. I had not
attended any leadership schools at the time. I was told my
responsibilities as the night shift NCOIC were to oversee the
operations and to report anything that happened throughout the
course of the shift that night. I supervised two other
including the accused. I was not responsible for counseling the
Soldiers initially, but I requested that authority to counsel
later when the need arose. The leadership within the 82 section
did not exercise much oversight. At the time, I had two duty
assignments, so when I would come and go from the Brigade 82,
the atmosphere was different regarding who was in the SCIF and
how the shifts were structured. There was no clear chain of
command. As far as the Brigade chain of command, I was not the
accused's direct supervisor. The accused had his own Brigade
chain of command. After an incident with the accused inside the
SCIF, I went to the accused's direct supervisor, who worked day
shift, and requested authorization to counsel the accused on the
incident because it happened during my watch of the night shift;
and it was granted.

168






The accused was late for duty and I wanted to formally
correct the accused. The first counseling session was December
2009. I was going over the importance of being on time at the
appointed place of duty in a deployed environment. During the
counseling session the accused got angry, flipped the table we
were sitting at and had to be restrained. The counseling
session took place in the Brigade 82 conference room. Once the
accused calmed down, we completed the counseling session and
cleaned up the conference room. After that, I don't recall what
happened. Initially the accused?s body language was calm but
his demeanor changed as the counseling session went on. He
stared at me in a way that made me uncomfortable. Shortly after
that, the accused stood up, turned the table over, and the
equipment on the table went crashing to the ground. I never
noticed the accused approaching a weapons rack that had
contained weapons. I was very concerned about the accused at
the time possibly doing something to harm himself or anybody
else in the building that night. I placed my hands on the
accused's shoulder to shove him aside and CW2 Ehresman grabbed
the accused in a full nelson type hold to prevent him from
grabbing a weapon. CW2 Ehrisman had the accused sit on a bench
until he calmed down.

After the incident was resolved, the accused was not
counseled for disrespect. The Brigade chain of command took
everything over after the incident. I talked to a few people in
the Brigade about what happened. I vaguely recall speaking to
Master Sergeant Adkins. I don?t recall speaking to Major
Clausen, the Company First Sergeant or the Company Commander
about the incident. The accused never received UCMJ action for
the incident.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Assistant Trial Counsel 2:

I attended 35F AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona where I
learned how to handle confidential and classified information.
I was trained on the importance of OPSEC and INFOSEC. I was
trained about enemies of the United States and the consequences
of compromising classified information and how it could be
harmful to national security. I went to JRTC prior to the
deployment to prepare. I worked in the Brigade 82 half of the
time I was deployed. The accused worked in the SCIF as a Shia
threat analyst. Inside the SCIF we used the DCGS, CIDNE and
Tiger Net computer based tools to help us do our job. We did
not use CIDNE-Afghanistan. We did not use the State Department

169

mummemML?I




NETCENTRIC Diplomacy database.
have never used it.

I don't know what WGET is, and I
I never burned classified information onto
CDs for personal use. That was not authorized. I have, and the
accused should have, signed multiple non?disclosure agreements:
which tell you to safeguard classified information and the
consequences if you fail to do so. Every Soldier with a
security clearance has a personal responsibility to safeguard
classified information.

EXAMINATION BY THE ARTICLE 32 HEARING
Questions by the Investigating Officer:

We were told music was authorized inside the TSCIF. There
was music on the shared drive, and we could bring non-writable
music CDs into the SCIF to listen to. There were movies present
but we were only allowed to watch them on the unclassified
computer system only. There were a couple of games on the
shared drive on the SIPR terminals. When we arrived in country,
the games were already there on the shared drive but I don?t
recall if they were removed.

There being no further questions by counsel for both sides,
the witness was permanently excused, duly warned and exited the
courtroom.

CAPTAIN KEAI, U.S. Army, was called as a telephonic
witness for the defense, was sworn and testified in substance as
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the civilian defense counsel:

My full name is Barclay David Keay. My current unit is
Battalion in 2d Brigade, 10th Mountain. I was deployed to
Iraq in December 2009 directly out of the Captains Career
Course. I linked up with the 2d Brigade Combat Team at FOB
Hammer after they had completed RIP TOA in November 2009. This
was my second deployment, but first deployment in S2 intell.
Initially, I did not have an MTOE position. I was an 32 Captain
for about 5 or 6 weeks, but I eventually transitioned to my key
development position as the 4/31_Battalion S2. I was told I
was going to he the 82X but when I got there I was told I would
be the night OIC. My duties as the night OIC were to take over
whatever tasks the daytime duties were tackling. There was a
skeleton crew at night so we would aide in what the daytime guys

no






00842

were doing. It was my first S2 position so I was reading a lot
to get my knowledge base up in preparation for my key
development position. I had 3 Soldiers on the night shift with
me, none of them being NCOs because, I assumed there were not
enough NCOs to go around. The primary focus was the day shift
when everything was happening and the key leaders and main
intell guys were awake to help the decision makers. The accused
was one of my Soldiers.

The ranks of the Soldiers on the night shift were all Eds,
which included the accused, Specialist Padgett and Specialist
Cooley. The night shift's taskings came from the day shift;
which were parts of brief or products that were being presented
to the senior leaders and decision makers. I was overseeing to
ensure the night Soldiers were doing what they were supposed to
do. Not sleeping but actually working and getting things done.
I spent a few weeks on the night shift then I moved to the day
shift and then ultimately transitioned to the Battalion S2
position. I started out on the night shift as an opening to
read and learn before they opened me up to daytime and then
down, ultimately to 4/31.

While I was the night shift DIC I noticed Soldiers
listening to music, or looking at video clips that were being
passed around. I sensed Soldiers were looking at movies but I
just personally didn?t see any. I sensed Soldiers were playing
games but I just didn't catch them with their hands in the
cookie jar. I thought it was odd these activities were taking
place inside a SCIF and I inquired with the lower enlisted guys
why they did it and other S2 officers, but I can't remember,
specifically, who I might have asked. I remember walking in and
being surprised and not what I expected. I remember giving a
sworn statement to CID and to the SEC ARMY 15-6 Investigating
Officer investigating this event. There were two different
investigating crews that came down to Fort Drum and one of them
asked for a sworn statement. The question I was asked in the
sworn statement was, ?Who did you ask about the appropriateness
of media on the SIPR side?" My answer to that questiOn was,
asked lots of people because I didn?t know what the right answer
was. I don't know if I ever went to Major Clausen, but I went
to my peers, Captain Martin, Staff Sergeant Balonek now CW2,
Second Lieutenant Fields and a bunch of to include
Manning, I think. I didn't get a specific answer, I just kept
asking." I asked around about this because it was my first
intel experience right out of the career course. Everything I
was told at the career course, I was trying to put into context
with what was going on and for my actual position. What I was

171




~00843

told at the course was media was not allowed or tolerated inside
the nor was it when I worked in Huachuca. However, things
were different downrange. Music was tolerated so that Soldiers
could be more productive and it wasn't looked at as negatively
as I thought it was at first. So I just pushed it to the side
and did not think anything really of it. I remember thinking it
wasn't probably something we should be so liberal about. But I
did ask a few people. Coming in and listening to the music
inside the SCIF was an accepted practice.

After my time as night OIC in the SCIF, I went down to TOC
Carver just off FOB Hammer with the 4/31 Infantry Battalion was.
I took my new job on 1 January. There was no SCIF at my new
work location. We were on the back side of the TOC. There was
media there but it was not a TSCIF. I know what a SCIF looks
like now and there is no music while the Soldiers are working.
There are no unauthorized programs, music, games, or video games
on the SIPR computers.

From my perspective, I felt like the accused wanted to be a
good Soldier but I didn?t know the depth behind this unit
beforehand. My initial impression was the accused wanted to try
and he did good analytical work.

There being no further questions by counsel for both sides,
the witness was permanently excused, duly warned and the phone
call was terminated.

The defense offered Investigating Officer Exhibit 21 for
consideration by the Investigating Officer without objection by
the government.

The defense rested.
The defense did not request the Investigating Officer
produce any additional witnesses other than the witnesses that

were previously requested and denied.

The defense did not request any witnesses be recalled by

the Investigating Officer for further crosseexamination.
The accused declined to make any statement in his behalf to
the Investigating Officer.

The Investigating Officer closed the hearing for submission of
any additional evidence to be considered.

172






The defense objected to the hearing recessing for the day
and reconvening the following day, on the grounds all parties
should be prepared to deliver closing argument to the
Investigating Officer.

The Investigating Officer noted the defense objection.

The government responded to the defense objection citing
the reasons the government requested the break in hearing; and
all parties agreed during a prior closed conference with the
Investigating Officer.

The Investigating Officer noted the conference with all
parties present on 20 December 2011, which there was an
agreement by all parties to recess at the close of defense
evidence and to reconvene at 1000, 22 December 2011 to permit
counsel for both sides to prepare concluding arguments. The
government at a closed conference with all parties present held
prior to opening the current session, the government amended its
request to start at 0900, 22 December 2011. The Investigating
Officer stood on the previous agreement made by all parties and
modified the start time to 0900, 22 December 2011.

The defense responded the defense witnesses and documents
submitted were in possession of the government prior to the
Article 32. The defense entered into the agreement based on the
uncertainty of the defense presentation of evidence. The
defense noted the hearing recessed early and should reconvene at
1500 or 1600, 21 December 2011.

The Investigating Officer overruled the defense objection
and ordered the hearing would reconvene at 0900, 22 December
2011.

[The Article 32 hearing recessed at 0942, 21 December

2011.]

[The Article 32 hearing was called to order at 0902, 22
December 2011.]

All parties present prior to the recess were again present
in the hearing.

The Investigating Officer advised the spectators
unauthorized or disruptive behavior would result in removal from
the courtroom.

173

madame.va?i




The civilian defense counsel made a concluding argument to

the Investigating Officer.

The trial counsel made a concluding argument to the
Investigating Officer.

The Investigating Officer re-advised the accused of
role of the Investigating Officer in the proceedings.

The Investigating Officer announced the proceedings
closed.
[The Article 32 hearing closed at 1031, 22 December

OF

174

the

were

2011.]

00846



INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND ARRANGING RECORD OF TRIAL





USE OF FORM Use this form and MOM, 1984,
Appendix 14, will be used by the trial counsel and
the reporter as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court?martial
cases in which a verbatim record is prepared. Air
Force uses this form and departmental
instructions as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court?martial
cases in which a summarized record is authorized.
Army and Navy use DD Form 491 for records of
trial in general and special court?martial cases in
which a summarized record is authorized.
lnapplicable words of the printed text will be
deleted.

COPIES See MOM, 1984, RCM 1103(g). The
convening authority may direct the preparation of
additional copies.

ARRANGEMENT When forwarded to the
appropriate Judge Advocate General or for judge
advocate review pursuant to Article 64(a), the
record will be arranged and bound with allied
papers in the sequence indicated below. Trial
counsel is responsible for arranging the record as
indicated, except that items 6, 7, and 15e will be
inserted by the convening or reviewing authority,
as appropriate, and items 10 and 14 will be
inserted by either trial counsel or the convening or
reviewing authority, whichever has custody of
them.

1. Front cover and inside front cover (chronology
sheet) of DD Form 490.

2. Judge advocate's review pursuant to Article
64(a), if any.

3. Request of accused for appellate defense
counsel, or waiver/withdrawal of appellate rights,
if applicable.

4. Briefs of counsel submitted after trial, if any
(Article

5. DD Form 494, "Court?Martial Data Sheet."

6. Court?martial orders promulgating the result of
trial as to each accused, in 10 copies when the
record is verbatim and in 4 copies when it is
summarized.

7. When required, signed recommendation of
staff judge advocate or legal officer, in duplicate,
together with all clemency papers, including
clemency recommendations by court members.



8. Matters submitted by the accused pursuant to
Article 60 (MOM, 1984, RCM 1105).

9. DD Form 458, "Charge Sheet" (unless included
at the point of arraignment in the record).

10. Congressional inquiries and replies, if any.

11. DD Form 457, "Investigating Officer's Report,"
pursuant to Article 32, if such investigation was
conducted, followed by any other papers which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,
unless included in the record of trial proper.

12. Advice of staff judge advocate or legal officer,
when prepared pursuant to Article 34 or otherwise.

13. Requests by counsel and action of the
convening authority taken thereon requests
concerning delay, witnesses and depositions).

14. Records of former trials.
15. Record of trial in the following order:
a. Errata sheet, if any.

b. lndex sheet with reverse side containing
receipt of accused or defense counsel for copy of
record or certificate in lieu of receipt.

c. Record of proceedings in court, including
Article 39(a) sessions, if any.

d. Authentication sheet, followed by certificate
of correction, if any.

e. Action of convening authority and, if appro?
priate, action of officer exercising general court?
martial jurisdiction.

f. Exhibits admitted in evidence.

g. Exhibits not received in evidence. The page
of the record of trial where each exhibit was
offered and rejected will be noted on the front of
each exhibit.

h. Appellate exhibits, such as proposed in?
structions, written offers of proof or preliminary
evidence (real or documentary), and briefs of
counsel submitted at trial.



DD FORM 490, MAY 2000

Inside of Back Cover



e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh