Email exchange with Wired's Kevin Poulsen

From: ggreenwald@salon.com [mailto:ggreenwald@salon.com]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:19 PM
To: Poulsen, Kevin
Subject: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Kevin - I'm writing about the WikiLeaks/Manning story, and I wanted to
ask you a few questions:

Were you at all involved in/aware of the interaction between Lamo and
Manning prior to the time you learned that Manning had been detained?

Could you provide a little bit of information regarding your
relationship with Lamo? Do you consider him a friend, or is he just a
source, is it something in between?

Have you communicated at all with anyone from the Federal Government
regarding this matter -- either before the first time you wrote about
this story or after?

Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald

___________

From: "Kevin Poulsen"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:44:43 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: RE: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Hi Glenn,

>Were you at all involved in/aware of the interaction between Lamo and
>Manning prior to the time you learned that Manning had been detained?

I was not involved with the interaction. Adrian reached out to me in late May to tell me a story about how he'd been contacted by an Army intelligence analyst who'd admitted to leaking 260,000 State Department diplomatic cables to a "foreign national." Adrian told me he had already reported the matter to the government, and was meeting the Army and FBI in person to pass on chat logs. He declined to provide independently verifiable details, or identify the intelligence analyst by name, because he said he considered the matter sensitive.

Several days passed before he was willing to give me the chat logs under embargo. I got them on May 27. That's when I learned Manning's name and the full details of his claims to Adrian.

>Could you provide a little bit of information regarding your
>relationship with Lamo? Do you consider him a friend, or is he just a
>source, is it something in between?

He's a subject and source. Though it seems to have been omitted from the anonymous, innuendo-laced BoingBoing comment that prompted your inquiries (and showed up on your Twitter feed), I've been covering computer crime, security, privacy and related matters for over ten years. I've covered more hackers than I can count, and I have a lot of sources.

>Have you communicated at all with anyone from the Federal Government
>regarding this matter -- either before the first time you wrote about
>this story or after?

Yes, and I'll continue to communicate with people in the federal government about this story, as will Kim Zetter, and countless other journalists around the country. If you're asking if I informed on Manning or anyone else, the answer is no, and the question is insulting. I stand by my reporting, and my reporting methods, on this story.
_____________

From: ggreenwald@salon.com
To: "Kevin Poulsen"
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:54:20 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Kevin - Thanks for the responses. I honestly don't know why you're being so defensive. I wasn't trying to suggest or imply anything untoward at all -- if I had wanted to do that, I have done done it directly. I just found the whole thing odd from the start, others have raised questions, and so I put the questions to you with only one objective: finding out what happened. I don't have any preconceived ideas about any of this. As a journalist, you should understand that asking questions is how one obtains answers. I want to write about this story and emailing you was a way of understanding better what happened.

When you say that you that you have communicated and will "continue to communicate with people in the federal government about this story" -- do you mean that you've done so in your capacity as a journalist seeking information, or providing information? Again, not trying to be insulting, just wondering if any federal investigators have sought information from you.

Finally, the reason I asked about your relationship with Lemo is because of things and I read and this picture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamo-Mitnick-Poulsen.png- if you recall, could you tell me the circumstances when that was taken?

Thanks -

Glenn Greenwald

_____________

From: "Kevin Poulsen"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:19:08 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: RE: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Glenn,

>When you say that you that you have communicated and will "continue to
>communicate with people in the federal government about this story" --
>do you mean that you've done so in your capacity as a journalist seeking
>information, or providing information? Again, not trying to be
>insulting, just wondering if any federal investigators have sought
>information from you.

I've communication with people in the federal government exclusively in my capacity as a journalist seeking information.

>Finally, the reason I asked about your relationship with Lemo is because
>of things and I read and this picture -
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamo-Mitnick-Poulsen.png- if you
>recall, could you tell me the circumstances when that was taken?

The photo was taken around 2001, while I was editor at SecurityFocus, where'd I'd already written stories about Adrian Lamo and about Kevin Mitnick. Kevin came to town and hooked up with Adrian. I suggested they drop by and we get lunch together. We did, and a friend of Adrian's thought it would be fun to take a photo of the two old hackers with Adrian Lamo.

If I seem defensive, you need only look at Wikileaks' twitter feed (and now your own) to see why. I'm accustomed to personal attacks (we've covered Ron Paul), but there's a McCarthyistic flavor to the statements and innuendo coming from Julian that rubs me the wrong way. "Everyone knows," "how likely is it," "it's obvious," "could it really be," "how complicit is Wired?"

K

____________

From: ggreenwald@salon.com
To: "Kevin Poulsen"
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:27:05 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Kevin - Julian is obviously unhappy with the whole incident, but I'm not Julian and WikiLeaks, so I hope you won't direct whatever you're feeling toward them to me. I did send that comment around on Twitter but not to endorse all of it, but because of the questions it raises.

But here's the issue: you have to admit there's something disturbing about all of this. You became insulted - and I understand why - when you thought I was insinuating that you acted as an informant against Manning. That's because that would be a bad thing to do as a journalist. But that, of course, is exactly what Lamo did, and there's a lot of animosity toward him for his doing that (which, I will acknowledge, I share).

Some of that animosity is rubbing off on you, because (a) you have a prior relationship with Lamo that seems friendly; (b) he obviously chose you to give the story to; and as a result (c) you've pretty much driven the story single-handedly, without uttering a word of criticism about what Lamo did. I'm not saying you have to criticize Lamo - it's perfectly legitimate to just play it as a straight reporter conveying facts -- but there does seem to be at least a congenial relationship between you and Lamo such that anger toward him is being re-directed (arguably mis-directed) toward you.

Last question: you published what were clearly excerpts of the chats between Lamo and Manning - did he provide you with the whole unedited version and if, so, do you intend to publish it? Or is what you published everything he gave you?

Glenn
______________

From: "Kevin Poulsen"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 7:55:01 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: RE: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

>Kevin - Julian is obviously unhappy with the whole incident, but I'm not
>Julian and WikiLeaks, so I hope you won't direct whatever you're feeling
>toward them to me. I did send that comment around on Twitter but not to
>endorse all of it, but because of the questions it raises.

Well, you know. I'm not hiding out. You could have gotten the answers first. :)

>But here's the issue: you have to admit there's something disturbing
>about all of this. You became insulted - and I understand why - when
>you thought I was insinuating that you acted as an informant against
>Manning. That's because that would be a bad thing to do as a
>journalist. But that, of course, is exactly what Lamo did, and there's
>a lot of animosity toward him for his doing that (which, I will
>acknowledge, I share).
>
>Some of that animosity is rubbing off on you, because (a) you have a
>prior relationship with Lamo that seems friendly; (b) he obviously chose
>you to give the story to; and as a result (c) you've pretty much driven
>the story single-handedly, without uttering a word of criticism about
>what Lamo did. I'm not saying you have to criticize Lamo - it's
>perfectly legitimate to just play it as a straight reporter conveying
>facts -- but there does seem to be at least a congenial relationship
>between you and Lamo such that anger toward him is being re-directed
>(arguably mis-directed) toward you.

But we're not just talking about animosity, are we? We're talking about smears. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15624063923

I haven't criticized Manning either, and I've done more than anyone else to report on Manning's apparent motives. My stories with Kim have quoted Manning's friends and family, and taken a focused look at the incident that he said compelled him to start leaking. And, as you've noted, I've posted large portions of the chat logs so other people can draw their own conclusions about Adrian and Brad.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/conscience/

There are outspoken people who think Manning is a traitor, but I'm not getting hate mail from them accusing me of propping up a spy, because there's no organization pushing a false narrative in that direction.

>Last question: you published what were clearly excerpts of the chats
>between Lamo and Manning - did he provide you with the whole unedited
>version and if, so, do you intend to publish it? Or is what you
>published everything he gave you?

He did, but I don't think we'll be publishing more any time soon. The remainder is either Manning discussing personal matters that aren't clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I'm not throwing up without vetting first.

K
_____________

From: ggreenwald@salon.com
To: "Kevin Poulsen"
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:14:42 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

Hey Kevin - Thanks for being so responsive so far. I appreciate it - I just have a couple of more questions as I finish up my piece:

Do you have any idea how Manning found Lamo so quickly? Was the first contact by email or chat? And do you have also have the emails, and if so, do you plan to publish those?

Finally, I've emailed Adrian at the email address that I see on the email you published that Julian sent, but he hasn't responded. Do you have another way to get in contact with him? I'd really like to be able to talk to him for what I'm writing - thanks,

Glenn Greenwald
___________

From: "Kevin Poulsen"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4:38:07 PM (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
Subject: RE: Question from Glenn Greenwald/SALON

I know he got email, but I don't have a copy. You might try him on twitter