The Invisible Man: Jeffrey Sterling, CIA Whistleblower

[JEB]

By Norman Solomon

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Invisible-Man-Jeffrey-by-Norman-Solomon-CIA_Jeffrey-Sterling_Media_Whistleblower-150127-558.html

The mass media have suddenly discovered Jeffrey Sterling -- after his conviction Monday afternoon as a CIA whistleblower.

Sterling's indictment four years ago received fleeting news coverage that recited the government's charges. From the outset, the Justice Department portrayed him as bitter and vengeful -- with the classic trash-the-whistleblower word "disgruntled" thrown in -- all of which the mainline media dutifully recounted without any other perspective.

Year after year, Sterling's case dragged through appellate courts, tangled up with the honorable refusal of journalist James Risen to in any way identify sources for his 2006 book State of War. While news stories or pundits occasionally turned their lens on Risen, they scarcely mentioned Sterling, whose life had been turned upside down -- fired by the CIA early in the Bush administration after filing a racial discrimination lawsuit, and much later by the 10-count indictment that included seven counts under the Espionage Act.

Sterling was one of the very few African American case officers in the CIA. He became a whistleblower by virtue of going through channels to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003 to inform staffers about the CIA's ill-conceived, poorly executed and dangerous Operation Merlin, which had given a flawed design for a nuclear weapons component to Iran back in 2000.

<snip>

The principle of supporting whistleblowers as strongly as journalists is crucial. Yet support for the principle is hit-and-miss among individuals and organizations that should be clear and forthright. This need is especially great when the government is invoking "national security" claims.

As the whistleblower advocate Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project has said: "When journalists become targets, they have a community and a lobby of powerful advocates to go to for support. Whistleblowers are in the wilderness. ... They're indicted under the most serious charge you can level against an American: being an enemy of the state."

<snip>

Two weeks ago, Jeffrey Sterling went to trial at last. He was at the defense table during seven days of proceedings that included very dubious testimony from 23 present and former CIA employees as well as the likes of Condoleezza Rice.

When a court clerk read out the terrible verdict Monday afternoon, Sterling continued to stand with the dignity that he had maintained throughout the trial.

At age 47, Jeffrey Sterling is facing a very long prison sentence. As a whistleblower, he has done a lot for us. He should be invisible no more.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Read the complete piece at the link.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Invisible-Man-Jeffrey-by-Norman-Solomon-CIA_Jeffrey-Sterling_Media_Whistleblower-150127-558.html

[grasswire]

1. whistleblowers are invisible at DU too.

Sad.

[riderinthestorm]

3. There's a contingent here who vilify whistleblowers relentlessly

That's sad too

[bigtree]

2. kick

[Octafish]

4. It's not Sterling who should be heading to prison, but his former bosses.

They're the ones who thought giving Iran H-bomb plans was a good idea, like when they gave Mexican drug cartels assault weapons would be a useful investigative tool.

They also thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

[msanthrope]

6. Operation Merlin was a successful Clinton era op. We gave fake plans to Iran,

they fell for it.

Don't see the problem. Don't see why President Clinton should be jailed for it.

[Octafish]

8. Of course not.

Why should anyone with real authority go to jail when they have convenient apparatchiks for scapegoats?

[msanthrope]

16. Tell us why you think President Clinton should go to jail for Operation Merlin. nt

[Octafish]

34. But that's not what I wrote, is it?

I'd like the crooks in Secret Government go to jail -- you know, the ones Reagan, Poppy Bush, Clinton and Smirko Bush listened to. The ones Obama listens to. The ones who cooked up the idea to send Iran nuclear bomb plans.

It reminds me of the way the Secret Government sent Iraq and Pakistan nuclear bomb equipment in the 1980s. It was part of the BCCI bank scam, moving money into the pockets of Dr. A.Q. Khan. We talked a bit about it on DU in 2004:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1080836

BTW: Why do you have to put words in my mouth to make a point, msanthrope? Not only is that un-American, it's un-Democratic.

[msanthrope]

58. You said "his former bosses." nt

[Octafish]

60. Who's the boss of the Secret Government, msanthrope?

(George) Wallace and his third wife, the former Lisa Taylor, meet with Vice President George Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton at a lobster bake at Bush's residence at Kennebunkport, Maine, July 30, 1983. The third Mrs. Wallace, whom the governor married in 1981, was 30 years his junior and half of a country-western singing duo, Mona and Lisa, who had performed during his campaign in 1968.

CREDIT: AP/Birmingham Post

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/george-wallace/13/

The answer helps one understand why the rich keep getting richer off wars without end and the People are "free" to pick up the tab.

Secret Government is un-Democratic, too, msanthrope.

[bigtree]

11. was it really a 'success'?

August 24, 2014
How the CIA accidentally gave Iran Blueprints for a Nuke

By Mark Wachtler

How did Operation Merlin turn out? Was it a success? Did the Iranians ever find the flaw in the blueprints? The US intelligence community has no idea because not long after the CIA used the Russian defector to hand-deliver the blueprints to Iran, the most deadly and costly CIA mistake in known history occurred.

Since the advent of modern, covert communications equipment, the CIA has been communicating with its secret agents via small encrypted transmitters and receivers. Communication specialists working out of CIA headquarters in the US routinely exchange secret, coded messages with agents in countries all over the world. But on this fateful day, the CIA employee working the Iran desk accidentally sent the wrong file to one of the Agency’s secret agents in Tehran. This file contained the entire list of secret CIA agents working inside Iran at the time. The Iranian recipient, thought to be a paid CIA operative, was actually a double-agent who was really working for the Iranian intelligence service.

Readers may remember an episode in 2004 when Iranian officials announced they had discovered dozens of American CIA agents working inside Iran. The Iranians gloated that they had been taken into custody and executed. Bush administration officials dismissed the announcement as untrue Iranian propaganda. But soon thereafter, Israeli officials confirmed they had lost Mossad agents in Iran and feared they were dead. Even worse, both countries’ intelligence apparatuses were panicking over what additional intelligence had been divulged by their agents while being tortured by their Iranian counterparts.

The Guardian report describes how US intelligence officials still refuse to come to terms with the events that took place, both with the bomb blueprints and with accidentally turning over the agent list to the Iranians.

‘Mistake piled on mistake,’ the account reads, ‘As the CIA later learned, the Iranian who received the download was a double agent. The agent quickly turned the data over to Iranian security officials, and it enabled them to "roll up" the CIA's network throughout Iran. CIA sources say that several of the Iranian agents were arrested and jailed, while the fates of some of the others is still unknown. This espionage disaster, of course, was not reported. It left the CIA virtually blind in Iran, unable to provide any significant intelligence on one of the most critical issues facing the US - whether Tehran was about to go nuclear.’


read: http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q3/how-cia-accidentally-gave-iran-blueprints-nuke/

[KingCharlemagne]

12. Boom! Owned AND served! No one will ever know whether

Merlin was a success or failure, whether it was 'valid' or instead the height of recklessness.

Thanks for posting this brilliant rejoinder.

[msanthrope]

15. Does Iran have nukes? Then it was a success. Were there other fuckups?

Yes....but just because a fuckup happens, it doesn't mean you have the legal right to leak it.

[bigtree]

20. it has always been questionable whether Iran had a nuke program to begin with

The IAEA didn't think so, even stating that they believed much of the 'evidence' presented them had been fabricated.

What the government was actually engaged in at the time was an effort to make it APPEAR that Iraq actually had a nuclear weapons program, even though a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 actually concluded that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program and actually halted their nuclear power efforts as early as 2003.

The International Atomic Energy Agency believed the evidence the U.S. was presenting was fabricated. Presenting the U.S. efforts against as some heroic race to stop an atomic bomb plays into the narrative which had been used to call for strikes or an invasion of Iran. The record, however, shows a muddled, contradictory, and bungled effort to discredit the Iranians, rather than some noble and unassailable mission.

Moreover, it's questionable whether Sterling was actually the source for the 'leak' which could have come from numerous sources.

[msanthrope]

23. And? Still doesn't make Operation Merlin illegal. Further, Risen did not

testify that Sterling was not the source...and that spoke volumes.

FYI...downthread, you are conflating the right of the prosecution to compel testimony as opposed to the rights of the defense.

[bigtree]

24. Risen was protecting his sources, as any good reporter will do, have done

...it's notable that you don't have any regard for freedom of the press at all, opting for this notion that reporters aren't* entitled to keep their sources secret - a notion that even the attorney general hasn't adopted. it still hasn't been established that there was any right in this case to compel Risen to reveal his sources. I guess you missed the six years of stonewalling and the inability of the government to compel him to talk.

Try reading something other than the government indictment.

[randome]

28. So who was Sterling protecting, as msanthrope points out?

The answer is pretty obvious to me: Risen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

33. Sterling was protecting himself.

[msanthrope]

32. You are suggesting Risen let an innocent man be convicted. There is no

federal privilege for a reporter to avoid testimony in a criminal trial.

And you are quite incorrect...the 4th ruled against Risen, saying he would have to testify if the AG wanted him to. SCOTUS declined the appeal. I suggest you find and read that opinon.

Holder opted to not pursue Risen....and I suspect Risen left enough breadcrumbs to make that possible.

[bigtree]

35. there's nothing to guarantee Risen testifying Sterling wasn't the source would have exonerated him

...that's just a strawman you've raised here.

[randome]

44. How is it a strawman? The allegation was that Sterling leaked to Risen. Sterling denied it.

The most obvious next step is to have Risen testify that Sterling was not his source. Case closed! But Sterling didn't do that, did he? The question is: why not? The answer is: because he did leak to Risen.

This entire trial would have been over on Day One if Sterling hadn't insisted on lying and protecting Risen. Fat lot of good it did him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

49. tha answer is that the defense felt they could not compel that answer from Risen

...that presenting him (and that courtroom fight) to the jury might be detrimental to Sterling. To say that, therefore, proves Sterling's guilt is a conclusion that not even the prosecution had the temerity to make. It's sophistry of the worst order and a good reflection of the authoritarian attitude toward this citizen's rights and disregard of his expectation of innocence until proven guilty as any I've read in this case. If you can't use the evidence presented in court as proof of guilt, you have no business at all associating yourself with his prosecution. That reasoning is something I'd expect from a Kangaroo court; not a U.S. court of law.

[randome]

51. So Sterling wanted to go to jail because he didn't want to inconvenience Risen?

I concede your point the prosecution should stand or fall on its own merits but then there were plenty of emails and communications from Sterling to Risen so apparently the jury thought that was enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

57. of course, I didn't say anything of the kind

...the defense didn't think Risen would reveal ANY of his sources, but they were, apparently, interested in having Risen testify about the multiple sources he had cited which he said were used to write the book. It's not as if the defense didn't want Risen to testify, they just didn't see a compelling reason to have him, potentially, stonewalling on the stand. You conclude that would help exonerate Sterling. His defense apparently thought it might have an unpredictable effect. To make the jump from that to his guilt is a big stretch.

Watch for the appeal...

[Luminous Animal]

26. Successful? Likely not.

Iran was warned by our Russian agent that the blueprints contained flaws.

Did the CIA give Iran the bomb?

Several former CIA officials say that the theory behind Merlin - handing over tainted weapon designs to confound one of America's adversaries - is a trick that has been used many times in past operations, stretching back to the cold war. But in previous cases, such Trojan horse operations involved conventional weapons; none of the former officials had ever heard of the CIA attempting to conduct this kind of high-risk operation with designs for a nuclear bomb. The former officials also said these kind of programmes must be closely monitored by senior CIA managers in order to control the flow of information to the adversary. If mishandled, they could easily help an enemy accelerate its weapons development. That may be what happened with Merlin.

Iran has spent nearly 20 years trying to develop nuclear weapons, and in the process has created a strong base of sophisticated scientists knowledgeable enough to spot flaws in nuclear blueprints. Tehran also obtained nuclear blueprints from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and so already had workable blueprints against which to compare the designs obtained from the CIA. Nuclear experts say that they would thus be able to extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws.

"If [the flaw] is bad enough," warned a nuclear weapons expert with the IAEA, "they will find it quite quickly. That would be my fear"

[msanthrope]

37. "That may be what happened with Merlin."

Jeebus....even Risen doesn't sound sure. Sterling is going to get a lot of time for Risen's speculations.

[msanthrope]

5. It's not whistleblowing when you leak to the press a perfectly legal CIA

op designed to interdict Iranian nukes. Sterling was a malcontent...and when Senate Intelligence didn't find anything wrong, and he couldn't shakedown the CIA for a settlement, he leaked to James Risen.

Well...now he goes to prison.

[bigtree]

9. the 'leak' likely came from Congress first

...and the information wasn't something that compromised their dangerous and dubious mission. Russia and Iran knew the blueprints were 'flawed' from the start and merely set about replacing the flaws with corrections.

What the U.S. government, the CIA, has been concerned with about the 'leaks' (which they were only able to accuse with the most circumstantial of evidence: the word 'Merlin' found on Sterling's computer) had less to do with a compromise of national security than it did with the revelation to the American public of their embarrassingly dangerous and dubious ploy and the accountability which would follow.

It's always offensive to me that this black CIA agent's discrimination suit which he filed has been used to characterize him as a 'malcontent.' It's disgusting and a reflection of the way whistleblowers are demonized for their efforts.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Sterling's initial revelation of this blueprint scheme was to Senate committee investigators. It was alleged (and still unproven) that he later revealed that information to Risen in an interview, although, as Risen says, could have come from any number of sources that he used for his book.

[randome]

10. Sometimes lawsuits arise from being 'malcontent'.

Just because Sterling is black doesn't give him a pass any more than Ben Carson gets a pass.

And whether or not the operation was compromised is beside the point, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

13. his initial report was to Senate investigators and it's questionable whether the 'leak' was from him

... and to conflate him with 'Ben Carson' without knowing spit about him, just to deny that he was a whistleblower, is despicable - as is echoing the CIA smear that he went to the Senate investigatory committee because he was 'disgruntled'. It's a reflection of the knee-jerk authoritarianism which has infected these defenses of these government prosecutions.


Sterling Prosecution Long on Rhetoric, Short on Evidence
by John Hanrahan, January 24, 2015

___ FBI special agent Ashley Hunt, who has led the FBI investigation of the Merlin leak for more than a decade, presented the strongest circumstantial evidence against Sterling – the aforementioned chronology. MacMahon got her to acknowledge that she did not pursue – or was blocked from pursuing – certain paths of inquiry that might have turned up other suspects as the source of the Merlin information that Risen received.

Hunt acknowledged under tough questioning that she had once earlier in the investigation written memoranda saying Sterling was probably not the leaker and that the likely source was someone from the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSIC). She also acknowledged writing a memo in early 2006 citing “unified opposition” to her investigation within the committee, which was supposed to be monitoring Merlin. She testified that then-committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) told her he was not going to cooperate with the FBI, and the committee staff director, Republican William Duhnke, refused to talk to her at all.

Two former staffers from the SSIC who met with Sterling in March 2003, when he brought what they and other prosecution witnesses have described as a whistleblowing complaint about the Merlin scheme, did testify as prosecution witnesses at Sterling’s trial. Under questioning, they provided testimony helpful to Sterling that showed that Risen, indeed, apparently had sources on the committee – a committee that was already familiar with Operation Merlin even before Sterling came to them with his concerns.

Defense attorneys hammered on the point through testimony from these prosecution witnesses that despite Risen’s sources and potential sources in both the CIA and on Capitol Hill (including right on the SSCI), none had had their residences searched, their computer’s contents analyzed, their telephone call logs examined, their bank and credit card records searched – as had been the case with Sterling.


...if anything, this looks like the CIA retaliating against this black agent for filing the complaint, in the first place. At the very least, it's a scapegoating for the revelations which could have come from any number of sources Risen was interviewing from the Senate (the Senate committe members already knew of the program before Sterling came to them), many long before Sterling even gave them his information.

[msanthrope]

14. If it had....why didn't Sterling call Risen to the stand to confirm that Sterling

was not his source?

Sterling was indeed the source...which is why he could not call Risen.

[bigtree]

17. such nonsense

...you know well why and are just being obtuse.

Risen has refused to reveal the source he used in his book for years. He's already said that numerous sources were used - furthermore, Senate investigators already had the info long BEFORE Sterling even came to them, and during that time, Risen had already interviewed DOZENS of them.

[msanthrope]

21. Wrong....Risen refused to reveal his source to the prosecution. Had the defense

made such a request, Mr. Risen would have gone to jail, immediately, until he revealed his source.

There is not a federal judge in the land who would have allowed Mr. Sterling's sixth amendment rights to have been so curtailed.

The reason Sterling didn't call Risen....he's the source.

Think about it this way....if Sterling had called Risen, and Risen refused to reveal his source on the stand, it would have raised enough reasonable doubt for the judge to throw the charges....especially if Sterling stipulated to the court that any privilege Risen thought he had via Sterling was now waived. (Which is how Libby got Miller out of jail.)

[bigtree]

25. that's nonsense.

Risen has already stated that he had numerous sources for his book.

[msanthrope]

30. No...it's legal fact. The reason Risen wasn't called to the stand, although Sterling could have

done so, is because Sterling is the source.

[bigtree]

36. funny that conclusion wasn't ANY part of the prosecution case

...not in closing arguments or in any testimony.

Just a diversion, a strawman which has no bearing at all on the facts in this case.

[msanthrope]

39. You really think the jury was so dim-witted they didn't notice the utter

absence of "Author A?" Even though the prosecution referred to him, over and over, and the defense never raised a single witness to dispute that the email, phone calls, and meetings Sterling had with Author A took place? The prosecution hammered Sterling with Author A.

You don't win convcitions in your closing. By then, you are merely pointing out the landmarks in the map.

[bigtree]

43. we're done, msanthrope

...enough info on this thread for folks to make their own assumptions.

I'm not going to encourage more diverting, speculative, misinforming defenses.

[msanthrope]

45. I'm encouraging posters to read the actual case documents, like

the indictment, and the 4th circuit's opinion on the Risen matter (the same circuit that kept Judith Miller in jail.)

You are posting opinion pieces, and claiming that facts presented to you are "disinformation."

I think anyone who wishes to opine on Sterling, but has not bothered to read the indictment, is limiting their knowledge. A pity.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Risen wouldn't testify. He's been all over the news with that

He's been prepared to go to jail for years now and had been very upfront about that, rather than reveal his sources.

There was no point in calling Risen to the stand unless Sterling wanted his imprisonment on his head.

[msanthrope]

22. Risen wouldn't testify for the prosecution. He'd have been immediately jailed at the trial

had he refused the defense. Look.....the 4th already said Risen had to testify for the prosecution if the AG wished it....so that excuse doesn't wash.

Had Sterling called Risen to the stand, stipulating any waiver of privilege, all Risen would have had to testify to was that Sterling was not the source.....that he did not spoke volumes.

[riderinthestorm]

27. I'll let Common Dreams answer for me

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/13/government-declares-monopoly-right-call-james-risen-witness

[bigtree]

29. right, good link

from your link:

As Josh Gerstein first reported, the government has asked the judge in the Jeffrey Sterling trial, Leonie Brinkema, to declare James Risen unavailable as a witness. After having defended their own right to call Risen as a witness all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming all the way they need Risen to prove their case, they’re now saying Sterling should not be able to call him.

Mr. Risen’s under-oath testimony has now laid to rest any doubt concerning whether he will ever disclose his sources or sources for Chapter 9 of State of War (or, for that matter, anything else he’s written). He will not. As a result, the government does not intend to call him as a witness at trial. Doing so would simply frustrate the truth-seeking function of the trial. This is true irrespective of whether he is called by the government or the defense–he is unavailable to both parties

.

The real issue, it seems, is the government’s worry that Sterling’s lawyers will ask Risen about those past claims.

Since Mr. Risen is not available as a witness on the central issue in the case, the defendant should be prohibited from commenting on Mr. Risen’s failure to appear or suggesting that the government has failed to meet its burden because it did not call him as a witness.

...the government has been afraid of Risen raising the rest of the claims in his book in open court and risking further embarrassment on issues like misinformation and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq.

[msanthrope]

40. Yes...it's been the law of the land for 40 years now. You don't have a right to avoid

testifying in a criminal trial just because you are a reporter.

Funny...I bet you didn't support Judith Miller when she made the same arguments Risen did.

[riderinthestorm]

54. Oh bullshit. Sterling blowing the whistle on ridiculous botched CIA ops

Versus Judith Miller protecting a source who deliberately leaked a CIA agents name in vindictive retaliation....

You're really stretching credulity.

The charges against Sterling are designed to put the fear of god into whistleblowers. Its plain as day to just about anyone whose half awake.

[msanthrope]

56. So when Sterling revealed Human Asset #1 to sell his book.....

note, a CIA case officer revealing his own agent in the field, mind you, that wasn't vindictive?

He was convicted for more than leaking. What is your defense of the charges related to Human Asset #1?

Judith Miller did it to sell newsprint. Sterling did it to hawk a book. Not seeing much wiggle room there.

[elias49]

31. Indefatigable apologist for the administration. nt

[bigtree]

38. hoping that if enough garbage is thrown in the air, readers will turn away from the stink

...and settle with the assumption of guilt in this case.

Classic disinformation effort (or, at least, a co-opting of the government's own) :

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).

Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.

[msanthrope]

42. Yes...it must be disinformation if someone not only disagrees with you, they

have the temerity to accurately cite the law.

You really should read the 4th circuit's opinion on this case.....I think they deftly note they were right in the case of Judith Miller, and right, here.

[bigtree]

47. strange to present yourself as an authority on Sterling's defense, while working to discredit him

...observers of the trail know well why Risen didn't testify.

In pre-trial arguments, Risen said, definitively, that he wouldn't reveal his sources. The defense didn't see any value in demanding Risen appear on the stand, and felt that it might actually hurt their client. That's their judgment. You've used that as proof of Sterling's guilt. That's so outlandish that it appears to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate from the facts in the case (beyond the indictment that you're so fond of citing). I'm not game for it, msanthrope, and I hope others recognize your efforts for what they are; an attempt to throw whatever garbage you can raise up in the air and hope it diverts from the facts in this case.


for anyone actually interested in the facts surrounding Risen testifying, or not, here's a good account (as pointed to by riderinthestorm) :


Defense lawyer Edward MacMahon said Risen wasn’t truly unavailable, but had essentially been excused from testifying as a result of a decision by the government.

“He’s not unavailable in a legal sense,” MacMahon declared at a court hearing Monday. “The government did not even ask him questions about the identity of his source. It’s politically unavailable is what it is.”

MacMahon said the government had made a series of decisions to blinder their investigation of Risen and those unexplored possibilities are fair game for the defense. “Why didn’t they subpoena Mr. Risen’s e-mails? Why didn’t they subpoena Mr. Risen’s phone calls?” the defense lawyer asked, calling it “really unfair and unconstitutional” to preclude the defense from bringing up such issues.

(Judge) Brinkema said the situation was not entirely akin to most in which a witness refuses to testify.

“This is a little bit different,….This is not a person claiming the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate one’s self. Part of the issue is a policy decision,” she said, noting Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to bar prosecutors from asking Risen directly about his confidential sources, or even where or when he met them or obtained certain information.

The judge noted that a federal appeals court agreed with the government that it could seek to force Risen to testify, but now Holder is electing not to.

Brinkema said Sterling’s lawyers should be permitted, at a minimum, to tell jurors that Risen said at last week’s hearing that he had multiple sources for the chapter at issue from his book. “He did say some things in his testimony that were not irrelevant to this case,” the judge said.

read: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/13/government-declares-monopoly-right-call-james-risen-witness

[msanthrope]

48. Thank you...what was posted completely supports my point. The defense could have

called Risen. But they didn't...because Risen, if called by the defense, would have testified:

1) Sterling was a source for Operation Merlin.

2) Sterling revealed Human Asset #1, and was the only one who could have done so.

That's why I kept telling you to READ THE INDICTMENT.

You keep focusing on the leak, forgetting the more important charge.

You are defending a CIA case officer who revealed an agent in the field, to sell a book.

[bigtree]

52. Risen stated in pre-trial, unequivocally, that he would NOT reveal his sources

...so what you've just stated is false.

I haven't said a word about defending Risen, so more deflecting nonsense from you.

And, I have read the indictment. You, on the other hand, are glued to the teat of the prosecution.

[msanthrope]

53. He still could have been called by defense, and had he refused on the stand, at trial,

jailed.

Now let me just say that if I was Mr. Sterling's attorney, I wouldn't have given a second thought about jailing a reporter who could have cleared my innocent client with a few words.

And I would have made damn sure the jury saw it.

Like I said...had the defense called Risen, the government would have been able to compel testimony on the more serious charge...you know...where Mr. Sterling revealed his own agent in the field to sell a book.

What's the defense for that?

[bigtree]

59. there would still be a question of what the reporter was withholding

...not the outright proof of Sterling's guilt or innocence you're positing, and certainly no guarantee of the juror's reaction to that spectacle.

Okay, enough fun. I work nights and this is not worth losing sleep over. Read something other than the government case. Interestingly enough, there aren't many published reports which give the government much credence. At any rate, the ones which do don't appear to be DU worthy.

[msanthrope]

62. Hey.....that "question" translates into "reasonable doubt."

That "question" gets turned into a jury instruction that favors acquittal.

That's why you get it in front of the jury.

Procedurally, Risen could be called by the defense.

Tactically, it would have been a disaster because Risen's most damning testimony would have gone to the more serious charge.....a charge you haven't defended.

[bigtree]

64. so 'damning' that the government pleaded with the judge to bar Risen's testimony

...after asking that it be limited to a narrow question of his 2002 association with Sterling for an article he wrote about the discrimination lawsuit.

Not flying, champ. It would be a 'disaster' for the government to allow Risen to testify, because he'd be compelled to raise other aspects of his book which was focused on lies and misinformation regarding Iran, and the same with regard to the invasion of Iraq.

You really need to get your head out of that indictment and take a look at real-world reporting on this.

[msanthrope]

65. They wanted to bar the transcript, because Risen could be called. I would expect no less from any

lawyer, prosecution or defense--when the witness is available, courts generally eschew prior testimony and call to the stand, as per the FRCP. There are only a few notable exceptions. That isn't something evil on part of the government....it's good and proper lawyering.

Now, I think the judge made a reasonable decision on 5th amendment grounds that precluded an appeal point for the defense, whilst still allowing for conviction.

FYI--it would not have been a disaster for the government for Risen to testify because the "lies and misinformation" aspects would have been excluded as not relevant. You really think that this particular judge was going to put up with Mr. Risen's nonsense?

As for the "real world" reporting on this..... you do realize that the "reality" of the situation for Mr. Sterling lies not in blog posts from common dreams but in the court papers? Specifically, the 9 count conviction sheet. He's facing life. And all the damn blog posts in the world ain't gonna change the law.

And let me be clear on this--this particular judge isn't going to come down on him for leaking.....but she will come down on him for being the case officer who betrayed his own agent.

[bigtree]

61. that book you say 'Sterling' wrote, was trying to sell?

...what book?

Motor City Comic Con
2009 by Jeffrey Sterling



I think you're a bit confused.

[msanthrope]

63. Ha!!! No....the book he was negotiations with. CIA wouldn't clear it. nt

[msanthrope]

41. I have nothing to apologize for. This has been the law for 40 years...you

don't get to avoid testifying in a criminal trial just because you are a reporter.

I find your post hoc defense of Judith Miller hilarious.

[elias49]

50. You need to read for understanding

you made the same mistake with my old "Julian Assange" thread.
I finally found someone I can gladly put on my ignore list!! My first!
Have a good life, baby!

[msanthrope]

55. Your old "Julian Assange" thread? The one that got hidden?

Absolutely put me on ignore!

[JEB]

7. I thought we were signers of the Nuclear Nonproliferation pact.

Would that not call into question the legality of giving plans to another country?

[Recursion]

19. This was exactly what we demanded Cheney and Libby's head for

But I guess it's OK once the prosecutor is black?

[msanthrope]

46. I love the post hoc defense of Judith Miller presented in this thread. nt