your faith that you are being transferred to, but you've made trouble for the leadership and this isn't just the leadership of some random company. this is the leadership of the central next. not only are you not promoted, not only are you not given the assignment that you would originally been given, but you're charged with multiple counts of espionage. and you faced the prospect of spending the rest of europe, the blowers in the american intelligence community. this is the story of jeffrey stirling and accomplished c. i. on iranian affairs, jeffrey also happens to be african american. he joined the cia in 1993 and after going through operational and farsi language training, he was sent overseas to work on hard targets. he handled some of the most difficult cases in the near eastern operations division, but in 2000 he was passed over for a promotion. and his supervisor intimated the jeffrey could not have a plumb assignment that he had already been given. simply because he was black. he

filed the racial discrimination lawsuit against the cia, but instead of giving him his original assignment apologizing or trying to settle things quietly, the cia used it's nuclear option. we'll walk you through that story and tell you about one of the most resilient whistleblowers we know. jeffrey sterling, welcome to the show. thanks so much for joining us. thank you for having me, jeffrey. you and i were at the c. i a, at the same time in that period in the 1990 s, the agency spent a great deal of time, energy and money focusing on the iranian nuclear program. you were trained in iran operations and you even learn to speak farsi. you had success overseas and you were involved in an operation that the ca ended up blowing. you return to ca headquarters and you were up for both a promotion and for a plumb assignment. tell us what happened then why did you not go back overseas?

to iranian operation, but i was logged in, it was called operation merlin. and it was designed to warranty iranian nuclear program by giving them plan, given the iranians plans to nuclear flaw. so if the iranians use the plan to make a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't work. and the theory being that it would set the program back a number of years. well, i was given assurances that the plans would not, the floor plans would not be protected by anyone they were worked on by one of our national last year in the us. so i was given all sorts of assurance that this was a safe program and it wouldn't help iranians get weapons. well, as we were going through and getting close to launch the individual who i was working with to approach the iranian with the plans. when he 1st saw the plan, he immediately detected the flaw. so far as being what it is. anybody sees a claw,

they're going to try to fix it and made it maybe even better than it would have been before. so when the individual was able to apply immediately, all sorts of alarm bells and whistles went off in my head. that this isn't going to help inform your running. it's actually going to help them develop a nuclear weapon. so i made my concerns known to my supervisors even all the way up through other channels within the ca. and the response basically was, as i was told at the meeting, where we learned about that the individual could see the flaw was to show i took my concerns to the senate intelligence committee with really no attention or really no care. it was a see a ration as long as the ca had. it's pamela approval. no one care. my goodness. i want to ask you also about your racial discrimination lawsuit. what happened?

there is a problem for every intelligence community employee who's been wronged. you had a legitimate lawsuit, but it was dismissed by the district court after the ca invoked the state secrets privilege. you appealed to the federal court of appeals, but that court upheld the dismissal, saying, quote, there is no way for sterling to prove employment discrimination without exposing at least some class by details of the covered employment that gives context to his claim. on quote, what this clearly means is that you may have been discriminated against you probably were discriminated against, but to allow you to have your day in court like every other american would have, might expose secrets that has to be colossally frustrating. you never got your day in court. what happened next? absolutely. well, even just add a little more context on that. i mean, i'm a lawyer. i went to law school, i knew the law. i knew what my options were. i knew what protections i should have

had under the constitution. i'm for a court one for the say to invoke stacy was privileged to hi there discrimination. they weren't saying it wasn't discriminated. yes. they were saying that they didn't want to have to expose it or have a fall under scrutiny for an appeals court to uphold bad decision. it basically said and it is through everything. i learned law school out the door that a black man fighting for civil rights fighting for his civil rights is a threat to the national security of the century. oh, it's strong then it circle it still things because that's on the front to the very nature of the constitution. i did not sign onto the cia with the thought that i'm giving up my civil rights. and what's also important to understand is there was no argument about the merits of my discrimination case against the ca i, they just did not want to have their discrimination expose under the light of

justice. and, and so i, it was tossed aside. i know without even getting to the merits of another thing that was happening in the background throughout this time was that the cia was intercepting emails that you were exchanging with. then new york times journalist james rising, rising was covering the story of your discrimination suit. but the cia alleged without offering any proof that you were passing rise in secrets about iran, the sea. i never offered any proof that this was happening. in fact, there were disgruntled former c, i officers who otherwise would have been prime suspects. but they hadn't embarrassed the cia by accusing them of racial discrimination. you didn't know, of course, that you were being investigated under the espionage act. and by the time you found out the deck was already stacked against you. you were finally charged with multiple counts of espionage in the notorious eastern district of virginia. a

disclaimer, i was also charged with multiple counts of espionage in the eastern district of virginia at about the same time. and like you, i hadn't committed espionage and the charges against me were eventually dropped. but you were tougher than i was you decided to fight them. that was an incredibly courageous move. tell us what that was like, what, what did it feel like as you were going through that experience? well, the, the initial shock was that i was trying to, i was the only purpose i had in mind joining in exposing a flawed program was i was trying to serve my country satellite if you will. but then to be accused of violating the espionage act, essentially is looking at the face of a spying or providing enemy seekers providing our country secrets to an enemy to be charged with that after trying to stand up for my rights as

a citizen trying to work for the cia and to be shown the door essentially by being accused of being a spy was a horrible experience. made me question everything about how my country viewed me. but i was the totally that i wasn't going to bow down to any sort of aggression like this. i knew i was never going to plead guilty to something that i did not do . and that certainly was the case here. i did not provide any one any secret with regards to anything that i worked on for with the ca. yes, in the throes of being fired. because as a result of my discrimination and having the nerve to stand up to them and they, i know there is a feeling that they had of retaliation. there is no vengeance like a vengeance runs deep and it runs along and any opportunity that they have to go

after anyone perceived as an enemy, they're going to take it. they took that opportunity with me. yeah. i, you know, having my legal background, i knew what i was facing yet. i had a belief in truth that the truth will come out and, and that the criminal justice system would work the way it's supposed to do. it did not. i have no regrets about standing up for myself. i will never have any regrets . i think, regretted how the system treated me and then really overall how it treats whistleblowers in general. i think that is the crime here. agreed you underwent something of a show trial jeffrey, even former secretary of state condo. lisa rice came out to testify against you. but the ca had to admit that he had had no actual evidence that you had committed a crime. they had submitted data showing that you were in touch with rise and which

you were clear about. but you argued that the 2 of you were talking about your racial discrimination lawsuit on a whole bunch of counts. this, of course, being the eastern district of virginia, after all. and even though you faced more than a 100 years in prison, you got 3 and a half. that in and of itself to me is evidence of your innocence. there is evidence that the c, i was upset with a sentence. the federal bureau of prisons claims that it tries to keep prisoners as close his family. sorry as close as possible to their families. but you were sent all the way across the country to a prison in colorado, and it was from this prison that you launched your appeal. tell us about those experiences. well, one thing i want to say it was about the eastern district of virginia. i mean, that is also the same court had decided i as a black man had no civil rights to be standing up for myself was a threat to national security. so it was a revolving door going to the same place that had no regard for me as

a citizen of this country. but going through that trial, you're absolutely right. it was nothing more than a show or see, i had absolutely no evidence to present. they had to admit that they didn't investigate anyone else other than me, even in the face of damning evidence against others. we had an individual on the stand who was part of the senate intelligence committee, part of the group that i spoke to my concerns about operation, maryland. that individual, shortly after the interview with me when i was using the proper channel channels to complain about classified operations, that individual was fired or leaking information. no classified information from the senate intelligence committee reports. and by the way, that reporter happened to be the same one that i was accused of leaking information to change right? yet, that individual wasn't question, wasn't investigated at all. yet, as you said,

a collected every email that could possibly come from any computer i use as well as rise and as well as others. but i was the only focus of their investigation. so going through that show trial was a little joke. if you will. the prosecution tried every move, every measure that they could try to keep me from looking at evidence. one of the only clear valid talks the judge has was that they couldn't prevent me from seeing classified information that i already had access to. so that through their case, out of the window a little bit. but what they really ended up, really, the only thing that that court proved beyond a reasonable doubt was that i was black. was that i was an african american. ah, there was a whole parade of c i a officer saw white officers paraded on the stand to say yes on the good c r a officer. no, i did not clark, i did not. li,

classified information, not a bit of evidence about anything that i had done ah, supposedly. oh, no support for any other allegations, yet they were able to prove, prove to that i was a, a black american and as we unfortunately known as country. sometimes that's all that is needed. we're going to take a short break and return for the 2nd half of our conversation with theme cia whistleblower, jeffrey sterling. you're watching the whistleblowers stay tuned. 2 2 ah lisa, come to rush in the state will never be. i've unfortunately, no slam. steve asked me him then again,

i'll slap it within 55 when. okay, so mine is too bad. i'm speaking with van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state aren't russia for date, and c, r t spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube. and with me, what happens when you mix digital gains with actual physical sport? something like digital filters. yes. because on is preparing to host the 1st ever gains of the future. a cyber contest with

a physical dimension. one of the innovators, eager to study at all, is on the verge of redefining sports and gaming. he tells us what's behind this synergy, and if it's the future look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law and, and just the patient. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point, obviously is to create trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with ah, the robot must protect its own existence with

awe. watching it was a shag now shorter one, and i'm not going to stay last name scan, you know, when i went back with that teacher, just don't session a national z m noon. lexi shine, you did it when you buy on it. when you get on with not buy mia ah. 2 welcome back to the whistle blowers. we're speaking with cia whistleblower jeffrey sterling. jeffrey were talking about your odyssey through the federal court in the eastern district of virginia. you were convicted

of espionage despite the fact that there was no actual evidence against you and you were sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison. one of the things that has been difficult for me to understand, and i'm sure you would agree, is that james, rising the new york times reporter whom you were accused of passing classified information to had only to say the words jeffrey sterling was not my source. and the case would have likely been over, but he refused to do that. why did rising ever explain himself to you? did he ever offer you an apology? oh no, he never explained to me and i never felt that he needed to explain anything to me . right, and did not start that train that eventually landed me in prison. this was of in debt. this was a purpose government with a purpose, to come after me to teach me a lesson and send a message. as far as,

i'm sorry, yes, you're absolutely right. it should have been over the moment that this arise. he said that i was not his source because i certainly was not a source. but then the entire ordeal turned into as the press was labeling in the rising case, because there was the concern the issue of whether the government under the obama administration would put a reporter, journalist in jail in prison, or refusing to testify about his sources. well, he became the rising k, i became a spectator of my own criminal trial. and that was a bit disheartening, but i couldn't and wouldn't lay any of that. blame on to mr. right. and because no matter what he has, no matter what he was going to say, the government was held based on at least sending me to trial one to show how the cia does great operations. and to, to send the message to anyone who has the nerve to stand up and say no to

government wrong. doing so. and the interesting thing on that is the government didn't have the opportunity thanks once again to the eastern district of virginia to call this horizon to force them to testify if they chose not to. i think they did so in the sense that they knew they had a, they had a card of their sleeve that they could use and it was going to be used throughout. and i think it was that, you know, a black man sitting at an attendance table. how do i think our criminal justice system has proven that that is one of the easiest things to do? that's one of the easiest conditions to get. and given the atmosphere, the environment of being tried and isa virginia, with any concerns of national security. most individuals from the jury pool were connected in some way to some organization or some agency within the us

intelligence community. so there's already that stack, stack deck against you, but with regardless of all they come back around that list arise and i don't have any animosity to him towards him for anything. he didn't start the process. i was like a source, lizzie obligated to protect me in that sense, that the debate i guess, can still weigh john. yet, this entire ordeal started by the us government in the fact that they didn't call him as a lawyer, you put on your best evidence. but the fact that they didn't call him why and i think it a test left at the fact that they had no evidence. and they really didn't care. they didn't care whether they call him or not. the purpose of the goal was jeffrey stirling and come after me. and that's either by breaking me financially through a lot of projected trial. yet we're talking about a situation for me,

from the beginning of my discrimination issues with ca, to the trial. and then we're talking almost 20 years, right. so there purposefully beyond mr. rice, jeffrey, you wrote an absolutely outstanding book about your life and experiences called unwanted spy the persecution of an american whistleblower. i was proud to write a blurb for the book, and the truth is that i read it in one sitting, which i told you at the time. i couldn't put it down. it's available, of course, at amazon, and wherever books are sold, the reviews were universally outstanding. what was the response to your book among your former colleagues at the cia? have you heard anything from any of them? actually maybe a 2 or 3 actually have you talk to as well when you stand up and you are considered a outcast as a ca. others that will shown us by association,

runs branford at the ca. i've only had maybe one or 2 former colleagues who have read the read the book and congratulate me for telling the truth about how things are at the ca. but yeah, universally though, i haven't had much contact with any of the people. i really considered friends when i was at the agency in the fear of being also labeled disgruntled employee by have any association with me. i think shy them away from me . but the, i guess, to the book time, thank you for your kind of kind of the sort of the most interesting reaction to the book. so again, as it was a stablished and of course i follow the rule. so as i was writing the book, i had to submit information to the publications review board so that you can make

sure i wind of all jenny classified information. of course there were many aspects of the book that they had a problem with. so i probably sent them the trial transcript, which basically laid out my entire career at the cia. and there was much for them to argue about. so going through the process, it took only about 3 months to get publication review approval. and that is pretty unheard of if you actually care to follow the rules. so many other authors who don't even bother with it yet or not that's, that's very impressive. actually my, my 1st book took me 9 months to write. it took me 22 months to get it cleared by the see locations review board. they, they 1st gave me what's called a blanket rejection, where they said that literally everything i had written in the book was classified

. and therefore, i was prohibited from moving forward with it, and i had to write back and say, look, it's not classified that i was born in pennsylvania. it's not classified that my ex wife spoke greek. it's not classified that i got a degree in middle eastern studies. and so that was the 1st salvo in a fight that lasted just short of 2 years. i know what you went through. i wanted to ask you to about some of the fall out. you took the c, i a's best shot and you survived. what advice would you give would be whistleblowers, especially in the national security arena, who are considering going public with evidence of wrongdoing? what would you tell them? i was told to stay true to yourself and then just because you're part of this massive machine, that is the us government do not look at your job through the lens of the fear or

the lens of apprehension about what can happen to you if you stand individual stand up that stand up to aggression that stand up wrong doing what has made this country great and keeps making a great because there are people who have the nerve to get up and say enough or stop. so my advice to any would be whistleblower. i mean, and the thing is no one sets out to be a whistleblower. that's right. i know what i'm going. i'm going to blow the whistle today, you know, get to a point and we all have our own triggers of where we can see wrong doing. and we decide to do something. and my advice is stay with that feeling stick with your god on wanting to come forward. there is going, especially on a government side, there is going to be anger thrown at you. there is going to be every legal method

possible to be thrown at you, but stick to your gun. because for me, the main thing that helped me go through all of this is that i was able to look myself in the mirror. and i looked and i could see and except and like who i saw that i was going to continue whatever course, you know, that was going to be late for me. if i had to bow down, if i had not blown it was all about racial discrimination at ca or about how foolhardy operation merlin was. i never would have been able to live with myself after that. i will have liked who i saw in the mirror. so for, for any person who could potentially be whistled or stick with think with what you know, stick with your feeling because that'll carry you through whatever hardships that you'll face. i would like to thank our guest c i whistle blower,

jeffrey sterling for joining us today. and thanks to our viewers, i'm john kerry. aku, please join us again next week for another episode of the whistle blowers. 2 at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from great pains whose with food and medicine and supplies,

and sleeping with awe. in the 1950s, the u. s. used former nancy's against the soviet union in the 21st century. they engineered kuta, the fish, the former soviet republic, into on confrontation with moscow. will certainly hear the united states and the u . k. and the rest of the western world had not engaged in conflict with the ukraine and with the soviet union and its successor, the russian federation. we will not have the horrible situation we have today. i think that if the american stopped, we would be at peace and the role would be a lot better place and the economy,

the world will function. we better than is doing now with a merc sanchez. and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else work if it pleases you to have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you, go ahead by change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay mainstream because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the wayne thing. i want to emphasize that our cooperation has never been

aimed at any 3rd party, but we never allow any 3rd party to dictate to us what to do with cooperation between china and russia. as we said more than once, is very important in stabilizing the international situation. well, that's just one of the topics that china's foreign policy chief discussed with president vladimir putin during a meeting in moscow. both emphasizing the importance of russian relations amid global political challenges. he visits a temporary refugee camp in the dentist republic and speaks to those who have been evacuated from the front line. and they told us to write our initials on our hands with a red marker because they were going to bury us there the ukrainians, dog, and french right in front.