this is the story of jeffrey sterling, an accomplished ca, operations officer, an expert 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 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 cia 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 learned 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? well, with regards to that iranian operation that i was logged in, it was called operation merlin. and it was designed to warranty iranian nuclear program by giving them plans, giving the iranians plans to a nuclear weapon, but the plan would have a flaw. so if your audience use the plans 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 detected 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 iranians with the plans when he 1st saw the plan, immediately detect that the flaw so far as being what it is. anybody sees a flaw, they're going to try to fix it and made it maybe even better then 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 you. or you're actually going to help them develop a nuclear weapon. so i made my concerns known to my supervisors. even all the way

up through the other channel 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 our concerns to the senate intelligence committee with really no attention and really no care. it was a see a ration. and as long as it's family 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 cia 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 classified 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 and what protections i should have had under the constitution. i'm for a court one for the say to invoke state secret privilege to hi there, discrimination. they weren't saying it wasn't discriminated against. they were saying that they didn't want to have to expose it or have it fall under scrutiny. foreign appeals court to uphold bad decision. it basically says,

and it is through everything i learned in 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 that certainly it still us things because us on the front to the very nature of the constitution. i did not sign on to the cia with the thought that i'm giving up my civil rights. and that was also important to understand is there was no argument about the merits of my discrimination case against the cia or they just did not want to have their discrimination expose under the light of justice. and so 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 c, i 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 the cia and 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 and providing in the sequence. 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 you know, 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 having the nerve to stand up to them, they, i know there is a feeling that they had of retaliation. there is no vengeance like a vengeance run steven around law 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 yet. i, you know, having my legal background, i knew what i was facing yet. i had a belief in truth that the truth would 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 i regret 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. liza 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 some metadata 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. nonetheless, you were convicted 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 for the 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, what i was using the proper channel channels to complain about classified operations. that individual was fired for leaking information. no classified information from the senate intelligence committee reporter. and by the way, that reporter happened to be the same one that i was accused of leaking information too. and 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 had 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 proves 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 officers are white officers pirated 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 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 2 ah, need to come to rush in the state. total narrative. i've stayed as i'm phoning no santini div asking him then goes up and up with 55 when. okay, so mine is too bad. i'm speaking with little van in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machine, the state aren't russia for date, and c, r t spoke neck, given our video agency,

roughly all band on youtube and pinterest, and with me, what happens when you mix digital gains with actual physical sport? something like digital the others? yes. because on is preparing to host the 1st ever gains of the future, a cyber context 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 show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point obviously is too great trust, rather than fear with the various char, with artificial intelligence, real seminar with hello, bob, less protect his own existence with more do it. this is the best of both, no issue. my good on the when you visit annual g d. p per capita is about $4000.00 euros. the laws that we've got drugs are calling in a mold or mildew with the wolf foster

garishly azako man. i've got an air plumber consti seal from quin pursuing to put him in your prison, which was dynamo bellanca, marci, mitchell, and louis thought the the single thought of unemployment is off the chance. moldova territorial integrity and sovereignty. we respect that the country which enjoys financial support from the u. s. and the u. is constantly roth by political and corruption scandals. oh, but old didn't scope moldova obtaining you candidate status in 2022. ah ah. 2 welcome back to the whistleblowers. we're speaking with c i a 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 risin ever explain himself to you? did he ever offer you an apology? oh no, he never explained to me, and i've 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 data. 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. yeah. it should have been over the moment that miss 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 writing 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, it became the rise in 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 back on at least sending me to trial one to show how the ca does great operations. and to, to send

a 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 on 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 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 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 was regardless of only come back around, but mr. rise and i don't have any animosity to him towards him for anything. he didn't start the process. i was like his source, lizzie obligated to protect me in that sense. that's a debate i guess, can still wage on yet this entire ordeal started by the u. s. government and 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 calculated 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 sterling and come after me. and that's either by breaking me financially through a lot of project the trial. yeah, 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 this arrest 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 ca? have you heard anything from any of them? 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 at to see i will show you as well by association runs branded 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 again, the fear of being also labels disgruntled employee by have any association with me. i think shy them away from me. but the, just to the book and thank you for your kind of kind of the most interesting reaction to the book. so it was a stablished in the court. i follow the rule. so as i was writing the book,

i had to submit the information to the publications review board so that they can make sure i learned of all any classified information. of course they 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 me about 3 months to get publications review approval, and that is pretty unheard of if you actually care to follow the rules. we know 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 to stay true to yourself and if they're 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, that stand up to aggression is stand up wrong doing what has made this country green 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 wilful glory. i mean, and the thing is no one sets out to be a whistleblower. that's right. i mean, no one has, i'm gonna, i'm gonna blow the whistle today or, 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,

asked you there is going to be every legal method possible to be thrown at you, but stick to your guns. 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. if 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 blowing the whistle 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 there. so for, for any person who was potentially be, it whistled or stick with stick 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 2 ah, in the 1950s, the u. s. used former nazis against the soviet union in the 21st century. they engineered kuta, the fish, the former soviet republic, into our confrontation with moscow. will certainly if 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 considerably better than it's doing now. who is the aggression today i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today, russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing for each of the problems to cause sure as we speak on them. but when you're sitting mostly more in the we're, we're sure we're branding all in ports of russian oil and gas. would you say where you're suffering the price for it happening? another country with the worker?

we're, would you give me a joe biden, imposing these sanctions on russia, you know, has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang self in my extension, and i'm here to plead 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. look of it please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your fax for you. go ahead, change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream because i'm probably going to 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 way you think .

ah, ah, corporation has never be named it 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 of china top diplomat . i'm glad to be paid to meeting moscow to discuss ways to strengthen by last will come up with the visit, the temporary refugee town, and they don't. yes, republican speak to those who have been evacuated from the front lines with they told us to write our initials on our hands with a red marker because they were going to bury us there. the ukrainians dug a trench right in front of our house. there were 3 or 4 such structure, small street turned out that it was the front line.