Alexandria, VA — Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent convicted of sharing classified information with a New York Times reporter, was sentenced today to three and a half years in prison, a significantly shorter term than had been expected.
Sterling’s lawyers had asked the judge not to abide by sentencing guidelines calling for 19 to 24 years behind bars. They argued Sterling should be treated with the same leniency shown to former Gen. David Petraeus, who was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and avoid prison after admitting to leaking classified information to his biographer and then-girlfriend, Paula Broadwell. Sterling’s lawyers also pointed to the case of former CIA agent John Kiriakou, who was recently released from jail after a 30-month sentence for disclosing the name of a covert agent to a reporter, and to the 13-month-sentence handed down to Stephen Kim, who pleaded guilty to talking about a classified document with a Fox News reporter.
“[Sterling] should be treated similarly to others convicted for the same crimes and not singled out for a long prison sentence because he elected to exercise his right to trial,” his lawyers stated in a pre-sentencing memorandum, noting that Sterling had taken his case to a jury rather than reaching a pre-trial plea bargain with prosecutors. “[T]he court cannot turn a blind eye to the positions the government has taken in similar cases.”
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema seemed to agree.
“To put you at ease, the guidelines are too high,” Brinkema said as the sentencing hearing got underway, glancing at Sterling and his lawyers, Ed MacMahon and Barry Pollack.
She went on to say that Sterling’s case was similar to Kiriakou’s, for which she had also been the presiding judge, because both involved the disclosure of the identity of an intelligence agent. She said Sterling should serve more time because Kiriakou had pleaded guilty whereas Sterling pleaded innocent and was found guilty by a jury. Brinkema added that “a clear message” had to be sent to people in the intelligence community that a price will be paid for revealing the identities of intelligence agents and assets, though she also said, in what appeared to be a reference to Petraeus not serving any prison time, that the judicial system had to be fair.
Speaking to the media after the hearing, Pollack said, “We think (the jury) got it wrong. That said, the judge today got it right. She looked at all of the good work Jeffrey Sterling had done throughout his life and gave him a fair sentence under the circumstances. Today closes a sad chapter in a long saga.”
The sentence, while one of the longest for a leaker in the Obama era, was far lower than some people had expected. Jesselyn Radack, director of National Security and Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, told The Intercept that she had expected “a lot worse” than 42 months. “Any jail time is excessive in light of what Gen. Petraeus got, but in light of what the government was seeking, between 19 and 24 years, this is the least worst outcome,” she said. Radack noted, however, that the offense for which Brinkema sent Kiriakou and Sterling to prison was also committed by Petraeus, because the information he shared with Broadwell included the identities of covert agents.
But in a series of its own pre-sentencing memos, the latest filed just a day before Brinkema issued her decision at the Alexandria federal courthouse, the prosecution claimed that Sterling’s conviction on nine counts in January was far more serious because he had been “willfully compromising a then-ongoing, extremely sensitive, closely-held operation designed to infiltrate and disrupt the nuclear weapons program of Iran and other rogue states, putting CIA assets at risk and exposing classified methods to our adversaries.”
Sterling, a 47-year-old former case officer in the agency’s Iran Task Force, was a handler of a Russian scientist turned spy who was the focal point of a complicated effort to provide Iran with faulty blueprints for nuclear centrifuges that, if used, would disrupt the nation’s effort to build its own nuclear weapons. According to James Risen, the Times reporter who wrote a book in 2006 disclosing the operation, the Iranians realized the blueprints were faulty and extracted accurate information from them. The prosecution disputes Risen’s reporting, contending that the operation was a success.
Prosecutors had tried to force Risen to disclose his source, but he refused. Nonetheless, the government used phone logs and emails between Risen and Sterling to show the jury that they talked in 2003, not long before Risen wrote his first story, which was not published by the Times after the Bush Administration warned of serious harm to national security. Those contacts, coupled with what the government portrayed as an effort by Sterling, who is black, to embarrass the agency after he filed a racial discrimination complaint, were enough to persuade a federal jury to convict him on criminal charges under the Espionage Act.
Though lighter than expected, Sterling’s sentence continues a trend of what appears to be highly selective punishment of leakers. Classified information is regularly leaked by government officials who want to make themselves or the government look good. Such “authorized leaks” are rarely prosecuted. For instance, an array of highly classified information about the killing of Osama bin Laden — which made the Obama administration look resolute and militarily effective — was leaked to the press and no one was punished in connection with the leaks. It tends to be only unauthorized leaks, particularly those that highlight wrongdoing or ineptitude, that the Department of Justice takes an interest in.
Sterling’s sentence, though more severe than those for Petraeus, Kiriakou and Kim, is not the harshest for leaking under the Obama administration. Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, is currently serving a 35-year sentence for leaking a cache of diplomatic and military cables to Wikileaks, the website that publishes secret government and corporate documents.
Updated to add comments from Brinkema and Radack. May 11 3:52 pm ET
Read Also:
Photo: Peter Maass
Jeffrey Sterling contended he did nothing wrong at all; otherwise why did he want a jury trial?
This conviction seems like yet another example of black people who refuse to plea out and are thus given long sentences in retaliation. Wasn’t his firing from the CIA punishment enough? Apparently not.
I don’t get how the Jury could convict unless they received exceptional instructions and a redefinition of what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ means.
.. Let me start by asking how many feeble minded people read this….O.K. it isn’t very friendly…. B U T
SCOOTER LIBBY exposed an “Active C.I.A. operative”. No Prison Time – HE HAS BEEN PUNISHED ENOUGH – said then president George W bush….
He trusted in the judgement of his fellow citizens and they let him down – that must be at least as painful as the sentence. Shame on the members of the jury. Lifelong shame.
In a system that utilizes multiple mechanisms and layers to filter out basic human decency, people genuinely concerned with the well-being of their fellow citizens are in perpetually short supply.
Sincere thanks, Mr. Stirling, wherever you are – Your countrymen/women hold your sacrifice in their hearts.
Stirling must have had some leverage, even if it wasn’t Petraeus level leverage.
Alternately, showing what appears like mercy can make people stay quiet after an initial exposure to the justice system (sic) because they have seen the tip of the iceberg. Massive sentences are more likely to get leakers a soapbox. Moderate sentences may serve the state best (“normal” people see a few years as “no big deal” and zone out that it shouldn’t have been anything to begin with) while also getting rid of the internal kudzu and further disincentivising small “leaks”.
For what it’s worth to Mr. Sterling and his wife, I believe they’re infinitely more trustworthy than OUR country’s completely corrupt and endlessly lying government.
Brinkema added that “a clear message” had to be sent to people in the intelligence community that a price will be paid for revealing the identities of intelligence agents and assets, though she also said, in what appeared to be a reference to Petraeus not serving any prison time, that the judicial system had to be fair.”unquote
Fair? FAIR???? The US “judicial” system???
Don’t make me fucking laugh. This Judge doesn’t know the meaning of the word. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of drug offenders are languishing in some hellhole private prison for the rest of their lives while the pond scum financial terrorists of Wallstreet get away with economic murder of the middle class while hoisting glasses of $5k per bottle champagne at the top of the Burg Kalifa while cops across this nation murder innocent people daily with impunity. Fair. Right. The only “fair” response to this judge is a prayer she’ll develop a perineal abscess between her fucking ears and live in unmeasurable pain and suffering to the end of her miserable scumbag life.
Meanwhile…Leon Panetta and all the rest of the CIA torturers and murderers ought to be thanking their lucky stars the two tiered crap called “justice” in the United States of Depravity has spared them REAL justice. Although, at some point, they will face it for eternity.
Barack “Most Transparent Administration” Obama hates whistleblowers so much,
he targets and prosecutes Bush-era black whistleblowers. #Hope and #Change
“General Betray Us” was prescient. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange need to reconsider their reluctance to make their cases in American courtrooms in light of this ruling, don’t you think?
No. Snowden remains charged in a way that he would not be able to even make his case at all. So he would be locked away in an indefinite purgatory Assange is not even charged with anything so there is no case for him to argue against. But he clearly believes that if he were extradited to the US he would be absurdly charged with espionage, and would be locked away without being able to — same as Snowden — even begin to make his case.
Kitt, are you familiar with sealed federal indictments? The US (according to its laws) doesn’t have to inform somebody that they have been indicted until after they have been arrested/seized. Given there is evidence of an on-going grand jury proceding (and how rare ang grand jury is “ongoing”) either a sealed indictment already exists or it isn’t far from existing. If I had to take a stab in the dark I would say they would say a grand jury was ongoing in order to hide thr existence of a sealed indictment even if it already concluded long ago. Cornered quarry that knows it is cornered is less likely to stick its head out to test the air (and get arrested). That suits the US too, in a way, provided they can exert enough pressure elsewhere.
Yeah, I know. And so, as I said, Assange isn’t charged with anything, but Assange is quite certain if not positive that the US is ready to go with a bunch of bull shit charges with which to extradite him. Espionage would be among the charges and so he would be, as I said, holed away and unable to even make his case.
No, I am saying he probably is charged with something by the US (or AU, UK, whatever) by now. Sealed indictments are already charges. He also has bail jumping charges in the UK. As soon as he leaves there, regardless of trying to go to Ecuador, even if the Swedish charges are dropped (and they are being used to manipulate him, just as they were created to hassle him, as much as anything. Everyone effs up eventually. The US even codifies it in their laws that if they cannot extradite due to the other country not cooperating, their goal is to make life as unliveable as humanly possible and grind people down psychologically and financially. It is SOP.
And btw, frankly I think it is Ecuador’s astounding backbone that the US didn’t count on. Few embassies would put up with what theirs has, and few people have the resources and support to stay as Assange has. Latin American backbone is a wonderful thing. The blunder with Bolivia’s plane helped too. That said he is still boxed in there and he won’t be able to leave, ever, without getting tossed in prison for something. If the stuff with Sweden doesn’t bother, frustrate, and wear him down, then for him the smartest thing he could do is act like it is. Not that “they” won’t find other ways to keep messing with him, but there would certainly be less effort put into new ways to crush him, and novelty while already stressed is where they getcha.
> > > Interestingly our laws require DISCOVERY – any bets it’s declared $ecret
@William, it sort of already is. Discovery isn’t required til the preamble phase of a trial and even still apparently the coirt believes that not all evidence needs to be presentes to the defendant, even if it might be exculpatory. The SR trial, while a bit of a farce, has provided some (more public than usual) interesting “takes” on how the justice system thinks the justice system ought to behave. If you can track down the motion denial (it is all over, including, I think, somewhere on Wired and Ars Technica) for a retrial, you can see it all laid out in black and white.
Generally speaking, pre-public-indictment (and even at the grand jury stage), discovery has no bearing (usually). Most grand juries are exceedingly brief marathons of two minute sprints with only a prosecutor and no advocates to argue against indictment. And indictments themselves are usually enough to ruin a life.
Assange is neither an American citizen nor a resident ,He is a publisher,so why should He reconsider his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and show up in an American courtroom? You are revealing yourself.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trying to be ironic and it evidently fell flat. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange should protect themselves as much as humanly possible by staying away from anywhere near a place that the U.S. could even conceivably snatch them.
42 months is still a serious injustice, esp. in light of the Petraeus case. 3-1/2 years in a Federal prison, and if Kiriakou is any indication, the Federal Bureau of Prisons may make the stay more unpleasant than usual. It also means a felony record, which in the US means you’re pretty much unemployable.
And it also sends a message to anybody tempted to talk to a reporter. Even if they’re not putting reporters away — so far — they’re still telling reporters’ future sources that there’s no shield, no protection. Unless, of course, you’re a big wheel like Gen. Petraeus. Or you’re leaking it on behalf of “official sources,” e.g., selective leaks like Niger yellowcake or such.
“Sterling should serve more time…… because he was found guilty by jury.”
I can’t believe this is coming out of a judges mouth? This patriot exercises his right to a jury trial and the judge gives him more time than if he had plead guilty. That judge should be impeached, sanctioned and disbarred!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s standard US criminal procedure. Bully the defendant into a plea bargain in which the prosecutor holds all the cards, or else the prosecution, jury and judge will put you away until the next century. Defense counsel might be at their weakest here, or might simply tell you to make a deal, since it’s the defendant’s decision — although it would be nice if Defense counsel were more adept at the negotiations.
Agreed, and I referred to this phenomenon in the recent article about snitching. Nowadays pleading not guilty in order to get a jury trial gets a “you liar” penalty. I wonder how these cases would go if the jury also did the sentencing… better? or worse?
It seems like bullying has become the basis for the whole “justice” enterprise in this country, from law enforcement to the courts to the prisons. “Law and Order” = bullying, having nothing to do with what’s just. Cowardice defined.
“Cowardice defined.”
Exactly.
The police know if they lie in a police report they, more often than not, won’t be testifying in court because they’ve given the prosecutor additional power to bully you into a deal you can’t refuse … take the plea and serve some time or assert your right to a trial and get the keys tossed [who’s the jury going to believe, the police or you?] … your choice.
Being punished for exercising a fundamental right is grounds for an appeal. Especially, if the judge is the perpetrator of the violation. Come on, why does this stuff not get people fired up?
Maybe the “bullying” problem in our schools is reflective of our society. We are all just a bunch of wimps! Cant stand up to those who deserve a smackdown…
But he can’t afford to appeal – that’s the brutal backswing. If he appealed (and indeed I bet some people would push it through to watch the results) then his “moderate sentence” which is low by the current Justice System standard, would likely fall in line with the sentencing guidelines (which is to say much much more time). They screw you from both ends. There should probably be a law prohibiting MORE prison time on a failed appeal, but then the same mindset would prevail – you are guilty and you are abusing the courts by not just accepting responsibility (and indeed accepting responsibility usually shaves a few sentencing points off via departure, and a lower sentence).
“For instance, an array of highly classified information about the killing of Osama bin Laden — which made the Obama administration look resolute and militarily effective — was leaked to the press and no one was punished in connection with the leaks.”
And regarding that matter…RT published the following report today:
“Down the rabbit hole: Bin Laden raid was staged after extensive Pakistan-US negotiations – report”
http://rt.com/usa/257557-bin-laden-raid-hersh/
Watched an interview of Seymor Hersh by Chris Cuomo on CNN this morning and Cuomo was doggedly trying to poke holes in Hersh’s story. He kept referring to Peter Bergen’s account as one that backs up the official “”truth”, so of course Hersh must be wrong. If CNN were to admit Hersh’s account might be true, that would mean CNN hadn’t done their jobs correctly and tarnish it’s image. None of the lapdog MSM will willingly admit to any story other than the one they dutifully reported for, oops, on the government. In my opinion, CNN’s image is little but tarnish.
All MSM outlets, which includes written publications, spout the U.S. Federal Government propaganda lies in various degrees of purported authenticity.
The fact that CNN and other MSM media outlets jumped all over the report does not surprise me but considering that Hersh seemed to oblige CNN with an interview at all; makes me wonder about the value of his report. It could be a counter-intelligence effort to legitimize the Bin Laden assassination operation and shift some blame. It is hard these days to trust anyone that marches out rapidly into the public eye. I haven’t made up my mind about the significance (if any) of this report jgreen7801.
“Classified information is regularly leaked by government officials who want to make themselves or the government look good. Such “authorized leaks” are rarely prosecuted.”
Case in point: “In Convicting Jeff Sterling, CIA Revealed More Than It Accused Him of Revealing”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/in-convicting-jeff-sterling-cia-revealed-more-than-it-accused-him-of-revealing.html
Pull quote:
“Brinkema added that “a clear message” had to be sent to people in the intelligence community that >> a price will be paid for revealing the identities of intelligence agents and assets <<, though she also said, in what appeared to be a reference to Petraeus not serving any prison time, that the judicial system had to be fair."[™]
Just like what happened with the Valerie Plaime disclosure. /s
That’s who I was wondering about——-that Scooter Libby person. And of course, Mr. Island of Dr. Moreau, Mr. Cheney. His scary eye is staring to fall out and he’s like the Portrait of Dorian Gray comes to life!
So, American government, geez, the vice president outs Valerie Plame and nothing happens to him, and then that Scooter person gets a pardon from the Gog and Magog
guy.
We are”sans eyes, sans teeth, sans hopes, sans everything’ and maybe we really are living in a hologram—–because this can’t be reality.
Kafkaesque
Both relief and disappointment at this sentence.