Recent circumstances call to mind the case of Jeffrey Alexander Sterling.
Jeffrey Alexander Sterling is an American lawyer and former CIA employee who was arrested, charged, and convicted of violating theEspionage Act for revealing details about Operation Merlin (covert operation to supply Iran with flawed nuclear warhead blueprints) to journalist James Risen.
Sterling was a “whistleblower” who was arrested, tried, and convicted during the Obama administration. He was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison and was released in January 2018.
According to this article, Sterling worked for the CIA and first made his complaints about Operation Merlin to his CIA supervisor.
This roughly parallels the case of the so-called whistleblower who has accused President Trump of abuse of office. That person reportedly works for the CIA, too, and he first passed his complaints about Trump’s phone call to another person who then carried the complaint to a CIA lawyer for him.
Again like the anti-Trump so-called whistleblower, Sterling became impatient with perceived inaction and took his complaint directly to Congress, although Sterling chose the Senate intelligence committee instead of the House intelligence committee.
Sterling contends that he was not protected as a whistleblower:
“The first thing the CIA did was run to the attorney general and the White House” when the Ukrainian phone call whistleblower came forward, Sterling noted. “That is exactly what happened to me. I went to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and their first stop was the CIA.” …
“In their eagerness to punish someone for their embarrassment,” Sterling wrote, “they looked around for a scapegoat. They found me.” …
The article reports that Sterling was arrested and prosecuted for leaking national security secrets, and yet the current whistleblower is being defended by the “media and Congress,” despite that he may have leaked details of the President’s classified and privileged communications.
I like the attention the political leaders are giving to the concept of protecting whistleblowers. But there should be even-handed treatment for all whistleblowers. This is shedding a light on whistleblowing and the protections that are needed. But what about the others? What about Edward Snowden? What about John Kiriakou? What about me?
Sterling is right to point out the discrepancy between how he was treated by the Obama administration and how the current anti-Trump so-called whistleblower is being treated by Democrats and the media.
Sterling was punished as a felonious leaker. The current whistleblower is being protected and hailed as a patriot, even though he may have committed a felony by not owning up to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) that he had already contacted Congress.
But neither man followed the correct procedure to qualify for and obtain whistleblower protection under the law.
Since both were CIA employees, then both should have first gone through the intelligence community whistleblower system. Neither did.
The rules are clear that whistleblowers are not to go outside the protocol, especially when the complaint involves classified, top secret, or privileged information.
Neither man should have shared such information outside the intelligence community chain of command. Neither should have gone to Congress without first receiving direction from the Director of National Intelligence.
We don’t know yet the extent of the current so-called whistleblower’s breach of protocol, but we do know that Sterling should never have shared top secret information with the media.
If there’s injustice here, it’s because the current so-called whistleblower is not being treated by Trump’s administration as Sterling was treated by the Obama administration.
That the media and Congressional Democrats defend the current so-called whistleblower is more a function of their anti-Trump bias than any concern or consideration for the person himself.
Their goal, pure and simple, is impeaching the President and overturning the results of the 2016 election, thus disenfranchising more than 63 million voters, by any means necessary.
Congressional Democrats, especially the likes of Adam Schiff, may stand to lose as much as or more than the so-called whistleblower should his true identity be revealed.
We already know that the so-called whistleblower “arguably” has partisan bias, according to sworn testimony by the ICIG. Not only is the s0-called whistleblower a registered Democrat but he also, according to new reports, has or had a “working” or “professional” relationship with a current 2020 presidential candidate.
Should it be, as has been speculated, that the so-called whistleblower perhaps acted in collusion with or was used as a tool by House Democrats, their staff, their lawyers, members of the mainstream media, perhaps a yet-to-be-named 2020 presidential candidate, perhaps the ICIG, perhaps certain Dept. of State employees who deal with Ukraine, and potentially “current and former government officials,” in order to overturn the results of the 2016 election or interfere in the 2020 election, then it will become obvious why all of the above, and others, may wish to keep the identity of the so-called whistleblower secret.
His identity may be the string that unravels all, and how well do they know that!
It is incomprehensible to think that the Democrats actually intend to unilaterally impeach the duly-elected President of the United States based upon nothing more than untested allegations brought by an anonymous partisan who based his accusations on second-hand information received, allegedly, from other anonymous persons. But that’s exactly what they’re trying to do.
Drain the swamp, Mr. President!
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out.