Prosecutors: Ex-CIA man had motive to leak classified info

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A disgruntled ex-CIA officer was the only person with the knowledge, motive and opportunity to leak details of a classified operation against Iran to a New York Times reporter, prosecutors said Thursday.

A federal jury heard closing arguments in the leak trial of the former CIA man, Jeffrey Sterling, 47, of O'Fallon, Missouri, who grew up in Cape Girardeau.

Prosecutors acknowledged a lack of direct evidence against Sterling but said circumstantial evidence against him was overwhelming.

Defense lawyers urged the jury against making assumptions to fill gaps in the government's case. They said the evidence shows that Capitol Hill staffers who had been briefed on the classified operation were more likely the source of the leak.

At issue in the two-week trial: Who told journalist James Risen about the secret mission, one former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified was one of the government's most closely held secrets as well as one of its best chances to thwart Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions?

The plan involved using a CIA asset nicknamed Merlin, who had been a Russian nuclear engineer, to foist flawed nuclear-weapons blueprints on the Iranians, hoping they would spend years trying to develop parts that had no hope of working.

Risen's 2006 book, "State of War," describes the mission as botched and possibly backfired.

In his closing arguments, prosecutor Eric Olshan said the chapter of Risen's book seems to be clearly written from Sterling's perspective as Merlin's case handler. The book describes the handler's misgivings about the operation while others at the CIA push the plan through despite its risks.

"The only person who comes out smelling like roses in Mr. Risen's telling is Jeffrey Sterling," Olshan said.

Sterling also had the motive to leak the story because he was mad at the agency over his perceived mistreatment. He had filed a racial discrimination complaint against the CIA, and the timing of Sterling's contacts with Risen in phone and email records corresponded with the point where the CIA refused his offer to settle the suit for $200,000.

"He felt he'd been mistreated. He was angry. He was bitter. He was done keeping the CIA's secrets," Olshan said.

The negative spin Risen's book puts on the operation also points the finger at Sterling, Olshan said, because CIA leadership, and Merlin himself, considered the operation a success.

Lastly, Olshan said, Sterling and Risen were known to have a relationship. Risen wrote an article about Sterling's discrimination complaint, and phone and email records showed nearly 50 phone and email contacts between Sterling and Risen during the time Risen was working on his book.

But defense lawyers pointed out that the government has no evidence that Risen and Sterling talked about anything classified in those phone calls and emails. The government failed to obtain Risen's records to see who else he may have contacted.

Defense attorney Barry Pollack said Risen first got wind of the operation in early 2003, within weeks of Sterling reporting his misgivings to staffers at a Senate intelligence committee -- a channel that Sterling was legally allowed to pursue. Pollack said it makes more sense that a Hill staffer leaked to Risen.

"As often happens, people on the Hill talk," Pollack said.

Details in the book also point more directly at others, Pollack said. For example, the weapons part for which the Iranians are given a blueprint is described in Risen's book as a "high-voltage block," which is a Russian name for the part that Merlin would have used, not Sterling.

Sterling's trial was delayed for more than three years, largely due to legal wrangling over whether Risen could be forced to testify about his sources. While the courts ruled that Risen could be subpoenaed against his will, the Justice Department decided on the eve of trial not to call Risen, who made it clear that he not divulge his sources even if he was sent to jail for contempt of court.