Affidavit of James Risen in support of motion to quash subpoena
Affidavit of James Risen in support of motion to quash subpoena
Affidavit of James Risen in support of motion to quash subpoena
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 614UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAUNITED STATESv.JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING,No. I: IOcr485 (LMB)Defendant.AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES RISENDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) ss.:JAMES RISEN, be<strong>in</strong>g first duly sworn, deposes and says:1. I am a reporter for The New York Times ("The Times") and the author <strong>of</strong>State <strong>of</strong> War: The Secret His<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the CIA and the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration ("State <strong>of</strong> War"). Isubmit this affidavit <strong>in</strong> opposition <strong>to</strong> a <strong>motion</strong> <strong>in</strong> lim<strong>in</strong>e by the Government <strong>to</strong> admit my testimonyand <strong>in</strong> <strong>support</strong> <strong>of</strong> a <strong>motion</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>quash</strong> a trial <strong>subpoena</strong> directed at me <strong>in</strong> connection with thecrim<strong>in</strong>al trial <strong>of</strong> Jeffrey Sterl<strong>in</strong>g. The <strong>subpoena</strong>, which calls for <strong>in</strong>formation about the identity<strong>of</strong> confidential source(s) that I used <strong>in</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong>War, is attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 1. A copy <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War is submitted with this affidavit asExhibit 2.2. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth here<strong>in</strong>. The exhibits attached<strong>to</strong> this affidavit are true and accurate copies <strong>of</strong> the documents cited here<strong>in</strong>.3. This is the third time a <strong>subpoena</strong> has been directed at me call<strong>in</strong>g for testimonyabout my confidential source(s) for Chapter 9. The first <strong>subpoena</strong> directed at me was agrand jury <strong>subpoena</strong> issued on January 24, 2008.A second grand
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 615jury <strong>subpoena</strong> directed at me was issued on April 26, 20 I O.5. S<strong>in</strong>ce my graduation from Brown University <strong>in</strong> 1977 and receiv<strong>in</strong>g aMasters Degree from the Medill School <strong>of</strong> Journalism at NOlihwestern University <strong>in</strong> 1978, Ihave been a reporter. In 1978 through 1979, I worked as a reporter at the Fort Wayne (Indiana)Journal Gazette. In 1980 and 1981, I worked as a bus<strong>in</strong>ess repolier at the Miami Herald.From 1981 <strong>to</strong> 1984, I was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press, cover<strong>in</strong>g the au<strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>dustry.From 1984 until 1990, I was the Detroit Bureau Chief <strong>of</strong> the Los Angeles Times, cover<strong>in</strong>g news<strong>in</strong> Detroit and throughout the Midwest. In 1990, I transferred <strong>to</strong> the Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n Bureau <strong>of</strong> theLos Angeles Times, and covered economic policy for five years. In 1995, I began <strong>to</strong> cover <strong>in</strong>telligenceand national security for the Los Angeles Times <strong>in</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n. In 1998, Ijo<strong>in</strong>ed TheNew York Times <strong>in</strong> the Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n Bureau, where I have worked ever s<strong>in</strong>ce as an <strong>in</strong>vestigativereporter, largely focus<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>telligence, national security and terrorism.6. I have won a number <strong>of</strong> awards <strong>in</strong> connection with my newspaper report<strong>in</strong>g.In 2002, I was a member <strong>of</strong> The New York Times report<strong>in</strong>g team that won the PulitzerPrize for Explana<strong>to</strong>ry RepOli<strong>in</strong>g for coverage <strong>of</strong> the Sept. II attacks and terrorism. In 2006, Iwon the Pulitzer Prize for National Report<strong>in</strong>g, for repOli<strong>in</strong>g that revealed the existence <strong>of</strong>President Bush's legally questionable domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program. In award<strong>in</strong>g the prize,the Pulitzer board cited my "carefully sourced s<strong>to</strong>ries on secret domestic eavesdropp<strong>in</strong>g that-2-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 616stirred a national debate on the boundary l<strong>in</strong>e between fight<strong>in</strong>g terrorism and protect<strong>in</strong>g civillibetty."7. In 2006, I was awarded the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative RepOli<strong>in</strong>g,for repoti<strong>in</strong>g on President Bush's illegal domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program. The Goldsmith Prizeis given annually by the Joan Shorenste<strong>in</strong> Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at theJohn F. Kennedy School <strong>of</strong> Government at Harvard University <strong>to</strong> "honor journalism that promotesmore effective and ethical conduct <strong>of</strong> government by disclos<strong>in</strong>g excessive governmentsecrecy, impropriety, and mismanagement." To the best <strong>of</strong> my ability, I try <strong>to</strong> write s<strong>to</strong>ries thatI believe fit the mission <strong>of</strong> the Goldsmith Prize.8. In 2007, I was elected <strong>to</strong> the American Academy <strong>of</strong> Arts and Sciences.That same year, after w<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g a Publisher's Award from The New York Times, I received a personalletterfrom Atihur O. Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher <strong>of</strong> the newspaper. "Your <strong>in</strong>vestigativereport<strong>in</strong>g has been an extraord<strong>in</strong>ary asset <strong>to</strong> the paper s<strong>in</strong>ce the day you jo<strong>in</strong>ed us," Mr. Sulzbergerwrote <strong>to</strong> me. "But it has now become a central reason that our Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n report is admiredby our readers -not <strong>to</strong> mention leaders around the nation and the world."9. It was my repOli<strong>in</strong>g, both <strong>in</strong> The New York Times and my book State <strong>of</strong>War, that revealed that the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration had, <strong>in</strong> all likelihood, violated the law and theUnited States Constitution by secretly conduct<strong>in</strong>g warrantless domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g on Americancitizens. My repOli<strong>in</strong>g helped <strong>to</strong> spark a national debate that cont<strong>in</strong>ues <strong>to</strong>day about the legalityand propriety <strong>of</strong> that wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program. My s<strong>to</strong>ries led <strong>to</strong> judicial exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> thatprogram for the first time. In August 2006, for example, partly as a result <strong>of</strong> my repOli<strong>in</strong>g onthe subject, a federal judge <strong>in</strong> Detroit declared that the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration's domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>gprogram was unconstitutional. Likewise, my disclosure <strong>of</strong> the previously secret domestic'wiretapp<strong>in</strong>gprogram helped lead <strong>to</strong> Congressional efforts <strong>to</strong> overhaul the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act <strong>of</strong> 1978. More recently, views on domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g were the subject<strong>of</strong> Congressional question<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> then-Judge (and now Supreme Court Justice) So<strong>to</strong>mayor.-3-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 617For example, on July 16, 2009, then-Sena<strong>to</strong>r Arlen Specter asked then-Judge So<strong>to</strong>mayor questionsabout the wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g debate, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g whether or not she would have granted certiorarion the facts <strong>of</strong> the wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g case, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Sec. Agency,493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007). An excerpt <strong>of</strong> the Congressional transcript is attached as Exhibit3. By br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g this issue out <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> the open for the first time, I believe that my report<strong>in</strong>g provideda public service <strong>to</strong> the nation, enabl<strong>in</strong>g Congress, the courts, and the American people <strong>to</strong>openly debate the proper balance between civil liberties and national security for domestic surveillanceand <strong>to</strong> publicly consider a Supreme Court nom<strong>in</strong>ee's stance on this important issueconcern<strong>in</strong>g the appropriate limits <strong>of</strong> executive power.10. In addition <strong>to</strong> my newspaper report<strong>in</strong>g, I have also written three books,all <strong>of</strong> which have been the product <strong>of</strong> my work as an <strong>in</strong>vestigative journalist. Writ<strong>in</strong>g booksallows me <strong>to</strong> give more extensive treatment <strong>to</strong> newsworthy <strong>to</strong>pics <strong>of</strong> my choice than my newspaperrepOlt<strong>in</strong>g does alone. My first book, Wrath <strong>of</strong> Angels: The American Abortion War (BasicBooks, 1998), which I co-authored with Judy L. Thomas, provided the first comprehensivehis<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the anti-abOltion movement ever written. The New York Times Book Review hailed itas "far and away the most thorough and knowledgeable his<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> anti-abOltion activism afterRoe." My second book, The Ma<strong>in</strong> Enemy: The Inside S<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the CIA's F<strong>in</strong>al Showdown withthe KGB (Random House, 2003), co-authored with Milt Bearden, was a colorful and dramatichis<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the espionage wars between the United States and the Soviet Union <strong>in</strong> the clos<strong>in</strong>gdays <strong>of</strong> the Cold War. The New York Times Book Review wrote that "revelations tw<strong>in</strong>kle <strong>in</strong>The Ma<strong>in</strong> Enemy like stars at sunset." The Ma<strong>in</strong> Enemy was awarded the Cornelius RyanAward from the Overseas Press Club for the best book on foreign affairs <strong>in</strong> 2003.11. My third book, State <strong>of</strong> War: the Secret His<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> the CIA and the BushAdm<strong>in</strong>istration (Free Press, 2006), was aNew York Times bestseller. State <strong>of</strong> War <strong>in</strong>cluded explosiverevelations about a series <strong>of</strong> illegal or potentially illegal actions taken by PresidentBush, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program. It also disclosed how President Bush se--4-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 618cretly pressured the CIA <strong>to</strong> use tOliure on deta<strong>in</strong>ees <strong>in</strong> secret prisons around the world; how theWhite House and CIA leadership ignored <strong>in</strong>formation before the 2003 <strong>in</strong>vasion <strong>of</strong> Iraq thatshowed that Iraq did not have weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction; documented how, <strong>in</strong> the aftermath<strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>vasion, the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration punished CIA pr<strong>of</strong>essionals who warned that the war<strong>in</strong> Iraq was go<strong>in</strong>g badly; showed how the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration turned a bl<strong>in</strong>d eye <strong>to</strong> Saudi <strong>in</strong>volvement<strong>in</strong> terrorism; and revealed that the CIA's <strong>in</strong>telligence operations on weapons <strong>of</strong> massdestruction <strong>in</strong> Iraq, Iran and other countries were completely dysfunctional, and even reckless.In his review <strong>in</strong> The New York Times Book Review, Walter Isaacson hailed State <strong>of</strong> War andsaid that "<strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong> may have become the new Woodward and Bernste<strong>in</strong>." The DallasMorn<strong>in</strong>g News, <strong>in</strong> its review <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War, said "Domestic spy<strong>in</strong>g, demands for political loyalty<strong>in</strong> the name <strong>of</strong> national security, <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g a newspaper's sources: With State <strong>of</strong> War,the Nixonian deja vu can give a reader whiplash."12. While the disclosures conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War were no doubt embarrass<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong> the government, I strongly believe that they were impOliant and newsworthy. State<strong>of</strong> War sparked national debate about a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>to</strong>pics, and that debate cont<strong>in</strong>ued long afterthe book was published.13. The response <strong>to</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War from the read<strong>in</strong>g public was startl<strong>in</strong>g andgratify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> me. Many people actually s<strong>to</strong>pped me on the street, came up <strong>to</strong> me <strong>in</strong> restaurants,or wrote <strong>to</strong> me <strong>to</strong> thank me for writ<strong>in</strong>g it and for uncover<strong>in</strong>g the truth. I believe that the publication<strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War contributed <strong>to</strong> a significant tum<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> the American public's understand<strong>in</strong>g<strong>of</strong> American policies <strong>in</strong> the post-9/ll era.14. My <strong>in</strong>vestigative report<strong>in</strong>g, both <strong>in</strong> my books and <strong>in</strong> my newspaper aliicles,has <strong>of</strong>ten been critical <strong>of</strong> the United States government, regardless <strong>of</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>in</strong>power. Throughout my twenty years <strong>of</strong> report<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n, I have written s<strong>to</strong>ries that angered<strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>in</strong> the first Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration, the Cl<strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>n Adm<strong>in</strong>istration, the second BushAdm<strong>in</strong>istration, and the Obama Adm<strong>in</strong>istration. In 1996, my s<strong>to</strong>ries <strong>in</strong> the Los Angeles Times-5-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 619reveal<strong>in</strong>g that President Cl<strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>n had given a green light <strong>to</strong> Iranian arms smuggl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> the Balkansprompted the Republican-controlled House <strong>of</strong> Representatives <strong>to</strong> take the remarkable step<strong>of</strong> vot<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> create a special House Select Subcommittee designed solely <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigate what Ihad uncovered about the Cl<strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>n Adm<strong>in</strong>istration. A few years later, many <strong>of</strong> those same CongressionalRepublicans were call<strong>in</strong>g for me <strong>to</strong> be thrown <strong>in</strong> jail for what I had uncovered dur<strong>in</strong>gthe second Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration.15. My report<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>telligence and national security has <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>in</strong>cludedmajor revelations <strong>of</strong> great public <strong>in</strong>terest:• I was the first <strong>to</strong> reveal that the CIA was waterboard<strong>in</strong>g terrorism suspects. See<strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong>, David Johns<strong>to</strong>n, and Neil A. Lewis, "Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited InTop Qaeda Interrogations," New York Times, May 13, 2004, at AI, attached as Exhibit4.• I revealed that, before the <strong>in</strong>vasion <strong>of</strong>Iraq, the CIA had received <strong>in</strong>fonnation fromabout 30 relatives <strong>of</strong> Iraqi scientists that Iraq had abandoned its programs <strong>to</strong> developweapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction, but failed <strong>to</strong> share that <strong>in</strong>formation with PresidentBush, even as he was publicly wam<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the threat posed by Iraq's quest for suchweapons. See <strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong>, "C.I.A. Held Back Iraqi Arms Data, U.S. OfficialsSay," New York Times, July 6, 2004, at AI; attached as Exhibit 5; see also Exhibit 2(State 01 War) at 85-107.• I revealed that, contrary <strong>to</strong> law and with little oversight, the NSA was moni<strong>to</strong>r<strong>in</strong>gand eavesdropp<strong>in</strong>g on large volumes <strong>of</strong> phone calls, emails, and other Internetcommunications <strong>in</strong>side the United States <strong>to</strong> search for evidence <strong>of</strong> potential terroristactivity, without first secur<strong>in</strong>g search warrants or congressional approval. A number<strong>of</strong> government <strong>of</strong>ficials questioned the legality <strong>of</strong> the program, but the adm<strong>in</strong>istration<strong>in</strong>sisted on keep<strong>in</strong>g it secret. See <strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong> and Eric Lichtblau, "BushLets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," New York Times, December 16, 2005, atAI, attached as Exhibit 6; Eric Lichtblau and <strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong>, "Spy Agency M<strong>in</strong>edVast Data Trove, Officials Report," New York Times, December 24, 2005, at AI, attachedas Exhibit 7; see also Exhibit 2 (State 01 War) at 39-60.• I revealed that the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration was engaged <strong>in</strong> a secret program that was<strong>in</strong>itiated weeks after the September I 1, 2001 attacks and provided counterterrorism<strong>of</strong>ficials with access <strong>to</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ancial records from the <strong>in</strong>ternational SWIFT database<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>grecords <strong>of</strong> bank<strong>in</strong>g transactions <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g thousands <strong>of</strong> Americans andothers <strong>in</strong> the United States - <strong>in</strong> order help detect terrorist f<strong>in</strong>anciers. Eric Lichtblauand <strong>James</strong> <strong>Risen</strong>, "Bank Data Sifted In Secret By U.S. To Block Terror," NewYork Times, June 23, 2006, at AI, attached as Exhibit 8.16. In Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State 01 War, I repOlied on Operation Merl<strong>in</strong>, an <strong>in</strong>telligenceoperation <strong>in</strong> 2000 dur<strong>in</strong>g the Cl<strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>n Adm<strong>in</strong>istration that was <strong>in</strong>tended <strong>to</strong> stall -but-6-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 7 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 620which may have actually helped -Iran <strong>in</strong> its efforts <strong>to</strong> develop a nuclear weapons program.The plan beh<strong>in</strong>d Merl<strong>in</strong>, as reported <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9, was <strong>to</strong> have a former Russian scientist provideIranian <strong>of</strong>ficials with faulty nuclear bluepr<strong>in</strong>ts. The CIA hoped that based on those flawedplans, Iran would build an <strong>in</strong>operable nuclear weapon. The operation, <strong>in</strong> theory, would haveundel111<strong>in</strong>ed Iran's efforts <strong>to</strong> build a nuclear program.17. As repolied <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9, Merl<strong>in</strong> was deeply flawed and mismanagedfrom the start. First, the flaws <strong>in</strong> the nuclear bluepr<strong>in</strong>ts were so obvious that the Russian scientistnoticed them with<strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>utes <strong>of</strong> see<strong>in</strong>g the plans. When the scientist expla<strong>in</strong>ed this <strong>to</strong> hisCTA handlers, they <strong>in</strong>explicably refused <strong>to</strong> call <strong>of</strong>f the operation and simply <strong>to</strong>ld him that heshould go ahead and deliver the plans <strong>to</strong> the Iranians. Thus, notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g their knowledgethat the flaws <strong>in</strong> the plans could be easily spotted, the CIA pushed ahead.18. I take very seriously my obligations as a journalist when report<strong>in</strong>g aboutmatters that may be classified or may implicate national security concerns. I do not alwayspublish all <strong>in</strong>formation that I have, even if it is newsworthy and true. If I believe that the publication<strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>formation would cause real hann <strong>to</strong> our national security, I will not publish apiece. I have found, however, that all <strong>to</strong>o frequently, the government claims that publication <strong>of</strong>celia<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fonnation will harm national security, when <strong>in</strong> reality, the government's real concernis about cover<strong>in</strong>g up its own wrongdo<strong>in</strong>g or avoid<strong>in</strong>g embal1'assment. As a result, I th<strong>in</strong>k longand hard before publish<strong>in</strong>g such pieces.19. I gave this type <strong>of</strong> serious consideration <strong>to</strong> my publication <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>formationconta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War. I actually learned the <strong>in</strong>formation about OperationMerl<strong>in</strong> that was ultimately published <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War <strong>in</strong> 2003, but I held thes<strong>to</strong>ry for three years before publish<strong>in</strong>g it. I made the decision <strong>to</strong> publish the <strong>in</strong>formation aboutOperation Merl<strong>in</strong> only after: (1) it became clear that the ma<strong>in</strong> rationale for fight<strong>in</strong>g the IraqWar was based on flawed <strong>in</strong>telligence about Iraq's non-existent weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its supposed nuclear program; (2) the press, patiicularly The New York Times, had-7-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 8 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 621been harshly criticized for not do<strong>in</strong>g more <strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>in</strong>vestigative repoli<strong>in</strong>g before the IraqWar about the quality <strong>of</strong> our <strong>in</strong>telligence concern<strong>in</strong>g Iraq's weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction; (3)the March 31, 2005 Report <strong>to</strong> the President by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities<strong>of</strong> the United States Regard<strong>in</strong>g Weapons <strong>of</strong> Mass Destruction described American <strong>in</strong>telligenceon Iran as <strong>in</strong>adequate <strong>to</strong> allow f<strong>in</strong>n judgments about Iran's weapons programs, mak<strong>in</strong>g it clearthat the CIA's <strong>in</strong>telligence on weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction <strong>in</strong> Iran was just as badly flawed asit had been on Iraq; and (4) there was <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g speculation that the United States might beplann<strong>in</strong>g for a possible conflict with Iran, once aga<strong>in</strong> based on supposed <strong>in</strong>telligence concern<strong>in</strong>gweapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction, just as <strong>in</strong> Iraq. After all <strong>of</strong> this, I realized that U.S. <strong>in</strong>telligenceon Iran's supposed weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction was so flawed, and that the <strong>in</strong>formationI had was so important, that this was a s<strong>to</strong>ry that the public had <strong>to</strong> know about before yet anotherwar was launched.20. I was particularly struck by an exclusive <strong>in</strong>terview I had <strong>in</strong> January 2004with David Kay, the chief <strong>of</strong> the CIA's hunt for WMD <strong>in</strong> Iraq. In his first major <strong>in</strong>terview afterreturn<strong>in</strong>g from Iraq, he <strong>to</strong>ld me that the fundamental errors <strong>in</strong> the CIA's pre-war <strong>in</strong>telligenceassessments were so grave that he would recommend that the CIA and other <strong>in</strong>telligence agenciescompletely overhaul their <strong>in</strong>telligence collection and analytical efforts on weapons <strong>of</strong> massdestruction. In the <strong>in</strong>terview, he pla<strong>in</strong>tively <strong>to</strong>ld me that CIA analysts work<strong>in</strong>g for him hadcome <strong>to</strong> him, "almost <strong>in</strong> tears, say<strong>in</strong>g they felt so badly that we weren't f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g what they hadthought we were go<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d -'I have had analysts apologiz<strong>in</strong>g for reach<strong>in</strong>g the conclusionsthat they did. ", It became clear <strong>to</strong> me that the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration had lost its credibility onthe issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>telligence concern<strong>in</strong>g weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction.2 I. The <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9 about Operation Merl<strong>in</strong> was about an <strong>in</strong>telligenceeffort that was approximately six years old at the time <strong>of</strong> publication and dated back <strong>to</strong>the Cl<strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>n Adm<strong>in</strong>istration. The s<strong>to</strong>ry was so old that it could not hatm national security, and<strong>in</strong> fact I believe I performed a vitally important public service by expos<strong>in</strong>g the reckless and-8-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 9 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 622badly mismanaged nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>telligence on Iran's effOlis <strong>to</strong> obta<strong>in</strong> weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destruction,so that the nation would not go <strong>to</strong> war once aga<strong>in</strong> based on flawed <strong>in</strong>telligence, as it had <strong>in</strong>Iraq.22. Chapter 9 also discloses another failure <strong>of</strong> our <strong>in</strong>telligence efforts <strong>in</strong> Iran.In 2004, a CIA <strong>of</strong>ficer mistakenly sent an email <strong>to</strong> an American CIA agent <strong>in</strong> Iran that mayhave conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>formation sufficient <strong>to</strong> reveal the identities <strong>of</strong> the entire network <strong>of</strong> spies <strong>in</strong>that country. It tumed out that the recipient <strong>of</strong> the e-mail was actually a double-agent whoeventually turned the <strong>in</strong>formation over <strong>to</strong> his Iranian handlers. This mistake, at a m<strong>in</strong>imum, putthe entire CIA spy network <strong>in</strong> Iran at risk.23. The subjects covered <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9 were paliicularly relevant <strong>in</strong> light <strong>of</strong>current events at the time the book was published. The press, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g my own newspaper,was soundly criticized for fail<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> scrut<strong>in</strong>ize U.S. <strong>in</strong>telligence related <strong>to</strong> Iraq's WMD capabilities<strong>in</strong> the period immediately preced<strong>in</strong>g the Iraq War. Then, around the time State <strong>of</strong> Warwas published, there was considerable public speculation about a possible future conflict withIran. As a result, report<strong>in</strong>g about our <strong>in</strong>telligence <strong>in</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g Iran's nuclear program was essential.24. In my view, <strong>in</strong>formation about this type <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>telligence failure is paliicularlynewswOlihy, particularly when deal<strong>in</strong>g with areas <strong>of</strong> foreign policy <strong>in</strong> which our politicalfears about the policies <strong>of</strong> a foreign regime might cloud our assessment <strong>of</strong> their military goalsand capabilities. That was certa<strong>in</strong>ly the case with our assessment <strong>of</strong> Iraq's WMD capabilitiesbefore the Iraq War. And it seems <strong>to</strong> be the case with Iran even <strong>to</strong>day.25. I believe my decision <strong>to</strong> report about the matters discussed <strong>in</strong> Chapter 9<strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War has been v<strong>in</strong>dicated, particularly given subsequent reports about the unreliability<strong>of</strong> our <strong>in</strong>telligence about Iran's nuclear capabilities and about our government's tendency <strong>to</strong>overstate the threat <strong>in</strong> a way that is not entirely consistent with the <strong>in</strong>telligence actually gathered.For example, <strong>in</strong> December 2007, the United States <strong>in</strong>telligence community published a-9-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 10 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 623National Intelligence Estimate (,,2007 NIE") on Iran, <strong>in</strong> which the U.S. government acknowledgedthat virtually everyth<strong>in</strong>g it had been say<strong>in</strong>g about Iran's nuclear program for the last fouryears had been wrong. The 2007 NIE stated that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program<strong>in</strong> 2003, a complete reversal from previous <strong>in</strong>telligence assessments that had concludedthat Iran was actively seek<strong>in</strong>g a nuclear weapon. It revealed that almost all <strong>of</strong> the public statementsby the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration about Iran and its weapons program had been wrong, andhad been based on bad <strong>in</strong>formation. The 2007 NIE (attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 9) must be seenas a public disavowal <strong>of</strong> the CIA's earlier <strong>in</strong>telligence efforts on Iran's supposed nuclear program.26. S<strong>in</strong>ce then, U.S. <strong>in</strong>telligence assessments <strong>of</strong> Iran's nuclear program haveswung back and forth. Ever s<strong>in</strong>ce the 2007 NIE was published, U.S. <strong>in</strong>telligence analysts havebeen under pressure <strong>to</strong> disavow it and issue a new one that concludes that Iran is rac<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> builda nuclear weapon. But while there is substantial evidence <strong>of</strong> Iran's ongo<strong>in</strong>g uranium enrichmentprogram, the <strong>in</strong>telligence about the status <strong>of</strong> Iran's efforts <strong>to</strong> actually build a nuclearbomb has been far less conclusive. In an 31iicle that was quickly attacked by the Obama Adm<strong>in</strong>istration,Seymour M. Hersh, wrote recently <strong>in</strong> The New Yorker that a new 2011 NIE fromthe United States <strong>in</strong>telligence community reaffirms that there is no conclusive evidence thatIran has made any effort <strong>to</strong> build a nuclear bomb s<strong>in</strong>ce 2003. See "Iran and the Bomb," bySeymour M. Hersh, published on June 6, 2011 <strong>in</strong> The New Yorker at pp. 30-35 (attached as Exhibit10). "There's a large body <strong>of</strong> evidence," wrote Mr. Hersh, "<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g some <strong>of</strong> America'smost highly classified <strong>in</strong>telligence assessments, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the U.S. could be <strong>in</strong> danger <strong>of</strong>repeat<strong>in</strong>g a mistake similar <strong>to</strong> the one made with Saddam Husse<strong>in</strong>'s Iraq eight years ago -allow<strong>in</strong>ganxieties about the policies <strong>of</strong> tyrannical regime <strong>to</strong> dis<strong>to</strong>rt our estimates <strong>of</strong> the state'smilitary capacities and <strong>in</strong>tentions." Id. at 30.27. Whether one agrees with Mr. Hersh's article or not, it is clear that, fiveyears after I wrote State <strong>of</strong> War, there is still a serious national debate about Iran's nuclear am--10-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 11 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 624bitions and about whether the current adm<strong>in</strong>istration has <strong>in</strong>centives <strong>to</strong> exaggerate <strong>in</strong>telligencerelated <strong>to</strong> this <strong>to</strong>pic.28. The po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War was that the CIA was just as bl<strong>in</strong>dand just as reckless <strong>in</strong> the way it dealt with <strong>in</strong>telligence on Iran's weapons <strong>of</strong> mass destructionas it had been on Iraq. That was clearly the message <strong>of</strong> the 2007 NIE, and perhaps it is themessage <strong>of</strong> the 2011 NIE as well. Given the CIA's own disavowal <strong>of</strong> its past work on Iran'snuclear program, it is that much more important <strong>to</strong> understand why our <strong>in</strong>telligence effOlis <strong>in</strong>evaluat<strong>in</strong>g Iran's nuclear threat have failed <strong>in</strong> the past. Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War is one <strong>of</strong> thefew sources <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation cover<strong>in</strong>g this impOliant subject.29. The Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration was embarrassed by the disclosures I made <strong>in</strong>the course <strong>of</strong> my report<strong>in</strong>g for State <strong>of</strong> War as well as <strong>in</strong> The New York Times, and eventuallys<strong>in</strong>gled me out as a target for political harassment. That adm<strong>in</strong>istration speculated publiclyabout prosecut<strong>in</strong>g me under the Espionage Act for publication <strong>of</strong> my repOli<strong>in</strong>g about their domesticeavesdropp<strong>in</strong>g program and about my repoli<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War, leaked <strong>to</strong> the press as<strong>to</strong>ry about engag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> secret surveillance <strong>of</strong> joumalists' phone calls, and attempted <strong>to</strong> createan atmosphere <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>timidation for repoliers, like me, who uncovered wrongdo<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>competence<strong>in</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istration. Moreover, the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration was selective <strong>in</strong> its attacks.When other journalists reported on the same subjects at the same time that I did, the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istrationsaid and did noth<strong>in</strong>g about potentially prosecut<strong>in</strong>g or even <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g the identity<strong>of</strong> the source(s) <strong>of</strong> those joumalists, but <strong>in</strong>stead threatened only <strong>to</strong> "go after" me and TheNew York Times.30. I believe that the <strong>in</strong>vestigation that led <strong>to</strong> this prosecution started because<strong>of</strong> my report<strong>in</strong>g on the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program. TheBush White House was furious over that s<strong>to</strong>ry. I believe that this <strong>in</strong>vestigation stalied as pati<strong>of</strong> an effort by the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>to</strong> punish me and silence me, follow<strong>in</strong>g the publication<strong>of</strong> the NSA wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>to</strong>ry. I was <strong>to</strong>ld by a reliable source that Vice President Dick Cheney-11-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 12 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 625pressured the Justice Department <strong>to</strong> personally target me because he was unhappy with my repOli<strong>in</strong>gand wanted <strong>to</strong> see me <strong>in</strong> jail. After he left <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>in</strong> 2009, Cheney publicly admitted thatthe fact that I won a Pulitzer Prize for the NSA s<strong>to</strong>ry "always aggravated me."31. In fact, the first <strong>subpoena</strong> issued <strong>to</strong> me was the culm<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> a prolongedcampaign aga<strong>in</strong>st me by the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration and its <strong>support</strong>ers. President Bushcalled the disclosures about the likely-illegal wiretapp<strong>in</strong>g program a "shameful act," see DanEggen, Fear<strong>in</strong>g More Leaks, White House Targets Officials, Journalists, Seattle Times, Mar. 6,2006, at AI, attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 11, and the adm<strong>in</strong>istration and its suppOliers thereafterpublicly speculated about potential prosecutions <strong>of</strong> me for espionage. ShOlily after that, an organizedcampaign <strong>of</strong> hate mail from right w<strong>in</strong>g groups with close ties <strong>to</strong> the White House waslaunched, <strong>in</strong>undat<strong>in</strong>g me with personal threats. Meanwhile, protesters <strong>support</strong><strong>in</strong>g the BushAdm<strong>in</strong>istration picketed my <strong>of</strong>fice, call<strong>in</strong>g for me <strong>to</strong> be prosecuted. Right w<strong>in</strong>g pundits andbloggers suppOli<strong>in</strong>g the Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>to</strong>ok <strong>to</strong> television and the Internet <strong>to</strong> call for theWhite House and the Justice Depaliment <strong>to</strong> prosecute me for espionage. Fail<strong>in</strong>g that, theycalled for the Justice Department <strong>to</strong> <strong>subpoena</strong> me <strong>in</strong> a leak <strong>in</strong>vestigation, which right w<strong>in</strong>g punditssaid would have the same effect as prosecution, s<strong>in</strong>ce it could force me <strong>to</strong> go <strong>to</strong> jail if I refused<strong>to</strong> testify about the identity <strong>of</strong> my confidential source(s).32. Immediately after State <strong>of</strong> War was released, the Department <strong>of</strong> Justiceannounced that <strong>in</strong>vestigations were underway concern<strong>in</strong>g disclosures <strong>in</strong> the book as well asother leaks. On January 13, 2006, the week after my book hit shelves, then-At<strong>to</strong>rney GeneralAlbelio Gonzales held a press conference at which he publicly announced that the Department<strong>of</strong> Justice was actively consider<strong>in</strong>g the prosecution <strong>of</strong> journalists under the Espionage Act forpublish<strong>in</strong>g truthful, classified <strong>in</strong>formation. When he was asked about the <strong>in</strong>vestigation and thepotential imprisonment <strong>of</strong> reporters, Gonzales said:That's a matter that's be<strong>in</strong>g handled by career prosecu<strong>to</strong>rs and folks with<strong>in</strong> ourCrim<strong>in</strong>al Division. And I th<strong>in</strong>k it's <strong>to</strong>o early <strong>to</strong> make decisions regard<strong>in</strong>gwhether or not reporters should go <strong>to</strong> jail. We have an obligation <strong>to</strong> ensure tha<strong>to</strong>ur laws are enforced.-12-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 13 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 626See January 13, 2006 FDCH Capital Transcripts, attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 12.33. In mid-March, after At<strong>to</strong>rney General Gonzales raised publicly the possibility<strong>of</strong> prosecut<strong>in</strong>g journalists, the Direc<strong>to</strong>r <strong>of</strong> the CIA, Porter Goss, suggested that it washis "hope" and "aim" that the leak <strong>in</strong>vestigations would lead <strong>to</strong> <strong>subpoena</strong>s requir<strong>in</strong>g me <strong>to</strong> testifyabout the identity <strong>of</strong> my confidential source(s). Only two months <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> the <strong>in</strong>vestigation,Goss expla<strong>in</strong>ed: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury <strong>in</strong>vestigationwith reporters present be<strong>in</strong>g asked <strong>to</strong> reveal who is leak<strong>in</strong>g this <strong>in</strong>formation." See David Westphal,Bush's Secrecy Push is Excessive, Critics Say, The Sacramen<strong>to</strong> Bee, Mar. 12, 2006, atAI, attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 13.34. Then, on May 21, 2006, At<strong>to</strong>rney General Gonzales was asked byGeorge Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" if "he believed that journalists could be prosecutedfor publish<strong>in</strong>g classified <strong>in</strong>formation." He replied that "there are some statutes on thebook[ s] which, if you read them carefully, would seem <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>dicate that that is a possibility ....We have an obligation <strong>to</strong> enforce those laws. We have an obligation <strong>to</strong> ensure that our nationalsecurity is protected." See Transcript <strong>of</strong> ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos,"2006 WLNR 9116668 (May 21, 2006), attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 14.35. When asked several weeks later by the Senate Judiciary Committee for aclarification <strong>of</strong> At<strong>to</strong>rney General Gonzales' remarks on ABC's "This Week," Matthew W. Friedrich,Chief <strong>of</strong> Staff and Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal Deputy Assistant At<strong>to</strong>rney General Crim<strong>in</strong>al Division, submittedwritten testimony that adopted the At<strong>to</strong>rney General's remarks as Department <strong>of</strong> JusticePolicy. Even though, as Mr. Friedrich acknowledged <strong>in</strong> his responses <strong>to</strong> the Judiciary Committee'squestions, the Justice Department "has never <strong>in</strong> its his<strong>to</strong>ry prosecuted a member <strong>of</strong> thepress under [the Espionage Act] or any other statute relat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the protection <strong>of</strong> classified <strong>in</strong>formation,"the Department's current position is that "such a prosecution is possible under thelaw." See Friedrich Responses <strong>to</strong> Questions for the Record, attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 15.-13-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 14 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 62736. By publicly speculat<strong>in</strong>g about the possibility <strong>of</strong> prosecut<strong>in</strong>g journalists,such as myself, under the Espionage Act for publish<strong>in</strong>g truthful s<strong>to</strong>ries conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g classified<strong>in</strong>formation, I believe that the Government was try<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong>timidate journalists, like me, whopublish s<strong>to</strong>ries that expose excessive government secrecy, illegality, or malfeasance.37. Around the same time that the Govelllment was mak<strong>in</strong>g public statementsabout potentially prosecut<strong>in</strong>g journalists, Brian Ross and Richard Esposi<strong>to</strong> <strong>of</strong> ABC NewsrepOlled on May 15, 2006, that senior federal law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficials had <strong>in</strong>formed them thatthe government was track<strong>in</strong>g the phone numbers <strong>of</strong> journalists without the journalists' knowledgeas part <strong>of</strong> an effort <strong>to</strong> root out the journalists' confidential sources. Accord<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> the alticle,the jou111alists' phones were not be<strong>in</strong>g "tapped," but the government was track<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>com<strong>in</strong>gand outgo<strong>in</strong>g numbers called and received on the journalists' phones. The s<strong>to</strong>ry statedthat the government was exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the phone calls and contacts <strong>of</strong> jou111alists from ABCNews, The New York Times, and the Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n Post a pall <strong>of</strong> a "widespread CIA leak <strong>in</strong>vestigation."I was mentioned by name as one <strong>of</strong> the reporters whose work the government waslook<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong>. A copy <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>to</strong>ry, entitled "Federal Source <strong>to</strong> ABC News: We Know WhoYou're Call<strong>in</strong>g," is attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 16.38. Even if I was not one <strong>of</strong> the jou111alists subject <strong>to</strong> the surveillance outl<strong>in</strong>ed<strong>in</strong> the s<strong>to</strong>ry by Messrs. Ross and Esposi<strong>to</strong>, the s<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>in</strong>dicates that senior federal law enforcement<strong>of</strong>ficials provided Messrs. Ross and Esposi<strong>to</strong> with <strong>in</strong>formation about the surveillance.By leak<strong>in</strong>g the s<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>in</strong> the manner that it did, the Gove111ment further contributed <strong>to</strong>creat<strong>in</strong>g an atmosphere <strong>of</strong> fear for journalists who publish s<strong>to</strong>ries about national security and<strong>in</strong>telligence issues.39. The surveillance described <strong>in</strong> the s<strong>to</strong>ry by Messrs. Ross and Esposi<strong>to</strong> isdisturb<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> me as ajournalist. If the Government was, <strong>in</strong> fact, track<strong>in</strong>g who I was speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong>on the phone, then it can attempt <strong>to</strong> learn the identity <strong>of</strong> potential confidential sources on others<strong>to</strong>ries, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g those that I am work<strong>in</strong>g on and have yet <strong>to</strong> publish.-14-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 15 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 62840. I have reason <strong>to</strong> believe that the s<strong>to</strong>ry by Brian Ross and RichardEsposi<strong>to</strong> is true. S<strong>in</strong>ce that s<strong>to</strong>ry was published, I have learned from an <strong>in</strong>dividual who testifiedbefore a grand jury <strong>in</strong> this District that was exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g my report<strong>in</strong>g about the domestic wiretapp<strong>in</strong>gprogram that the Government had shown this <strong>in</strong>dividual copies <strong>of</strong> telephone recordsrelat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> calls made <strong>to</strong> and from me.41. As noted above, on June 23, 2006, Eric Lichtblau and I wrote anothers<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>in</strong> The Times that disclosed the existence <strong>of</strong> another government program <strong>of</strong> questionablelegality that was <strong>in</strong>itiated weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks and provided countelterrorism<strong>of</strong>ficials with access <strong>to</strong> money transfer records <strong>in</strong> the SWIFT database as part <strong>of</strong> an effort<strong>to</strong> detect terrorist f<strong>in</strong>anciers.42. The same day that the alticle about the SWIFT program by Eric Lichtblauand me appeared <strong>in</strong> The Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times alsopublished articles about the SWIFT program. Those alticles are attached here<strong>to</strong> as Exhibits 17and 18.43. The Bush Adm<strong>in</strong>istration was outraged by the disclosures about theSWIFT program. Vice President Cheney called the disclosure <strong>of</strong> the program "a disgrace,"while President Bush called it "disgraceful." See Transcript <strong>of</strong> CNN: Paula Zahn Now, NewYork Times Guilty <strong>of</strong> Treason?; Old Glory Becomes Burn<strong>in</strong>g Issue <strong>in</strong> Congress; hraeli TroopsMove In<strong>to</strong> Gaza <strong>to</strong> Rescue Captured, 2006 WLNR 11144252 (June 27, 2006), which is attachedhere<strong>to</strong> as Exhibit 19. Members <strong>of</strong> Congress close <strong>to</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istration, such as Rep.Peter K<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> New York, "call[ed] for the at<strong>to</strong>rney general <strong>to</strong> beg<strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>vestigation and prosecution<strong>of</strong> The New York Times, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its reporters who worked on the case."44. Significantly, however, all <strong>of</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istration's expressions <strong>of</strong> outrageconcern<strong>in</strong>g the disclosure <strong>of</strong> the SWIFT program were directed only at Mr. Lichtblau and me.As CNN repOlted on June 27, 2006, even though "[t]he s<strong>to</strong>ry was [also] reported by the LosAngeles Times and Wall Street Journal, ... the attacks have focused on The New York Times,-15-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 16 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 629<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its repOliers who worked on the case." As far as I am aware, nobody <strong>in</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istrationcompla<strong>in</strong>ed publicly about the other articles written about the SWIFT program thesame day as m<strong>in</strong>e. All <strong>of</strong> the calls for journalists <strong>to</strong> be <strong>in</strong>vestigated or prosecuted were directedsolely at Mr. Lichtblau and me. I cannot help but th<strong>in</strong>k that the fact that I had written earlier,both <strong>in</strong> The Times and State <strong>of</strong> War, about the adm<strong>in</strong>istration's legally questionable domesticeavesdropp<strong>in</strong>g program, had someth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> do with the selective attention that was be<strong>in</strong>g focusedon The Times and me.45. Public threats from the adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>of</strong> putt<strong>in</strong>g me <strong>in</strong> jail cont<strong>in</strong>ued.On August 30, 2006, Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra publicly predicted that "thoserepOliers," mean<strong>in</strong>g Eric Lichtblau and me, "will be sitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> jail by the end <strong>of</strong> the year untilthey reveal their sources." See Myron Kukla, Hoekstra Predicts Jail<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> Reporters (NYTTrai<strong>to</strong>rs To Be Jailed By Year End), Grand Rapids Press, Aug. 31, 2006 at BI, attached here<strong>to</strong>as Exhibit 20.46. That was the atmosphere <strong>in</strong> which I was first <strong>subpoena</strong>ed <strong>to</strong> testify concem<strong>in</strong>gmy confidential source(s) for Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War, on January 24, 2008.47. I believe that the efforts <strong>to</strong> target me have cont<strong>in</strong>ued under the ObamaAdm<strong>in</strong>istration, which has been aggressively <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g whistleblowers and repoliers <strong>in</strong> away that will have a chill<strong>in</strong>g effect on the freedom <strong>of</strong> the press <strong>in</strong> the United States.-16-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 17 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 630I believe that this is further evidence <strong>of</strong> the Government's <strong>in</strong>tent <strong>to</strong> harass me <strong>in</strong>50. The <strong>subpoena</strong> that I am fight<strong>in</strong>g now seeks the identity <strong>of</strong> and other <strong>in</strong>formationrelat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> my confidential source(s) for Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War. I cannot agree <strong>to</strong>provide the testimony that the Government seeks.51. I could not have written Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War (and many, if not all<strong>of</strong> the above-referenced articles and books) without the use <strong>of</strong> confidential source(s). Mysource(s) for Chapter 9 provided me with <strong>in</strong>formation with the understand<strong>in</strong>g that I would notreveal their identityiies. In circumstances <strong>in</strong> which I promise confidentiality <strong>to</strong> a source, I cannotbreak that promise.52. Any testimony I were <strong>to</strong> provide <strong>to</strong> the Government would compromise<strong>to</strong> a significant degree my ability <strong>to</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ue repOit<strong>in</strong>g as well as the ability <strong>of</strong> other journalists<strong>to</strong> do so. This is particularly true <strong>in</strong> my current l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> work cover<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>to</strong>ries relat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> nationalsecurity, <strong>in</strong>telligence, and terrorism. If I aided the Government <strong>in</strong> its effOit <strong>to</strong> prosecute-17-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 18 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 631my confidential source(s) for provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>to</strong> me under terms <strong>of</strong> confidentiality, Iwould <strong>in</strong>evitably be compromis<strong>in</strong>g my own ability <strong>to</strong> gather news <strong>in</strong> the future. I also believethat I would be imped<strong>in</strong>g all other repOliers' ability <strong>to</strong> gather and report the news <strong>in</strong> the future.53. Compell<strong>in</strong>g journalists <strong>to</strong> testify about their conversations with confidentialsources will <strong>in</strong>evitably h<strong>in</strong>der future attempts <strong>to</strong> obta<strong>in</strong> cooperation from those or other confidentialsources. It creates the <strong>in</strong>evitable appearance that journalists either are or can be readilyconvelied <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> an <strong>in</strong>vestigative arm <strong>of</strong> the government. This would seriously compromisejournalists' <strong>in</strong>tegrity and <strong>in</strong>dependence, qualities that are essential <strong>to</strong> our ability <strong>to</strong> ga<strong>in</strong> the trust<strong>of</strong> potential news sources and <strong>to</strong> effectively <strong>in</strong>vestigate and repOli on newsworthy events. Personswho would otherwise be will<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> speak <strong>to</strong> me would surely refuse <strong>to</strong> do so if they perceivedme <strong>to</strong> be not a journalist who keeps his word when he promises confidentiality but onewho would break it <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>of</strong> govemment prosecu<strong>to</strong>rs.54. I understand that, ifthe Government cannot get testimony from me aboutthe identity <strong>of</strong> my confidential source(s), the Govemment may seek testimony from me aboutthe details <strong>of</strong> my conversations with my confidential source(s) (without actually ask<strong>in</strong>g me thename(s) <strong>of</strong> my source(s)). I cannot provide this testimony <strong>to</strong> the Government either. Theagreement I have reached with my confidential source(s) for Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> my book, State <strong>of</strong>War, does not merely cover the name <strong>of</strong> the source(s). Rather, I understand my agreement(s) <strong>to</strong>require me not <strong>to</strong> reveal any <strong>in</strong>fonnation that would enable someone <strong>to</strong> identify my confidentialsource(s).55. I have never heard <strong>of</strong> any confidentiality agreement made by a journalistthat merely requires the journalist not <strong>to</strong> name his or her source. Such an agreement would be<strong>of</strong> little value <strong>to</strong> a source or potential source. If a journalist were <strong>to</strong> withhold a source's namebut provide enough <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>to</strong> authorities <strong>to</strong> identify the source, the promise <strong>of</strong> confidentialitywould provide little mean<strong>in</strong>gful protection <strong>to</strong> a source or potential source.-18-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 19 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 63256. The scope <strong>of</strong> my confidentiality agreement(s) with my source(s) forChapter 9 are typical <strong>of</strong> such agreements as they are used for <strong>in</strong>vestigative report<strong>in</strong>g generally.Such confidentiality agreements do not necessarily preclude a journalist from disclos<strong>in</strong>g anyth<strong>in</strong>gwhatsoever about the source. In fact, when report<strong>in</strong>g us<strong>in</strong>g confidential sources, it isquite common <strong>to</strong> report some generic <strong>in</strong>formation that assists <strong>in</strong> demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g the credibility<strong>of</strong> the source. For example, one might identify the employer <strong>of</strong> the source by not<strong>in</strong>g that thesource is "an employee <strong>of</strong> Micros<strong>of</strong>t" or "management at McDonalds." Additionally, or alternatively,a rep otter might identify the location <strong>of</strong> a source by, for example, not<strong>in</strong>g that theywork at Micros<strong>of</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Seattle, Wash<strong>in</strong>g<strong>to</strong>n.57. The common thread <strong>in</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g any identify<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation about aconfidential source is that such disclosures rema<strong>in</strong> general enough that they do not tend <strong>to</strong> revealthe identity <strong>of</strong> the source. The above example might be acceptable because there are a sufficientnumber <strong>of</strong> employees <strong>of</strong> Micros<strong>of</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Seattle that those characteristics do not materiallythreaten <strong>to</strong> reveal the patticular source's identity. However, it might violate the same agreement<strong>to</strong> disclose that a source was an employee <strong>of</strong> Micros<strong>of</strong>t located <strong>in</strong> a very small <strong>to</strong>wn tha<strong>to</strong>nly had a few such employees.58. In short, confidentiality agreement(s) are not so fOlIDulaic as <strong>to</strong> def<strong>in</strong>especific categories <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation for protection, such as occupation, location, or time. Rather,they are common-sense agreements not <strong>to</strong> disclose whatever <strong>in</strong>fonnation might, alone or <strong>in</strong>comb<strong>in</strong>ation, reveal the identity <strong>of</strong>the source <strong>in</strong> light <strong>of</strong> the particular circumstances.59. Based on my review <strong>of</strong> the Government's papers and the patiicular nature<strong>of</strong> the testimony the Government claims <strong>to</strong> be seek<strong>in</strong>g, I have concluded that I cannot answerthe questions the Government wants <strong>to</strong> ask me consistent with my obligation <strong>to</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>the confidentiality <strong>of</strong> my source(s). First, the <strong>subpoena</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>s no limitations on the scope <strong>of</strong>testimony. In its <strong>motion</strong> papers, the Government has demanded that I identify Sterl<strong>in</strong>g as the<strong>in</strong>dividual who, as charged <strong>in</strong> Counts One through Seven <strong>of</strong> the Indictment, reta<strong>in</strong>ed and then-19-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 20 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 633transmitted national security <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>to</strong> me. The Government's other requests for testimonyare also specifically designed <strong>to</strong> confirm or rule out Mr. Sterl<strong>in</strong>g as a source. The Governmentseeks "(I) testimony about the specific <strong>in</strong>formation that the defendant conveyed <strong>to</strong>[me], much <strong>of</strong> which was publicly disclosed by [me] <strong>in</strong> [my] book; (2) [my] recollection <strong>of</strong>where and when the specific <strong>in</strong>fornlation was transmitted <strong>to</strong> [me] (3) testimony authenticat<strong>in</strong>g[my] book and lay<strong>in</strong>g the foundation for admitt<strong>in</strong>g the defendant's statements conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> it;and (4) [my] recollection <strong>of</strong> [my] preexist<strong>in</strong>g non-confidential source relationship with Sterl<strong>in</strong>g,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g [my] authorship <strong>of</strong> a newspaper article about Sterl<strong>in</strong>g's civil lawsuit <strong>in</strong> 2002." Withthe possible exception <strong>of</strong> #3, it is readily apparent that I cannot testify on these <strong>to</strong>pics withoutconfirm<strong>in</strong>g or refut<strong>in</strong>g that Mr. Sterl<strong>in</strong>g was a confidential source for Chapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War,nor without provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation that would tend <strong>to</strong> reveal the identity/ies <strong>of</strong> my confidentialsource(s).60. I am will<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> testify - as I have <strong>to</strong>ld the Government all along - that(1) I wrote a particular newspaper article or chapter <strong>of</strong> a book; (2) a particular newspaper articleor chapter <strong>of</strong> a book that I wrote was accurate; (3) statements referred <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong> my newspaper articleor book chapter as be<strong>in</strong>g made by an unnamed source were <strong>in</strong> fact made <strong>to</strong> me by an unnamedsource; and (4) statements referred <strong>to</strong> <strong>in</strong> my newspaper article or book chapter as be<strong>in</strong>gmade by an identified source were <strong>in</strong> fact made <strong>to</strong> me by that identified source. But I cannottestify as <strong>to</strong> the Government's other questions.61. To answer the Government's other questions would violate my agreement<strong>to</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> confidence not just the name(s) <strong>of</strong> my source(s), but <strong>in</strong>formation that wouldtend <strong>to</strong> reveal the identity/ies <strong>of</strong> my source(s). If r provide the testimony that has been requested<strong>of</strong> me, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the "what," "how," "when," and "where" <strong>of</strong> acquir<strong>in</strong>g each piece <strong>of</strong>confidential <strong>in</strong>formation, do<strong>in</strong>g so will reveal my confidential source( s), regardless <strong>of</strong> whether rdirectly provide any name(s). Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, I cannot comply with the sUbpoena.-20-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 21 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 63462. I did have a non-confidential report<strong>in</strong>g relationship with Mr. Sterl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>connection with my March 2002 article entitled "Fired by C.I.A., He Says Agency PracticedBias." To the extent the Government's seeks <strong>to</strong> verify the <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> that article, I stand byit; the article accurately portrays the <strong>in</strong>formation provided <strong>to</strong> me. However, I cannot testify as<strong>to</strong> whether I had any other discussion(s) with Mr. Sterl<strong>in</strong>g outside the context <strong>of</strong> that article forone simple reason: the question<strong>in</strong>g appears <strong>to</strong> be an attempt <strong>to</strong> elicit <strong>in</strong>formation about mycommunications with Mr. Sterl<strong>in</strong>g so as <strong>to</strong> confirm or deny that he was a confidential sourcefor Chapter 9. To the extent the Government is ask<strong>in</strong>g these questions because the Governmentbelieves that they might reveal someth<strong>in</strong>g about my confidential source(s) for the <strong>in</strong>formation<strong>in</strong> Chapter 9, then this appears <strong>to</strong> be just another <strong>in</strong>direct route <strong>to</strong> the same source-identify<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>formation that the Government is seek<strong>in</strong>g through its more direct questions about Chapter 9.63. I cannot answer questions about <strong>in</strong>fotmation provided <strong>to</strong> me confidentiallyby any paliicular <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> connection with Chapter 9, or even answer whether anyparticular <strong>in</strong>dividual did or did not provide me with <strong>in</strong>formation, because <strong>to</strong> do so would revealmy source(s) by process <strong>of</strong> elim<strong>in</strong>ation. For example, if there were only a handful <strong>of</strong> peoplethat had access <strong>to</strong> a particular piece <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War, ask<strong>in</strong>g whether I had anyconversations with each <strong>of</strong> them, one by one, would quickly reveal my source(s). No matterhow creative the Government's approach is, <strong>in</strong> order <strong>to</strong> protect my source(s)' confidentiality, Imust decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>to</strong> answer any <strong>of</strong> these questions designed <strong>to</strong> either conf<strong>in</strong>n or rule out particularpeople.64. If I am forced <strong>to</strong> testify, it will immediately and substantially harm myability <strong>to</strong> gather newswotihy <strong>in</strong>formation. Recently, it has become more clear than ever <strong>to</strong> mehow impOliant promises <strong>of</strong> confidentiality are <strong>to</strong> my sources. In my ongo<strong>in</strong>g report<strong>in</strong>g andnews gather<strong>in</strong>g, numerous sources <strong>of</strong> confidential <strong>in</strong>formation have <strong>to</strong>ld me that they are comfortablespeak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> me <strong>in</strong> confidence specifically because I have shown that I will honor myword and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> their confidence even <strong>in</strong> the face <strong>of</strong> Government efforts <strong>to</strong> force me <strong>to</strong> re--21-
Case 1:10-cr-00485-LMB Document 115-2 Filed 06/21/11 Page 22 <strong>of</strong> 22 PageID# 635veal their identities or <strong>in</strong>formation. The fact that I have not previously revealed my sources hasallowed me <strong>to</strong> ga<strong>in</strong> access <strong>to</strong> newsworthy <strong>in</strong>formation that I could not otherwise get. Based onthese experiences, I have no doubt that if I am forced <strong>to</strong> reveal my confidential source(s) forChapter 9 <strong>of</strong> State <strong>of</strong> War, it will immediately harm my ability <strong>to</strong> secure the trust <strong>of</strong> sources <strong>in</strong>the future.65. I respectfully urge the Court <strong>to</strong> deny the Govemment <strong>motion</strong> <strong>in</strong> lim<strong>in</strong>e<strong>quash</strong> the <strong>subpoena</strong>.Swom <strong>to</strong> before me this2.\ day <strong>of</strong> June, 2011.,Notary PublicBARBARA BRINCEFIELDNotary Public <strong>of</strong> Distrlct <strong>of</strong> ColumbiaMy Commission expires oc<strong>to</strong>ber 14. 2015-22-