Whistle blower faces 100 years for blowing the cover CIA Plantng False evidence

This is obama's CIA ain't it?

 

http://rt.com/news/226455-sterling-cia-iran-guilty/

"A jury found former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling guilty of all charges against him under the Espionage Act. The government accused Sterling of illegally revealing classified information about a mission and thus putting American lives in danger."

"The former CIA officer, who was fired in the early 2000s, was convicted of nine counts of unauthorized disclosure of national defense information and other related charges. US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema allowed Sterling to remain free on bond until his April 24 sentencing. "

what was the information really? a jury found him guilty...... and he was fired under Bush, not Obama....

"While prosecutors showed that Risen and Sterling contacted one another dozens of times, Pollack said that nothing the government presented to the jury showed that the two had discussed any classified information. "

hard to get whistle blower status if your claiming you didn't blow the whistle....


.

 

Yep another obama lie to try to start a war for oil
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

 

happened by someone employed under Bush's CIA, but let's blame Obama.....

"The former CIA officer, who was fired in the early 2000s, was convicted of nine counts of unauthorized disclosure of national defense information and other related charges. US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema allowed Sterling to remain free on bond until his April 24 sentencing. "


.

 

Bush was running the CIA back them... not Obama

 

Who is he employed by now, like when this happened?

 

There are no, State secrets during time of Peace as indicated by a lack of wartime Tax rates to prove any exigency exists; simply, because, we have a Commerce Clause that there is no Appeal to Ignorance of; especially in the name of the moral turpitude of bearing False witness to the People in any office of public Trust with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge and any form of religious freedom Act;

And, not Only that;

What happened to 1st Amendment protection for Informing Well, the Electorate of the United States. We obviously cannot trust our representatives to Government, elected.

 

Wait a sec. This guy warned the Iranians that we were trying to delay their nuclear program by supplying them with misleading information. I'd call that treasonous, not whistle blowing. Or did I miss something?

 

I think you missed the part where our reputation for doing dirty deeds, making up false stories and false flags and lying our faces off is so off the charts that no country takes what we say at face value.

I think you also missed the part where the Government is either generating or making up fear based propaganda in order to take your rights and freedoms away.

 

What are you talking about? Irans religious leaders are seeking nukes. They are crazy. So we fed them false design info to trick them onto a false nuclear development path while we figured out a more permanent solution. I don't see any "fear based propaganda" in that. In fact it is proof of our genuine concern. Or maybe I still don't get it.

 

No, I don't think they were giving the Iranians misinfo. Iran knows what it has and doesn't have. The planted evidence would likely be for UN inspectors. What I would call treasonous is starting a war in which American lives and treasure will be lost, by planting false evidence.

 

One wonders how many other horrible secrets government workers are yearning to alert the public about...

 

I don't see anywhere they're saying when the CIA used a Russian scientist to supply faulty nuclear information to Iran they where going to turn around and supply that information back to the American people or UN and say "look they're closer to the bomb" not even the "whistle blower" claims that. The controversy seems that he exposed the U.S. involvement in a operation that was meant to derail the Iranians. He published that the CIA actually ACCELERATED the Iranian Nuclear Program (under Bush's rubber stamp) because the Russian found the flaws in the plan and corrected it.

Whether or not the plans where corrected by the Russian, he effectively exposed the U.S. involvement in a operation hence the charges.

 

Not true. Obama lied about the Syrian army used chemical weapons. That was Obama. Not Bush. All for oil. Obama not Bush. Get over it and accept Obama tried to get us in a war in Syria for oil till the american people stopped him. So instead he arms and trains Al Qaeda .

 

It must be; only an Ivy League, MBA would not only lose massive budget surpluses on his watch, but also try to claim we can win any war by growing our economy through lowering taxes.

 

Has this been proven? And John McCain handshaking someone doesn't count.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/
Are we not training and arming the rebels?
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/...that-washington-has-backed-al-qaeda-in-syria/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/10/syri-o16.html

 

The point is, we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge that implies in legal fact, a moral of true witness bearing not just appealing ignorance of the law in favor of alleged morals from the Iron Age.

 

The first link doens't support your claim. The 2nd link is concerning Lybia and not Syria. The third, talks about Saudia and Qatar supplying weapons for the most extremists groups fighting Assad, while the US tries their best to filter or prevent them from arriving to this undiserable groups, but with bad intel they haven't been doing a great job.

So Obama is not supporting ISIS/Al Qaeda with arms or training in Syria. Actually, it is known that due to the lack of support from the US to the Syrian opposition, many have decided to join ranks with ISIS which are better prepared and equipped to fight against Assad.

 

care to cite which ones? We have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge that implies in legal fact, a moral of true witness bearing not just appealing ignorance of the law in favor of alleged morals from the Iron Age.

 

The point is, we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge that implies in legal fact, a moral of true witness bearing not just appealing ignorance of the law in favor of alleged morals from the Iron Age.

Bearing True Witness instead of indulging the moral turpitude of bearing False Witness while informing well, the Electorate of the United States;

Must be a valid and moral defense.

 

Pick one or both and answer it. Spare us your usual dodging.

 

Here is one:

The point is, we have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge that implies in legal fact, a moral of true witness bearing not just appealing ignorance of the law in favor of alleged morals from the Iron Age.

Bearing True Witness instead of indulging the moral turpitude of bearing False Witness while informing well, the Electorate of the United States;

Must be a valid and moral defense.

- - - Updated - - -

I try to resort to the fewest fallacies for my Cause; whenever I go "honest Injeun" on those of the opposing view.

 

And why are they better equipped? Because they took all the weapon we left when we pulled out and the Iraqis ran. Plus really stupid supply drops by Americans going straight to isis

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/
Here is the story of the Syrian trained and armed by america joining Al Qaeda. So Al Qaeda is being armed and trained by america. Is it not? Are our weapons not being used by Al Qaeda?

 

What you are saying is different than what was said in the article.

If what you are saying is true then I agree with you. Big difference between feeding them fake info (which is fantastic really), and planting false evidence of nuclear weapons.