Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
A
Shopify's point of sale system helps you sell at every stage of your business. Need a fast and secure way to take payments in person? We've got you covered. How about card readers you can rely on anywhere you sell?
- [00:12]
B
Thanks.
- [00:13]
A
Have a good one. Yep, that too. Want one place to manage all your online and in person sales? That's kind of our thing. Wherever you sell. Businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at shopify.com listen shopify.com listen hi everybody.
- [00:31]
B
Cheryl Achison here. I hope you enjoy this special from the Archives edition of Full Measure After Hours. Hello again everybody. Cheryl Akisson here. Welcome to another edition of Full Measure After Hours. Today, an interview that I suspect you might find somewhat disturbing with a Chinese American scientist who the FBI wrongly accused of being a spy. There are so many takeaways from the story you're going to hear about today. In an overarching sense, it's yet another example of alleged FBI incompetence or corruption, depending on how you view the case. Amid a stack of such examples that I've covered over the years, including on this podcast. When the FBI arrests somebody only to have charges dropped later, it still often destroys lives. It requires people of modest means to pay sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending themselves, answering legal requests for information, and so on. It gets them fired from their jobs. It can destroy family relationships. It can cast doubt on the person for the rest of their life when such is the case with Xiao Jingxi, a Chinese American scientist now a professor of physics at Temple University. My report about what happened to him is the subject of this week's Full Measure cover story. That's on Sunday, February 5th. I hope you don't miss it. For today's podcast, an extended interview with that scientist Xi.
- [02:16]
C
How did you first come to understand and what time period that you were being accused of being a spy?
- [02:28]
D
Okay, the point of time. So I was shocked when I opened the door when I agents came to my house and pounding on my door and I did not know why. And so actually I asked them why was I arrested and they would not tell me. And they were saying, well, come to the FBI field office and answer some questions and I will tell you. And then they took me to the FBI field office in Philadelphia and they interrogated me for two hours. And I knew that normally you should not answer a question without a lawyer present, but I wanted to know why they accused me so that I can start thinking about how to defend myself because I went through all my Life in my mind. And I couldn't figure out why they were coming to arrest me. So at the very end of the interrogation, they still wouldn't want to tell me. And I keep asking why. And that's when they told me for having made a device called pocket heater for my Chinese collaborator, which was totally false. And I knew it could never be. It could not possibly be true. So, you know, that's the point that I knew why I was arrested.
- [03:54]
C
What kinds of questions were they asking you?
- [03:57]
D
Oh, it's just very questions about our everyday work. You know, do you have Chinese students in your lab? And went to China to give talks? And, you know, it's all those kind of things. Nothing is. So from the question that they asked me, I wouldn't know why they charged me. So that's why I keep asking why was I arrested?
- [04:25]
C
And did they let you go at the end of that interrogation?
- [04:29]
D
Well, you know, as a physics professor, I had absolutely no experience with the legal system. Right. So looks like that I need to tell you what I have learned. So the process is like this. They arrest me and then I will be having my first court appearance where I will be told why I was charged and then will be deciding on bail. So the government did not insist to keep me in jail. So I was released on bail that afternoon.
- [05:07]
C
What happened when they came to your house? Did they barge in? Was it a scary experience or were they fairly just commonplace and polite?
- [05:17]
D
Well, I mean, it was very, very scary. And so they pounded on my door. That woke me up. And so I run to open the door. I didn't even get myself fully dressed. And I have shorts and they're tested. And so I open the door, see all these people, and some of them have weapons and two guys have battering ram near my door. So I was thinking, well, if I were slower, they may have broken down my door. So then these arm agents. Is there a gun, Jon? And they're running into the house and running around and yell, FBI, FBI. And so they kind of ordered my wife and two daughters coming out of their bedrooms with their hands raised. And it was very, very scary.
- [06:13]
B
How old were you girls?
- [06:15]
D
So I have two girls. The older one was about 19 and the younger one was 12 at the time.
- [06:24]
C
What year was this?
- [06:26]
D
This was 2015.
- [06:28]
C
And what time of day?
- [06:31]
D
It was before 7 o' clock in the morning.
- [06:33]
C
Okay. When you first became aware that the accusation was some sort of industrial espionage.
- [06:40]
D
That'S what it's called, I suppose, yeah.
- [06:44]
C
What thoughts went through your mind?
- [06:46]
D
Well, the very first word I uttered was that's absurd. You know, it could not be true. So that's what went through, man.
- [06:56]
C
And if you can explain clearly and succinctly specifically what they were accusing you of doing with the pocket heater.
- [07:03]
D
They were just saying that I had a collaboration with colleagues in China.
- [07:08]
C
Was that legal?
- [07:09]
D
Yes, absolutely. That was completely on the research that was open. That was my research, based on my research and everything. You know, as a university professor we do so called fundamental research. Everything we do, we have to publish it. And everything we publish, we have to disclose all the details so that people read the paper, can reproduce what we do. That's what most of our university professors do, fundamental research. And so I was collaborating with a colleague on, on something based on my research that was encouraged by the university and the US government. So there's nothing secretive about it.
- [07:57]
C
This was a pocket heater?
- [07:58]
D
No. Well, the collaboration I have was not about the pocket heater, but the government accused me of disclosing pocket heater information in this collaboration, which was totally wrong.
- [08:15]
C
And I know this gets a little arcane, but what is sensitive about pocket heater research?
- [08:21]
D
Nothing, Nothing. It was, you know, the pocket heater that was used by this US company that was discovered by a German company in the 1990s and well published. Everybody in the field know about it. And so you know, I, I don't understand.
- [08:40]
C
And your research was on what type of product or device?
- [08:43]
D
Well, we work on materials physics that's related to all kinds of possible applications. And so we make so called thin films, very, very thin materials on some substrate that you can use it for fundamental research or different devices.
- [09:01]
C
Did you ever figure out how the government got confused and thought that you were working on a pocket heater instead of what you were really working on?
- [09:10]
D
I don't know the detail. That's part of the reason that we have a lawsuit against the government because we want to know all the facts. What we do know is that the FBI agent who investigated my case made up evidence and he was told that I was not talking about the pocket heater before he went ahead and charged me.
- [09:34]
C
What evidence did they, in your view or based on your research, fabricate?
- [09:38]
D
Well, you know, that got into the detail of our lawsuits that my lawyer would not want me to go into.
- [09:44]
C
Detail without the details. What is your current lawsuit claim?
- [09:50]
D
The FBI agents made up data. He knew he was wrong and went ahead with that.
- [09:57]
C
Let's talk about you being chosen as a suspect in the first place. You feel this had Something to do with you being a Chinese. Are you a Chinese American? Are you a U.S. citizen?
- [10:06]
D
I'm sorry, I am a U.S. citizen, yes.
- [10:08]
C
You feel as though perhaps you were picked on or pointed to because you were Chinese descent.
- [10:15]
D
Well, again, that's the heart of our lawsuits. That my lawyer would want to answer in more precise language, but given what the actions of the FDI agent and you know, that's obvious explanation, have you.
- [10:38]
C
In your research found that similar things have happened to other Chinese scientists working here in America?
- [10:45]
D
Oh, absolutely. You know, my case happened in 2015 and before my case, there were already a few. The Chinese scientist who was accused of basically spying for China after my case, in my case, they failed. And there were several other cases before my case that were failure. And Sherry Chen from the Weather Service, National Weather Service, and two scientists from Eli Lilly, and they were charged for kind of a stating secretary for China, and they were all dropped. And afterwards the DOJ paused somewhat and I think they have some new rules about all these prosecutions have to be approved by the DOJ. And then in 2018, they established this China initiative and soon after that, there are many, many cases based on non disclosure. You did not disclose your collaboration with some Chinese universities in your university conflict of interest form or in your grant proposals for funding agencies. And there have been many, let's say more than a dozen university professors who were charged for non disclosure.
- [12:18]
C
Are there any cases you think that are legitimate? Because we do hear that China is working very hard to infiltrate our technology. And I think there is evidence of industrial espionage happening.
- [12:29]
D
Well, I can say with certainty of all these professors, none of those cases involve theft of intellectual property. Others, zero. They were not able to show any case that actually have some stolen intellectual property. And they are all about the non disclosure. Many of them are about non disclosure. There are some other weird cases too.
- [13:03]
C
In your case, ultimately the charge or charges were dropped. How did it get to the point from the raid and the questioning and the charging to them dropping the case?
- [13:14]
D
Yeah, my legal team contacted top experts in my research field and they provided affidavits. We gave them all my communications with my Chinese collaborators and they look at them and they say, well, all these emails are not about Pocket Heater. They are about the research of his own. And so my lawyer made a presentation to the government and a few weeks after that, they dropped the case.
- [13:50]
C
How did this impact your life?
- [13:53]
D
Oh, that's dramatic. That's significant. I mean, as you said, most people do not realize that when the government charged somebody it's not necessarily true, right? They all assume that the government charged somebody, this guy must have done something wrong. Even if the case is dropped, many people think, well the government dropped case for many reasons and it's not necessarily because this guy is innocent, but because of other reasons. So we always carry that stigma and so we must have done something wrong. So that's very damaging. One thing though is the fear that it created in our mind, right? Not only my mind, my wife, my daughters, we all learned how government can twist something which is nothing to charge somebody, right. Even if they are innocent. So that created fear that every time when we send emails or make phone calls, we are afraid that FBI might be looking, might be reading and if anything that we are saying, not 100% precise, it could become a reason that they charge us, right? For my work, everyday work, if you apply for funding, you have to check many boxes and many certifications. I mean anything if I don't do precise, it could become a reason for them to charge me. So that make my life very, very stressful. And as a result of that, my research is much, much smaller than it used to be. And I think that's very similar to the so called fear factor that many Chinese American scientists are talking about now. There's this recent survey that shows that more than 40% of these Chinese academics are fearful of doing research in this country or I think about not applying for federal funding. And over 60% of respondent of that survey are considering leaving the United States. And that fear I know very well. Right. Because that's exactly what I felt after my case. And that obviously had a traumatic effect on my career and also on my life, you know, all my family members, I mean this fear, always everyone, how.
- [16:33]
C
Would you say that impacts the US that there are probably a lot of talented Chinese researchers here, maybe they're not doing the work they could do or would otherwise do.
- [16:45]
D
Well, as I said 40 some percent of Chinese American academics are trying to avoid applying for federal funding and 60% or more thinking about leaving. And I'm sure there are many more future scientists who could have come here would think about whether to do that or not. That has a very negative impact on American science and technology. I want to bring up one report that's released by the National Academy of Sciences at the end of September and that said very, very clearly how important attracting talents is to, to American technology. And so this policy that driving away talents who are already here and preventing the future talents from coming, that has huge effect. According to this report. National Academy of Science report. The threat is to damage the Americans capacity, the capability of innovation rather than. That's a bigger threat than the possible stolen technology.
- [18:04]
C
The Chinese scientists who may be working here, whether Chinese nationality or Chinese American, are they discovering things and inventing things and researching things that can benefit the US or the universities where they work?
- [18:17]
D
Oh, absolutely. I mean these Chinese scientists are making a significant contribution to American science and technology. So you're talking about these people stealing secrets or intellectual property. These people are the people who are creating these intellectual properties and these discoveries and the innovations. So this is, I think former Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu was saying, this is not just shooting at your foot, you're shooting at your head by driving away all these talents who are making these important discoveries and innovations.
- [19:03]
C
And in looking at the other side, in fairness, there is a. I would like you to address there is a Chinese threat to our technology. I think it's well established. How would you think it'd be better balanced that the United States is vigilant and in protecting its technology and its secrets, but at the same time not accusing innocent people of doing something wrong?
- [19:24]
D
You know, first off, I want to say that the fact that the Department of Justice is spending this much resource on these innocent Chinese American academics, the question I would ask is have they really catching, are they really catching real spies? Right. Are they spending taxpayers money responsively in protecting our country? Right. Because when they go after these innocent people, they are not focusing on catching the real spies, which we expect them to do. That's their job. They should be doing that, but they're going after all these innocent people. So how to protect American innovation and technology? I mean, that's the report that I mentioned by the National Academy of Sciences that answers exactly that question. Their conclusion is it's more important to protect the Americans ability to innovate rather than protect some specific technologies. Because if you prevent talents from coming, driving away talents, and if you weaken the ecosystem of American innovation, that's a much bigger threat to Americans competitiveness.
- [20:56]
C
Were you familiar with the case of Wen Ho Lee when this happened to you?
- [21:01]
D
We all know of that case, yes.
- [21:05]
C
You know, you were very wrapped up in your own emergency at the time. And his case was different. He was working at a nuclear weapons lab and so on. But there were some perhaps similarities with the FBI behavior and so on. Did it occur to you that there were some similarities to the Wen Ho Lee case?
- [21:23]
D
Well, you know the book that he published with Helen Zia, I mean that was the book I read very soon after my arrest. And so we can see that, you know, the Chinese scientists of Chinese descent are being treated unfairly. That's fairly clear.
- [21:47]
C
Any reflections on his case? Because I'll briefly revisit that in my story. The fact that he was held in solitary confinement while he was awaiting trial, that the FBI agents admitted to the judge ultimately that they were dishonest about several factors. What reflections do you have about that case?
- [22:04]
D
Well, he was charged as a spy or at least publicly labeled as a spy, but he was not right. So if I understand correctly, he downloaded some data that he should not have. But also I read that many people did the same. But he was prosecuted and went through, you know, as you mentioned, this solitary confinement. And that's obviously a case that was not fair.
- [22:41]
C
In the big picture, beyond your case, what do you think needs to happen?
- [22:48]
D
Well, what need to be happened? I think somebody else asked me questions similar to this and, and what I was saying is given the current geopolitical situation, we don't want to be sent to the internment camp. That's what needs to happen. So my case and so many other Chinese American academics case all show that we are not treated fairly. And we all know that China and the United States are in this situation. I think in many senses they are at war. And the previous time that the United States was at war with another country, Japan, you know, hundreds of thousand people were sent to the internment camp. I think more than 100,000 people. And we don't want that to happen.
- [23:52]
B
That was Chinese American scientist Xiao Zhanshi, who has a current lawsuit filed against the FBI. If you're interested in this topic, you will want to listen this week to my other podcast, the Cheryl Ekison Podcast. There I'm talking more about the pattern going back to the Wen Ho Lee case, which I covered at CBS News. I will be telling some of the behind the scenes information that I have never publicly told before that I think gives some important context into the case of this wrongly accused man. And be sure to watch my TV program Full Measure this week on Sunday, February 5th. If you miss it or are listening.
- [24:30]
C
To this podcast after February 5th you.
- [24:33]
B
Can catch replays at FullMeasure News. Or maybe it's even easier. Go to Cheryl Atkinson.com click the full measure tab, you will see a page that you can click and see all of my cover stories. And makes for some pretty incredible binge watching if I do say so myself. Particularly if you're looking for news covered more the old fashioned way with stories that don't tell you what you have to think, that don't censor certain people and views, and that tackle topics that others would rather not give any attention to. To find out how to watch my TV program, you can go to Cheryl Atkison.com, click the full Measure tab and all the ways to watch are right there. Whether it's a TV station list for a city near you with times, or on our free app Stir that's spelled S T I R R that has all kinds of cool things, but you can see Full Measure live on Sundays at 9:30 in the morning Eastern time or on demand anytime. You can watch on our website fullmeasure news live Sundays at 9:30 Eastern Time or replays thereafter. Lots of ways to watch if you want to support independent journalism, you can click the Store tab at my website cherylaxon.com for some thought provoking and fun products and some clever slogans that independent and free thinkers are sure to appreciate, with proceeds benefiting causes like the Cheryl Atkinson ION Awards that I give to students and professionals to encourage independent fair reporting. We don't have enough of that today.
- [26:04]
C
Do your own research.
- [26:05]
B
Make up your own mind. Think for yourself.