911 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds - Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order

[Protean]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7341



FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order Unless DoJ Intercedes

By Brad Friedman on 8/5/2009 8:56PM
FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order Unless DoJ Intercedes
Former agency translator called to testify in Ohio election case this Saturday on Turkish infiltration of U.S. government...

Unless the Dept. of Justice re-invokes their twice-invoked "state secrets privilege" claim in order to once again gag former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, her attorneys have notified the department by hand-delivered, sworn letter of declaration [PDF] this week, that she intends to give a public deposition, open to the media, in response to a subpoena this Saturday in Washington D.C..

Edmonds has confirmed her intentions to answer any questions asked of her during the sworn proceedings, fully and publicly, during conversations with The BRAD BLOG this week. She notes that her agreement with her former employer, the FBI --- who fired her illegally after she filed whistleblower allegations about corruption and foreign infiltration in the linguistics department --- includes certain non-disclosure requirements. However, those requirements do not preclude her answering to a legally issued court subpoena.

The subpoena and request for sworn deposition is part of a case now pending before the Ohio Elections Commission in which Ohio's Republican U.S. Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-2nd District) has filed a complaint against her 2008 independent challenger, David Krikorian who Schmidt has charged distributed false statements about her during last year's campaign.

The resulting testimony, if it indeed occurs this weekend, could be far more explosive than either Schmidt or Krikorian might have ever guessed...

'Blood Money'

Schmidt has alleged that Krikorian --- who has announced plans to run against Schmidt again, as a Democrat, in 2010 --- libeled her when he alleged in campaign materials that she had taken "blood money" as campaign donations from Turkish interest groups. Schmidt is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Turkish Caucus, according to Politico's coverage of the case, and has received more than $10,000 from the Turkish Coalition USA PAC, "making it one of her top campaign contributors", since taking office in 2005. She recently took a trip to Turkey sponsored by the Turkish Coalition of America, valued at more than $10,000.

At immediate issue in the initial Schmidt v. Krikorian tussle, is the century-long debate over whether the extermination of some 1.5 million ethnic Armenians during WWI will be declared a "genocide" by the American government. The issue is a highly contentious one that has cut across party lines in Congress, and has ensnared dozens of U.S. Congressmembers and highly-ranked officials in a lobbyist-funded, politically-charged battle.

The same Turkish lobby has also, according to information gleaned from Edmonds and others, based on her first-hand knowledge as an FBI case translator, helped to ensnare many of those same officials in a broad infiltration scheme of the U.S. Government and sensitive military facilities, by operatives from the U.S., Turkey, Pakistan and elsewhere, including alleged bribery of then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Some of the charges against Hastert were detailed in a remarkable 2005 Vanity Fair exposé. Additional allegations, concerning the the proliferation of nuclear secrets to the black-market in Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and beyond, as detailed in an explosive front-page series by London's Sunday Times last year.

These are among the issues which Edmonds --- whose classified allegations were found to have been "credible", "serious" and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI," according to their Inspector General in 2002 --- will be asked about on Saturday if the deposition moves forward without being quashed by the DoJ.

Krikorian's campaign has released a statement [PDF], detailing several of the potentially explosive points about which they intend to ask Edmonds to testify in an "open to the media deposition"...
Ms. Edmonds is prepared to testify this Saturday in an open to the media deposition in Washington DC that during the time she was employed by the FBI she obtained evidence that:

1. The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress

2. The Government of Turkey had engaged in practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had in fact resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives

3. Turkish American cultural and business groups conduct operations with direct and indirect support from the Government of Turkey

"Jean Schmidt and the Turkish Legal Defense Fund have been attempting to squash my right to political free speech by abusing the OEC (Ohio Election Commission) process by filing frivolous complaints against me for their own political gain," Krikorian alleges in his statement.

He also notes that "Schmidt has previously been convicted by the OEC for having a reckless disregard for truth." During her run for Congress, the OEC found, in a 7 to 0 vote, that Schmidt had lied about having a received an undergraduate degree from the University of Cincinnati and she was issued a letter of reprimand for the "false statements".

The Backstory...

Edmonds agreement, via affidavit, to give testimony on the points mentioned by Krikorian above, under oath, and in public, would be a first. Much of her previous sworn testimony, to Congress and to the 9/11 Commission, has been entirely classified, leaving those of us in the media with an interest in her case to piece together the puzzle of what has made her, in the words of the ACLU, "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America".

On Tuesday, Congressional Quarterly's intelligence reporter Jeff Stein filed a report on Edmonds' upcoming "test" of the Department of Justice in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case. However, it's fallen largely to the independent media in the U.S. and the foreign mainstream media to dig into the details of Edmonds' allegations, described by one former CIA analyst early last year as "treason at the highest levels of the United State government."

In October of 2007 --- after she had exhausted all other options, having been shut down by both Congress and the Supreme Court due to the Bush Administration's twice-imposed gag order --- The BRAD BLOG broke the exclusive news of her promise to break the gag in order to relate the entire story to any U.S. mainstream broadcast media outlet willing to allow her to do so. Despite that story itself having made news in papers across the globe, nobody in the U.S. mainstream broadcast media took her up on her offer.

In November that year, legendary "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg guest blogged at The BRAD BLOG, describing Edmonds' case as "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". Still, the U.S. media ignored her.

Even CBS' 60 Minutes --- who ran a story on her in 2002 (which re-ran twice therafter), when she couldn't speak at all about her case --- chose not to tell her story once she had promised to tell all. That, even though Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), when asked about her credibility in their original piece said, "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

2005's detailed exposé in Vanity Fair by investigative British investigative journalist David Rose, detailed extraordinary allegations that then Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and bribes from Turkish interests tied into the drug-trade. Edmonds was said to have been the translator for FBI wiretaps in that case. Few in the media bothered to advance the story at all, even years later when, as Edmonds had years earlier predicted, the retired Hastert became a highly-paid lobbyist for Turkey.

And, as recently as last month, during our own recent interview with Edmonds while we were guest hosting the Mike Malloy Show (audio here, partial transcript here), she dropped details described as a "bombshell", about the U.S. having retained "intimate relations" with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda through Turkish proxies right up until September 11, 2001. That interview has made news across the globe over the last several days (e.g. the Times of India coverage is here), yet it made nary a peep in the U.S. corporate mainstream.

Many other top U.S. officials are indicated to have been involved in the dark and sordid influence peddling, infiltration and treason as highlighted by a "Rogues Gallery" of photographs posted by Edmonds in 2007 without comment. Among the photos posted, in addition to Hastert's: current and former Congressmembers Roy Blunt (R-MO), Dan Burton (R-IN), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Stephen Solarz (D-NY); current and former State and Defense Dept. officials including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eric Edelman, Marc Grossman (specifically targeted by the landmark Sunday Times exposé), Brent Scowcroft and Larry Franklin; and photographs of a host of registered and non-registered Turkish lobbyists and agents.

Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG this afternoon that, though the DoJ has yet to timely answer her hand-delivered request for the revocation of the prior-issued "states secrets" privilege orders, she expects they may still intercede to quash her testimony before Saturday morning, when she's currently scheduled to give her deposition at 10:30am in Washington D.C..

More details are available from Edmonds herself, on her planned deposition in Schmidt v. Krikorian at her blog, 123 Real Change...
http://123realchange.blogspot.com/

[Mike Philbin]

very exciting news - I wanna see TRANSPARENCY ACROSS THE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

and hopefully Sibel Edmonds with spill her pretty guts about all the SCUM.

[Freeski]

very exciting news - I wanna see TRANSPARENCY ACROSS THE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

and hopefully Sibel Edmonds with spill her pretty guts about all the SCUM.

Indeed! She'd better take some extra precautions, too.

[Dig]

very exciting news - I wanna see TRANSPARENCY ACROSS THE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

and hopefully Sibel Edmonds with spill her pretty guts about all the SCUM.

She has been doing it for years.  She, Indira Singh and a handful of others are such profoundly courageous patriots it makes me weep with a deep love for this country.

[Mike Philbin]

I'm not even American but I say, "Yes, you're right. I wish there were more like those two in my country, UK."

She, Indira Singh and a handful of others are such profoundly courageous patriots it makes me weep with a deep love for this country.

[gunDriller]

Like Pakistan, Turkey is a tool for the US & Israel.

[Dig]

Like Pakistan, Turkey is a tool for the US & Israel.

Turkey is much more strategic and always has been. they are the bridge between asia and europe.  they are always involved with such grand chessmoves.

[Dig]

By Brad Friedman on 8/7/2009 2:26PM 
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7345
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case; Attorneys Say Effort Insufficient to Stop Her
Whistleblower org says FBI/DoJ attempting 'censorship', trying to 'silence whistleblower' answering 'lawful subpoena'
Letters from FBI, Edmonds attorney posted...

The BRAD BLOG has obtained both the FBI's response to FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' notice of her intention to give a deposition this Saturday in response to a subpoena she received in a case before the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). We've also been given exclusive access to her attorneys' response in turn which is to be officially released later this afternoon.

The FBI stated their objection to Edmonds' plans to testify in a two-page letter [PDF] on Thursday, sent to Edmonds' attorney Stephen Kohn, at the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund. Edmonds and her attorneys, however, in their own two-page letter [PDF] say the objections raised so far by the agency are not sufficient to block Edmonds' from "truthfully answer[ing] questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena" on Saturday morning in D.C. as scheduled.

Their press release [PDF], to be issued publicly later today, accuses the FBI and DoJ of attempting "censorship" and trying to "silence [a] whistleblower".

As we reported in detail on Wednesday, Edmonds' attorneys had notified the Department of Justice earlier this week, in a hand-delivered letter of declaration [PDF] that she intended to testify in the pending Schmidt v. Krikorian case, about the information she has concerning infiltration of the U.S. Government by agents of Turkey. She informed the DoJ of her intentions to move forward, unless the DoJ re-invoked the "state secrets" claim that the Bush Administration had twice used to gag any public testimony, her own whistleblower suit, and all other disclosures in regard to information she was privy to during her employ as a linguistics specialist with the FBI following 9/11. So far, the DoJ has not done so.

As of this afternoon, Edmonds tells The BRAD BLOG she still "absolutely" plans to testify...


"As you know, your client executed a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which applies to disclosure of any information relating to the services she provided to the FBI," the August 6th letter to Edmonds attorney Stephen Kohn, from FBI General Consel Valerie Caproni reads. "That agreement expressly prohibits disclosure (without prior approval from the Director of the FBI or his delegate) of information acquired as part of the performance of her contract or her contractor status. She also signed a Security Acknowledgment Form and Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement."

Caproni notes that Edmonds' agreements with the agency requires the "approval of the Director of the FBI before making any disclosure of information (oral or written) to any unauthorized party by presenting the full text of the proposed disclosure to the Director...at least thirty days prior to disclosure."

"The purpose of the agreement your client signed," writes Caproni, "is not to prevent her from speaking about the FBI, but to prevent the disclosure of information where disclosure is contrary to law, regulation or national security."

She concludes "the FBI has not and will not waive" requirement for compliance with the BOA, Security Acknowledgment form and Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement, and thus, "she does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by" those documents.

The "CLASSIFICATION" of the letter itself, as hand-checked on the FBI's facsimile cover sheet, is specified as "Sensitive".

Edmonds' attorneys, however, have rejected Caproni's letter as insufficient to keep her from testifying, and have requested copies of the employment documents referenced.

"In order for Ms. Edmonds' counsel to consider your request it is essential that you provide me with full copies [of] the document(s) you claim to prohibit Ms. Edmonds from testifying under compulsion of a subpoena," Michael D. Kohn wrote on behalf of Edmonds.

He goes on to note that if those documents are not provided by "close of business today", they will presume they may go ahead with the deposition.

"We also require that you produce a copy of Ms. Edmond's employment agreement as this document may impact on Ms. Edmonds' ability to testify. I trust that this information wil be promptly provided. However, if the documents are not received by close of business today we will interpret this failure as a release of the government's right to suppress Ms. Edmonds' ability to truthfully answer questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena."

Kohn writes that he believes "the Agency's pre-publication clearance rules" do not preclude "oral disclosure, including oral testimony," such as that which will be required by Edmonds in response to questioning at tomorrow's scheduled deposition.

While he notes that "Ms. Edmonds will attempt, to the best of her ability, [to] not disclose classified information," her "recollection and judgment as to what information may be subject to lawful non-disclosure would, at best, be imperfect."

Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG today that she "absolutely intends to answer any questions, unless it's about intelligence gathering or informants." But, since "that has nothing to do with this case," she didn't anticipate any such questions.

She did say, however, that she was "obligated to respond to any questions that come out about any of the people in the 'State Secrets Privilege Gallery'". The "State Secrets Privilege Gallery" referenced is a webpage of unnamed photographs --- featuring current and former Congressmembers, high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials, as well as lobbyists and agents from Turkish public interest groups --- which Edmonds posted in 2007. The names of most of those officials, and their ties to Edmonds own whistleblower case, has been detailed by Edmonds expert Luke Ryland here. Some of the names, said to have been illegally tied to Turkish influences, include former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Congressmen Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), as well as Bush Administration officials such as Richard Perle, Marc Grossman, Douglas Feith and others.

Kohn continues in his reply to Caproni to detail the "three avenues available [to the FBI and DoJ] to guard against such inadvertent disclosure [of classified information]: 1) file a request for a protective order with the body that issued the subpoena; 2) file a motion to quash the deposition; and 3) dispatch legal counsel to the deposition capable of raise [sic] appropriate objections."

He concludes by notifying the FBI that "failure to take appropriate action...may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying about certain matters central to an important legal dispute."

Both his and Caproni's letters are posted in full at the end of this article, along with the press release from Edmonds' attorney team at that National Whistleblower Center, in which Kohn alleges "The thrust of the government's action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship."

"The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds' right to testify truthfully without government intervention," says Kohn in the statement, "and we are disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a different approach."
* * *

The matter of the "state secrets" privilege, invoked by the Bush Administration twice against Edmonds, is separate from the issues of non-disclosure involved with her employment at the FBI. In other words, Edmonds could choose to dispute the claims being made by the FBI and give her deposition, as required by the legal subpoena as she currently plans, in the event that the Obama Administration's DoJ declines to invoke the "state secrets" claim again. Similarly, while the FBI might have allowed Edmonds request to testify, that testimony could then have been blocked by the invocation of the "state secrets" privilege by the DoJ.

We have no word yet on whether the DoJ will attempt to invoke that "privilege" again. Though, as we noted in an update to our Wednesday night story, Edmonds explained to The BRAD BLOG that during her experience with the cases of other whistleblowers, as founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), she has seen DoJ attorneys arrive at the last minute, just before scheduled testimony, leaving no time to oppose or challenge such an order.

It is also possible for a DoJ attorney to be present, and object on a question by question basis, as referenced in Kohn's reply to Caproni, at which time Edmonds would have to confer with her attorney as to whether or not she'd choose to answer the question anyway, despite the DoJ objection.

Another possibility is that U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH-2nd District) could be facing pressure to drop her case against Steve Krikorian --- who challenged her as an independent in 2008 and plans to do so again as a Democrat in 2010 --- entirely, given the potentially enormous can of worms she may be about to open here. As co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus, it's not unlikely she's facing some presure from her Turkish supporters to do just that.

Krikorian's campaign is being challenged by Schmidt in the Ohio Election Commission proceeding, for his 2008 campaign allegation that she accepted "blood money" from Turkish interests to help derail a vote in the U.S. House over whether the murder of some 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks during WWI amounted to a "genocide". Krikorian announced [PDF] this week that his attorneys intend to ask Edmonds at the deposition about evidence she obtained while employed by the FBI concerning whether:
1. The Government of Turkey had illegally infiltrated and influenced various U.S. government institutions and officials, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and individual members of the United States Congress


2. The Government of Turkey had engaged in practices and policies that were inimical to American interests and had in fact resulted in both the direct and indirect loss of American lives

3. Turkish American cultural and business groups conduct operations with direct and indirect support from the Government of Turkey

A great deal of information, based on Edmonds' case (much of it linked to in our previous post on this matter, and in many Edmonds-related articles in the years prior) suggests that a number of current and former members of Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials, as well as lobbyist for various Turkish public policy organizations, have been bribed, or otherwise infiltrated the U.S. government towards the end of obtaining nuclear secrets for sale on the black market in Pakistan, Turkey, Libya, Iran and elsewhere.
* * *

Edmonds told The BRAD BLOG this afternoon that she believes she has an obligation to respond to questions raised during the deposition.

"This is not about being idealistic or heroic," she told us. "I am responsible to inform the citizens, and these people's constituents about who they're voting for. I'm responsible to the citizens of this country and the Constitution. I'm going to do my best answer to those citizens, especially when it comes to important issues of the Constitution."

While the deposition will not be open to the media, as the National Whistleblower Center had originally announced, attorneys from all parties, as well as Edmonds and Krikorian, intend to be available both before and immediately following the deposition on Saturday to take any questions from media.

Unless blocked somehow between now and then by the DoJ, the testimony is currently set to commence at 10:30am on Saturday morning (8/8/09), at the National Whistleblowers Center, 3238 P St. NW, in Washington D.C.
* * *

The two-page, August 6th letter from FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni, to Edmonds' attorney Stephen Kohn, Esq, of the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund may be downloaded here [PDF]. The two-page August 7th response from Michael D. Kohn to Caproni may be downloaded here [PDF]. The press release from Edmonds' attorney may be downloaded here [PDF].

The complete text of all three brief documents follow below...
August 6, 2009


VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

Stephen M. Kohn, Esq.
National Whistleblowers
Legal Defense & Education Fund
3238 P Street N.W.
Wasington, DC 20007

Re: Sibel Edmonds

Dear Mr. Kohn:

This letter is being sent in response to your undated letter addressed to Attorney General Holder with regard to the anticipated testimony of your client, Sibel Edmonds, before the Ohio Elections Commission (Commission) on Saturday Authust 8, 2009. The letter included a copy of Ms. Edmonds' proposed affidavit, which she seeks to submit to the commission. You had the letter and affidavit delivered to the Department of Justice on August 3, 2009. The FBI received them on August 4. As you know, your client executed a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which applies to disclosure of any information relating to the services she provided to the FBI. That agreement expressly prohibits disclosure (without prior approval from the Director of the FBI or his delegate) of information acquired as part of the performance of her contract or her contractor status. She also signed a Security Acknowledgment Form and Classified Information Non-disclosure Agreement.

When signing the BOA your client agreed to request the approval of the Director of the FBI before making any disclosure of information (oral or written) to any unauthorized party by presenting the full text of the proposed disclosure to the Director of the FBI at least thirty days prior to the disclosure. The purpose of the agreement your client signed is not to prevent her from speaking about the FBI, but to prevent the disclosure of information where disclosure is contrary to law, regulation or national security.

Compliance with the BOA, Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement are the obligation of Ms. Edmonds and the FBI has not and will not waive that compliance. Your client did not comply with the terms of those documents. Therefore she does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by the BOA, the Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement.

Sincerely,
//signature//
Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
VIA FACSIMILE


Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington D.C. 20535

Re: Sibel Edmonds

Dear Ms. Caproni:

This letter responds to your letter of August 6, 2009, and specifically to your assertion that Sibel Edmonds "does not have approval for any disclosure of any information covered by the BOA [Basic Ordering Agreement], the Security Acknowledgment form and the Classified Information Non-disclosure agreement."

In order for Ms. Edmonds' counsel to consider your request it is essential that you provide me with full copies the document(s) you claim to prohibit Ms. Edmonds from testifying under compulsion of a subpoena. We also require that you produce a copy of Ms. Edmond's employment agreement as this document may impact on Ms. Edmonds' ability to testify. I trust that this information wil be promptly provided. However, if the documents are not received by close of business today we will interpret this failure as a release of the government's right to suppress Ms. Edmonds' ability to truthfully answer questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena.

In any event, consistent with my understanding of the Agency's pre-publication clearance rules, oral disclosure, including oral testimony, is permitted without prior review. Consistent with the Agency's pre-publication rules, Ms. Edmonds will attempt, to the best of her ability, not disclose classified information. However, Ms. Edmonds' recollection and judgement as to what information may be subject to lawful non-disclosure would, at best, be imperfect. As such, the FBI has at least three avenues available to guard against such inadvertent disclosure: 1) file a request for a protective order with the body that issued the subpoena; 2) file a motion to quash the deposition; and 3) dispatch legal counsel to the deposition capable of raise [sic] appropriate objections.

In the past the Agency denied Ms. Edmonds her right to a day in court by raising the States Secrets Privilege. If the government is still of the opinion that the state secrets privilege still applies then it is up to you to raise this privilege with the necessary accompanying affidavit to the body that issued the subpoena, the Ohio Election Commission. It is our understanding that the States Secrets Privilege is not portable and, as such, the failure to renew the privilege concerning information Ms. Edmonds learned while employed would have to be raised in this forum as well.

We hereby place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e., seeking to quash the deposition, dispatching legal counsel to the deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying about certain matters central to an important legal dispute. Moreover, the failure to send an attorney to the deposition risks the inadvertent disclosure of information as Ms. Edmonds may not be aware whether certain information would qualify as confidential.

Very truly yours,
//signature//
Michael D. Kohn
Counsel to Sibel Edmonds
National Whistleblowers Center
3238 P Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
http://www.whistleblowers.org


FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Michael D. Kohn (202) 342-6980
Lindsey M. Williams (202) 342-1903

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sibel Edmonds Fights To Testify


National Whistleblowers Legal Defense and Education Fund Contests FBI and Department of Justice Attempts to Silence Whistleblower

Washington, D.C. August 7, 2009. Today the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund fought efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice to prevent Sibel D. Edmonds from testifying in a case of alleged election fraud. Sibel Edmonds is scheduled to testify before the Ohio Elections Commission in response to a subpoena in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case. Both the Department of Justice and the FBI are attempting to halt her from testifying.

On behalf or Ms. Edmonds, the Fund sent a letter earlier this week requesting that Attorney General Holder independently review the basis upon which the State Secrets privilege was initially invoked against Ms. Edmonds.

Yesterday, Valerie Caproni, General Counsel of the FBI, and Vesper Mei, Senior Counsel with the Department of Justice responded by claiming that the subpoena to testify served on Edmonds was invalid and sought to bar her from appearing. The DOJ claimed that that Edmonds is under "no compulsion" to testify in the Krikorian case and the FBI asserted that she, "does not have approval for any disclosure of any information."

Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI has stated why testimony in a case of alleged election fraud would involve State Secrets and/or involve national security.

According to Sibel Edmonds' counsel, Michael D. Kohn (President of the National Whistleblowers Center), "The thrust of the government's action is aimed at self-censorship of a witness. As far as we are concerned, if the government wants censorship then it must do it itself as Ms. Edmonds will have no part in censorship." To this end, Edmonds' counsel responded to the FBI and DOJ stating: "We hereby place you on notice that the failure to take appropriate action (i.e., seeking to quash the deposition dispatching legal counsel to the deposition, or raising the States Secrets Privilege before the Commission) may be construed as a waiver of any legitimate basis the FBI may have to keep Ms. Edmonds from testifying" and "If you believe that the FBI or the Justice Department has any legal basis to halt the deposition or to prevent Ms. Edmonds from testifying, please take whatever action you deem necessary in that regard. The responsibility for doing so is yours not Ms. Edmonds."

According to Mr. Kohn: "The First Amendment protects Sibel Edmonds' right to testify truthfully without government intervention and we are disheartened that the Justice Department's actions evidence a different approach."

***

[Mike Philbin]

quick reminder: it's on today.

when will we be able to watch the footage?  tonight? tomorrow?  who's recording/uploading it?

[Mike Philbin]

here's the latest from BRAD BLOG

By Brad Friedman on 8/12/2009 12:07PM 
Ohio U.S. House Candidate Issues Press Release on Sibel Edmonds' 'Revealing' Testimony

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7353

David Krikorian campaign notes Google's removal of ads by Turkish lobby group denying Armenian genocide
Announces open-to-public preliminary hearing tomorrow in his Ohio Election Commission case against Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt...

As we continue to wait for the release of the video/transcript of long-gagged FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' deposition last Saturday, the campaign of David Krikorian, Ohio's Democratic candidate for the U.S. House seat in the 2nd Congressional district, has just issued a press release relating to it. (Complete release posted at the site.)

[rustygunn]

Turkish Lobby Group 'Declares War' on Sibel Edmonds' Under-Oath Testimony

Unbylined Turkish Coalition of America blog post slimes FBI whistleblower as 'disgruntled and discredited'...

In a rather extraordinary unbylined blog item posted on Wednesday, the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) has launched what appears to be an all-out assault on FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her remarkable, long-awaited under-oath deposition taken over the weekend in the Ohio Election Commission (OEC)'s Schmidt v. Krikorian case.

Called as a witness for David Krikorian (who is Armenian-American), Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)'s opponent in 2008 and 2010, Edmonds (who is Turkish-American) testified to infiltration, bribery, corruption, and blackmail within the U.S. Government, by current and former members of the U.S. House and other high ranking officials, on behalf of Turkish interests. Schmidt, the co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus has filed a complaint with the OEC alleging "false statements" by Krikorian during their 2008 contest when he had alleged she had taken "blood money" from those opposed to a Congressional declaration of Armenian Genocide by the Turks during WWI. Schmidt is also said to have taken more money from Turkish interests during the 2008 campaign than any other House candidate.

The TCA seems to have "declared war," according to Edmonds who touched base from out of the country via email on Wednesday. The scathing blog post alleges Edmonds' testimony was "a full-on assault against the national interests of the United States and the integrity of its justice system by the Armenian lobby"; says "Krikorian and his lobbyist backers are getting desperate"; and otherwise attempts to disparage Edmonds' character by describing her as "self-aggrandizing," and a "disgruntled and discredited former federal employee."

The report offers no evidence to support any of its allegations against Krikorian, Edmonds or "the Armenian Lobby." Many of the claims, particularly those concerning Edmonds, are directly contradicted by official reports from the FBI Inspector General's office, as well as senior, bi-partisan members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee...

"he has a self-aggrandizing imagination inflating her position at the FBI to that of an interrogator of terrorists; and...has a book coming out this fall," the blog post claims about Edmonds. While we've interviewed Edmonds for many hours over the years, in depth, and read an extraordinary amount of reportage on her case, we've never heard or read any such claims of her having interrogated anybody. As to a book coming out, we know nothing of that either, though it would certainly be welcome!

While alleging in one breath that "Krikorian and his lobbyist backers are getting desperate," the blog post then goes on to make the rather, um, desperate, charge that: "The irrelevance and insignificance of Ms Edmonds' deposition can be evidenced by the fact that Mr. Geragos, Mr. Krikorian’s attorney of record, did not bother to show up."

Huh? Krikorian himself flew in from Ohio for the deposition, and celebrity-attorney Geragos' firm is, in fact, representing Krikorian, but it's rather common for other attorneys in any law firm to be present for a deposition. While we don't have any particular dog in the Turkish Lobby vs. Armenian Lobby hunt, the use of such a silly claim would seem to suggest the author of the Turkish Coalition's post was fairly desperate him/herself.

The TCA post goes on to ask why Edmonds' was called to testify in the case at all, since she admittedly had no specific information on Schmidt's personal involvement with the Turkish lobby or last year's race between her and Krikorian. Schmidt came to Congress in a 2005 special election, several years after Edmonds had left the FBI where she was a translator of pre-9/11 wiretaps.
Why would she testify then? Was the Armenian Lobby merely trying to divert the court’s attention away from the case at hand by introducing a witness who would make further unfounded accusations against the Turkish government, none of which involved the defendant or the plaintiff? Or, one might ask, has there even been a bigger waste of time for the American legal system?

We hate to say it, but this passage seems to offer still more desperation. The case concerns whether or not Schmidt has been unduly influenced by Turkish lobbyists and/or the Turkish government. Edmonds testified on just about a half dozen U.S. Congressmembers, current and former, who, she says, had been bribed, blackmailed, and otherwise cajoled or strong-armed into supporting Turkish causes. Offering up a first-hand witness to such behavior by others in Congress seems a perfectly reasonable part of anybody's defense in such a case.

The TCA continues by then attempting to simply disparage Edmonds' character, describing her as "a discredited former employee of the FBI (who served the federal government for a total of six months before being fired)."

They do not, however, offer any actual evidence for their claims that Edmonds has been "discredited," even as the actual on-the-record evidence suggests quite the opposite.

In 2005, for example, portions of the FBI's own Inspector General's report on her case were unclassified. They reported her allegations to be "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."

As far back as 2002, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-NE) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), then the senior members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, co-wrote letters on Edmonds' behalf to Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and DoJ Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, calling on all of them to take action in respect to the allegations she's made to Congress and, later, to the 9/11 Commission.

Grassley would discuss Edmonds' credibility on CBS' 60 Minutes in a 2002 report when he said "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story."

To our knowledge, none of her on-the-record allegations about Turkish influence and/or infiltration in the U.S. government have been discredited. Though the TCA seems to have done a fine job of discrediting themselves with such an irresponsible, evidence-free, unbylined attack on an FBI whistleblower.

Here are just a few more snippets from the blog item, which largely speak for and/or discredit themselves:
Saturday’s deposition was nothing more than an opportunity for Ms. Edmonds to make unsubstantiated claims and air conspiracy theories ranging from the tragedy of September 11th, to lurid sexual innuendo regarding unnamed members of Congress, and briefcases full of money. Stories such as this belong in a John Grisham novel rather than a formal legal proceeding.
...
It is astonishing how low ANCA [Armenian National Committee of America] and its officials will sink to impose their view of history on others.
...
Furthermore, it displays the lethal mixture that results from a disgruntled and discredited former federal employee, a single-issue Armenian lobbying organization that serves the interests of a foreign government to the detriment of the security and interests of the United States, and a fringe candidate in a congressional election willing to make unfounded and slanderous accusations against public servants.

Um, speaking of "mak[ing] unfounded and slanderous accusations against public servants"...Hey TCA, Pot is calling on line one, says you're black.

The top of both the TCA website and blog notes their tagline: "Fostering Understand of Turkish American Issues through Public Education."

While noted earlier, we don't have any personal stake in either side of the centuries old Turk vs. Armenian debate, but an outrageous post like that of the TCA's certainly engenders sympathy for the Armenian side of the question. For us, anyway. If that's how the Turkish Lobby is willing to behave, if that is their version of "Public Education," and those are the sorts of scurrilous allegations they're happy to make --- without even putting anybody's name on them, or offering evidence to back them up --- it certainly smells like they're a helluva lot more "desperate" than the "Armenian Lobby" they claim, without evidence, is behind this entire brouhaha.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7358

[rustygunn]

Several Charges Dropped in 'False Statements' Case Following FBI Whistleblower's Testimony

Rep. Jean Schmidt drops four claims in Ohio election case, following deposition by formerly-gagged Turkish-American translator Sibel Edmonds, adds another
Preliminary panel finds 'probable cause' in several claims against Krikorian...

Claiming that Ohio's Republican U.S. House Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-2nd) is "conced[ing] that she does deny the Armenian Genocide," the campaign of her Democratic challenger David Krikorian has just issued a press release (posted in full below), stating that Schmidt has dropped four of her "false statements" complaints against him in her Ohio Election Commission (OEC) case, while petitioning the court to add a new claim in the bargain.

The news comes on the heels of last Saturday's deposition by the FBI's former Turkish-American translator Sibel Edmonds who had been subpoenaed last week to testify in the case. The whistleblower had been previous-gagged by two different assertions of the "state secrets" privilege during the Bush Administration. She was finally able to testify on Saturday, under oath, about alleged infiltration, bribery, and blackmail by Turkish agents, of current and former members of the U.S. Congress and other high ranking officials in the Departments of State and Defense. The BRAD BLOG covered the stunning deposition as it happened last Saturday.

Schmidt had challenged Krikorian's claim, during his 2008 independent campaign against her, that she accepted "blood money" from Turkish agents in exchange for helping to block a Congressional resolution recognizing the 1915 killing of some 1.5 million ethnic Armenians as a genocide....

In today's statement, Krikorian says: "Jean and her friends at the Turkish Legal Defense Fund are on a fishing expedition ... First she brought the charges, then she realized that she could not win her case and petitioned the court to drop the charges, now she is adding a new one. Typical Jean Schmidt behavior, it's a shame she is not putting forward this kind of effort on the health care debate."

The campaign said that "the statements Schmidt claimed were false are in relation to her denial of the Armenian Genocide," adding that "In dropping the charges, Schmidt essentially conceded that she does deny the Armenian Genocide."

"Being #1 on the Turkish Lobby scoreboard has financial advantages for Jean, but what does it do for our district?" Krikorian asked in the release. He has alleged that the 2nd Congressional district in Ohio has very few, if any, ethnic Turk's among the voting population. Yet, he notes, "Jean Schmidt took more money from the Turkish Lobby during the 2008 election cycle than any other member of Congress."

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Jon Craig has quickly summarized Schmidt's claims in a blog item posted today.

Earlier this week, Krikorian had issued another press release following Edmonds' deposition, describing her testimony alleging that "the Turkish Lobby in the United States was under the direction of the Turkish Government and engaged in operations including bribery, espionage and blackmail with certain members of the US House of Representatives to further its objectives in the United States including one of which is the denial of the Armenian Genocide."

On Saturday, during a break in the whistleblower's deposition, Krikorian stated to The BRAD BLOG: "From my opinion, if I'm some of the current members of Congress, I'd be very very worried about the information that's going to come out of this. There are current members of Congress that she has implicated in bribery, espionage. It's not good. It's crazy, it's absolutely crazy. For people in power situations in the United States, who know about this information, if they don't take action against it, in my opinion, it's negligence." (Video of his comments, and those of Edmonds' and several of the attorneys on all sides was posted here.)

In response to the deposition and flurry of activity in this case, the Turkish Coalition of America posted a scathing, unbylined attack at their blog, on both Krikorian and Edmonds, describing the former's case as "desperate," and the latter as "disgruntled and discredited." That was on Wednesday, prior to yesterday's hearing in which three claims were dropped, and others were found to have enough "probable cause" to merit an evidentiary hearing in September. We examined that blog item earlier today.

Questions About Ohio Paper's Coverage of Schmidt/Krikorian Case

In a related matter, Krikorian also notes in his press release that the Cincinnati Enquirer's original article covering yesterday's preliminary hearing in the OEC's Schmidt v. Krikorian case in Columbus was biased in favor of the Schmidt campaign. The Krikorian campaign "challenged their first edition" and was successful in seeing some of the coverage modified, but it was "not good enough," as Krikorian himself told The BRAD BLOG late this afternoon in a phone conversation.

He charges that the Enquirer ownership is "totally bought and paid for" by the Schmidt campaign. "They never give a fair shake in my opinion," he said, though he acknowledged the reporter who wrote the story, Jon Craig, "is a good guy" and doesn't seem to have been the one to influence what he viewed as inappropriately negative coverage. In the press release, his campaign notes that the Enquirer endorsed Schmidt in last year's campaign.

"If you only read the first few sentences of the article," Krikorian told us, "you wouldn't know that she dropped four of the charges. Why isn't the fact that she dropped charges at least as important as the finding of 'probable cause' with a political board who uses a very low threshold to determine that?"

The finding of "probable cause" on several of the "false statements" allegations by the preliminary panel means that a full evidentiary hearing can move forward on September 3rd. "It's an extremely low bar," he said. "She's a sitting Congresswoman. They're gonna give her the benefit of the doubt. The threshold is very low on a 'probable cause' hearing," which Krikorian says he welcomes. He added that hopes to have Edmonds on the stand to testify during the full September hearing. Currently, Edmonds is out of the country, and may not be back in time to testify, though, she told The BRAD BLOG today, she would like to if it's possible to get an extension on the hearing.

The BRAD BLOG has obtained a copy of one of the earlier posted versions of the Enquirer article [PDF] and has compared it to the one now online following Krikorian's complaints to the paper.

The headline originally had read "Officials: Krikorian made 'false statements,'" while the current version, following pressure from Krikorian's camp, now reads "State hears Schmidt genocide case."

The first graf originally reported: "U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt's Armenian-American opponent made false statements during the 2008 campaign about contributions she received from Turkish political action committees, a unanimous three-member panel of the Ohio Elections Commission ruled today." The updated version adds the word "probably", as in "probably made false statements." Krikorian (accurately) notes that "probable cause" is not the same as "probably."

Beyond that, the only other substantive change that we noted was a the removal of the final paragraph, which had referred to a finding against Schmidt in a previous OEC "false statements" case, in which she was the defendant. The commission had found, by a 7 to 0 vote, that Schmidt had lied about having received a second undergraduate college degree from the University of Cincinnati. She had, in fact, received only one degree, despite repeated claims to the contrary on her resumes.

We've contacted the Enquirer's reporter Jon Craig, who cautions against reading anything nefarious into any of the changes. He notes that "we revise stories like ten times a day," particularly the online versions, and that the final graf was cut for space concerns in the print version, at the request of his editors.

He also notes that he's had "absolutely no interaction at all" with the Schmidt campaign concerning the story and knew of no contact with his editors either, adding that he'll normally hear from the editors if they receive such contacts and/or complaints. If we hear different word from those editors, we will, of course update this item with the new information.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7359

[Mike Philbin]

well, no sign of the video footage of Sibel Edmonds deposition -- one week overdue imho -- but there is this STATE TV NEWS REPORT from Armenian Horizon Television

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8Wy_HeRywg&feature=player_embedded

The war has begun, the troops are taking their positions, confidence is spreading; now let's tackle the fvck out of this 9/11 issue and RECLAIM our planet back. Hut, hut, hut!

[rustygunn]

It is suspicious that the video of the deposition has not come out yet.  Thanks for that news report Mike. 

[Mike Philbin]

no worries, I also got a little Sibel Edmonds reference in my latest DVD review over at ZONE SF, "Eagle Eye"
http://www.zone-sf.com/screenscene/eagleye1.html

[rustygunn]

no worries, I also got a little Sibel Edmonds reference in my latest DVD review over at ZONE SF, "Eagle Eye"
http://www.zone-sf.com/screenscene/eagleye1.html

Nice job Mike........I like the way you slipped that in there.  The video of the deposition will go a long way in exposing some big time corruption in high levels.  For that reason, I don't think it will make it out to the public view.  If it does make it out, it will be during a "distraction" time.  Sibel is a true patriot for what she is doing.       

[KiwiClare]

This was up at 911blogger
9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' Testimony Under Oath Now Available On Video
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/7
Source: newsdemocrat.com

8/24/2009

Ohio Second District Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, R-Cincinnati, filed nine election complaints against independent candidate David Krikorian concerning the 2008 election in May this year.

Krikorian opposed Schmidt in the Second District Congressional race as an independent in 2008 and is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2010 race in April. The complaints focus on Krikorian's statements during the election stating that Rep. Schmidt was taking money from organizations related to the Turkish government in exchange for denying the occurrence of what Krikorian called the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Turks during World War I.

The complaints also relate to Election Commission records on campaign contributions Schmidt received from the Turkish American Heritage PAC and the Turkish Coalition USA PAC.

[rustygunn]

Thanks Kiwi, I am viewing it now.

[rustygunn]

I only got a chance to view half of it so far.  It's pretty explosive, and she doesn't hesitate to name names if she is 100% positive.  I just wish she would have named the current US congresswoman she talked about on page 69 of the transcript that got caught up in the lesbian bribery scheme with the Turkish government agents.
God protect Sibel.     

[jimd3100]

From the transcript:

Melek Can Dickerson and her husband, at the time he was a major with the Defense Intelligence Agency, Major Douglas Dickerson, and he was working for Douglas Feith's office and was a coordinator with the State Department on the Turkey Republics in Central Asia; both husband and wife, Melek Can Dickerson and her husband, they were still associating and had working relationships with these Turkish entities, individuals and organizations that were the targets of FBI investigations.

She came to my house with her husband, who at the time was Major Douglas Dickerson, and he identified himself first as the officer for Air Force, but later said that his real task was operations involving records procurements by countries in Central Asia and Turkey, and that he directly worked with Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

They wanted me to join the American Turkish Council, and they told me that I would be provided with many benefits, both monetary but also prestigious benefits, if I were to enroll with them.

The next day I reported it in writing to my direct administrative supervisor, and a few days later to my agent, who was my supervisory agent, but also again in writing to the FBI's Personnel Security Office, because I was obligated for my top secret clearance to report recruitment attempts.

Q:  Now, one of the other entries indicates, it says 911 For Knowledge, and I'll just read it. It says, "She claims that the FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months." Did you -- did you make that claim?

A:  I took the language specialist, Farsi speaking language specialist, senior language specialist from the Iranian Division, Farsi Division, FBI, Washington field office, who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this.

He informed me and he showed me this translator Bekru (phonetic) Sharsahr, and there are documents out there that he went to the Inspector General's Office. He gave them the documents, the translated documents on the Iranians.

I was not part of that translation. I was not involved. After I left the FBI because I was witness to that department, what they had obtained, I just facilitated Mr. Sharshar's meeting with 9/11 Commission and also with the Glenn Fine, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and I put him in touch with the members of media. But that's my only involvement with that Iranian case.

Q:  Do you believe that that's why the 9/11 -- the families of the 9/11 victims wanted to get your testimony in connection with their case?
A:  I am not sure because as far as I knew, it had to do with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabian financial institutions. I was not told anything about Iranian case.

Q:  And I think you indicated earlier that the Turkish government to your knowledge was provided support to what was once called the mujahideen.
A:  Correct.
Q:  It's now called al-Qaeda.
A:  Right.
Q:  And has it generally been publicly reported that al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks?
A:  Correct.
http://newsdemocrat.com/SiteImages/FileGallery/Sibel_transcript_393.pdf

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." page 63/90
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf



WASHINGTON -- When he watched the planes hit the Twin Towers on 9-11, former FBI translator Behrooz Sarshar says he "immediately" remembered a tip about an al-Qaida plot the bureau got from an informant more than four months before the terror group attacked America.

Sources familiar with the briefing say the FBI informant told two FBI agents from the Washington field office in April 2001 that his sources in Afghanistan had heard of an al-Qaida plot to attack America in a suicide mission involving planes. Sarshar, fluent in Farsi, acted as an interpreter at the meeting, held at a Washington-area residence.

The asset, an Iranian immigrant who worked in the shah's intelligence services, had been on the FBI's payroll for at least a decade, and was considered reliable. He travels abroad and is said to maintain good Afghan contacts. Iran shares its eastern border with Afghanistan.

Sarshar, who worked more than seven years for the FBI, says he asked the Senate Judiciary Committee for immunity to testify about the informant's tip and other FBI matters. He says the FBI warned him: "If you talk about these things, you'll be locked up." Republican staffer John Drake and Democratic counsel Tara Magner told him they would look into it after he met with them, he says.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=24051

July 2001 Phoenix FBI Agent Williams sends memo to Washington warning of UBL supporters going to flight schools......
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/defense/129.pdf

"Hamburg - The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had one of the September 11, 2001 terror pilots under surveillance as early as March 1999 after a tip from German security services, according to joint investigative reports in Germany.

The reports said the CIA had detailed information about Marwan Alshehhi, and the fact that he was from the United Arab Emirates and studying in Germany.

The CIA had his cellphone number and knew that he was in contact with Haydar, whom the Americans had suspected of being al-Qaeda's contact man in Germany."
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1401481,00.html

"In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him.

After the Germans passed the information on to the C.I.A., they did not hear from the Americans about the matter until after Sept. 11, a senior German intelligence official said.

Close surveillance of Mr. Shehhi in 1999 might have led investigators to other plot leaders, including Mohammed Atta, who was Mr. Shehhi's roommate.

Asked whether American intelligence officials gave sufficient attention to the information about Mr. Shehhi, Mr. Zelikow said, "We haven't reached any conclusions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24TERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5

“About two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar, NEWSWEEK has learned, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The money came in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family. The checks were sent to a woman named Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, who in turn signed over many of them to al-Bayoumi's wife."

"According to then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who served as a co-chair of the 9/11 Congressional inquiry that preceded the 9/11 Commission, during the period of Alhazmi and Almihdhar’s arrival in the US, Bayoumi had an “unusually large number of telephone calls with Saudi government officials in both Los Angeles and Washington.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Page_2_FBI_documents_contradict_Sept._0228.html

"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/index.html

The DCI told the Joint Inquiry:
      "We had at that point the level of detail needed to watchlist al-Mihdhar- that is, to nominate him to the State Department for refusal of entry into the U.S. or deny him another visa. Our officers remained focused on the surveillance operation and did not do so." page 4/27
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/911project/jci-midhar-hazmi.pdf

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." page 63/90
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf



The C.I.A., meanwhile, has promoted two top leaders of its unit responsible for tracking Al Qaeda in 2000, when the agency mistakenly failed to put the two suspected terrorists on the watch list, officials say.

The New York Times agreed to a C.I.A. request to withhold the names of the two promoted officials because they still work undercover in counterterrorism activities. While both are employed by the agency, one was on temporary assignment to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The two declined to be interviewed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/international/worldspecial/15INTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

[Mike Philbin]

yeah, I love the way the Mujahedeen Corporation that Brzsinski helped set up was REBRANDED to the Al Qaeda Corporation just days before Rumsfeld 'couldn't account for' 2.4 trillion - that's a steep set-up cost for any new business, never mind a simple tactical rebrand.

hey, didn't they REBRAND Blackwater to Xe recently?

man, they love that play, no?

[jimd3100]

"Edmonds alleges that in the course of her work for the government she found evidence that the FBI, State Department and Pentagon had been infiltrated by a Turkish and Israeli run intelligence network that paid high ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets," and they have some footnotes for that, some cites. Is that correct that you've made those allegations?

A:  That information is correct, and if ever -- you can get, I would say, those government organizations and others. There's another place missing there. They list the State Department itself, but there is one other place that's missing.
Q:  And what is that place?
A:  That would be RAND Corporation.
http://newsdemocrat.com/SiteImages/FileGallery/Sibel_transcript_393.pdf

The RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company and currently financed predominantly by the U.S. government, a private endowment, predominantly pharmaceutical corporations, universities and private individuals. The organization has long since expanded to working with other governments, private foundations, international organizations, and commercial organizations on a host of non-defense issues.

Staff:  Henry Kissinger, John Forbes Nash, John von Neumann, Stephen H. Dole, Herman Kahn, Harold Brown, Donald Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND#Notable_RAND_participants

[Mike Philbin]

yeah,

mods, please merge in my entry on another thread - insidious RAND piggy relevance.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=128456.msg790084#msg790084

[luckee1]

bump

[Freeski]

This was up at 911blogger
9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' Testimony Under Oath Now Available On Video
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/7
Source: newsdemocrat.com

8/24/2009

Ohio Second District Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, R-Cincinnati, filed nine election complaints against independent candidate David Krikorian concerning the 2008 election in May this year.

Krikorian opposed Schmidt in the Second District Congressional race as an independent in 2008 and is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2010 race in April. The complaints focus on Krikorian's statements during the election stating that Rep. Schmidt was taking money from organizations related to the Turkish government in exchange for denying the occurrence of what Krikorian called the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Turks during World War I.

The complaints also relate to Election Commission records on campaign contributions Schmidt received from the Turkish American Heritage PAC and the Turkish Coalition USA PAC.

She is extremely credible.

[Freeski]

bump for later

[Mike Philbin]

another NEW Sibel Edmonds interview has surfaced on Armenian Weekly ALBAREZ - I particularly like the image of Sibel Edmonds they're using. 

Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
http://www.asbarez.com/2009/08/21/interview-with-fbi-whistleblower-sibel-edmonds/

<--- yeah, who's that bloke?

On April 23, 2007, Armenian Weekly editor Khatching Mouradian sat down in Washington, D.C. with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an extensive interview, which was published in the Armenian Weekly, Asbarez and on ZNet and widely circulated. On Aug. 18, 2009, he conducted a follow-up phone interview with Edmonds, who was visiting New Zealand. The interview is an overview of what has transpired in her case since 2007, with emphasis on her deposition in the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case in Ohio earlier this month.

Edmonds, an FBI language specialist, was fired from her job with the FBI’s Washington Field Office in March 2002. Her crime was reporting security breaches, cover-ups, blocking of intelligence, and the bribery of U.S. individuals including high-ranking officials. The “state secrets privilege” has often been invoked to block court proceedings on her case, and the U.S. Congress has even been gagged to prevent further discussion.Edmonds uncovered, for example, a covert relationship between Turkish groups and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who reportedly received tens of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for withdrawing the Armenian Genocide Resolution from the House floor in 2000.

Born in Iran in 1970, Edmonds received her BA in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University, and her MA in public policy and international commerce from George Mason University. She is the founder and director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) and in 2006 received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. She speaks Turkish, Farsi, and Azerbaijani.

Below is the transcript of the follow-up interview.

Khatchig Mouradian: I asked you in 2007 what had changed during the five years since 2002, when you first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the story on Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials. You said, “There has been no hearing and nobody has been held accountable. We are basically where we started…” Two more years have passed, we have a new president, and I have to ask the same question again. Has there been any change?

Sibel Edmonds: Nothing has changed. As far as the Congress is concerned, the Democrats have been the majority since November 2006 and I have had zero interest from Congress on having hearings—any hearings—on this issue, whether it’s the states secrets privilege portion of it or the involved corruption cases. The current majority has been at least as bad as the previous one. At least the Republicans were gutsy enough to come and say, We’re not going to touch this. But the new majority is not saying anything!

The Obama Administration is pretty new. For what I see, they are continuing the previous administration’s state secrets privilege policies. As far as the whistleblower protection and related legislations are concerned, the new White House has already made it clear that they do not want to provide any protection for national security whistleblowers—these are the whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, and all the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and, of course, the Defense Department.

As far as the mainstream media is concerned, at least from what I have seen, the situation has actually gotten worse. To me that seems to be the major reason behind the Congress’ and the White House’s inaction and lack of desire to pursue accountability. As long as the pressure from the mainstream media is not there, of course they aren’t going to act. They are driven by that pressure, and the mainstream media in the U.S. today does not fulfill its role and responsibility by providing that pressure.

Of the three—Congress, the executive branch, and the media—I would say the biggest culprit here is the mainstream media.

K.M.: The most recent example of the deafening silence of the mainstream media was your deposition during the Schmidt vs. Krikorian case on Aug. 8. There, you spoke, under oath, about how the Turkish government and a network of lobby groups and high-ranking U.S. officials and Congressmen have engaged in treason and blackmail. A big story by any standards, it was only covered by Armenian newspapers and a few blogs. How do you explain this silence?

S.E.: I know field reporters who are so excited and want to chase the story. But when they went to their papers—and I’m talking about mainstream media and very good investigative journalists—their editors are refusing to touch it. When you watch the video or read the transcript, you will see how explosive the deposition was. And remember, I was speaking under oath. If by any standard, if I were to lie or be untruthful in any way, I would go to jail. I am answering these questions under oath, and yet, the mainstream media is refusing to touch it. And this is very similar to what we saw with the AIPAC/Larry Franklin case.

I have emphasized the fact that the American Turkish Council [ATC], the Turkish lobby, and these Turkish networks, they work together, in partnership with AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]. So not only is there pressure on media outlets from the Turkish lobby and the corrupt U.S. persons involved, but they also have this pressure placed on the media via their partners from the Israel lobby—and the latter’s influence on the mainstream media in the U.S. is undeniable.

The irony is that my deposition has made it to the front page of Turkish newspapers—and Turkey doesn’t even pride itself with freedom of the media—yet the mainstream media has not written a single word about it.

K.M.: In an article you wrote about the 4th of July titled, “It Ain’t about Hot Dogs and Fireworks,” you say: “Recall the words of the Constitution Oath that all federal employees, all federal judges, all military personnel, all new citizens are required to take, step back, and pay special attention to these lines: ‘support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies—foreign and domestic.’ Now ask yourself who is meant by ‘domestic’ enemies.” Talk about these “domestic enemies.”

S.E.: The domestic enemies I refer to are the U.S. officials, whether elected or appointed, who do not represent the interest of the American people—whether they are national security or foreign policy-related interests—and instead, they represent their own greed, their own financial benefit and/or foreign interests. A good example here is Dennis Hastert.

Less than three years after Vanity Fair ran a story about Hastert’s covert relationship with Turkish groups, Hastert’s group announced that it’s the registered lobbyist for the government of Turkey receiving, $35,000 a month from the Turkish interests. How much more vindication does the American mainstream media want? This man, for years, cashed in while he was under oath to be loyal and represent American interests and the Constitution. While in Congress, this man was not only representing foreign governments, but also foreign criminal entities. As soon as this man got out of Congress, he came out of the closet and officially became a representative of foreign interests. Bob Livingston [a former Republican Congressman from Louisiana] is another example. As soon as he got out of Congress, he registered under FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] to represent foreign interests. Steven Solarz [a former Democratic Congressman from New York] is yet another example.

Another prominent example is Mark Grossman at the State Department. For years, he has been representing foreign entities. In fact, he’s been violating criminal laws in the U.S. And guess what? He leaves the State Department in 2005 and he’s immediately placed on the payroll by a company in Turkey called Ihlas Holding, and he goes and joins a lobby and starts representing Turkish entities’ interests.

These opportunities do not come when these people leave their offices. In order for these people to secure these jobs and lucrative payments, they have to serve these foreign entities while they are in office. And they have done just that!

The victims here are the American people, their national security, and the integrity of this government. And in many cases that I know about, it is about our national security-related, intelligence-related information that is being easily provided to foreign entities by these individuals. Based on the laws we have since the beginning of this nation, these people should be prosecuted criminally.

K.M.: I am reminded of the saying, “God protect me from my friends, and I’ll take care of my enemies.” Isn’t Turkey supposed to be an ally of the U.S.?

S.E.: If you were to go and see our government’s own latest report, under the espionage section, the top countries are Israel, China, with Turkey coming third or fourth. You are looking at two ally countries here, Israel and Turkey, penetrating and stealing our intelligence, military, and classified technology information. Why would your allies penetrate your State Department, Department of Defense, and get away with it? Why would your allies want to steal from you?

K.M.: Let’s talk about the Krikorian vs. Schmidt case. Specifically, why did you decide to testify and what can you say about the efforts to block your testimony?

S.E.: I was contacted by Mr. Krikorian’s attorneys, who said they wanted to receive my sworn testimony and also depose me as a witness on the case they had in court. I went and checked out their case, and I saw that it involves the Turkish lobby and certain Turkish interest groups, and also, a Representative, Jean Schmidt [R-Ohio], who was receiving campaign donations from these groups. I saw, based on the publicly available information from their case that there was a pattern, and decided that my testimony would be directly relevant and extremely important to this case, despite the fact that I did not have any information specifically about Schmidt (I left the FBI in 2002). So I said yes, if they were to subpoena me and officially ask for my deposition under oath, I would provide it for them.

And then I fulfilled my obligation, as a former FBI contractor who has signed various non-disclosure agreements, to inform the FBI and the Department of Justice that I have been requested to provide my testimony and I am supposed to let you know. They had a day or so to respond. They passed the deadline. And after the deadline, they came back with some whimsical unconstitutional warning saying that under the non-disclose agreement, the FBI and the Department of Justice needed 30 days to review what I was about to testify. I had the attorneys check that and it turned out this is not legal, because oral testimony cannot be submitted—you don’t know what is going to be asked in court. Therefore, the warning they gave me was unconstitutional and not legal. They didn’t have any legal grounds to stop me from testifying, so I went and, under oath, during this five-hour long deposition, answered all the questions, and talked about everything I knew that had to do with Congressional corruption cases that involved various Turkish entities.

K.M.: For years now, this has been a very frustrating issue for you. Have you given up at this point? Is there any hope for change?
S.E.: On the micro level, I have given up. I have done everything anybody could possibly think of, whether it’s approaching the Congress, the court, the Inspector General’s office, the mainstream media, or providing testimony under oath. There’s nothing left to do. It is what it is. It’s being blocked.

On the macro level, I am a U.S. citizen and I am a mother. I have the obligation, the responsibility, to defend the Constitution when it’s my part, my role, to make a difference. And for that, I will never give up. In the U.S., we are witnessing many elements of what we consider a police state. I expect that in countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. But we’re looking at these elements in the U.S., a nation that prides itself at being at the forefront of freedom, democracy, and civil liberties. What happened to that nation?

As a mother, I want to raise my daughter in a place where she feels free to express her opinion. She is right now in a country where her mother has been silenced with gag orders and state secrets privilege.

I grew up with these and I don’t want my daughter to grow up with these.

[singletask]

Video of the full deposition:

http://video.brownpublishing.com/video/newsdemocrat/sibel/

[Mike Philbin]

re: Interview with FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
http://www.asbarez.com/2009/08/21/interview-with-fbi-whistleblower-sibel-edmonds/

I told ASBAREZ.com about their Edmonds isn't a man image, and they changed it. Real change. Anyone can do it.