Sibel Edmonds set to break Gag Order. TPTB in full damage control

[Magda Hassan]

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."
***
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7345#more-7345