PDA

View Full Version : Sibel Edmonds set to break Gag Order. TPTB in full damage control



Magda Hassan
08-08-2009, 01:16 AM
Whistleblower org says FBI/DoJ attempting 'censorship', trying to 'silence whistleblower' answering 'lawful subpoena'
Letters from FBI, Edmonds attorney posted...
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/SibelEdmonds_JeanSchmidt_DavidKrikorian_alt.jpgThe BRAD BLOG (http://www.bradblog.com/) 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] (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/FBIResponse_SibelEdmondsRequestToTestify_ValerieCa proni_080609.pdf) on Thursday, sent to Edmonds' attorney Stephen Kohn, at the National Whistleblowers Legal Defense & Education Fund (http://www.whistleblowers.org/). Edmonds and her attorneys, however, in their own two-page letter [PDF] (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsResponse_FBIValerieCaproni_080709.pdf) say the objections raised so far by the agency are not sufficient to block Edmonds' from "truthfully answer questions while under oath pursuant to a lawful subpoena" on Saturday morning in D.C. as scheduled.
Their press release [PDF] (http://www.bradblog.com/docs/PressRelease_SibelEdmondsFighttoTestify_080709.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 (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7341), Edmonds' attorneys had notified the Department of Justice earlier this week, in a hand-delivered letter of declaration [PDF] (http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/prepubclearancedeadlineserved.pdf) that she intended to testify in the pending [I]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 (http://www.bradblog.com/) 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 (http://www.bradblog.com/) 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" (http://www.justacitizen.com/images/Gallery%20Draft2%20for%20Web.htm) 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 (http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2008/01/sibel-names-names-in-pictures.html). 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 (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7341), Edmonds explained to The BRAD BLOG (http://www.bradblog.com/) that during her experience with the cases of other whistleblowers, as founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC (http://nswbc.org/)), 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] (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/Krikorian_SibelEdmondsToTestify_080409.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 (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7341), 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 (http://www.bradblog.com/) 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 (http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=916&Itemid=71), 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] (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/FBIResponse_SibelEdmondsRequestToTestify_ValerieCa proni_080609.pdf). The two-page August 7th response from Michael D. Kohn to Caproni may be downloaded here [PDF] (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsResponse_FBIValerieCaproni_080709.pdf) . The press release from Edmonds' attorney may be downloaded here [PDF] (http://www.bradblog.com/docs/PressRelease_SibelEdmondsFighttoTestify_080709.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 , 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

[B]National Whistleblowers Center
3238 P Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
http://www.whistleblowers.org (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

Magda Hassan
08-08-2009, 02:24 AM
Any one wanting to cover the trial here is the address:
10 a.m. Saturday, August 8; 3238 P. St. NW Washington, DC
Please circulate widely as MSM unlikely to make it due to usual disinclination to follow real news of any consequence.

Peter Lemkin
08-08-2009, 07:12 PM
Is CSPAN or Pacifica or Democracynow or someone not going to cover it?! She is such brave woman and hero....I just hope she lives throught all this. They really mean to stop her, by any means they can! If allowed to speak to one subpeaona, they know there will be others and others and others.

Peter Lemkin
08-09-2009, 05:52 AM
By Brad Friedman on 8/8/2009 8:51AM
LIVE BLOG: Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a 'No Show', Bombshells Under Oath
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7347
UPDATES INCLUDE: CONGRESS MEMBERS NAMED IN ESPIONAGE, BRIBERY, SEXUAL BLACKMAIL SCHEMES; NEW BREWSTER JENNINGS / VALERIE PLAME DISCLOSURE...
'State Secrets' privilege NOT asserted by DoJ; FBI whistleblower answered ALL questions under oath on Turkish infiltration of U.S. Government...

Live blogging coverage of the Sibel Edmonds deposition at the National Whistleblowers Center in Washington D.C. For background see previous coverage:
8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order
8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE: FBI Attempts to Block Edmonds Testimony in OH Election Case
8/7/09: EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: DoJ Pressures Ohio Election Commission to Block Edmonds Testimony



8:00am PT (11:00am ET): The deposition has now begun inside the National Whisteblowers Center, and has not, apparently, been blocked by an assertion of the "state secrets" privilege by the DoJ.

The BRAD BLOG has some folks covering outside the testimony this morning, and I just spoke to some of the folks on the ground outside the NWC, just before the deposition was set to begin, including David Krikorian who flew in last night from Ohio.

Krikorian said that he hadn't yet seen anybody from the DoJ there yet, and both he and Edmonds confirmed that there hadn't been any new action (that they knew about) since the late-night legal back and forth between the DoJ and OEC on Friday night. Though Krikorian added that he "wouldn't be surprised" if someone from DoJ showed up. We'll find out later today if they did.

He said his team intended to ask detailed questions on the three major points they'd described in their press release [PDF] issued earlier this week, focusing on whether and how "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."

Krikorian did not seem dissuaded by the FBI's and then the DoJ's attempts to block Edmonds' testimony, and that they intended to be thorough in their deposition. "That's pretty much the whole point of this exercise," he told me.

Schmidt (R-OH)'s attorney is Bruce Fein, the one time Assoc. Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration who has, over the past several years, become a fierce critic of the George W. Bush Administration. He believed the deposition would not take long, though Krikorian's people may have a differing opinion there.

There are apparently a handful of mostly independent and foreign media outlets present outside the NWC. No corporate MSM, from the reports I've gotten. Independent TV/media, an Armenian English language weekly, and press attache representatives of some foreign governments are among those present.

8:40am PT (11:40am ET): During a break, Edmonds and the attorneys stepped outside.

DoJ still a no-show, so the questioning has proceeded, and Edmonds has been able to say "everything that she hasn't been able to say so far, implicating many members of Congress in a criminal conspiracy," according to interviews with Fein and others.

Edmonds' attorney, Michael Kohn said: "The Justice Department decided not to show. Therefore, the deposition has gone much more smoothly than we had anticipated."

Edmonds told me in a brief phone conversation during the break: "Bruce Fein is raising objections to everything", though that's to be expected. She said she's been asked, and has answered, questions on Dan Burton (R-IN), Dennis Hastert (R-IL) (who is now a lobbyist for Turkey), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), and other questions on those high-ranking officials and lobbyists in her "State Secrets Gallery".

She added that "somebody said the FBI was given the wrong time, for 11:30 instead of 10:30", though she didn't see how that could be, given that the time for the start of the deposition has been well publicized. In any case, it's now 11:45am ET, so we'll see if they showed up during this break. They have now gone back into session...

9:41am PT (12:41pm ET): Another break...Edmonds still being questioned under direct. Fein believes his cross-examination will last two hours or so once he begins. They are now breaking for lunch. DoJ/FBI still did not show up.

The deposition is being videotaped and Edmonds hopes that it can be released as soon as possible after the deposition, though there has been some objections about releasing the video tape...

10:09am PT (1:09pm ET): Wow... just had lengthy conversation with Krikorian about Edmonds' testimony. Just wow... coming momentarily...
...
Spoke to Edmonds, who says she's "tired, gotta put some sugar into her system", but that she's satisfied with what's being put on the record so far. "Things we have never discussed outside before".

A lengthy conversation then, with Krikorian, may give you some idea of what she's referring to.

Here's Krikorian, directly quoted. Hang on to your seats...

"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.

[Which current members have been implicated?]

[Dan] Burton (R-IN), described as basically accepting bribes and involved in espionage for the Turkish government...she could not discuss the extremely illegal activities that Mr. Burton committed against U.S. interests, as she put it.

Also, a current female Democratic [ed note: I misheard, he later said he didn't know if she was Dem or Rep] member of Congress who has been blackmailed by the Turkish Government...called a 'hooking exercise'...she's apparently bi-sexual and they bugged her apartment, she's married with children, and they set up a relationship with another female who went in and had sexual relationships with her. And they had all the episodes bugged within this current Representatives home and they blackmailed her. ... She wouldn't give her name, but her photograph [is the one with the question mark on it in the "Sibel Edmonds Rogue Gallery" ] .

The context of the discussion was that this particular Representative was amenable to passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. And then based on this 'hooking' operation, changed her position. She was reluctant to put this person's name on record.

[CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION FROM EDMONDS, 4:26pm PT (7:26pm ET): After reviewing our coverage, Edmonds clarifies that she did not discuss the specific voting record of the Congresswoman in question discussed above, because she didn't, and still doesn't, know her record on that particular issue. As Krikorian's quote above may have been inadvertently misleading on that point, she wanted to correct that record. - BF]

[Other people implicated included] Livingston (R-TX), Hastert (R-IL), Dick Gephardt (D-MO), other non-Congressional members, people like Brent Scowcroft, other appointed members of the U.S. government.

One of the reasons we sought her testimony is especially for these reasons. I can tell you that counsel for Schmidt has been objecting to much of the testimony. I stopped counting the number of objections that were raised. But, she's an extremely credible witness, she knows a lot about what happened. She's implicated Turkish organizations operating in the U.S. with both overt and covert operations.

[Q: Which ones?]

ATC, ATAA, TACA...She talked about how she was recruited to join these operations, she talked about the fact that the Inspector General's report exonerated her, she talked about the circumstances around her dismissal, she talked about the fact that these the fact that these Turkish American operations were, she said in her words 'all receiving support from the Turkish government'.

She talks about one of the main lobby issues is suppressing U.S. media coverage of the Armenian Genocide and preventing the Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress from passing. She said very very strongly that is one of their major issues.

She also attested there is no credible opposition to the historical facts of the Armenian genocide, that it's only coming from Turkey.

[Ed note: Edmonds was raised in Turkey, though is a U.S. citizen. Krikorian is of Armenian descent. Schmidt is neither, but she is co-chair of the Congressional Turkish Caucus.]

Did not have very flattering things to say about former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. ... Actually, I stopped taking notes because I was o fascinated by what she was saying. ... She talked about the Rand Corp., Brewster-Jennings, nuclear secrets...

Frankly it's disappointing that things like this are happening in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Is it a huge surprise? No. Should it be tolerated? Absolutely not. I can't imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson allowing this sort of thing to go on in the Republic that they created. I cannot imagine it.

We're talking about High Crimes against the United States government. If the Government is aware of these High Crimes and doesn't prosecute them, I'm not sure what can be said about this.
...
[Q: Do you predict problems with Democrats whose support you will need when running against Schmidt as a Dem in 2010?]

Problem with Democrats...?

Well, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Solarz are no longer Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives. I think it would be extremely naive and the height of folly for the Democratic leadership to suggest for a moment that Democrats aren't also corrupt. I don't mean as an entirety, but that there aren't corrupt members of the Democrat caucus. I think there was a recent Democrat down south somewhere who was found with thirty thousand dollars cash in his freezer, or whatever.

If Democratic National Committee or the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Comm.] came out and said, 'hey, we're entirely clean and there's no fault on us', I think the American public would laugh at them. So, this is not an indictment of one party or the other. This is about standing up for what's right for the country, and what is right for the citizens of our country.

Again, I ran as an independent last time [in 2008]. I'm running as a Democrat [in 2010] because I think right now they're probably the better of the two parties. But nevertheless, I don't necessarily buy into the fact that they're without blood on their hands...

[Q: Did she implicate any sitting Democrats?]

She did not indicate any names of any currently serving Democrats that I'm aware. [Though he wasn't certain if the unnamed female Representative was either Democratic or Republican].

Krikorian went on to say that he expects to release the video of the deposition, which, along with the transcript, is the property of his legal team. says "There will be...This could be a 10 part YouTube video segment, that we'll put out there."

He doesn't yet know when a transcript will be available.

The cross-examination of Edmonds, by Schmidt's attorney Fein is still in progress...

12:24pm PT (3:24pm ET) Apparently the proceedings are now wrapping up. It's believed that Edmonds and Krikorian and the attorneys will speak to whatever media is outside the NWC. Will cover...

12:56pm (3:56pm ET) Okay, I believe this will be the final update. But it will end with a BANG. Big time...Read to the end...really...

The attorneys and Krikorian and Edmonds all had a media avail after the deposition completed.

Bruce Fein, the attorney for Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) --- who began all of this with her complaint at the Ohio Election Commission against David Krikorian, claiming he made "false statements" by alleging she took "blood money" from Turkish interests to suppress a vote in the U.S. House on the Armenian Genocide resolution --- was confronted by a reporter with Armenian TV who asked if it wasn't the "cornerstone of free speech for candidates to talk about freely about these matters.

Fein became very defensive, said that Krikorian "can say whatever he wants about the Armenian Genocide, but what he's not allowed to do is state lies. We don't want to close anybody's mouth when it comes to taking about the Armenian Genocide...What we're trying to do is promote freedom of speech. Some versions are trying to harass individuals who are trying to dispute history."

The reporter, Elizabeth Chouldjian, freelancing coverage today for Armenian Horizons TV, is also with Armenian National Committee of America, and she continue to press her points, and asked Fein if he didn't have a conflict of interest in this case. She had earlier told me that Fein was a Board member of the Turkish Coalition of America, Turkish American Legal Defense Fund and legal counsel for Assembly of Turkish American Associations. She wondered if it was appropriate for Fein to represent Schmidt, since he himself could be called to testify, as a witness on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations.

Chouldjian had told me that he's been flying around the country, essentially trying to deny that the genocide ever occurred, has sued the state of Massachusetts to put Armenian genocide "denialist" material in text books, is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for putting out an article last year called "State of Denial" which, she says, focused on Turkish interests trying to block Armenian Genocide resolution from being passed.

Fein left very quickly thereafter, so I didn't get a chance to ask him if he, himself, recognized what he called, several times, "the Armenian genocide".

Chouldjian later told Edmonds of Fein's connections to those organizations, several of whom came up in the deposition apparently. Edmonds had no idea Fein was allied with those organizations.

Michael Kohn, Edmonds attorney, working on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center made his statement to say he's "glad her testimony has finally count out...It's been many years in the making. We're delighted that the Justice Department did not intervene and allowed the testimony to go forward." He said it was "a breath of fresh air from the previous administration." He didn't "think it would have happened with the previous administration."

He was not sure when the transcript of the session would be released. New information today, he said, including naming persons by name and with a great deal of specifics. NWC would review the testimony and disseminate publicly as soon as possible.

Krikorian stated: "We came here to get the sworn testimony of a very very credible witness in defense against a current Congresswoman. And then, beyond that, doing what is right for the country, which is why I'm running. I plan to win this case, and I plan to win this election," he said.

He said their is an Ohio Election Commission preliminary meeting on Aug. 13th, and a hearing on Sept 3rd, and that he would look at releasing both video and transcript thereafter.

Edmonds, however, seemed to suggest that the video tape, at least, might be released in full sooner.

Here comes a bombshell or two...

At the venue, Edmonds said that she named names and details on all of the Congress members noted on her "State Secrets Gallery" page. And then some.

She said she told them about "Mr. [Marc] Grossman and Brewster Jennings...And the real story about them, not the crap they got from the media."

I was unable to follow up that statement with a question, before she got into a cab, but was able to track her down on her cell thereafter.

First, I asked if she specified whether the sitting bi-sexual, married Congresswoman who had been taped sleeping with a woman, without knowing, and then bribed by Turkish interests with the tape, to vote against the Armenian Genocide resolution had been a Democrat or a Republican. She said she is a Democrat, and that she testified to that during her deposition. (See Krikorian's long statement above for more details on that woman.)

Second, I asked about the the "real" story on Brewster Jennings, as opposed to the "crap...from the media" as she mentioned at the venue.

"Basically," she said, "I told them how [third-ranking State Dept. official in the Bush Admin and former Ambassador to Turkey] Marc Grossman disclosed" that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front company] to the target of an FBI investigation. "And it was under oath and that some some lives may have been lost."

"Novak has nothing to do with it. Wilson has nothing to do with it. Valerie Plame has nothing to do with it. The whole operation has to do with something totally different and it had to do with the American Turkish Council and the Turkish clients who were about to hire Brewster Jennings as an analyst ... and Grossman found out about it, and tipped off his diplomatic contact who was a target of the FBI counter-intelligence, and that person notified the ISI [Pakistani intelligence agency], etc."

She says that Brewster Jenning was then "dismantled as soon as the FBI notified the CIA" after which "FBI requested CIA to do a damage assessment, to see if lives would be lost."

All of this, she re-iterated was "long before, three years before" Novak outed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in his newspaper column.

[U]Brewster Jennings was "absolutely" dismantled in August of 2001. [My note: note the date re: 9/11!]

"Grossman and [Richard] Armitage, they are the only two people involved. Later on Cheney and his people may have used it, but it had nothing to do with those other things, [Brewster Jennings] was completely destroyed and gone by the summer of 2001."

For those not fully up on Edmonds story, her job at the FBI was to listen to wiretaps in the counter-intel department, to translate foreign targets caught on those taps. Presumably, that's where her details on the destruction of Brewster Jennings comes from. She was hired by the agency shortly after 9/11.

Bombshell enough for ya? Let's see if anyone in the corporate media bothers to agree, and/or pick up on this --- now that it's officially "on the record" and, as Edmonds took pains to point out: under oath!

Peter Lemkin
08-09-2009, 08:18 AM
To the Editor:

Re “Obama Administration Weighs In on State Secrets, Raising Concern on the Left, ” by Adam Liptak (Sidebar column, Aug. 4):

My 24 years as an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency (1966-90) taught me that national security is only the ostensible reason for using the state secrets privilege in cases before the court. The real reason usually has more to do with national embarrassment and not national security.

National embarrassment is the reason we have not seen the additional photographic evidence of torture and abuse; the C.I.A. investigation from 2004 on detentions and interrogations; a C.I.A. investigation on the agency’s role in the downing of a missionary plane in Peru in 2001; and numerous documents that reveal the C.I.A.’s politicization of intelligence on the Soviet Union and Central America in the 1980s.

If Congress ever got around to giving genuine whistleblower protection to members of the intelligence community, this country might get some idea of the extent of the perfidy and duplicity of some government officials.

Melvin A. Goodman
Bethesda, Md., Aug. 4, 2009

Letter to the Editor
New York Times
August 7, 2009