Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Others 'Bribed, Blackmailed': The Sibel Edmonds Disclosures

[BradBlog]

Sibel Edmonds' Deposition Disclosures: Congressional Bribery, Blackmail and Espionage
Breaking down the formerly-gagged FBI whistleblower's sworn testimony...

It has now been over a week since the video tape and transcript from the remarkable 8/8/09 deposition of former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was publicly released. Previously, the Bush Administration invoked the so-called "state secrets privilege" in order to gag Edmonds, in attempting to keep such information from becoming public.

The under-oath, detailed allegations include bribery, blackmail, espionage and infiltration of the U.S. government of, and by current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and agents of the government of Turkey. The broad criminal conspiracy is said to have resulted in, among other things, the sale of nuclear weapons technology to black market interests including Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya and others.

Even as many of these allegations had been previously corroborated to varying extents, by a number of official government reports, documents and independent media outlets (largely overseas), not a single major mainstream media outlet in the U.S. has picked up on Edmonds' startling claims since her deposition has been made fully available.

Granted, last week was a busy news week, with the death of Ted Kennedy, the release of the CIA Inspector General's report on torture, and the announcement that Michael Jackson's death was ruled a homicide. And, it's true, a 4-hour deposition and/or 241-page transcript is a lot of material to review, particularly given the wide scope of the charges being made here. Still, given the serious national security issues at stake, said to have the been among the most important matters of the past 8 years, one would think someone in the corporate MSM might have taken the time to go through the material, and report on it. Particularly as Edmonds' claims have previously been found "credible" "serious" and "warrant a thorough and careful review," by the DoJ Inspector General, and confirmed as such, on several occasions, by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and many many others.

So for the benefit of the U.S. media, and other readers, who may find it helpful for this large body of newly-available information to be culled down into more digestible pieces, I will attempt to break down the deposition, a bit, into some of its subject matter-based component parts. I will try to go through the major disclosures from the deposition, one-by-one, in a series of pieces which might help others to further report and/or investigate these breathtaking disclosures from a former FBI official who, following 9/11, listened to and translated wiretap recordings made from 1996 through 2002, in the FBI's counterintelligence and counterterrorism departments, under top-secret clearance.

In this first break-down article, we'll look at the answers given by Edmonds during her deposition in regard to bribery and blackmail of current and former members of the U.S. Congress --- including Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Bob Livingston (R-LA), Dan Burton (R-IN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Stephen Solarz (D-NY), Tom Lantos (D-CA, deceased) and an unnamed, currently-serving, married Democratic Congresswoman said to have been video-taped in a Lesbian affair by Turkish agents for blackmail purposes.

In further breakdown articles, we'll look at her disclosures concerning top State and Defense officials including Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and, perhaps most notably, the former Deputy Undersecretary of State, Marc Grossman, the third-highest ranking official in the State Department. Also, details on the theft of nuclear weapons technology; disclosures on Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA front company Brewster-Jennings; items related to U.S. knowledge of 9/11 and al-Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001; infiltration of the FBI translation department and more.

Though Edmonds was careful to not "discuss the intelligence gathering method by the FBI," she notes in her deposition that her claims are "Based on documented and provable, tracked files and based on...100 percent, documented facts."

Among the specific charges she levels against current and former U.S. Congress Members in the deposition:

Dennis Hastert: "(S)everal categories. The acceptance of large sums of bribery in forms of cash or laundered cash ... to make it look legal for his campaigns, and also for his personal use, in order to do certain favors ... make certain things happen for foreign entities and foreign governments' interests, Turkish government's interest and Turkish business entities' interests. ... other activities, too, including being blackmailed for various reasons. ... he used the townhouse that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities. ... foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week."

Stephen Solarz: "(A)s lobbyist ... acted as conduit to deliver or launder contribution and other briberies to certain members of Congress, but also in pressuring outside Congress, and including blackmail, in certain members of Congress."

Bob Livingston: "Until 1999 ... not very legal activities on behalf of foreign interests and entities, and after 1999 acting as a conduit to, again, further foreign interests, both overtly and covertly as a lobbyist, but also as an operative."

Tom Lantos: "(N)ot only ... bribe(ry), but also ... disclosing highest level protected U.S. intelligence and weapons technology information both to Israel and to Turkey. ... other very serious criminal conduct."

Unnamed Congresswoman: (Though not identified as such during the deposition, Edmonds has since confirmed her to be a Democrat) "(T)his Congresswoman's married with children, grown children, but she is bisexual. ... So they have sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agents work for Turkish government, and have sexual relationship with this Congresswoman in her townhouse ... and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this Congressional woman's house was bugged. ... to be used for certain things that they wanted to request ... I don't know if she did anything illegal afterwards. ... the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those."

Roy Blunt: "he recipient of both legally and illegally raised donations, campaign donations from ...Turkish entities."

Dan Burton: (And others) "(E)xtremely illegal activities against the United States citizens who were involved in operations that were ... against ... foreign government(s) and foreign entities against the United States' interests."

Hastert, Livingston and Solarz, as Edmonds notes in her deposition, would all go on to become highly-paid lobbyist for Turkey and/or Turkish public interest groups after they left the U.S. Congress.

What follows at the "FULL STORY" link below, are the key exchanges relating specifically to criminal corruption by members of the U.S. Congress from the 8/8/09 Sibel Edmonds deposition, in the Schmidt v. Krikorian case, currently pending before the Ohio Election Commission. The full deposition transcript is also linked there, along with more details, and a link to the complete video-tape of the entire deposition, as seen in our original coverage of the deposition's release...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7387

[G_j]

1. K&R!

:applause:

[dhill926]

2. oh please, take down Dan Burton......

pretty please!!!!!! Worse of the worst......

[dotymed]

58. THANK YOU

I hope your post generates more and more posts. I wrote about
Sibel and her testimony and I think it received 3 rec's. This
story has to be pushed on Americans, to the exclusion of all
other messages, until the MSM will finally report on it. I
have written K O and Rachel Maddow and still no mention of
this remarkable testimony. The American people have to hear
it. While yes, it does mainly prove the illegal actions of
Republican Congressmen, it also proves some (one?) Democrats
were being treasonous as well. Every citizen has the right to
learn of the bribery, treason,sexual exploits, etc... of our
elected officials and have proof that they are (mostly) all
for sale. We need to START NOW in demanding prosecutions for
these people. I have a feeling that if that happens, we will
have other citizens, who are privy to similar information (not
just concerning the limited areas of "diplomacy"
that Sibel had access to) come forward and give testimony. If
this is covered by the MSM, it will be the biggest story since
WATERGATE. It proves that we need to reform our form of
capitalistic government. PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTIONS would go
a long way in getting the GREED out of our government. THE
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE (if it were reinstated) would have already
insured that this story was reported. PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD
ABOUT SIBEL EDMOND'S TESTIMONY!!!!

[cascadiance]

82. Fully agree with you on a lot of this stuff! Fairness Doctrine (part 2) needs work though!

And of course we have the Rush Limbaugh's of the world manufacturing scare stories of what things would be like with the Fairness Doctrine restored, because like Health Care reform, it hasn't been well defined yet, and lets them manufacture boogey men every place with it.

The problem is that the Fairness Doctrine that worked in its day would need major changes to work practically today with a newer media landscape where we don't have only a few outlets of media with three national networks and limited local affiliates with broadcast licenses. We now have so many different cable and satellite channels, low power FM, various forms of video (videotapes, DVDs, online video), the internet, video games even, that we didn't have in those days.

The Fairness Doctrine today would need to look more at things like the ownership conglomerates and breaking those up, and the decision on how to allocate channel and frequency space having a public oversight element in it, along with rules for allowing minority and other local group ownership of entities to get their voices heard. Just demanding equal time on any given media entity isn't practical any more.

Perhaps it would be a good topic to look at separately in another thread, and formulate how we would think a "Fairness Doctrine 2" would work today, and what kind of rules we would want to see proposed by the FCC now that would work in today's media environment. Certainly Net Neutrality has been an example of recent and needed legislation to start this effort to keep with the spirit of the older Fairness Doctrine, which I fully agree is needed in a newer form with the same spirit today to combat the corporate media oligopoly we have now.

[movonne]

3. This should be out on MSM now...Maybe Maddow can if the big

bosses will let her

[katandmoon]

4. K&R Too bad we no longer have a real press

[jasi2006]

78. Sibel speaks and no one listens! You are correct.

The press in this country is owned!!

[alstephenson]

5. K & R. Important information.

This will never make the light of day on MSM.

[jhrobbins]

34. Even if it does, it doesn't seem to matter to the vast majority of the morans of the

Republican Party. I don't mean the ones that actually think, but the ones that proliferate on the internet and argue ad nauseum without the benefit of facts or logic. Why is this - can someone explain why these people-generally less educated and in the lower income brackets seem to defend these ridiculous policies that benefit them not one whit.

[jwirr]

6. So who is the Dem woman?

[wiggs]

7. OK. This is what one person heard while monitoring conversations of Turkish targets? As

I remember this was over the course of more than a year but less than two years....and here we have evidence of bribery, corruption, espionage...and a compromising bisexual liasson thrown in. IMAGINE HOW MANY SKELETONS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TURNED UP WITH SYSTEMATIC WIRETAPPING OF JOURNALISTS, POLITICIANS, AND INTERNATIONAL FIGURES OVER THE COURSE OF 8 YEARS!!!

Imagine what they know about journalists' families, business partners of politicians, sexual habits of UN officials, tax strategies of media CEOs, and everyone else whom they might need a critical decision from. Of course, though, probably no one in NSA or CIA would share this kind of important information with Cheney or Rove or Feith.

[howmad1]

41. Hmmm, kinda makes you wonder.........

....about some of those "dems" who are dead set against Obama and his efforts to bring health care reform to this country. Sure would be interesting to know what the bush crime family turned up on these guys.

[Enthusiast]

68. This was probably the original purpose

of wiretaps. And this is the true reason we have to look forward rather than backward.

[wiggs]

8. Brad: you may not know what MSM decision makers are thinking about all this

behind closed doors...but has anyone of them actually contacted Sibel since the deposition in order to see if there's something printable there? Or have they simply ignored the whole issue by not taking the first step?

[BradBlog]

15. Ignored. Entirely.

Sibel has not told me about any contacts from anybody in the U.S. MSM. Though she is regularly contacted by foreign media.

Also, none have come to me to ask if I can put them in touch with her (as they have over the years, from time to time).

As to if "there's something printable there", have you read the deposition?? Even the excerpts I inlcluded at the full story as linked from the OP above? Uh, yeah, "there's something printable there" alright. It's all now public, under-oath, and her credibility as an FBI whistleblower has been long confirmed time and again over the years by both officials and independent sources.

So yeah, it should be covered. Even if only to be debunked (if they are able!) But absolutely crickets out there. It's absolutely astonishing.

If an FBI employee alleged Nancy Pelosi had taken half a million dollars in bribes, u suppose it would be entirely ignored across the entirely of the US MSM? How about if Barney Frank had worked with foreign agents to steal nuclear secrets sold to our enemies? Any coverage there, you suppose?

[Kaleko]

24. Yes, well, we know what we're up against.

Two favorite quotes:


"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

~ William Colby, CIA Director from Sept. 1973 to Jan. 1976 under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
Colby was replaced by future President George H.W. Bush on January 30, 1976.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

~ William Casey, CIA Director from 1981 to 1987.


(Quote from internal staff meeting notes 1981)

Casey headed up the successful presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and served on the transition team following the election. After Reagan took office, he named Casey to the post of Director of the CIA.

[go west young man]

43. Wiki the Council on Foreign Relations and David Rockefeller

and see the names both Dem and Republican then throw in the Azerbaijan-Tiblisi-Turkey oil pipeline and understand why MSNBC doesn't go there. Zebigniew Brezinski has acted as an adviser to Obama. They don't have permission from the CFR and Mr. Rockefeller. Kinda silly really as that pipeline will only undercut Europe's dependency on Russian oil by 5%. We need a serious foreign policy revamping. The rest of the world is watching us pursuing ridiculous ends.

[SpiralHawk]

9. Because our sold-out corporate mass media propaganda outlets won't do their job

the k and the r

[BradBlog]

33. Fair enough, but where is the PROGRESSIVE media on this, SpiralHawk? And why don't we...

...have 500 recs on this item, rather than just 63 or so (as of this moment?)

We've ALL got a part to do, I'm afraid.

(That's not meant as an "apology" for the MSM, of course. I'm just saying I've been very disappointed in the Progressive blogosphere's coverage, or lack thereof, of this case as well!)

[sabrina 1]

54. The 'progressive blogosphere' is compromised also.

I'm not sure when it began, but it is clear that no truly independent blogger will ever be linked to on the so-called biggest 'progressive' blogs. They link only to each other and to the MSM.

You have done wonderful work, Brad, but those progressive blogs who are beholden to either party, will never cover this story.

Imo, the silence is telling. There should be outrage if they were innocent. But there is no outrage. The plan, with the help of their friends in the blogosphere, is to ignore inconvenient facts.

I don't think you should be disappointed as you have done your part and so has Sybel.

Btw, the revelation that Brewster Jennings was dismantled way before the Valerie Plame outing was interesting as it changed that whole story. For one thing, it explained why Novak was never prosecuted.

K&R for a great post.

[JDPriestly]

80. I thought we were told long ago that Brewster Jennings had been dismantled

before the Plame outing. That was the Republican argument: Plame was no longer an agent whose identity had to be protected under the law.

[BradBlog]

111. Nope...

She was still covert. We don't know that the alleged Grossman out of Brewster Jennings in 2001 actually outed Plame publicly or not. At this time.

Then CIA Director Michael Hayden conceded that she was covert, and covered by the law against outing agents, at the time she was outed vis a vis Novak.

[JDPriestly]

114. So you are saying that even thouugh Brewster Jennings was outed, Plame was not.

Are you suggesting she used some other name when she represented Brewster Jennings?

[cascadiance]

118. We still don't know whether or not Brewster Jennings was a front for something else...

Valerie Plame could have been heading up that "front" organization, but also lead something that was more behind the scenes and still secret. There's so many variables to sort out, and IF these efforts do have some merit to them, perhaps we shouldn't know about them.

But we see so many other appearances of wrongdoing that aren't being dealt with, that whether or not ALL of them are disinformation, there would be at least a plausible cover story on how they were "properly" dealt with in our system so that people could remain confident that our system of justice is being applied properly. The fact that wrongdoing, whether legitimate wrongdoing, or "manufactured" wrongdoing, that has been made public isn't being dealt with, shows minimally that they are inept in carrying out covert operations, but in worst cases and what many of us assume is avoiding doing anything to have legitimate wrongdoing be made accountable. Either way, we have a problem that needs investigating, and the more of us that find out about it, the more of us will severely distrust ALL of our government's operations, since no one seems willing to take charge and lead the effort to fix the system.

Brewster Jennings may have been outed by a treasonous Marc Grossman, who should be subject to capital punishment if this is the case, or Brewster Jennings may have been outed in a totally inept but intentional disinformation operation to do so (even if well meaning) which should call for a lot of heads to roll and bring in more that are better able to manage such operations in a secure fashion. If Sibel was saying something she shouldn't have that was exposing a legitimate intelligence operation, by her lack of knowledge of the underlying mission of it, those in charge should have recognized that she's not the type that would try to screw our country, and be given clearance to see what was really happening, so that she would see the logic to not talking about it, instead of just "firing" her. Her outing from the FBI was poorly handled if she was seeing things and talking about stuff that truly should have remained secret and weren't "coverups". Since she was fired, it gives all the more reason to believe that she was seeing the coverup of criminal activities or other activities that the American public would find wrong. A better way to handle those sorts of situations needs to be found and put in place.

[cascadiance]

85. The problem is that issues as big and monsterous as this need a bigger agenda to serve to be heard

I believe that both Sibel and Brad (and people like myself and many here on this thread), want to see the truth come out, and to see corruption be taken down, no matter who it is that is corrupted. We want a newer brand of politicians and others in government that will work more for us and follow the rules to avoid the huge compromises going on. The problem is that the evidence leaking through the cracks shows that there is something wrong, or at least there's a big disconnect between a hidden reality and what we are presented as an explanation for those disconcerting events, or where they are in fact ignored altogether.

I think this testimony also serves a larger agenda here too, and we shouldn't blind ourselves for it. I thank Dave Krikorian for helping Sibel be heard in court on this, but if it weren't for the century long battle between Turkish interests and Armenian interests on the genocide then, this testimony wouldn't have happened. Though perhaps many of the crimes here also might not have too, but you know that there still would have been others that are going on behind closed doors too in a similar fashion.

And since it was Mr. Krikorian and his lawyers that lead this recent effort and testimony, it conveniently gives so many other media entities (corporate or progressive and independent), an excuse to write it off as serving the agenda of Armenians in this battle, rather than what it is truly about, which is trying to expose the corruption that is so cancerously infecting our government. And that pigeon holes us in many places too.

Ask yourself what would happen if someone else came forth with evidence that Armenians were also buying off congress people for that genocide vote too. I think that is just as bad and should also be prosecuted too. Now it would have to be shown that it is foreign governments themselves (like Armenia) that are trying to influence this rather than Armenian citizens (which is more likely the case here anyway), for it to have the gravity of what we've seen Turkish groups do here. But if it were, and Sibel, Brad and others trying to help Sibel were to ignore it, then arguably someone could say that they are more out to destroy Turkey than to help rid our government of corruption, and that argument might have some merit. But if they were to also advocate that some of these other congress people beholden to Armenian interests also be prosecuted, we'd lose one more channel of exposure to help get this issue heard that much more. Since Sibel's been accusing both Dems and Repubs, we've already seen that blanket pattern of ignoring from entities trying to push either party's agenda in the same fashion.

The fundamental problem we have here is that Sibel, Brad and us are representing the powerless masses in our media landscape that want to see the right thing done, and in this day and age, the rules are such that you need to be serving a larger purpose that the powerful want served to be heard. If you try to keep that purpose pure and removed from these other agendas, you won't be heard. And it is hard for us to get facts in that environment unless concerned citizens like Sibel step forward with it. And the problem she has is that she's only seen a small (yet very significant) part of it.

I was happy to see Brad on his blog saying that he doesn't have a dog in the Armenian / Turkish genocide debate, and trying to stick to the issue of exposing criminal corruption and other treasonous activities. Hopefully more independent blogs can take that attitude, and have it be more visible so that we don't get dismissed as serving another hidden agenda, which most of us here know that we are not.

What we've seen from Sibel's information so far could be ignored for the following reasons as well as not serving another power entity's agenda.

1) That we have too many people (maybe everyone to a certain extent) that are potentially guilty of this corruption, and are covering their own asses selfishly. Of course ultimately the people want to see this exposed and cleaned up, and calls for the need for her stories to be heard and investigated with hopefully other whistleblowers stepping forward with more information.

2) Even if there are many corruption cases she's seeing, perhaps she's also seeing in the case of things like the Marc Grossman's exposure of Brewster Jennings,a threat to expose something that is more than just about covering up treason, but perhaps a highly secret intelligence operation and she got to see the disinformation (whether it was intentional for someone like her to see or not). If it is too exposed, then some of our other secret operations might be exposed and harmed. These operations might have very good purposes and critical purposes, and yet they might also be the source of even deeper and more serious and dangerous corruption too. We don't know! And from what we see of so much other corruption we've seen lately, do we trust those that are overseeing such projects? That's the conundrum there.

3) There might be some wrongdoing so severe that if exposed might truly bring our country to ruin if "fixing" it causes more damage than it fixes. And therefore some who are covering things up now might arguably have a reason to do so for the interests of this country. An example of this has been my theory that have been put forth initially by a prominent German publication and also looked at by the McClatchy Bureau, that the counterfeit "super dollars" that were allegedly made by North Korea were in fact made by the CIA to fund black ops (and work around the problems they had that lead to the Iran/Contra mess earlier). There are many potential corroborating "secret" cases out there that might support this theory (aka Dusty Foggo and money launderers Brent Wilkes and Thomas Kontogiannis who have all had their cases handled very much in secret). If something like this were exposed if we were to open up the investigations to weed out corruption, it really might bring down the dollar to the same levels as the Mexican Peso or the Turkish lira.

The question is how do we keep our purpose pure and get enough people informed to force those in power to do full investigations to clean up corruption, and to put in place systems like public campaign financing to prevent such corruption in the future. If the public could regain confidence that the system is no longer corrupt itself and that those who are corrupt within it will have to answer for their crimes, then they might feel more confident that the oversight of truly well meaning secret activities are being handled properly, and not fueling more corruption and treason at our expense.

That is the challenge we face, and I wish I had a good answer on how to stay pure in our objectives and be heard in today's landscape!

[sabrina 1]

108. A very thoughtful post. First, I think you should make it

OP as you have clearly given a lot of thought to a whole range of possibilities regarding why Sibel's testimony has been met with silence.

If, eg, one of the reasons for the silence on the part of some who actually do care about exposing corruption of this magnitude, turned out to be what you speculate on, the destruction of the dollar, that might, as you say, be a good reason not to dig too deeply into all of this.

Your points about remaining 'pure' in the sense that no matter which government is found to be using access to our Congress for their own agendas, is a good one.

Since Sibel's been accusing both Dems and Repubs, we've already seen that blanket pattern of ignoring from entities trying to push either party's agenda in the same fashion.

I agree but since the story has not reached the general public, the reactions we are seeing are only the reactions of partisans. Imo, the general public, if they were made aware of this story, would not care much about party politics but would be outraged regardless of which party they belonged to.

However, your point is a good one. If the perpetrators had all been Republicans, Dems might be more motivated to address the issues, and vice versa.

This is not a Political Party issue, it is an American issue. If nothing is done, assuming that doing something would cause harm, don't we have to weigh that harm against not doing anything?

An independent press that is trusted by a majority of the people would be very helpful, but we don't have that.

Mark Grossman committed what amounts to treason, if the facts are as they appear to be, eg. By not dealing with that, it gives others a green light to do even more harm.

I think I feel especially angry at those Democrats who for whatever reason, participated, basically tying the hands of those in their own party who might otherwise have been more willing to try to bring the main perpetrators to justice.

It's interesting that people like Sen. Leahy eg, has been silent, and I wonder if when he first got involved, he was unaware of the role Democrats played. Or, was he taken aside and told that to go further with an investigation would be harmful to the country. There is probably a lot we still don't know so it's hard to say.

But one thing is clear, the corruption and treason or what we always thought of as treason, is so widespread, that anyone whose responsibility it is to protect this country, must be heart-broken at this point.

I wish there were easy answers. I'm tempted to say 'go after them' and let the chips fall where they may. Letting them off the hook seems, from what we know at this point, more harmful than doing nothing.

[JDPriestly]

92. Brewster Jennings was outed long before Cheney and Bush.

That may be why they could not prosecute the outing of Plame. She had already been outed. But her prior outing was even more embarrassing to the government than the outing by the goofballs in the Bush administration.

[rucognizant]

60. Here's my K & R

A nice? woman, ( late 30's) I know, just ENLISTED in the reserve. I asked why & got that faux answer. "I was called on to serve my country." ( She had already been serving & still is serving her country by working as an advocate in the child & family division of a social services agency!?)
I tried to point out the fallacy of her action and called forth the S Edmonds testimony. Her response; The cast iron wall went up. I don't hear see what you are trying to say. Her companion accused me of bein a conspiracy theorist. Yeh Right! As Molly Ivans cirrectly stated "There is a conspiracy!"

[drm604]

10. K&R

I've been having difficulty finding the time to watch all of the videos so synopses are greatly appreciated.

This seems like something that would pull in the ratings, doesn't it? Makes you wonder.

[GrantDem]

11. Dan Burton....

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. This douchebag is my congressman. The DoJ needs to investigate this NOW. If these allegations are found to be true these traitors need to be brought to justice.

[Subdivisions]

74. So, what did he or his office say when you called to confront them with this? n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

12. How can the press not pick up a Congresswoman having Lesbian adultery?????

This is proof that this is a media blackout.

[Jack Sprat]

17. Let me take a crack at that.

I would say because there are allegations of bribery, blackmail, and possible treason involved. If it was just a story of a congresswoman having a lesbian adulterous affair, the MSM would be all over it. The media is the vanguard of the plutocracy. They cover the flanks. They love anything without any depth. You can only find investigative reporting on other continents.

[rucognizant]

61. No!

That one is an invitation to a lawsuit. Rdmunds HAS NO PROOF of that COngresswoman's wrong doing.

[JDPriestly]

93. Let's see. Adultery was a story when it involved Edwards and Spitzer.

Why isn't it a story when it involves people in the pay of the Turkish government? Any guesses? Anyone?

[Captain Hilts]

35. 'Girl on Girl' Action...What more do people want?!?!!

[blm]

70. Because it's Jane Harman...and she's a BFEE-friendly Dem who helps undermine other Dems for them.

.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Time out.

There are two categories here;
a) congresspeople who took bribes from Turkey in exchange for favors counter to our national interest.
b) congresspeople who put themselves at blackmail risk, but who are not suspected of conduct that is either criminal or against national interest.

I don't care who belongs to category B, provided that the blackmailers are found, the risk eliminated and the effects determined.

We need to discriminate between the salacious and the illegal.

[NoSheep]

40. A very important point .

[JDPriestly]

94. As I posted above. Adultery pure and simple is an irresistable, major story when it involves

Clinton, John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer and the numerous Republicans who have been outed. But who cares when it involves friends of Turkey? or certain other interest groups?

Generally, adultery is considered to be immoral behavior. But, sometimes I wonder how realistic it is to think of it as immoral. It has become so commonplace. Maybe it always was very commonplace. Maybe we should change our ideas about it so that people who do it can't be blackmailed.

[JohnyCanuck]

14. K & R

[Vidar]

16. I'm so glad Sibel finally got her day in court. I hope something comes of it.

[rhett o rick]

18. why havent Keith, Rachel, Big Eddy, or Jon Stewart mentioned her? nt

[BradBlog]

19. Dunno. Feel free to ask them. Please. Politely. n/t

[rhett o rick]

20. You can count on it. nt

[BradBlog]

21. THANK YOU! n/t

[GrantDem]

22. Just sent an email to Keith, Rachel, and Big Ed.

[rhett o rick]

39. Same here. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. Perhaps they believe that she is another Larry Sinclair

Has she provided any proof to back up her claims?

[rhett o rick]

69. Might have known that you'd come out against her. She's a story one way or other.

A good journalist would investigate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. How do you know that journalists haven't investigated?

:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

77. He also declared Siegelman guilty FYI

And doesn't like Olbermann because he doesn't have any repubs as guests.

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. A jury has declared that

[Subdivisions]

75. Investigations are for finding proof after an allegation has been made.

Sibel is a member of DU. If you have questions about her perhaps you would like to ask her directly?

Edited for clarity: Investigations are for finding proof (or the lack thereof) after an allegation has been made.

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. What makes you so sure that journalists have not investigated her claims?

:shrug:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

90. So first the idiotic comments about her just posting her stuff on youtube if she was for real

(Unless I'm mistaking you with somebody else.... I doubt it). Now that she's gone through the process by the book you keep throwing your feces at her. How many gag orders were placed on Larry Sinclair? What legal action was taken against him? The guy failed the polygraph he took voluntarily. It seems to anyone with common sense the government does not want this lady to tell her story. 60 minutes interviewed her and as far as I can tell nobody at CBS has questioned her credibility. But oh well, I guess the Blue Douche strikes again with his "formidable wit".

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. Is 60 Minutes still covering the story? If no, why not?

:shrug:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

115. How does that translate into her being like that lying wacko you compared her to?

60 Minutes has a history of caving in when pressured just like the did with the tobacco whistle blower story. Or is Jeffrey Wigand another crazy conspiracy theorist? Just like with the Edmonds story they ran some half ass piece and never mentioned it again. So maybe instead of posting jerk off comments about stories that you don't seem to know much about. You might try asking the producers at 60 Minutes that same question.

:shrug: :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

95. Watch her video. She seems pretty credible to me.

I have only watched tapes 2 and 3. Tape 1 will be mostly background information until at least half-way into it. Tapes 4 and 5 will probably probe further into the information she provided in tapes 2 and 3 and also add a lot of questions to find out the limits of her knowledge and to test her credibility.

That's just my guess about what is in the tapes.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. All there is so far is her word. Where is the corroborating evidence?

:shrug:

[JDPriestly]

107. Of course her testimony is all hearsay. I assume that she is

discussing transcripts gained through eavesdropping and wiretapping. Those transcripts would be available to the FBI. She is quite credible. It is a matter of following through. Someone with the authority to investigate has to take the risk of exposing the corroborating evidence. Unfortunately, it appears that the government is hiding evidence that would either refute or support her claims.

I can only say that she is a very credible witness to the evidence she saw and heard. Of course, her testimony is hearsay as to whether the events actually happened. In my opinion, her evidence is relevant to the case in question which is I believe a defamation case. It is relevant as to whether the statements the defendant made were false or whether the defendant should have known the statements were false.

http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

If her statements are not corroborated by evidence, those of whom she spoke will probably file defamation suits themselves. She has made serious allegations and has claimed to be alleging facts about people. She has made these allegations for years and thus far no one has sued her as far as I know. Of course, they may have hesitated because the information was a state secret. Clearly the secrecy of her information is no longer considered important enough to protect from a deposition. I suppose that anyone who feels defamed can get a lawyer and sue her. That would be very interesting.l

[BradBlog]

113. Among other places, in the Sunday Times of London. Go read it. n/t

[BradBlog]

112. Did Larry Sinclair have the DoJ IG call his claims "serious" "credible" "warranting further...

...investigation"?

Did Larry Sinclair have the two senior Senators, from two different parties, on the Judiciary Committee call for an investigation by the DoJ?

Did the Clinton administration invoke the draconian "State Secrets Privilege" on him? Twice?

Did he take his case all the way to the Supreme Court?

Obviously, you're unfamiliar with the Sibel Edmonds story.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

116. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Right wingers are very stubborn people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Years back talking to a US Senator...

yes there is bribery and other things going on, why nobody opposes Bush.

Why this does not surprise me one iota.

Oh and didn't ... oh never mind, I was called a CT believer for posting that as far back as 2003

[loudsue]

25. So this is why Pelosi took impeachment off the table?

Hmmm.

[Captain Hilts]

36. No, because we don't have nearly enough votes to make it work. nt

[JDPriestly]

96. And why don't we have enough votes? Because of the endemic corruption

and greed among our elected officials. It's sickening.

[glinda]

26. Fuck. K & R

[wildbilln864]

27. k&r! Thank you for posting. nt

:hi:

[Nikki Stone1]

28. Interesting that DLA Piper was involved again

The transcript on your website is very interesting.

[BradBlog]

30. Thank you for...

...bothering to read it, Nikki.

I concur. It's *extremely* interesting. (THat would be an understatement, btw).

[dotymed]

59. BRAD

I have neglected to THANK YOU for being an actual
investigative reporter. I have followed this story since
before Sibel gave her sworn testimony, on your blog. Thanks
again for being there for the few who still want to know the
truth...

[Nikki Stone1]

83. I think Edmonds is the tip of a huge iceberg

The Armenian Genocide resolution is small potatoes to the US when compared to some other issues. Although, I must admit my sympathies toward such a resolution.

[fascisthunter]

29. kick (nt)

[PatSeg]

31. K&R

Every I read about this, it is so big and so outrageous, I can't fully absorb it. If it was a Tom Clancy novel or movie, it would be deemed ridiculous. If one translator uncovered this much criminal activity in our government in such a short period of time, what else is going on that we'll never hear about? Surely political corruption can't be limited to just one foreign government.

I have a very active imagination and I could never come up with anything even close to this.

[rosesaylavee]

32. Thank you!

I have been putting off watching the videos... I will now. Hastert was my rep and I can't tell you how wonderful it is not to see him anymore. He's a bad one and I hope he gets what's coming to him.

[Stardust]

37. Thank you, Brad. I watched Sibel's deposition on your website. It was

breathtaking. But a written account will be greatly appreciated, as well, helping to define the intricacies of the case. I'm baffled as to why the M$M hasn't touched this. You'd think it would be right up Rachel Maddow's alley. Why am I still disappointed when our news outlets let us down? You'd think I'd just give up and go watch American Idol or something.

We owe you a huge debt of gratitude for your vigilance on this and so many other important issues.

P.S. I really enjoyed your show when your subbed for Miked Malloy. You were terrific.

[rucognizant]

62. At least......................

One more person on my neighborhood is now informed.
When I met her a year ago, she dismissed my politics with " I am just not a political person, not interested."
WHen I told her of this the other day...........she was going to go home and click on Brad Blog to hear the full story!
In a year's time she has come to view me as a sane reliable person, AND the developments that ARE being reported in the MSM,
(teabaggers, threats to Obama w etc. are so ridiculously over the top, she has decided that it is her duty as a citizen to get informed and involved.)
One person at a time! Not optimum but at least it's forward movement!

[BradBlog]

102. Thanks, Stardust. And I'll be Guest Hosting 'Malloy Show' again next week, btw! n/t

Hope you'll tune in!

What should we cover? :-)

[bertman]

38. Recommended highly. Thanks again to Brad for keeping us informed about the REAL

news we citizens need to know.

I'd like to provide a link to a column that helps explain a lot of what is happening with our so-called mainstream media. It was written by Glenn Greenwald a couple of days ago. I found it to be very incisive and insightful. As several DU'ers have already mentioned, our media has been captive to the Intelligence community for decades--at least since the late 50's, if not longer. This helps explain at least part of the mindset that allows that to happen.

here's the link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/01/klein/

[AntiFascist]

81. Kick....great, just what we need: a secret society for journalists n/t

[madmax]

42. k & r n/t

[proReality]

44. BIG K&R n/t

[FourScore]

45. Even major liberal bloggers are not posting about this.

I haven't seen anything on dkos or americablog or firedoglake or think progress or anywhere else.

It's very disheartening.

Thank you, Brad! And thank you, Sibel!!!

k/r

[defendandprotect]

46. Has Olberman or Rachel caught up with this yet . . .???

I think this will continue to be a tough time for this story with the Labor

Day weekend coming up!!

Good of you to do a recap -- I had taken some notes from the transcript but

never got back to post them! Thank you!


Again, as with the evidence now which makes clear the JFK coup, the RFK coup, the

MLK coup -- and on and on -- Oswald being CIA as disclosed by Tunnheim Panel --

I shudder at the memory of someone saying to me . . . . "No one has the power to

bring this truth forward."

All too true!

[bjobotts]

47. If this story could get out to the voters of MO finally we might end the reign of Roy Blunt now runn

[bjobotts]

48. Now running for the senate.Blunt made CREWS top ten list for most corrupt congressman

[bjobotts]

49. and now thinks he can pull the wool of Missourian's eyes and become senator.

[lib_wit_it]

50. K&R.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

51. Enough. Try and convict. Thank you, Sibel.

Thank you, Brad and Lukery.

[Hubert Flottz]

52. K&R

[subcomhd]

53. Total bullshit

or bigger than Watergate/Iran-Contra and any given day between Jan. 2001 and Jan. 2009 all rolled into one.

Why isn't the MSM covering it. It is sensational as hell - which is what they like.

[SpiralHawk]

55. Corporate media no longer serves the truth or the American people

That's an ugly fact.

[subcomhd]

56. It isn't that (although I'll agree with the statement)

This has sex. They are usually all over that like flies on shit. And it doesn't explain why progressive commentators like KO or RM aren't covering it. Yes, I know they work for big corporations too. Scott Horton at Vanity fair has covered it some (I think.) Maybe they are working on it.

[cascadiance]

86. The problem is that there is plenty of other sensational crap out there with less risk...

... to them and the powerful.

If they go instead after the "Michael Jackson is murdered" salacious tale, they can keep the distracted in a black hole that doesn't lead to any other information threatening to them.

but if they were to publish this story, as salacious as it might be, and as much as their traditional audience might eat it up, there will be some within that audience that will ask the thorny questions about it that they don't want to see asked, which will "divert" (in the corporate media's minds) this audience away from the sensationalist crap they want to keep feeding them for ratings to more substantive issues they don't want to have to deal with.

And as noted, unless we know that this woman was in fact compromised and this affair affected her judgement and her way of voting, it arguably should be handled differently than those who knowingly and willingly are going along with the other corruption schemes she talks about.

[zeemike]

57. We have few heroes on the left.

But you are definitely one of them Brad....And so is Sibel Edmonds.
These truths must be made public and widely disseminated and you have done more than your share of that...now it is time for the rest to step up to the plate and get busy.

[tclambert]

63. I still haven't heard word one about this on the TV news.

Therefore, it must not have happened, and there's no reason for me to get all outraged about it.


I blame Gerald Ford.


He should not have pardoned Nixon. Yes, the conviction of a former president would have diverted the nation's attention from other issues. But there was no more important issue than justice. If we truly want a nation ruled by law, where "no one is above the law," we must, we must, we must prosecute the powerful for their crimes.

If Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, we would today BRAG to other countries how in America, "even the President can go to jail." It may well have prevented Iran-Contra, and the many Bush crimes. If you take away the fear of prosecution, the fear of punishment, why should politicians obey the law?

[DireStrike]

64. Am I reading it correctly that Sibel is still unable to give details because of the SSP gag?

Has she ever been able to give details to some governmental body who would be responsible for investigating this? I guess I can assume that the details won't be public, but has she been able to tell ANYONE?

On page 62, she says "Only after I was fired and the State Secrets Privelege was invoked, and knowing what I knew, I went to Congress and discussed it with certain people in Congress. I brought it up with the Inspector General's Office inside during a meeting, and at that point will provide them the details in terms of dates and who were those targets, which I can't provide right now, the direct targets."

Which tense did she mean to use here? Is this a past or future event?

[cascadiance]

87. I think her lawyers interpret a court subpoena as a means to work through the gag orders...

However, the key question to ask is what questions on other things she knows about (and is gagged about) WEREN'T asked because they weren't relevant to that case. For example her knowledge of the warnings of September 11th, etc. that she's hinted about, and probably testified about to the 9/11 commission that were kept out of their report.

So though we might have heard most if not all of what she heard in the Turkish corruption cases, we've probably not heard of all of the skeleton information yet.

And keep in mind that she probably knows identities of agents she sourced certain information from, etc. but didn't testify to that publicly in this court case, as it would damage intelligence operations through doing so, but perhaps an investigation might get that info in secret to further investigate what such sources might know personally to help prosecute such corruption.

[pleah]

65. K&R

[sweetpotato]

66. But that's a conspiracy theory!

Bribery and blackmail - when we talked about them being a possible reason why Congress seemed so willing to do the administration's bidding - we were called conspiracy theory nuts.

CRAZY and all that.

If what she says is true - then believing those nutty theories isn't so far out there after all.

HMMMM.

[BREMPRO]

71. I think the problem with the story and why it hasn't been picked up by the major media outlets

is that it is too confusing, wide ranging, and not related to current issues crowding out the news streams ie economy,health care,iraq,Afghanistan. Turkey? We had our fill of bribery with the shadowy trench coated Abramoff- that seemed to take off because it was timely and fit into a narrative of Republican corruption people expected were looking for and was rattling the halls of current congressmen- direct bribing of congress for favors. This Edmond's stuff is similar more diffuse,difficult to comprehend, difficult to accept (treason), and no charges have been formally filed. I've read about this for over a year and i'm still confused, its' always referred to as "Sibel Edmond's" this or that. I think that's part of the a problem because nobody in the general public knows who she is or knows anything about her position or credibility. She's a translator? what does she have to do with all this? Is the justice department aware? Are there lawyers working on bringing charges? If it was presented more succinctly- and when very specific charges against the major political players who Americans know are filed, i think it might would get MSM air time.

I think i finally "get it" but I can understand why this has not had traction in the MSM, and I don't think it's a conspiracy of silence, as much as a problem with the clear framing of the crimes, the players, as well as the more urgent critical nature of the issues facing Americans.

[cascadiance]

88. And simplifying complexity IS the media's job, and that is what they are there for...

You can't expect those that are whistleblowers working outside the system itself to put together a well crafted story. The reporter needs to go through the mound of facts to help put together such a story. Watergate today would have been just as confusing and disjoint without the likes of Woodward and Bernstein doing their jobs. And arguably also the system of justice itself being corrupted, and not following up on information they have of criminal activity to fully present as much of the facts as possible is also a problem too, and perhaps is another reason why the lazier journalists (or those being more controlled) don't want to bother with this story as they'd also have to do the justice department's work for them too. Brad's made a very good effort to try and distill this today, but we're still missing a lot of the facts that a proper investigation would yield, and help us give the story to the American public with less "gotchas" and "conditional" prose.

In normal times, if we had someone taking the stand and either arguably committing perjury and libeling others, or presenting evidence of serious corruption of high ranking officials, the justice department wouldn't just step back and ignore it. They'd challenge this testimony in court, or have someone look into it. But we aren't in normal times unfortunately...

[Hutzpa]

73. Holy Shiiit

this is HOT, unnamed bisexual congresswoman, that means she is still active thats
why she cannot name her yet. Now who is that bisexual woman with grown children(?)

Selling their country for a loaf of bread.

[JPZenger]

76. The Late Tom Lantos was Holocaust Survivor

The late Tom Lantos was a Holocaust survivor. It would not surprise me if he felt motivated to leak information that he thought would help the defense of Israel. (I'm not judging this one or another).

[cascadiance]

89. Which is precisely why we need to be careful that this story isn't viewed as just serving Armenians

... but serving all Americans' interests in knowing the truth and hearing about the corruption that is in our government and how we intend to fix it.

Lantos perhaps is an example of where serving another agenda (perhaps an honorable one) can lead to other more damaging corruption and wrongdoing that affects others, if one puts this agenda ahead of the interests of our country.

[JDPriestly]

98. Many Jews went to Turkey during WWII including Erich Auerbach, the author of the

wonderful book Mimesis. I don't know what I would think of the book today, but I loved it when I read it some 40 years ago.

[cascadiance]

101. And that was arguably a good legacy of the Ataturk lead Turks...

when German Jews prior to World War II and the holocaust were offered safe haven in Turkey in exchange for them building a large segment in their society to help it get westernized (when they became secular and switched to a western alphabet, etc.) to rescue it from the dying Ottoman Empire residue that had also created the conditions for the Armenian genocide earlier.

That is probably a big reason that for many years that Turkey and Israel have had such good relations, aside from the real corrupt ones that Sibel documents with the likes of AIPAC, ATC, etc. too.

[JPZenger]

109. I didn't know that about Turkey

if only the US had been willing to accept more Jewish people between 1934 and 1939. The US State Dept. was full of anti-Semites.

[Norrin Radd]

79. kr

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. keep on pulling the thread

more may unravel

[JDPriestly]

91. Heartbreaking testimony!

I listened to tapes 2 and 3. Unfortunately, Sibel Edmonds sounds very credible. If what she says is true, our system is even more corrupt than I could ever have believed.

The congresswoman is most likely Jane Harmon. She represents Pacific Palisades and other areas in Los Angeles' west side. Marcy Winograd is running against her. We need to support Marcy in every way possible.

I despair at ever getting the kind of clean government we need. It may be too late. Because of the perverted leadership we have had (and it's on both political sides), we are, as a nation, I fear, inextricably enmeshed in intrigue and crime.

Edmonds' testimony only covers events that occurred between 1996 to December 2000, January 2001. I hate to think what has happened since then. Why weren't people prosecuted for their crimes?

[Echo In Light]

97. Rec

[bluesmail]

99. Highly K&R I've been following her tracks for years now

And it is complicated. I've never read much Turkey Politics. One thing I do know is it is a major hub for the transfer of heroin. I know there was a coup. I know I believe Sibel.

[librechik]

100. Thanks, Brad. Every day I cry a little at the loss of honest journalism

which we used to have, at least a little bit. I'm in the news business myself, and I can't tell you how I have tried to direct attention to this and so many other vital issues that editorial is just plain contemptuous of. I am at my wit's end.

Still, it's interesting to see it all go down--sadly and literally --from a close perch.

Hang in there, you are the best!

[faithnotgreed]

110. this has to stay on the front page

this is part of the BIG picture that has long and hugely toxic roots

[newspeak]

117. so, was Brewster-Jennings exposed

so that nuclear hand offs could be made unmonitored? Was it exposed so that a pro-war administration could use their own bogus intelligence to start wars like in Iran? And, exposing a CIA front company, a company that is monitoring nuclear material for the safety of this country, isn't that treason?

I see we've come a long way since the Rosenbergs.

[faithnotgreed]

119. kicking