DEPOSITION VIDEO


Update: Posted at BradBlog

Deposition Transcript & Video http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

Update 2: National Whistleblower Center Press Release

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=931&Itemid=71

The Video of my sworn deposition in the Krikorian v Schmidt Case was just released by 'News Democrat.' Here is the link:

http://newsdemocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=128898&TM=58793.69

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    3rd time trying to comment. Keep getting booted for some unknown reason. I will print up transcript to edit out all the objections.

  2. Bill Bergman says:

    I've enjoyed and appreciated what I've seen so far, Sibel. You did a great job of being clear and keeping your composure.

  3. Hi Sibel,

    I’ll try to be brief but first let me state that I was a supporter of yours and still am, although to a lesser extent.

    I’ve followed your case, with interest, for many years now and looked forward to the day you would finally have the opportunity to reveal your information to the public.

    After having watched your deposition in full, I must say that I was disappointed. All you provided was old, previously known information. It was almost as if you were purposefully holding back.

    You and your lawyer went so far as to claim that: “Identifying the people in your gallery list would reveal classified information.” My God, you were gagging yourself.

    Where was all the incriminating evidence? Where were all the details? It appears you’ve moved on and I really can’t blame you.

    All the best,

    Jack

  4. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Anon: I think whatever the problem was it's resolved.

    Bill: Thank you. It was a long day, and hard to sit with camera facing you nonstopt for ~5 hours, and having to pay attention to your attorney's notes/gestures!

    Jack: This was not about my case. This was NOT my trial. This was NOT about me. I was subpoenaed to answer their questions, and those questions were selected based on their case. As for my own case: It's been over. I don't have one. This is why this site is about 'issues,' and not about me. If that is not what you are looking for go elsewhere. Thank You.

  5. Eric Pottenger says:

    is "sibellydancer" a name you answer to? I just picked it up in the comments section of the News Democrat, under your video. it's pretty funny, I think. you should run with it. change your blog title. get rid of that boring white screen background. dim the lights a little.

    more seriously, I just have a couple questions. you were hired by the FBI after sept. 11, yes? what was the date, do you remember?

  6. I have supported and followed your case since shortly after you became a whistle blower. I have many Turkish friends as I had two turks as roommates in college in the late 70s and have been to Turkey a country Americans know little about… so what else is new.

    Anyway, I have been trying to understand the power of the gag order you are under.

    It is my belief that too many people and perhaps you included, are intimidated b the DOJ and these gag orders.

    Have you contemplated speaking out and defying the gag order and fighting it in court? What have your lawyers and counselors said would likely happen?

    Do you think that WHAT you are being gagged about would make a prosecutor think twice about bringing charges because, you would have revealed criminal activity (I assume) and gagging you and prosecuting would be conspiracy to cover up criminal activity.

    In fact, it could be argued that remaining gagged makes YOU an accomplice, after the fact in criminal activity.

    I can't believe that secrets are being protected and NOT crimes being covered up.

    What say you?

    What EXACTLY are you and others afraid of? '

    We have your back Sibel. You are an american hero!

    çok güzel

  7. Anonymous says:

    Thank you Sibel. 1992 seems to be an interesting time where the Clintons and others are concerned. Here is something from the past that I am sure will be interesting to everyone here. http://brianwillson.com/?q=node/32

  8. Anonymous says:

    @Sibel, Merhaba, Have you ever heard the Turkish Name "Yoksuloglu" used? Thanks and God Bless you. Salaam.

  9. Kingfisher says:

    @Eric,
    According to the unclassified DoJ OIG report Sibel worked for the FBI as a Contract Linguist from September 20, 2001, until March 2002.

    @Sander,
    Sibel has twice been gagged under the States Secrets Privilege. The States Secrets Privilege is the nuclear bomb of legal gag orders; it is invoked only when (alleged) information, which is so sensitive that it will endanger national security, may be released in civil litigation. Note: the States Secrets Privilege has to do with civil, not criminal cases, which would fall under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

  10. Kingfisher says:

    Re: Hastert’s ‘immoral activities’,

    Even money says he was hooking up with dudes. Its that prior stint as a gym teacher and wrestling coach; it all makes sense now.

  11. Kingfisher says:

    Oh, and for those of you not maliciously minded, such activities would be an excellent 'hook' for the purposes of blackmail by a foreign interest.

  12. Kingfisher says:

    I am getting ahead of myself here, but, the people that I have talked to that have worked human intelligence have all told me blackmail that in and of itself is not that effective. The problem as I am told is that it creates an adversarial relationship with the blackmailed and they will screw you at the first chance. So while blackmail can probably be used as a hook, the handler would probably want to develop the blackmailed like a traditional source. This would in all likelihood entail financial payments, and if you recall David Rose’s article it was reported that claims of bribes paid to Hastert were picked up on the intercepts Sibel translated. Anyway, something to think about.

  13. Katabasis says:

    Kingfisher – probably worth noting here that Rose had a (self-admitted) "relationship" with MI5.

    Something that interested me about his Vanity Fair article on Sibel was that he produced it shortly after his mea culpa and supposed break with MI5. Coincidence? Revenge maybe?

    Sibel – are you saying you would not take up the chance to have your case properly heard in future should the opportunity arise?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Sibel, this is Jean Carbonneau. I watched 3 of the 5 videos off Brad Blog's site, and will watch the other 2.
    I thought you did fine, and like you said, it wasn't about you, but rather about questions that others asked you. Last I heard 4 of the charges that Schmidt made have been dropped. I'm sure your testimony helped in that matter.

    The aspect that really surprised me was that Bruce Fein was the plantiff's counsel. Mr. Fein was one of the handful of conservatives who blasted Bush during her tenure. In fact, I saw Mr. Fein give a talk at a conference put on by a libertarian think tank, in which he spoke at length of the abuses. He even called for the impeachment of Bush.

    But, I understand he was hired to do a job, and I also didn't know he was a member of the Turkish Legal Defense Fund. I guess it's that "Washington" mentality. I for one wouldn't have taken the case, even if they had given me a golden parachute. I do have morals and princples, that frankly can't be bought.
    Good luck to you, and always best wishes for your family!!!!

  15. I understand that the purpose of a gag order, though I don't know what happens when someone defies it and speaks.

    Is there a trial to determine whether they violated the gag order? If not how can they demonstrate that the gagged person violated a gag order?

    Don't tell me that there wouldn't be a trial? Since we don't have secret trials in this country the nasty secrets would be outed in open court. My sense is that the government would not want to make matters worse… from their perspective.

    I am assuming that the gagging is hiding criminal activity in perhaps addition to providing cover for intelligence operations and sources. One doesn't become a whistle blower unless there was wrong doing which is essentially criminal activity.

    If the above is correct, the court would be faced with participating in a conspiracy to conceal criminal activity if it did not prosecute ALL the wrong doing not only the violation of the gag order.

    Have there been any cases when someone was gagged and spoke out? What was the result?

    How many times has this state secrets gag order been used?

    Why has it not been challenged if it was revealed to cover criminal activity which would seem to be an abuse of the intent?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Sibel,
    The reference to the Rand Corporation was of most interest to me, since this is the domain of Henry Kissinger who remains very active in world affairs unknown to most. Also, do you know anything about Roger Molander, who is a senior scientist at the Rand Corporation, and started the citizen diplomacy Sister cities program in the late 80's?

    Simon

  17. Kingfisher says:

    @Sander,

    Violating the States Secrets Privilege gag order is testifying in a civil case. There is no trial to determine whether they violated the gag order. The government claims it and judges very rarely examine the veracity of the claim in private. As I said, it’s the nuclear bomb of legal gag orders.

    Again, no trial, no nasty secrets outed in open court. The point is that her testimony cannot be used in a civil case; and I believe that even if her testimony revealed criminal acts that not criminal cases could stem from it.

  18. Kingfisher says:

    @Katabasis,

    Maybe. I'm not too concerned about it. MI5 is the UK's domestic intelligence service, and I have yet to see any connections to the UK.

    As an aside, I think very highly of MI5 and Special Branch.

  19. I am confused and troubled by his gag order.

    If I understand correctly one cannot TESTIFY in a court about the "gagged matters", but why not simply hold a press conference?

    I am led to understand that what Sibel is gagged about involves criminal activity by government officials and others.

    If this is true, why not lay out the case of this activity?

    Are we talking bribes or hush money, or drug deals, or murder, or conspiracy, or incompetence?

    I simply don't understand what prevents Ms Edmonds from speaking out and let the chips fall where they may.

    What am I missing here?

  20. Katabasis says:

    @Kingfisher

    "Maybe. I'm not too concerned about it. MI5 is the UK's domestic intelligence service, and I have yet to see any connections to the UK."

    Right. You're not concerned in the slightest about a mainstream British journalist writing stories on the basis of what MI5 fed him?

    "As an aside, I think very highly of MI5 and Special Branch."

    The same MI5 and Special Branch that:
    – Helped (is still helping) to protect Peter and Paul Griffin – the two key players (and British Nationals) involved in the UK end of the Khan network (and now under U.S. sanctions, but remaining unharrassed in the UK and France….)

    – Allowed businessmen they employed as go-betweens with Al-Q suspects to be picked up by the CIA and stuffed into Gitmo for a couple of years

    – Made up evidence about Ricin Rings

    – Protected people ("sources" allegedly) in the UK who openly support terrorist organisations.

  21. Kingfisher says:

    @Sander,
    Please take the initiative and do some reading of your own on the States Secrets Privilege. I have answered several of your queries about the privilege as a courtesy, but am no longer willing to answer things you can find out for yourself.

    If Sibel were to hold a press conference and reveal all she knew, she would go to jail for releasing classified information, and I believe be in violation of a non-disclosure agreement.

    As to the nature of what this case involves please see:
    David Rose's article "An Inconvenient Patriot"
    The Sunday Times series of articles
    Phil Giraldi's article "Found in Translation
    – Luke Rylands blog: Let Sibel Edmonds Speak

  22. I don't know what would happened and I don't think she or anyone should reveal information which compromises national security or anyone's personal safety.

    On the other hand she is trying to blow the whistle and should blow it.

    I don't think a non disclosure violation would necessarily end with her in jail. I would think that the punishment should fit the crime. Most non disclosure agreements I am familiar with seem to have monetary consequences IF enforced. I don't know how often these are actually enforced.

    If the State Secret gag order is not being used properly or appropriately one should not be intimidated by it. Don't you think?

  23. Again, I don't know who Sibel was attempting to sue and what was the remedy she sought. I assume this was a civil complaint.

    In all the accounts I have read she alleges she knows about some criminal activity, bribes to government officials.

    These are criminal matters and should be criminal cases. Why are those not being pursued? What would the jurisdiction where such cases are brought?

    Why was a grand jury not empaneled?

    Where is the actual evidence about this illicit activity?

    The DOJ backed away and did not block her recent testimony. If she has more to reveal, I don't see why she doesn't put it out there and let the public outcry demand prosecution. I would be surprised if they attempted to put Sibel in prison.

    I would like SIbel to explain this. Or if she has, I would like the reference or a link. thanks.

  24. Kingfisher says:

    Very well, you are familiar with non disclosure agreements. Did any of the NDA’s that you are familiar involve high level security clearances? If no, then what you know is irrelevant. Further, the NDA point is largely irrelevant compared to the fact that you can go to jail for improperly releasing classified information.

    The States Secrets Privilege is not a tool of intimidation; it is a legal nuclear bomb. So what one thinks about it as a tool intimidation used properly or improperly is irrelevant.

    Your assumption that it is a civil complaint is correct. Why is it? Because the States Secrets Privilege can ONLY be used in civil complaints; this is the second time I have told you this. Did you read the David Rose article as suggested?

    Part of the problem is that the material falls under intelligence collection, and not under criminal investigations. It is a complex subject, which frankly is currently beyond you right now.

    You will find answers to some of what you are asking about here:

    http://thestressblog.com/2007/03/08/new-whistleblowers-back-sibel/

  25. I am sorry but I am confused, perhaps to dumb to understand and I have read all the links.

    I understand that the State Secret Privilege is a very blunt instrument to stop any trial from proceeding. Sibel and other seem to believe such trials would reveal criminal activity supposedly as part of coourt evidence, which presumably would then lead to indictments.

    The state is claiming that such trials would compromise "intelligence" and court is accepting this as more important than catching crooks, even if they are in our government. That seems outrageous on the face, and is probably BS, but there is some logic there as to what is the greater good.

    However, why don't these whistleblowers without revealing "state secrets" go the "J'acuse!" route? Clearly Sibel's education and biography are not state secrets – that's total BS.

    If I knew the facts she knows, implicating gov official in massive bribery,I would let them see the light of day. I would name names, dates, sums and anything else which would be damning.

    Please explain, if you know, why she doesn't do this and what is she afraid of?

    I understand that the ACLU and other lawyers accept the system and want to play by the rules. But who is being served by this compliance?

    Color me dense.

  26. Kingfisher says:

    @Katabasis,

    Correct, I have very little concern about a mainstream British journalist writing stories on info MI5 gave him. Nor have I lost any sleep over it, or am I that surprised about it.

    Re: MI5 and Special Branch: You are overlooking the role of people who actually make the policies. The UK faces a significant threat to the safety of its citizens from alienated young Muslim men embracing Salafi Jihadist ideology. I am very impressed by their efforts to manage this threat, and identify and address the root causes and social processes that drive it.

    @Sander,

    What part of "you can go to jail for improperly releasing classified information", don't you understand? Is it the jail part?

    You keep talking about YOUR views, opinions, values, thoughts, and what you think the media/govt/courts/lawyers would do in qualifying your questions when it is irrelevant.

  27. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Still Traveling. Here are a few updates:

    NWC press release:http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=931&Itemid=71

    Also, Krikorian side filed for extension, so I may be able to testify during the trial.

    Thank you for all the comments. Let me make this general statement:

    Despite several significant disclosures, under oath, neither the press nor the majority of partisan blog outlets would touch the information. This is not unique to this case, as you know we have had many significant revelations/scandals with similar reception. So don't go around looking for explosive facts/revelations; we have plenty of those. Instead try to figure out a way to bring about accountability & true oversight. I know reading juicy scandals is highly entertaining, but we've had too much entertainment and '0' action. Okay. Enough said.

  28. Metemneurosis says:

    @ SanderO

    Are you asking why Sibel doesn't just bring criminal charges against the individuals she's aware acted illegally? If so then I'd presume that she just doesn't have the power to bring criminal charges like that. She can't just bring charges against say Mr. Grossman for treason or causing the wrongful deaths of CIA assets (however that would be classified legally). In order for there to be a criminal case she would have to go through the right channels and that usually involves reporting a person you think is a criminal to an investigating authority like say the FBI or the Justice Dept. But they already know about the charges and the evidence and have done nothing. The only thing she could do was bring a civil suit which she tried to do for years.

    Plus Sibel has had a standing offer for years to any news agency to reveal all if they would either air her allegations live or allow her to have a say in the editing of the taped interview. This is necessary because they normally would take her allegations and go to the relevant agencies for comment. At that point the agency would confiscate the tapes, arrest Sibel and no one would hear her story. No agency has agreed to her conditions. Thus this blog on the complacency and complicity of the MSM.

  29. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Thanks Metem. Summed it up well. And thank you for noting my MSM offer…

    After my return I will have some exciting proposals for this site/blog, in its new home…

  30. It was great to finally read the deposition. Great job Sibel.

    A question with regards to current geopolitical events occurred to me as I read the transcript. With the revelations of our government along with various foreign governments supporting Al Qaeda ~ groups quite recently, and considering the recent Al Qaeda bombings in Iraq in the wake of the pullout and the referendum on the S.O.F.A (which would force U.S. troops to leave sooner), what is the likelihood that various individuals, groups, and governments which have an interest in U.S. troops remaining in Iraq are directly or indirectly sponsoring the attacks? Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but I question that the uptick in violence is merely the result of decreased U.S. security—especially since the uptick began previous to the drawback from cities. Doesn't it seem far too ideal of a scenario for those countries and groups which want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to have events which provide cover for officials and army leaders to talk about the increasing need to scrap the pullback/pullout? Of course as Scheuer explains, Al Qaeda has its motivation to keep U.S. troops there, but that wouldn't really explain the decline in violence before the significant increase.

    If any more operations are to take place in other countries in the region, wouldn’t it be easier to have a large contingent of U.S. troops already in Iraq, along with greater hands-on control of the country's defenses?

    This is likely overly speculative, but knowing what we do about what these governments have done in the past from Sibel’s revelations alone, I wouldn’t put it past any of them.

  31. I don't doubt that the CIA plays with "malcontents" and foments / supports their activities to justify their own existence.

  32. Metemneurosis says:

    The video and transcript are linked to at cryptome. Maybe not the kind of exposure you were looking for but y'know . . .

  33. Anonymous says:

    Ms. Edmonds

    I'm a big fan. Thank you for your integrity. Josh Marshal calls you crazy & a crackpot. Have you looked at his recent backers? He has joined the Israeli lobby- no free donation. Please keep up the good work and don't let agents like him and others in media intimidate you.
    regards.

  34. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Nate: interesting points; certainly worth thinking about.

    SanderO: Their record, their history has been consistent with this; hasn't it. I agree.

    Metemneurosis: As you know I like cryptome. They've been one of the best in covering the 'uncoverable'!

    Last Anon: Thank you. As for J.M. or guys like Clemons-They've always been part of establishment; partisan to the bone. Once in a while they produce a good work or two, but in general: pseudo alternatives. I've also heard about J.M.'s funders…I just ignore them. Anyone who doesn't want to drink partisan crap coolaid should do the same. 'nough said. I have a piece coming out tomorrow around noon. I will mention this.

  35. Hi Ms. Edmonds:

    Just had a chance to watch your deposition online. I've lived abroad (in both the U.K. and Asia) for a long time. And now, as an expat looking in, it amazes me that this has been going on for how many years? And yet the MSM believes that Brittany Spears is WAY more important than depressing stuff like this? I'd like to think I'm not totally politically naive. Yet, from working in the media myself, it's really weird to see this.

    I have different pages and sites where I try to help publicize what you're doing. Is this "public domain" material or not? If it's all right, I'd like to edit some into some new videoclips. Just checking because the last thing I need is a cease-and-desist order from some attorney :).

    Thanks and please don't back down.

  36. Edit_Mommies says:

    Discerning the category these deceptive, yet possibly well played individuals should be placed in is impossible. For many of these people their objectives are not revealed to them until the proper time. They frown on whistle blowers for taking a piece of the market share with wares that can possibly damage human interests. I support what you are doing because you heighten responsibilities that are necessary and progressive. More importantly human interests are like babies that need shaken up! When jaded we can resist boundaries with innovation.

  37. Sibel Edmonds says:

    T: Welcome, and thank you for your comment. I was in Vietnam for 6 months last year, and right now travelin through NZ. I am still amazed at the state of things myself; refusing to get used to it, or, accept it as a way of life.

    Please feel free to download and disseminate the video/transcript. If anyone ever says anything tell them you have the right from me (I own a copy).

    I have a short piece which will be posted tomorrow. It will pretty much sum up my take on the sorry state of media in US today.

    Hope to see you here regularly.

  38. Bob Boyer says:

    Hurray for Sibel. An American hero!

    Bob
    roberstephenboyer@gmail.com

    P. S. And thanks to Google to re-opening
    the Sibel Edmonds web page.

  39. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Philip Giraldi writes about MSM and pseudo alternative media silence. I'll have a new related post today: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/08/27/sibel-edmonds-speaks-but-no-one-is-listening/

  40. Hi Ms. Edmonds,

    Haven't made it down to NZ yet. But a friend in Singapore keeps trying to talk me into moving there. One thing I know about having lived and traveled abroad: if it's the best thing to do, there are many places in the world you can live and be quite happy.

    Here's something that the MSM hasn't touched. Assume for a second that Congress comes back. Waxman actually has hearings on this. And, all of this information comes out.

    How would people react to facing some of their worst fears (especially in this global depression)? I know the MSM "pundits" are well-paid to play the what-if game. But in this current political/economic climate, I'm not sure how this will go. Not a big surprise: I rang Waxman's office a few days ago re: this. And got every staff dodge you can imagine. She was trying really hard to be polite AND blow you off (all at the same time). So I politely pressed back a few times with some current information on this case. But finally there was no more point to it.

    In a sense, it amazes me that Holder took so long to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture. He and Obama stall. And then Holder says, ok, well I guess I really should do this. But also, Obama has yet to overturn any of the previous guy's Executive Orders, the Patriot Act and other stuff.

    What's next????

  41. Anonymous says:

    August 27, 2009, Huffington Post (one of the world's largest newsites/blogs) has printed an article by Brad Friedman of the BradBlog about the deposition (including the complete video and a link to the transcript): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/formerly-gagged-fbi-whist_b_269787.html

    Regards,
    "Tom Joad"

  42. Here's a link to my new clip to help the cause :):

    Please post this everywhere you can. Thanks!

  43. sorry, had to redo my clip. Ignore the previous URL and try this one instead:

Speak Your Mind