Sibel Edmonds Deposition: Deep Corruption Beneath the Surface

I went to the Sibel Edmonds deposition and shot video of the Q&A sessions outside; click the link for hyperlinks and 24" video:

By Erik Larson

Aug 8, 2009, Sibel Edmonds gave a sworn deposition in which she testified to her knowledge of treasonous crimes and corruption involving current and former members of Congress and State and Defense Dept. officials. Given the nature of the deposition, the lines of questioning focused on Turkish espionage and services obtained through bribery and blackmail by Turkish officials and proxies. However, Edmonds has previously disclosed that the corruption involving U.S. officials also includes money laundering, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets, U.S. support for Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, and obstruction of FBI investigations related to 9/11, before and after the attacks; she said these things came up “briefly” during the deposition. Edmonds learned of these things from wiretaps she listened to while working as a translator for the FBI in 2001-2002.

Video coverage from and

Edmonds' Aug 8 testimony was subpoenaed by David Krikorian (Democratic 2010 Congressional candidate- OH) to support his defense against a lawsuit brought by Jean Schmidt, R-OH. Krikorian had circulated a flier in his 2008 campaign in which he alleged that Schmidt had accepted “blood money” from Turkish interests in exchange for opposing a Congressional resolution acknowledging the Turkish genocide of Armenians in World War I. The deposition took place in Washington, DC at the headquarters of the National Whistleblower Center

After the deposition, Edmonds took questions, and spoke in general terms about the deposition subjects (video, 13:25):

Larson- “Were you able to talk about any of the stuff that you’ve said about 9/11 in the past- did any of that come up?”

Edmonds- “We talked very briefly on Central Asia angle and 9/11 and the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda…and the role played by certain Turkish entities, so we talked briefly about that, yes, but mainly on the corruption U.S. persons, even in relation to those activities…it came up briefly.”

Larson- “How about the stuff about nuclear trafficking, drug smuggling, arms trafficking?”

Edmonds- “Yes, it came up- not in detail- Mr. Grossman’s name came up and Brewster-Jennings- I believe this is gonna be for the first time under Oath, on the record, people getting answer on Brewster-Jennings and the real story- not the crap that they got from the media.”

It seems that while a great deal of new information came out in this deposition that will justify criminal investigations and widespread media coverage, Edmonds was witness to a great deal more that remains to be disclosed and properly investigated.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft had invoked the State Secrets privilege in 2002 to quash Sibel Edmonds’ lawsuit against the DOJ for suppression of her Right to speak freely about the crimes and corruption she had witnessed. He invoked the State Secrets privilege again in 2004 to prevent her from testifying in a case brought by family members of 9/11 victims, classified her date of birth and also retroactively classified letters from Sens. Grassley and Leahy that had been public for nearly 2 years (this was later overturned, when POGO, who had published the letters, sued the DOJ). The DOJ attempted to dissuade Edmonds testifying this time as well, but did not re-invoke the State Secrets privilege and did not appear at the deposition.

No so-called “mainstream” print or broadcast media showed up to cover the deposition. Too bad for them, as Edmonds’ allegations reportedly include a juicy sex scandal involving a current Democratic Congresswoman- exactly the kind of thing the mainstream media loves to cover in depth ad nauseum. Given that these allegations intersect with allegations of treasonous activities by high-level figures in the Democrat and Republican establishment, it seems unlikely the corporate media will report on this, even when the video and transcript are made public.

One mainstream media outlet did acknowledge that the deposition would be happening:

Ex-FBI Translator Tests Justice Dept. Again –

Several U.S. and Armenian independent media stayed until the press conference following the deposition, and will be covering further developments:

The event was reported on in advance and live blogged by Brad Friedman of; Friedman interviewed participants by cell phone with the help of on-site associates, who also took video and photos.

8/8/09: LIVE BLOG: Deposition of Sibel Edmonds Completed, DoJ a 'No Show,' Bombshells Under Oath

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

8/5/09: Sibel Edmonds Subpoenaed, Set to 'Break' Gag Order

Drawn to the event by Krikorian’s campaign-related battles with Schmidt and Edmonds’ reports of Turkish efforts to prevent U.S. acknowledgement of Turkey’s genocide of Armenians, but also interested in the extent of corruption were Horizon Armenian TV, The Armenian Reporter and Armenian Public TV.

Andrew Krieg covered the event for

Gagged Former FBI Translator Claims U.S. Rep Bribe Evidence

In response to my (and Brad Friedman’s) questions after the deposition (video, 16:10), about when the entire video and transcript of the deposition would be made public, David Krikorian said his first priority was defending himself against Schmidt’s lawsuit, and that he needed to confer with his legal and political teams about the timing. He also stated, “I think that the information that was provided in this testimony is something that every American Citizen should be aware of…. What I heard in that deposition room is fairly troubling information…. I don’t see any reason to not make it public.”

David Krikorian said, quoted by Brad Friedman:

“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.”

Regardless of whether the Obama Administration or the Democrat-controlled Congress want to investigate evidence of treason by Democrats and Republicans, and regardless of whether the corporate “news” media are inclined to report on any of this, public opinion and action organized through word of mouth and the web have the power to compel public servants to follow the law, as well as turn this into a story the corporate media can’t ignore.

Thank you...

For going, and recording this. In my opinion, your video should go viral.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Brief Mention of 9/11 and Related Matters (e.g. ObL)

It would seem then that not much time was spent querying her about 9/11 and, say, the alleged "intimate" relationship between at least one U.S. governmental agency and Al Qaeda.

I suppose that was not the intent anyway of the people who called upon her to make a deposition.

Thx Jon and it would seem from Sibel's answers

that 9/11 and the US/Al Qaeda ties were a tangential subject- the reason being that the subpoena came from Krikorian for defending against the charge that he slandered/libeled Schmidt when he said she'd accepted blood money for her opposition to the Armenian genocide amendment. His case is not about busting open the 9/11 coverup, but much of the info is likely to be explosive and, in a real JUSTICE system will lead to numerous criminal and Congressional investigations which could get to the bottom of the whole stinking corrupt rotting cancerous parasite known as the Establishment, which is perpetuating the 9/11 cover up, even if they weren't consciously involved in perpetrating or abetting the attacks.

The Complete 9/11 Timeline

Given the precedent set by this- the DOJ didn't pull the 'State Secrets' bullshit again- I hope someone SINCERE finds a LEGIT reason to subpoena Edmonds to talk about EVERYTHING she was witness to.

Keep pressing, Sibel

End this nightmare.

Update from Bradblog, Armenian coverage in English

Quick Update(s) on Edmonds Depo Video, Transcript (vid/transcript should be available w/in a few days!!!)

Sibel Edmonds offers details of Turkey’s covert operations in U.S.

FBI Insider Links Turkish Lobby To Bribery And Blackmail

Edmonds' wiki

Still nothing on the Sibel Edmonds Wikipedia page on this:

What a surprise, coming from that bastion of free speech, I mean notable speech, I mean notable speech published by reliable sources - I mean, notable speech published by sources considered reliable despite their repeated provable propaganda ....

National secrecy is a threat to human security.


There are many problems with Wikipedia. You know, the philosophy behind Wikipedia originates from the Free Software community, which I'm a part of. The collaborative model we use to create software, with a license that maximizes freedom for the user, was transposed onto a collaborative encyclopedia.

But then, a problem arises when attempting to use this model for the documentation of historical events: truth by consensus (truth in numbers)

The truth by consensus process is not a reliable way of discovering truth. That there is general agreement upon something does not make it actually true. There are several reasons for this

It's obvious that when the 9/11 truth movement doesn't represent majority opinion, Wikipedia will censor it. The more notable an article, the more likely it becomes that the tendency of the article will shift toward consensus truth, no matter what sources are available to prove otherwise. I have seen articles with sources that point to dead links, sources that do not say what the Wikipedia article says at all, et cetera. The kind of boring people that run Wikipedia don't have the backbone nor the intelligence to deviate from consensus truth. Consensus truth defines Wikipedia. Were Wikipedia to be administered by only Turks, for example, it is unlikely there would be an article about the Armenian genocide at all.

Also, Wikipedia is very Anglo-Saxon centric. What do Arabs, Asians, Persian, Africans and Middle/South Americans have to say and do they really equally contribute to the history articles on Wikipedia?

Then we have the fact that Wikipedia actively protects/protected authors and editors from government ip ranges, for "PR reasons". Some of these ip ranges used to blatantly include CIA headquarters, NASA, UK & Canadian Government, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. etc.

Don't believe me? See this Wikipedia revision summary for proof of what I just said.

It was last changed in March 2008. What guarantee do we have that this arrangement doesn't continue to informally exist under the table?

Does that mean Wikipedia should be totally avoided? No, but we should keep in mind the true nature of Wikipedia when we visit it. For politically charged topics, Wikipedia is the absolute dream disinformation tool. In fact, I think the CIA has probably made infiltrating Wikipedia one of its #1 priorities.

Two important tips: #1 Always visit Wikipedia's sources. They do not say what Wikipedia says they say. #2 Visit the discussion page for an article, you will see the desperate cries of the censored people there.

good points, but

i don't think it comes down to majority opinion; articles can and sometimes do represent the totality of reliable info available on subjects- but if the subject is 'controversial' or taboo according to 'the Establishment', such as 9/11 alt info, then censorship of it is tolerated and approved.

Speaking of tolerated and approved censorship, i just posted this article on another privately controlled website with a history like wiki's; my first post at Kos, and it's being well-received by the user base, and the kossack cops don't seem to have touched it yet- 59 votes for criminal/congressional investigations, 1 not sure and 1 against: