Did FBI Director Mueller Backup Sibel Edmonds' Espionage Allegations?

[lukery]

One of my readers, Miguel, submitted the following for publishing at my blog:
------------------
Did FBI Director Robert Mueller Backup Sibel's Espionage Allegations in his Testimony Before Congress?

Once in a while, a fairly innocuous sounding statement by a public official slips out in the public sphere, its significance unfathomable to all but the few. Such a moment occurred to me last night. While playing with my young daughter, I left my T.V. tuned on the CSpan2 channel. Suddenly, the droning monotone of FBI Director Robert Mueller resounded, reading his preplanned statement from a sheet of paper. My ears perked up, but only slightly. For someone who has spent a lot of time researching and studying the Sibel Edmonds case, there is always the hope that Mueller will give a tidbit that will give backing, clues or insights to Sibel's allegations.

Last night, I do not believe I was disappointed.

Buried deep within Mr. Mueller's discussion of foreign espionage and FBI counterintelligence measures on Thursday, Mr. Mueller dropped this bombshell, which undoubtedly flew over the heads of most of the Congressmen at the hearing, and certainly was not noticed by the overwhelming majority of C-Span viewers:

… FBI investigations revealed trusted insiders compromising classified or sensitive information to a wide range of U.S. allies.

Bingo!

For 5 years now, Sibel has been alleging in the public arena that high-level U.S. officials have been leaking sensitive classified information to Turkey and Israel (and perhaps Pakistan), purportedly for cash, and that some of these secrets may have been in turn passed on by our "allies" to other countries and or groups not-so-allied with the United States. Sibel has also insisted that any investigation of these officials has been blocked by the 'state secrets privilege'.

We know from various sources, including Sibel herself, the names of these officials: Marc Grossman, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, chief among them.

Of course, it's possible that Mueller is lumping Sibel's allegations with other "trusted insiders" that have passed on secret info to other U.S. "allies. But I firmly believe that Mueller has gone as far as he ever will in confirming key parts of Sibel's story.

But notice the FBI director's careful choice of words:

"trusted insiders" is substituted as a phrase for "high-level elected and unelected U.S. officials"

"compromising " is used instead of "leaking"

Furthermore, Mueller gives no indication of the following:

1) What the FBI is doing, or plans to do, to stop these "trusted insiders" from further compromising national security and

2) Whether these "trusted insiders" may be profiting financially from leaked info (which of course, would show the 'insiders' are hardly pure of motivation)

So based on my critique, let's translate what Mueller is really, in all likelihood, trying to tell the Congress and American people:

FBI wiretaps indicate several high-level government officials, including Congressmen and prominent Neocons, are leaking sensitive classified data, some of which could end up in the hands of terrorists, for their own financial gain. It's really an awful terrible situation which could come back to haunt the United States in a big way, but because these particular crooks are so well-connected, we aren't going to do anything about it.

If Mr. Mueller's candor would have been matched by bluntness, I think his statement to Congress would have perked a bit more interest in the C-Span viewing public.
-------------
how about that?


update:
ps: sibel's NSWBC is fundraising at the moment http://nswbc.org/donation.htm
i wrote about why you should support the NSWBC here

[bleever]

1. K&R!

Very interesting admission, and a great catch.

[lukery]

2. great catch

miguel is an expert in these matters - and has helped me more than i can express.

[leveymg]

3. One of those shiny little nuggets in the pitch black bottom of the pan.

Good digging, Miguel.

Now, someone in Congress needs to ask Mueller to elaborate on that comment. How come they can't think of these things themselves?

[lukery]

4. congress doesn't want to know

more and more i get the sense that congress simply doesn't want to know what the hell is going on. ignorance is bliss - and the congresscritters love their bliss.

[StateSecrets]

11. Right On

Unfortunately you are right; again.

Thanks for the great post.

[Independent_Liberal]

5. Mueller needs to be subpoenaed!

Thanks Luke!

[lukery]

6. subpoenaed?

unlikely. these guys just seem to be able to get away with anything. again and again.

sigh.

[Independent_Liberal]

14. Well, they used to.

Mainly because of the complacent media, Congress and uninformed public. But things are going to be different now.

[lukery]

15. i like yuor confidence

fingers crossed.

[mod mom]

19. Great find. Was there follow up to his comment, or did it go unnoticed?

[ftr23532]

9. that might also a good time to ask a few more questions about BCCI

From the http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/08just.htm">Kerry Committee report:

BCCI AND LAW ENFORCEMENT:

The Justice Department

Introduction

Over the past two years, the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has been criticized in numerous editorials in major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, reflecting similar criticism on the part of several Congressmen, including the chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Kerry; the chief Customs undercover officer who handled the BCCI drug-money laundering sting, Robert Mazur; his superior at Customs, Commissioner William von Raab; New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; former Senate investigator Jack Blum, and, within the Justice Department itself, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen.

Typical editorials criticized Justice's prosecution of BCCI as "sluggish," "conspicuously slow," "inattentive," and "lethargic." Several editorials noted that there had been "poor cooperation" by Justice with other agencies. One stated that "the Justice Department seems to have been holding up information that should have been passed on" to regulators and others. Another that "the Justice Department's secretive conduct in dealing with BCCI requires a better explanation than any so far offered."(1)

In response to all these critics, the Justice Department has suggested that their comments are ill-informed, their motives suspect, and that in time, the wisdom and probity of the Justice Department's approach would emerge. As Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Mueller III stated to the Subcommittee in prepared testimony on November 21, 1991:

We are responsible, ethical prosecutors. We will not indict simply to get favorable press coverage or to quiet our critics. We require evidence sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will not indict if that evidence does not exist . . . It is premature to assess our performance. We cannot even respond fully to criticism, because we cannot reveal grand jury proceedings or the details of our investigations. Our record when the investigations and prosecutions have concluded will speak for itself. . . a fair review of the available facts will show that the Department of Justice has done an excellent job on the BCCI investigations, and that the criticisms of the Department are fundamentally unfair.(2)

Unfortunately, as time has passed it has become increasingly clear that the Justice Department did indeed make critical errors in its handling of BCCI prior to the appointment of Attorney General Barr in October, 1991, and moreover masked inactivity in prosecuting and investigating the bank by advising critics tat matters pertaining to BCCI were "under investigation," when in fact they were not.

...

While mid-level officials in the US Attorney's office in Tampa worked long hours under atrocious conditions to bring the money laundering case against BCCI which arose out of Operation C-Chase, it is clear now, and should have been clear as of the date of the C-Chase indictment against BCCI in October 1988, that BCCI represented much more than a drug money laundering case.

Nevertheless, the US Attorney's office chose to bring, and not to supersede, a limited, money-laundering case against the bank in Florida and indicted several mid-level BCCI officials, throwing out a possible Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case that would have enabled it to have gone after all of BCCI's assets in the United States -- possibly including any interest it had in the First American bank.

...

LOL, it's telling about Sibel Edmonds's case that even the DOJ's BCCI investigation/cover-up was aggressive in comparison. A watered down drug money laundering charge seems pretty good when compared to a gag order, retroactive reclassification, State Secrets Privileges, and unexplained case dismissals! :bounce:

[lukery]

10. mueller

hmmm - i'd forgotten that mueller was there for bcci. thnx.

and you're right - at this point we'd probably be happy to settle for a dodgy, fraudulent investigation of sibel's case. that'd be a start.

[goforit]

7. Hmm...Is their a connection to Treasury Secretary Paulson's arrest in Germany?

[lukery]

16. ?

i saw a report about that - that's kinda weird.

[lukery]

17. ?

i saw a report about that - that's kinda weird.

[G_j]

8. bingo

again

[ajeffersonian]

12. Good ears, Miguel - thanks for the post Lukery

Thanks for picking this up and informing us. You're right on its importance and that it wouldn't be picked up by most.

This is probably the best that we can expect from Mueller - there is no way he is going to be more specific. But at least he is acknowledging that it has happened (and presumably is still happening). But what, if anything, is the FBI doing about it? One would think that he wouldn't report it unless he is prepared for followup - and/or unless he is setting the stage for an announcement - maybe just wishful thinking. At any rate its just further confirmation of what Sibel has been saying all along - not that we need any - but there are some folks out there that do.

[lukery]

13. followup?

thanks ajeffersonian. interesting point about whether Mueller was prepared for followup. On one hand, as miguel notes, it was quite an oblique reference, otoh, he certainly *chose* to include it in his testimony.

I'd love to see the drafts of the speech to see how they eventually got to: "Other FBI investigations revealed trusted insiders compromising classified or sensitive information to a wide range of U.S. allies."

The sentence reads as though it was carefully written. and re-written.

[elehhhhna]

18. K&R 15. Rate it up!