Mike pointed out - and i think he is correct, that this is the first time Sibel mentioned the
Livingston Group (i've written about Livingston here) . Curiously, she said that Livingstone didn't actually work for the Republic of Turkey. The Livingston website says that one of their clients is the "Republic of Turkey" - however Sourcewatch notes:
"The Livingston Group's lobbying return to the Department of Justice as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act listed its work for the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey as providing "advice to the Ambassador from the Republic of Turkey. Numerous meetings were arranged with members of Congress, staff assistants, and other U.S. Government officials to discuss issues to create a more positive environment for Turkey.""Is this a significant difference? maybe. Possibly very significant - my guess is that she is noting that it's the ambassador (and perhaps others at the embassy) that is corrupt, not the (current) Turkish government.
Incidentally, sibel says that Livingston was getting $1.2m p.a. from 'Turkey', although O'Dwyers reported that it was actually $1.8m p.a. (they quote a wapo article which i can't lay my hands on at the mo)
I wonder if Livingston actually has 2 clients - the Republic of Turkey, *and* the Embassy /Ambassador?
Sibel also said that she was offered a position as a special agent, essentially as a bribe. i don't think i knew that.
Incidentally, she also made a point that i've been trying to make here repeatedly - it's my best guess that most of the things we are discussing are best viewed through a prism of pure financial greed - not any ideology, and not because they are trying to manage any 'strategic' global power-balance issues or any such high-falutin ideas.
"SE: When it comes to money, you see that a lot of the other loyalties disappear. The loyalty becomes to the money"it's the money, stupid. it always is.