A Constitutional Question: Someone Please Clarify

Since the major news broke Monday about Sibel Edmond's case (that, I mind you, is extremely explosive, but nevertheless it has been blacklisted my every major TV, Print, and Internet (with the exception of Raw Story, LOVE YA!), I have been thinking (and you don't understand, when I set my mind to think about an issue, I try to see it from every possible angle, which can be time consuming, and in the midst of my thinking (which can be dangerous sometimes :-D) a Constitutional question came up about Sibel Edmonds and similar Whistleblowers cases concerning Congress. It is my understanding that Congress (The House of Representatives as well as the Senate) is one of three EQUAL branches of Government. It is also my understanding that it is the Constitutional requirement, in which they all take a vow to protect and defend, to have oversight of the Executive Branch, the second Separate but Equal Branch of Government who, if I'm not mistaken, has a wide scope in the control of ALL Classified Information, and the third Separate but Equal Branch being the Judicial System, basically being an arbitrator and interpreting the laws, as well as the Constitution, and making sure justice is administered. In Edmonds case, it seems that there has been a total breakdown (but there is a light at the end of the tunnel still burning bright) of the system. The Executive Branch, through then Attorney General John Ashcroft, eventually placed three separate rarely used "State Secret Privilege" to issue a gag order and deny her the Justice she is entitled to, as an American Citizen who has valiantly served her country, under our Constitution. Before we go any further, I would like to divert your attention to the State Secret Privilege for a minute. This privilege, conferred onto the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch is not even a law, but an interpretation of a case, to be specific United States v. Reynolds. Since the Wikipedia article explains it much better than I ever could, and any Wikipedia article is copyright free, so here it is in full (its short, don't worry):

United States v. Reynolds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the creation of the State Secrets Privilege, an unofficial but judicially-recognized extension of presidential power.

The widows of 3 crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case.

Now, isn't it amazing how there were in fact no secrets in their, the government got this abusive privilege by covering up an embarrassing Air Force accident. Okay, back to my question: How can the Executive Branch of Government block Sibel Edmonds from speaking with any Member of Congress, especially the Intel Committee Members who would definitely have the clearance. Although she has talked some in classified sessions, that's the problem, Congress is being complicit in the cover up by not holding pubic hearings (yet!). And, if there is a Member of the House of Representatives who knows any of the gagged material that Sibel Edmonds cannot legally tell, he or she may reveal this information on the Floor of the House without fear of persecution, no matter what is said. So, I guess I'm asking am I right in all of my aspects of Constitutional analysis, since I am no Constitutional expert.