Reply #123: You Are Going Farther Than The Evidence Supports, Sir [View All]

[The Magistrate]

The Inspector General 's office did look into whether Ms. Edmonds had presented evidence of espionage within the F.B.I.; they would not have stated they did not think she had provided sufficient evidence of that if they had not done so. They stated that her allegations should have been investigated more thoroughly, and that if they had been, it would have been found that some of them had support from documents or other witnesses, but this is not nearly the same thing as stating they amount to evidence of espionage; it is simply saying some of her statements certainly were not fictions.

Even in regard to Hastert and Rep. Harman, you exceed the evidence by a long sight. Hastert's subsequent employment by a Turkish lobbying arm does not suffice to demonstrate that during his tenure in Congress he was suborned or controlled by Turkish intelligence. We have so far only Ms. Edmonds' word for that, and it is her credibility we are engaged in assessing: it is not established yet. Rep. Harman was caught in one of those things that is really not so obviously criminal as it can be made out to be, that are part of normal political practice: she may well have been subjected to pressure from the Bush administration for some purpose of its own, but that does not apply to the question of Turkish control of Congress alleged by Ms. Edmonds.

The claims of Ms. Edmonds against Rep. Shakowsky contain obvious factual errors, and appear very late in the record of her allegations. They are highly suspect, and at this point cannot be treated as truthful.