Has Sybil Edmunds provided any evidence that Rep. Schakowsky

[cali]

had a lesbian affair with Turkish agents that was filmed because her D.C. home was bugged? I know Edmunds says that she doesn't know if Schakowsky actually buckled to blackmail, but I haven't seen any real evidence that backs up her claims.

It's a serious charge and should be backed up by iron clad evidence.

[movonne]

1. Well it seems to me that a lot of people were afraid for this to come

out...

[LSparkle]

2. Whoa -- do we know it's Schakowsky?

I heard there was a Congresswoman who was potentially
being blackmailed ... Has she ruled out running for
Burris' Senate seat and maybe this is coming out to
discourage her? She's a good progressive and I'm
sure the wingnuts would LOVE to keep her out of that
seat.

[cali]

4. Yes, we're sure that Edmunds has identified Schakowsky.

[Winterblues]

3. She testified "UNDER OATH" to in a Court case

She set herself up pretty well if she gave false testimony...

[cali]

5. I still want hard evidence of a charge this serious.

[Winterblues]

6. Sworn testimony of an FBI Agent is pretty damn hard evidence.

People go to jail every single day based only on the evidence provided by sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer....Their word is afterall LAW. She has provided sworn testimony to Congress as well, and unless the State Secrets Act is relaxed to show her transcribed interpretataions, her word will have to suffice.

[cali]

8. she was never an FBI agent.

she was a contractor. She was contracted to be a translater for the FBI. That's hardly being a law enforcement officer. Ergo, your premise is without any validity.

[Jazzgirl]

7. Uh....this side of the recording, which I'm sure the FBI

is NOT going to part with, Sibel's testimony has been quite credible. Why would she lie?

[cali]

9. I have no idea why she'd lie or if she lied. for all I know she was duped.

[Jazzgirl]

11. She was very hesitant to even mention the name when she

first divulged a bisexual congresswoman. I saw the deposition and she was not very comfortable but I don't think she has any reason to lie either. I don't care if Schakowsky (sp?)did have lesbian relationships but the bigger story is was she blackmailed because of it.

[cali]

12. as I said, I need some evidence before I'll believe it.

[mmonk]

10. Prove she is lying. Or better, tell us why make something like that up?

It wouldn't necessarily make her case of the things she found any stronger. And remember, she isn't "charging" Schakowsky.

[cali]

13. uh, I don't need to prove she's lying. SHE is the one making the claims

she needs to provide evidence for those claims. And she is making strong claims. It is incumbent on her to provide evidence.

[mmonk]

20. I believe you are the one making accusations.

Sworn testimony was hers against Turkish interests. Why don't you counter with a pro Turkish interests argument if you have any evidence?

[cali]

21. asking for evidence is not, except in loony tunes world, making an accusation

you aren't even making a scrap of fucking sense. She made the heavy duty accusation. she has not provided any evidence for it.

[mmonk]

23. May I ask why you are attacking my friend? Why did you pull

out this particular part? Are you not trying to suggest in some way she is being dishonest? What evidence can she provide in a deposition of what she found concerning classified documents and information on recordings? On her state secrets gallery, she did not provide a picture of her. So are you making out she is attacking her? What is your purpose exactly?

[cali]

24. asking that someone who is making a serious accusation, provide

some evidence, is not an unreasonable thing. Whether or not she's being dishonest is something I cannot know. My purpose is clear: I want evidence of her serious accusations about Schakowsky. If she doesn't have evidence or corroboration she shouldn't have named her.

[mmonk]

33. If she knew what the Turks were trying to do with her,

she should remain silent about it at a deposition? I still don't get your anger overkill. Why not just say you don't believe that part and leave it at that? Nobody would get bent out of shape or anything. This reminds me of those Larry Johnson attacks he interjects out of the blue to stir the pot.

[cali]

35. there's no anger or overkill. simply questioning and critical thinking

I'm not aure what, that Edmonds has claimed, that I do or don't believe. And your comparison of my questions to Johnson, is deliberately insulting and completely off base. Johnson's diatribes were filled with bigotry and fould language. I have made exactly zero attacks on Ms. Edmonds and you know it. That you want to shut down any questioning of Ms. Edmonds has long been apparent. I find that very ugly indeed.

[Beer on a stick]

36. (facepalm)

[cali]

37. no kidding. and now that poster is nuttily accusing me of making Larry Johnson

type attacks. Distressing to see that simply questioning results in such frantic bullshit.

[Beer on a stick]

40. Logic and the rules of evidence are lost on many people. 'Twas ever thus.

[Selatius]

14. Could she even prove it if the files are classifed and locked away in the FBI?

[cali]

15. I'm not suggesting she needs to prove it but that she needs to provide

even some modest evidence. This is a woman's life we're talking about here. And she's a solid progressive. Sorry, but I need some evidence.

[Selatius]

16. I would go further. Such a claim merits nothing but solid evidence like recording tapes and files.

Do we even know if she still has access to those things?

[KoKo]

17. She will divulge her evidence when she's given the hearing Waxman promised her

a couple of years ago. She's now figuring Obama isn't going to throw her in jail and if she ends up "offed" like the "DC Madam" (the one found hung in an outbuilding of her mother's home) then she knows the backing she has will eventually get the truth out.

"The Proof" about Shakowsky will be when she finally gets a HEARING.

What's so difficult to understand about that? :shrug:

[cali]

18. not good enough. not nearly. she named Schakowski and she needs to

provide some evidence for those very heavy duty allegations.

[KoKo]

19. She's hoping that her "trump card" will FINALLY get an INVESTIGATION!

Putting the charge out there might break open that "seal of silence" that was put on her so many years ago. Remember, Henry Waxman promised her a hearing. He failed her. She's finally thrown a bombshell, hoping to get SOMEONE to look at her EVIDENCE!

What else can a whistle blower do when the "Empire" is snuffing what you want to say? If what she says isn't true...then let the MSM go after her and counter her claims. :shrug: What's wrong with that?

[PuraVidaDreamin]

22. Maybe Waxman didn't go forward with his promise because

He new what she was claiming she heard while translating on JS WAS true, and he didn't want to lose
a true progressive.

[eomer]

25. You already know, don't you, that the evidence is in FBI custody?

Tapes and transcripts in FBI custody.

[cali]

26. without any evidence she shouldn't have named Schakowsky

or at least corroboration.

[eomer]

27. Without any evidence?

How do you get from "the evidence is in FBI custody" to "without any evidence"?

[cali]

28. uh, because evidence has to be presented. you can't simply claim

there's evidence. It has to be seen and examined. I don't know that it really exists just because she claims it.

[WeDidIt]

30. Is that evidence down the hall from the UFO and Bigfoot evidence?

:eyes:

[DireStrike]

34. If the evidence is in FBI custody

Sibel does not have it. She is without any evidence.

[Bonobo]

44. Why? She isn't presenting a case against Schakowsky. Why does she NEED to have evidence?

She has no legal responsibility to present evidence of her claim.

[WeDidIt]

29. Sibel Edmonds has no credibility, IMO.

She's akin to Orly Taitz in that she makes spurios claims with no hard evidence.

[cali]

31. that's actually not true

An internal DOJ review found her allegations credible and worthy of review. That said, I don't see the point of naming Schakowsky publically without providing evidence. It's slimy on her part.

[WeDidIt]

32. I don't buy Edmonds claims on anything now

I doubt every word that comes out of her mouth now.

Zero credibility.

[Overseas]

38. Gee when are you going to post your third OP on the topic?

Your first OP on the topic, 3:50 pm.

Your second OP on the topic, 4:24 pm.

Are you going to post a third at 5:15 pm?

Just to be sure the scandalous allegation about an esteemed progressive legislator doesn't sink on the lists?

I don't understand why your second OP (within 40 minutes of your first posting) couldn't have been made as part of your first one.

[laughingliberal]

39. Refresh my memory

It's my impression that giving a deposition is about testifying to the facts as you know them. Where is it the job of witnesses to provide the evidence in cases?

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Only her word

Her word used be enough for many DUers, but for some reason there are a lot less people defending her.

[cali]

43. her word's never been enough and it shouldn't be.

[rhett o rick]

45. And how does Freddie the Freeper feel about her? Tell us your feeling F'in Freddie. nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. No. n/t