Why did Sibel Edmonds name Jan Schakowsky?

[cali]

What was the point? She has no evidence whatsoever that Schakowsky was blackmailed or that if she was, she buckled to it. She has no evidence that what she's claiming is even true. She doesn't give specifics about her allegations re Schakowsky. What point is there in naming her?

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. Ms. Edmonds is a DUer, why don't you PM her and ask her?

:shrug:

:hi:

[cali]

2. I'll do that.

but I still think my question deserves to be an OP.

[drm604]

3. Is this the bisexual woman that Edmonds wouldn't name before? n/t

[mmonk]

4. Maybe this can help explain the investigation for you.

"They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman."

[cali]

6. no, I've read that and it doesn't explain what I'm asking.

She doesn't know whether she was blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

How is Edmonds' story bolstered by her naming Schakowski? Oh, and what does operational facilitations even mean? It's so broad as to be useless. Why did they need Schakowsky when they already had Hastert the mayor and several other State Senators? What could she do that the others couldn't. Edmonds doesn't say. And if she knows what these facilitations were, why doesn't she say?

[mmonk]

8. First off, she knew what they were trying to do.

Also, when she did her rogues gallery, she didn't post a picture of her but she she did have a blank with a question mark. In a deposition, you answer what the attorneys ask of you.

[Winterblues]

13. Why would you believe her word about Hastert and Blunt and Livingston but not about

Rep. Schakowski? She has been consistent for almost eight years now and has testified under oath several different times. I would think if she was lieing it would have come out by now...

[cali]

15. I'm not saying I do believe her entirely about anyone. She's just been too vague.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. She was deposed about the nature of the security lapses which were covered up

The issue with Schakowsky was one of the smaller ones.

Unfortunately, the nature of the allegations combined with the fact that she's a sitting democrat give it traction.

The best way to deal with this is to stop perseverating about Schakowsky and instead talk about her other allegations.

Edmonds has testified that the former Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, took bribes from Turkey to ignore the trade in nuclear weapons secrets.

Big deal... trivial deal. Let's focus on the big deals.

[cali]

7. It's not a trivial deal to Schakowski. Or to me.

And making this accusation as well as a few other claims Edmonds has made, have my antennae twitching.

[mmonk]

9. And what does your antennae feed say?

[cali]

11. I've already explained that.

I've never wholly bought into the whole everything she says is gospel. I do think that her being muzzled by the gov't gives her some credibility, but that's still not evidence or corroboration. And too many of her claims and answers to questions are too vague for me to really assess.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. I know what you're saying.

I've read the transcript. The level of specificity she used when describing Hastert is... comparatively lacking.

Turkish government's interest and Turkish business entities' interests. ... other activities, too, including being blackmailed for various reasons. ... he used the townhouse that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities. ... foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week."

[cali]

12. It's impossible to assess her claims when she lacks specifics

[mmonk]

14. It also is hard to be specific without giving out methods

which she cannot.

[TheMadMonk]

16. It may well also be that the specifics you are demanding are the subject...

...of classified files which she is still forbiden from refering to.