EXCLUSIVE: Schakowsky Responds to Edmonds Claim, Vehemently Denies Lesbian Tryst With Turkish Agent[

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



Exclusive: Schakowsky Responds to Edmonds Claim, Vehemently Denies Lesbian Tryst With Turkish Agent
FBI whistleblower rebuts Illinois Congresswoman's response with details, specific questions and polygraph challenge...

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)'s office has vehemently denied serious allegations published by The American Conservative magazine on Tuesday, in which FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds names the Congresswoman as having participated in a lesbian affair with a Turkish agent, and being secretly video-taped for possible blackmail purposes while doing so.

Schakowsky's communications director, Trevor Kincaid, sent us a formal response to the allegations about her, as published as part of the AmCon cover story out today (http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/) In the response, Kincaid describes the claims made about the Congresswoman in the interview by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi, as a "hit piece" and a "complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by 'birthers' that President Obama is not an American citizen."

The Congresswoman's office also disputed a number of details in Edmonds' account by offering information they believe rebuts the claims made in the article. They further charge that "A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story."

Edmonds' has responded with specific points in her own rebuttal to the Schakowsky response, and has included a number of direct questions for the Congresswoman in return. She also states that she is "willing to take (a) public polygraph ... on these points if she accepts doing the same." The BRAD BLOG has shared that rebuttal with Kincaid, and the office has responded to that as well, though they failed to directly answer the questions posed by Edmonds, or accept the challenge to a polygraph test.

The interviewer Giraldi has also responded to several shots taken at AmCon in the original Schakowsky response, in which Kincaid writes that the magazine's "goal was not apparently good journalism, but to fabricate one more story line for the right wing smear machine and conspiracy theorists everywhere."

The complete responses, from everyone, all follow at the link below, along with context and additional background...

FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

[elleng]

1. Damn!

Stuff like this bound to happen.

[tblue]

2. Dang! Why couldn't it be Michele Bachman? nt

[JackRiddler]

86. Because she's a Stepford wife?

[orleans]

3. brad--her gag order was lifted for her to give a depo. in an ohio case?

(your link to that transcript isn't working btw)

who lifted the gag order and what is the ohio case about? thanks.

[elleng]

7. gag order not 'lifted'; just not enforced.

Edmonds' Aug 8 testimony was subpoenaed by David Krikorian (Democratic 2010 Congressional candidate- OH) to support his defense against a lawsuit brought by Jean Schmidt, R-OH. Krikorian had circulated a flier in his 2008 campaign in which he alleged that Schmidt had accepted “blood money” from Turkish interests in exchange for opposing a Congressional resolution acknowledging the Turkish genocide of Armenians in World War I. The deposition took place in Washington, DC at the headquarters of the National Whistleblower Center.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sibel-edmonds-deposition-deep-corruption-beneath-surface

[BradBlog]

70. As elleng explained...

The case was/is in the Ohio Elections Commission between Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) and David Krikorian (independet in '08, set to run as a D in '10). After being subpoeanaed, Sibel informed the DoJ of her intention to answer the deposition, unless they chose to re-invoke the State Secrets Privilege. They didn't, so she testified under oath.

Which link to which transcript isn't working? Tried the links to the PDF of the deposition in my story (http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/SibelEdmondsDeposition_Transcript_080809.pdf) and it seems to be working just fine.

[troubledamerican]

4. Ka-BOOM

How is the media going to ignore Sibel now?

[elleng]

5. Not, if there's enough 'juice,' esp. about Dems.

[vadawg]

6. well its got to be investigated now, and if true the congresswoman needs to step down or be removed

i wonder how far and deep this will all go if its true..

[elleng]

8. I'm sure there's a lot more,

about many more members etc.

[vadawg]

9. i gotta admit to schadenfreude when it comes to politicians getting caught

and its always the most outrageous things that get them, no simple DUI or anything like that, its always the live boy or dead girl thing..

[Hardrada]

10. Well, this is the Turk and Armenian thing which goes back to 1915!

[elleng]

11. Nothing like history!

Must admit its her NAME that attracted me to schakowsky!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzMGzBKRttU

[jberryhill]

40. Yup /nt

[cali]

21. yeah, nothing like having one of the more progressive dems in the House slimed

with no evidence. That just rocks!

[Bonobo]

48. So now I see why you are so "dubious". Because it hurts our agenda.

Well that's not a good enough reason.

[cali]

58. nah, I've always been doubtful about Edmonds

but yeah, I don't like people being slimed without any evidence whatsoever.

[JackRiddler]

87. Oh, please. The targets here are the Turkish lobby, AIPAC, Perle, Grossman & a slew of right wing...

ROGUES.

None of them "progressive," though I've seen that you find much to defend about some of them. Which is what's really got you, I presume.

Schakowsky is the least of it. It happens that these allegations are the most likely to open the FBI's case again. Which Edmonds only claims to be reporting, as the messenger.

That is all.

[pundaint]

12. Not so fast

There was no assertion that the Congresswoman did anything as a result of the alleged blackmail scheme. As to the sex allegation, it's time we got over it. The Republicans sleep, or hangout in public stalls, with anyone they care to and don't resign. And since I really don't give a damn about the sexual activities outside my presence, and the Republicans don't mind, I think we should just ignore all of it in future. Could we raise a quorum in Congress if everything was known?

[Go2Peace]

13. Blackmail by a foreign country is not an important matter?

If it is true it is good the truth come out. I agree though, it is not the sex we should be concerned about.

[cali]

14. and there's not a shred of evidence to back Edmonds claims.

Nothing. No corroboration. Zilch.

[BradBlog]

73. Simply not true...

I'm sorry, but your claim of "Not a shred of evidence ... Nothing. No corroboration. Zilch" is just not true.

Whether all of her allegations are accurate or not, we don't have enough information to know at this time, but there is a long trail of various evidence and/or corroboration along the way.

Just a few of those corroborative/evidentiary dots (which I don't have time at the moment to link, detail, but just wanted to counter your claim):

+ Grassley on CBS' 60 Minutes: "Absolutely, she's credible...And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story." | http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

+ Declassified version of DoJ Inspector General's report finds her and/or her allegations to be "credible" "serious" and "warrant a thorough and careful review." | http://www.thememoryhole.com/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

+ Grassley/Leahy write letters on her behalf to DoJ | http://www.thememoryhole.com/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

+ Sunday Times of London corroborates case number offered by Sibel (after FBI denied existence of case number): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

+ Hastert attorney refuses to deny Sibel claims about money from Turkish interests (as detailed in Vanity Fair, 2005) | http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2386

+ Hastert ultimately becomes $35k/month official lobbyist for Turkey (years after Sibel's allegations about him receiving payoffs from Turkish interests while Speaker of the House). Circumstantially corroborative, perhaps, but make of it what you will in any case. | http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6034

There is more (and perhaps others will have time to offer it), but I don't have time to track it down for the moment.

And, again, the various corroborations and pieces of evidence for various elements of the story don't necessarily mean all of it are true, in and of themselves. But I thought it important to counter your wholly inaccurate "Nothing. No corroboration. Zilch." comment.

Hope that's helpful!

[WeDidIt]

39. Sibel Edmonds got nowhere when blowing bullshit to impress the left

so now she's pulling a Bev Harris and selling her bullshit to the right.

[Bonobo]

49. You would think she would have fact checked that Shackowsky mother thing if...

she was intentionally lying. I guess she must be really stooooooopid too, huh?

[BradBlog]

75. Again, simply not accurate...

The Schakowsky element had LONG been a part of her allegations. She had long ago identified (without naming) Schakowsky as among those in Congress related to this matter (though, unlike those she had previously identified, by name or photo, she has long held, and still does, that she doesn't know if Schakowsky did anything criminal).

Furthermore, Phil Giraldi, who I presume is who you mean as "the right", has long been covering her story. Both at American Conservative and Dallas Morning News, etc.

For the record, it's my understanding (though I haven't confirmed it personally), that Giraldi was an Obama supporter. FWIW.

Make what you will of the allegations to date -- Schakowsky's denial, Edmonds' rebuttal to it, challenge to a polygraph on these points (she's already taken one on other aspects of the case), etc. -- but allegations here such as she "got nowhere when blowing bullshit to impress the left" so is now "selling her bullshit to the right" is just factually incorrect.

I'll not bother to speak to the Bev Harris slam, as this thread is already hot enough. Suffice to say, I find it as inappropriate and inaccurate as the rest of your general comment here.

I'm sorry Sibel seems to have named a Dem you like (I like Schakowsky as well), but to slime Sibel because of it, or with inaccurate slime, seems just wholly inappropriate and disingenous to me, and needs to be called out. So I have.

[Vinnie From Indy]

93. That is fucking bullshit!

Not a single one of the Edmonds allegations against Shakowski have anything to back them up beyond her word!!!!!

The laundry list of people you say that support Edmonds credibility are completely irrelevant to her claim against Shakowski. I actually find your post nothing more than a hit job against Shakowski. It sucks and so does your never-ending branding of news already reported on by others as being "exclusive." I hope all DU'ers remember your participation in this hit job on Shakowski when it is found that there is not a single, credible shred of evidence that Edmonds claims are true.

You should be ashamed to pass this shit on without a single bit of evidence beyond Edmonds word.

[cascadiance]

147. How do you KNOW that sir?

Do you have an insider's view?

Do YOU have secret access to the documents/wiretaps that she had access to? If no, then quit CLAIMING that you know what the truth is when you DON'T!

We don't need a "purist" attitude amongst Democrats just playing "cheerleader" for their own side. We need a "purist" attitude of wanting to know the truth, no matter how painful it is! Personally I don't want EITHER Democrats and Republicans to be involved in such corruption! We'd have a lot better state of affairs if both would work honorably to conduct politics without the heavy corruption we have now, even if we have big disagreements on policy.

Corruption is one thing I WILL NOT TOLERATE, whether it is from Dems or Republicans, or any other party for that matter! Playing partisanship is just what is going to continue to divide our nation more and more, and get us to the point where we can't unify to get a set of decent congress critters elected with a bipartisan effort to reform campaign financing, health care, "free trade", etc. to work for the common good of the people, not the corrupt elements of our corporate power elites.

If we keep letting them divide us on party lines or on "liberal" vs. "conservative" lines, we'll get nowhere.

Ignore Sibel Edmonds at our own peril. She's one of our few chances to force our government to face the truth about its corrupt state of affairs now.

You don't know that her interpreting of "the mother" was an honest or intentional mistake. There are many reasons she might have attributed it incorrectly, and many of them could have been made honestly. Unless you can PROVE that she perpetuated a falsehood intentionally, then it is a worthless note.

I think a good question for lawyers from both sides on October 1st if she is deposed again, is who she notified of her discovery of Schankowsky's liason and when. That way, if it was told to folks like the Inspector General and the two senators, etc. before they vouched for her, they are as guilty of "perpetuating a lie" if that's what it was as she was.

As I noted before, the only thing that is alleged about Schankowsky is that she was vulnerable to and subject to blackmail. Whether she actually responded illegally to the blackmail and was being used is not being alleged nor has it been proven. It may or may not be true. If I'm Schankowsky, I'd acknowledge the affair if it were true, but would claim that I did nothing wrong. I think most of her supporters (including me!) would still support her if we all felt that she wouldn't put herself in a position to be blackmailed again, or would level with us in case it was attempted again. And perhaps she could in turn be a hero and challenge others in congress to also come forward if they have had blackmail attempts made against them (but have done nothing wrong) to expose that manipulation so that we can all know what is being done to warp our government and perhaps preventing prosecution of criminals from our former administration.

[cali]

16. No, it doesn't have to be investigated just because some

woman who worked as a contractor for all of 6 months as a translator makes some very vague claims with NO evidence. The more I read of what Edmonds has to say, the more I doubt her.

[Bonobo]

50. LOL! The more I read from you, the more I think you don't WANT to know the truth. t

[robinlynne]

102. If it's true that she slept with someone? Why does she have to step down?

[cigsandcoffee]

137. I'll hazard a guess, here.

Politicians who are privy to classified information should have better sense than allowing themselves to be trapped by blackmailing foreign agents in a videotaped sexual fling? Bad judgment, and all that.

That's if it's true, of course.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Perhaps as long as they ignored Larry Sinclair

[cali]

15. Vehemently denies? Nice way to make her denial look suspicious

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. It was the height of stupidity for her office to respond to this story

So far to mainstream news source was covering it. By giving a detailed response, she may be making an actual news story out of it.

[cali]

37. I disagree. She had to point out Edmonds lies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. The Obama camapign ignored Larry Sinclair, and the seemed to work out well

[No Elephants]

79. LOL. The "Whitey" tape? The media hinted at that quite a bit. It turned out to be bs, though.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. No. This was the nutjob who claimed he had gay sex with Obama

The fact that you do not know his name shows that the Obama campaign's strategy was an effective one.

[cascadiance]

148. She has to PROVE that they were lies...

She hasn't proved that Sibel has misrepresented anything intentionally to go after her. She may have pointed out a mistake, but she hasn't shown that it was an intentional "lie" and not an honest mistake.

Unless she had PROOF, then she's banking on the ability to prove that Sibel intentionally misrepresented the facts. If she really did have an affair, and she did nothing else wrong, then this is a complete wrong way to respond to her allegations. A more productive one wouldn't have been one of hostility, but one to "correct" the facts, and then "inquire" how Sibel had arrived at this "truth" if it wasn't true. That would make it appear a lot less like someone trying to be overly defensive. I think I still would bet on Sibel at this point if this were to go to court. Sibel isn't afraid to take a lie detector test. How about Schankowsky?

[MannyGoldstein]

17. How's The Air on Planet Xenon?

This all smells looney. Checking on the date of Schakowsky's mother's death shouldn't be too difficult via Google, particularly if she died while Schakowski held office.

Also:

"And finally, most importantly: if she denies: I am willing to take public polygraph (independent polygraph service) on these points if she accepts doing the same."

Why does Edmonds demand that Schakowsky also take the test? If Edmonds is confident that she's telling the truth, and the polygraphs work as advertised, then she should go ahead and take ons unilaterally.

[cali]

18. agreed. there's something about

Edmonds that doesn't pass the sniff test. She worked as a contractor for the FBI for all of 6 months and yet she knows reams of state secrets? The way she speculates on crap bugs me- like her speculation on Obama. Her vagueness is troubling. She's exceedingly vague on issue after issue. Edmonds started by accusing a co-worker of espionage. Then she got fire. Only after being fired did all her accusations come forth.

[bertman]

45. Cali, it would likely only take six DAYS for any newly-hired FBI employee in any sensitive

position to realize that there's a very good reason they make you have a Top Secret clearance to work in those positions. Partly it's because of the state secrets/national security element, but it's also because there is so much illegal activity and nefarious conduct going on in those agencies that they want the employees to understand that they'd better keep their mouths shut.

Your naivete is showing when you suggest that an FBI employee who was working as a translator for sensitive communications immediately after 9-11 would not be exposed to many "highly interesting" conversations that were obtained from wiretaps, taped conversations, or emails.

You don't necessarily have to work in an environment like that for very long to discover how the system works and who might be the good guys or the bad guys.

I'm hoping that this whole episode will get serious attention so we can find out if Edmonds is telling the truth or if she's just a disgruntled former employee who is trying to cause trouble. After reading the story of what she reported and what she has gone through because of her refusal to back down on this, it's hard to imagine that she is doing this for any reason other than to get the truth out.

Your oversimplification of her firing makes me suspect your reasons for such an intense attack on Edmonds.

You've probably already seen this link, but in case you have not, here's a brief summary of the events surrounding her hiring, her firing, and some relevant info you might want to review;

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

[Vinnie From Indy]

94. I'll tell you what Bertman

If Edmonds allegations against Shakowski are proven to be true within a six month time frame with corroborating witnesses, I will buy you a bottle of your favorite spirit!

Edmonds and Brad are full of shit! This post is a shameful example of a hit job without a single shred of proof beyond Edmonds word.

[bertman]

114. Thanks for the offer, Vinnie. Sad to say, my gout prevents me from imbibing now;

however, I might be compelled by good fortune to take a swig or two of some golden elixir such as tequila.

Regarding Brad and Sibel Edmonds, I have followed Bradblog for a couple of years and found it to be accurate and compelling. This situation with Edmonds could be concocted, but it could well be legit. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it unfolds.

[Vinnie From Indy]

141. Agreed!

Cheers!

[MrMickeysMom]

108. I'm curious...

How long have you been following the information coming from Sibel Edmonds?

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. If you are crazy and believe your fantasies, you can pass a polygraph

I'm sure that Orly Taitz can pass one.

[BuyingThyme]

41. Edmonds does not claim to have witnessed these events.

She claims to have heard others describing them.

[Bonobo]

53. If Sibel took it by herself and passed, people would say ho-hum. Thus...both. nt

[Stand and Fight]

100. Polygraphs don't work. All they measure is how nervous you are. Period. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

22. Cut from the same cloth as the birther movement.

A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story."

I will bet you that 20% of the population will believe these mad rantings, just as the birther movement has its own true believers. No offense, Brad, but Edmonds is a nutcase.


[

[cali]

23. I'm glad to see that there are others here who aren't buying

her charges unthinkingly.

[Ian David]

24. The whole lesbian blackmail thing is a little over-the-top.

I was on-board with this whole thing until THAT came up.

She's gonna have to prove this.

But if she was lying or delusional, why would it be THAT particular congresswoman?

[cali]

25. I was never all the way on board with Edmonds. Her original charge

was about a co-worker. It wasn't until after she was fired that she started making her more startling accusations. As for why Schakowsky, who knows? It could be the truth, or she could be lying for any number of unknown reasons.

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Ironic how that gag order worked.

The more she is allowed to speak, the less believable her accusations become.

[cali]

27. it's her vagueness both in the recent depo and

and the interview that trouble me. And there was no need whatsoever for her to name Schakowsky.

[mopinko]

35. maybe she figured she was being ignore talking about thugs, but dems in the

crosshairs always get more air.
jan is my congressman, and i find this all hard to believe. i just can't see her being ashamed of anything she would do. i guess i don't know what happens in her personal life, but her husband doesn't strike me as the controlling sort.
it does seem a little too tidy that she decides to take out not only one of the most progressive members of congress, but also one of the most powerful. and one very close to the president.

and why isn't fat denny on the spit here?

[WeDidIt]

36. The facts of Schakowsky's life directly contradict Edmonds bullshit story

Sibel Edmonds is batshit insane.

There can be no other conclusion.

[BradBlog]

77. For the record, it was ALWAYS a part of her allegations. Didn't just 'come up' ...

...only thing that's different here, on that charge, is that she's named the name publicly, on the record (and offered additional on-the-record details through a public deposition, and a magazine interview, etc.)

Anyway, I can vouch for that element ALWAYS being a part of her story, whatever you decide to make of it. At least as long as I've known her.

[Ian David]

83. Then again, it might not be crazy... U.S. Protests Russian 'Sex Tape' Used2 Smear American Diplomat

U.S. Protests Russian 'Sex Tape' Used to Smear American Diplomat
Sex, Lies and Videotape in Moscow; Cold War Tactics Merge with the Internet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6614153

[Recursion]

54. Thank you

I've been troubled for a while at how willing a lot of DU is to just take anything Edmonds says at face value as truth.

[Vinnie From Indy]

95. A - Fucking - Men!!!

I hope all DU'ers remember that Brad participated in and assisted with this hit job on Shakowski!

[cali]

28. your headline is disgraceful. simply a variation on when did you stop beating your wife

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. Response from Schakowsky's office

"The American Conservative's most recent hit piece against Congresswoman Schakowsky is complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by "birthers" that President Obama is not an American citizen. The source of this story subscribes to the bizarre conspiracy theory that elements of the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story.

It would be just as accurate to say the Congresswoman was kidnapped by little green men and carried in a space ship to the planet Xenon.

From the start, the fantasy is riddled with factual errors. It claims that an "intimate" relationship between a fictional female Turkish spy and the congresswoman began at the funeral of the congresswoman's mother after 2000, however, Rep. Schakowsky's mother died thirteen years earlier in 1987.

Furthermore, it is alleged that the "relationship" occurred in the congresswoman's bugged town house even though she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life. Congresswoman Schakowsky shares a small apartment with her husband in a busy Washington, DC apartment building and owns a single-family home in Illinois.

In fact not one of the events in this fantastic tale ever took place.

Had The American Conservative, (which was founded by Pat Buchanan) adhered to normal journalistic standards it would have fact checked the story and contacted our office. Its goal was not apparently good journalism, but to fabricate one more story line for the right wing smear machine and conspiracy theorists everywhere."

[cali]

30. this deserves an OP

do you want to do it?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. Done! Thanks!

[WeDidIt]

34. Sibel Edmonds is batshit insane

That's all there is to it.

She makes Orly Taitz seem reasonable by comparison.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. My take on Sibel. I believe she came across impt info while translating for the FBI

Valid info that might hurt very important people. She has been muzzled for years.

Then comes along other "sympathetic" people who start to "share" their "sensitive" information with her, and she becomes an advocate for them, while she is being used by these dis-information agents. They are taking advantage of her and using her and hoping that those who have supported Edmonds in her plight, will buy these lies, hook, line and sinker. I don't think Sibel is crazy, just naive and vulnerable.

[drm604]

66. That makes sense.

She seemed credible at the start. Why the gag order if she was simply fabricating stuff?

But then she comes along with these claims that now seem to be at odds with the facts. Why? Your theory would explain it.

"Naive and vulnerable" fits the person I've seen better than "crazy". People are comparing her to Taitz and I just don't see it - she's nowhere near Taitz-like behavior.

[glitch]

67. That is a standard neutralizing operation, if I recall correctly. Poisoning the well? nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

69. Exactly and this smells of that to high heavens.

[WeDidIt]

31. Yep, never thought it was possible, but Sibel Edmonds is now officially more batshit insane

than Orly Taitz

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

33. Oh jeez, this ought to be a movie

they could call it

'Kill the Messenger'



K&R


Thank you Sibel.

[cali]

43. no, more like question the messenger. particularly as she's been

caught in a clear lie.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

71. says you

it's easy to call someone a liar when you don't have to say it to their face.

Sorry, I believe her. You don't have to, but slandering her when she is on your (our) side is bad taste.

[BuyingThyme]

38. Could she be a NOC?

Anybody know where she went to school?

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Northern Oklahoma College?

:shrug:

[LiberalAndProud]

42. Did she just forget to mention all this to the OIG? Really?

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html

During the course of our investigation, the OIG interviewed more than 50 individuals, including FBI employees, contractors, and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials. The OIG interviewed Edmonds on three separate occasions, in April, June, and November of 2002. On January 28, 2004, the OIG wrote to Edmonds' attorney offering to meet with Edmonds again if she had additional relevant information to provide to the OIG. Her attorney said that Edmonds did not believe she had anything additional to provide the OIG, and the attorney did not request an additional meeting.

...

According to some media accounts, Edmonds made additional allegations relating to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the allegedly inappropriate reaction by other FBI linguists to those attacks. However, Edmonds never raised those allegations to the OIG, and we did not investigate them in our review.

Get a grip, people.

[blueworld]

46. Her maiden name is Danoff

Schakowsky is from her first marriage, & Creamer (obviously) from her current marriage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/27/politics/politico/main3543639.shtml

She's apparently had more than her share of grief & funerals to attend, and although I'm a great believer in journalistic truth, I wish Ms. Edmonds' hadn't named her publicly since there is no evidence to assume she did anything wrong.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/12/Accident-claims-lawmakers-son-in-law/UPI-21141250093098/

[Ghost in the Machine]

68. self delete

[drm604]

51. The gag order had me thinking that she must know something,

why else would they gag her? And she seems so sane and reasonable. Not like, for example, Taitz, who shows her insanity every time she speaks.

But now this comes along. It appears that her story about Schakowsky doesn't fit the facts. :shrug:

[LiberalAndProud]

61. The gag order did lend credibility to her claims.

But her claims got bigger and bigger over time, which is a red flag indicator of a story that isn't quite true. When the teller of tales continually chimes with "and another thing I forgot to mention", my bullshit detector sends up alarms.

[drm604]

62. I never followed it closely enough to notice the growing claims you mention.

That would be a red flag.

I wonder why Hastert and others haven't spoken out loudly in their own defense? I wonder if this could be a mixture of truth and fantasy. Not likely, I suppose.

[AntiFascist]

104. The FBI should be able to easily verify or refute her claims...

Sibel is basically reporting what she translated while at the FBI. Who knows if someone had doctored the transcript or tape that Sibel was translating? Has anyone bothered to verify if Schakowsky is telling the truth about her mother? As for the townhouse, it could have been owned by someone else?

[cali]

63. exactly. I think her initial claim is credible. The stuff she kept adding on? dubious.

[LiberalAndProud]

64. Perhaps if she had simply left it at the initial claim,

the FBI would have credited her account more. Even when still in their employ, her accusations became more proliferate and less believable, which ultimately led to her firing. I think her termination at the Bureau had less to do with her "whistle blowing", and more to do with the aggravating nature of her constant haranguing.

[tammywammy]

56. So has Edmonds provided ANY evidence for her claim

Cause I haven't seen anything other than her word about it.

[cali]

57. No. nothing.

[tammywammy]

60. That's what I thought n/t

[BradBlog]

72. Not so...

Among other things, she's provided the specific FBI case file numbers for the cases she worked on. UK's Sunday Times corroborated the existance of at least one of those FBI case file numbers as I recall.

Beyond that, various FBI officials have confirmed various elements of her story.

And beyond *that* what evidence would/should she be able to present, herself, from classified counterintelligence operations and wiretaps she had listened to 7 years ago? As I'm sure you know, she wasn't allowed to walk out of the building with said tapes and/or transcripts.

(All of which doesn't mean her story is accurate, but it does mean her story needs to be investigated by media and/or proper authoritative body, whoever that may be in such a case where Congress, FBI, State Dept. and even DoJ are, themselves, among those who have been named as among the allegedly guilty parties.)

[cali]

74. really? what FBI officials have confirmed anything about her claims re Schakowsky

please link to that.

I do agree that her claims need to be investigated.

Btw, I found the characterization of Schakowsky's refutal, quite low. Vehement? I didn't note "vehemence". And in this article you neglected to include information that reflects badly on Edmonds.

[BradBlog]

78. I'm unaware of any FBI officials corroborating the specifics of the Schakowsky claim, but...

...of course, it only occurred yesterday. So we'll see what else gets dug up. Very difficult when so few media folks (both in corporate media and blogosphere) are bothering to do so -- to either corroborate or refute.

In either case, I didn't realize "vehemently" was a negative word. I thought that both the two formal statements they offered, as well as the comments I received through several phone and email conversations with the office, provided a "vehement" denial. Did you disagree??

I believe I had originally characterized the denial as "strong" at one point, but thought it was so strong, in fact, that I upped it to "vehement" to more adequately characterize just how strongly they denied, rebutted, etc.

from Answers.com's dictionary definition of "vehement":

1.Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial. See synonims at intense.
2.Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm.

So am I missing something here?? Did you bother to read the full story linked in the OP to read both of their complete, and yes, vehement denial statements??

Beyond that, I believe I did little more than try to offer the background and specific allegations, along with *everybody's* statements in response. So not sure what you mean by I "neglected to include information that reflects badly on Edmonds." Seems like an official on the record statement from a public official -- calling her allegations a "complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by "birthers" that President Obama is not an American citizen", and saying "there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story", describing it as "a fantasy" and that "In fact not one of the events in this fantastic tale ever took place" etc. etc. etc. (yes, there's more from Schakowsky along those lines in the full article) -- doesn't seem like information that reflects particularly well on Sibel, but again, apparently you seem to have a different outlook on the English language, or something than I do.

[On the Road]

89. Depending on Your Assumptions,

vehement denials can be taken as a sign of innocence, not guilt.

As Robert Townsend writes in "Up the Organization," if you hear a rumor that an employee is having an affair, confront him with it. If he goes ballistic, he's probably innocent. If he says "Where did you hear that?", he's probably guilty.

[bertman]

116. It would be the dumb employee who said "Where did you hear that." The smart one

would say, "That's bullshit. Where'd you hear that lie?" Or something to that effect.

Your statement presumes that the guilty party would not be prepared to lie effectively to protect his/her story.

[On the Road]

127. I'm Just Quoting Robert Townsend

who as a manager was a pretty good psychologist.

It is true that some people can fake outrage as a coverup.

In any case, outrage can generally not be taken as a sign of guilt.

[bertman]

132. "Generally" being the key word in your last statement. Thanks.

[On the Road]

146. Look, I'm Just Pointing Out the Weakness in Your Argument

If you want to believe that a Democratic politician is admitting guilt by being outraged over a bizarre accusation, you are welcome to do so. There are millions of people who find that kind of reasoning compelling (at least when it confirms their beliefs), but most of them are on the other side of the fence.

[bertman]

157. Oh, come on now. Because I disagree with you on this, I'm "on the other side of the fence"?

That's bullshit. Democratic politicians often act just like politicians of the other parties. They are politicians and human beings, after all. I'll make my decision after the evidence is all presented, thank you.

[Vinnie From Indy]

96. That is such a load of horsehit!

You should be ashamed! Again, I hope all DU'ers remember your willingness to advance your career by participating in this hit job!

[AntiFascist]

101. Oh PLEASE!!

should 60 Minutes be ashamed for giving Sibel airtime when this all started coming out? Jan Schakowsky is such a small aspect to this story, and its not even clear from Sibel's testimony that Schakowsky followed through with anything. The overriding story involves, mostly, massive Republican corruption, but of course by marginalizing Sibel Edmonds, and anyone who dares to report on her, you are letting it go. If there is even a small chance that any part of Sibel's testimony is true then OF COURSE it should be covered, and Brad and others covering this have done a great job. You should be ashamed!

[Vinnie From Indy]

106. Really?

You write,
"If there is even a small chance that any part of Sibel's testimony is true then OF COURSE it should be covered,"

Are you really offering here that if some small part of Edmonds story is true that she should be excused for the carnage caused by the parts that are not true? I guess that is all fine and dandy as long as it is not you that is being smeared by Edmonds with unsupported allegations. Also, as far as I know, Edmonds didn't go on 60 Minutes and tell this story about Rep. Shakowski to a national audience.

In addition, it is not me or the general public that is marginalizing Edmonds, it is Edmonds herself with these types of wild, unsupported allegations.

As far as Brad goes, this post sucks and it reflects badly on him. His title on this post is bush league, Matt Drudge-like BS. Shakowski's office "vehemently denies" Edmonds allegations. If Brad wants to post unsupported allegations about a Democrat he better be ready to take the heat of those of us that are not going to simply roll over and accept it without scrutiny or criticism.

If large parts of Edmond's allegations are found to be false, the rest of her story becomes highly suspect. I cannot and would never presume to speak for the rest of the DU community, but I consider Brad's reporting on this story to be nothing but sensationalist and amateurish BS.

Lastly, I will offer my heartfelt and deep apology to Brad for calling him out here if the allegations against Shakowsky are proven to be true. I hope you folks that mindlessly accept his shoddy reporting will do the same if the allegations against Shakowski are not supported by additional witnesses or evidence.

[AntiFascist]

144. You seem to be skimming over several important facts...

1. Schakowsky chairs the subcommittee which oversees and investigates the select committee on Intelligence, so in other words, she has a lot of power to investigate intelligence matters.

2. Congress has done little to investigate those matters brought up by Edmonds which have been deemed credible by several important people, and including people with Turkish intelligence background.

3. If there is any chance that Schakowsky could be influenced or blackmailed by some of the shadowy figures from her district, then this could be an incredible problem for national security.

[EFerrari]

112. Do you think Schakowsky or her family agree this is "small"?

How exactly is this story furthering our knowledge of Congressional corruption? Thanks.

[AntiFascist]

122. Of course it is not small...

but dismissing this as the ravings of a mad woman is not the way to proceed. Too many people are vouching for the sanity and credibility of Edmonds. What do you think of Phil Giraldi who was a former CIA agent in Turkey and who suspects that there is much truth behind this sort of corruption? The greater story is too big to simply dismiss.

Schakowsky should be one of the people pushing for a deep investigation. If someone at the FBI was, perhaps, fabricating this material in order to implicate her in the corruption, then wouldn't she want to know who, definitively, is behind it? Particularly since she is the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?? If nothing else, she owes it to the People to find out what is really behind all of this, especially since a 'Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations “credible,” “serious,” and “warrant a thorough and careful review by the FBI.”'

[EFerrari]

125. Right. I was asking how this story further's Edmond's project.

[AntiFascist]

131. The point I made in my post...

is that Schakowsky is the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I would think that this should catapult some sort of investigation, either of Schakowsky herself or at least who may be trying to frame her and if there is any truth behind the related allegations. Would you have us just dismiss Edmonds as a lunatic and leave it at that?

[EFerrari]

136. SCHAKOWSKY has not been shown engaging in wrongdoing.

On the contrary, if this story is correct, she has been victimized twice -- first by that operative and now by the media. What do you want to investigate her for, exactly?

I can certainly understand wanting to keep this story alive and to move it forward. My point is that this piece doesn't do that AND it's harming the wrong person.

[AntiFascist]

140. Schakowsky is not your typical uninvolved congressperson....

she happens to chair the subcommittee responsible for overseeing and investigating intelligence matters in the House. This is the primary reason I see for investigating either her involvement further, or the involvement of someone in the FBI with the possible ability or intention to frame someone in her position.

[cascadiance]

149. If they DON'T investigate this and try to brush it under the rug...

Will you cry foul on congress / the justice department for NOT trying to pursue the truth, or will you be happy with them just "pushing it aside" in the SAME way that the Bush administration "pushed aside" allegations of its many wrong doings? Because if we DON'T pursue the truth and we PREJUDGE people before we've really heard the truth, then we're no better than the Republicans that have screwed things up for so many years!

[madfloridian]

81. Well she just destroyed a reputation of someone many of us admire.

Doesn't matter if Jan did anything or not.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kjackson227]

59. Besides the fact that the agent was trying to blackmail...

Rep. Schakowsky, what's the big deal??? Two women possibly fornicating is nothing new.

[drm604]

65. The blackmail is the big deal

if there's anything to any of this.

[AntiFascist]

105. If you would bother to read the article...

this is part of the usual modus operandi used by these agents to snag congresspeople, and the larger story is that so many congresspeople may be involved! It's unfortunate that Schakowsky is a progressive, and that there is no clear wrongdoing (even assuming Edmonds story is true) but it is very educational in the methods used by this group and how they have infiltrated the government.

[lpbk2713]

76. (Alleged) lesbian sex.

Now here's a story that will be around for a while.


:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

80. Edmunds should not have publicly named her without proof she did something wrong.

I was astonished to see DU cheering about her being outed.

[cascadiance]

150. I really don't think ANYONE here is cheering about her being outed!

And you don't KNOW she doesn't have proof. As Brad indicated, there are FBI case file numbers that point to the documents and materials she transcribed (and others have verified that these are ACCURATE document references). Now if they are missing, then that is proof that there has been some attempt to cover it up in my book, and if they are there, they can be verified. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with secret stuff, she can't just say "Oh here is the secret document I'm quoting for you all to see I'm telling the truth." She doesn't have the ability to make that public. That is why she's calling for an investigation, and has been doing so for almost the last decade!

It's too premature to point to one person and say they are lying.

It's too early to KNOW that Sibel KNOWINGLY misrepresented or helped concoct a story about the congresswoman. Everything else she's been telling us have given us no reason to question her credibility, and plenty of insiders have vouched for her credibility.

It's too early to KNOW that Jan Schankowsky is not a victim of blackmail, or even a victim of a concocted story on blackmail. We don't KNOW that she did anything illegally or improperly if there was a blackmail attempt, and Sibel has said as much. And we DON'T KNOW that Jan Schankowsky might actually be telling the truth about this being concocted, but perhaps fabricated evidence that Sibel was exposed to second hand by some other entity in the FBI or other security organizations that was behind it, IF that happened.

All we know is that there's enough alleged that there NEEDS to be an investigation to sort it out, and that we really should avoid passing judgment until we hear more. As I've said, I don't want to pass judgment on Miss Schankowski until I've heard more of the truth behind this, nor do I think its proper to pass judgment on Sibel either.

We should expend all of our efforts here not fighting each other but DEMANDING that an investigation be made into this and other allegations that Sibel has made. If the investigators can find tacit proof that Sibel is lying and manipulating this story about Schankowsky, then they probably don't need to move on from that. Sibel probably knows this too, which is why I don't think she's be intentionally lying about this story if she wants to be taken seriously for her other allegations.

[dougkeenan]

82. YouTube or it didn't happen ...

... "only on pay per view" /deep voice

[Ian David]

84. See also: U.S. Protests Russian 'Sex Tape' Used to Smear American Diplomat

U.S. Protests Russian 'Sex Tape' Used to Smear American Diplomat
Sex, Lies and Videotape in Moscow; Cold War Tactics Merge with the Internet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6614153

[JackRiddler]

85. The usual suspects are hurling the usual attack rhetoric at the messenger and...

ignoring that her story is very specific as to the source.

All the insults (which come out of a standard lexicon, it seems) and comparisons to Orly Taitz serve to obscure the fact that Edmonds does not claim to be the source.

She is the messenger:

She says she read all this in files from an FBI investigation in 1997-2002 of the Turkish lobby and AIPAC. She says the FBI had found these lobbies were the main clients to a network of freelance spies who sold information to the highest bidder. The network included Marc Grossman, Richard Perle, Dennis Hastert and many others. Edmonds had always also said that the FBI had investigated a Congresswoman blackmailed by the network by way of a seduction. But Edmonds had not named the Congresswoman until now. In effect, she chose to go easy on Shakowsky, who for all we know was not successfully blackmailed.

Edmonds says was told to put away the material, and that her associate at the FBI Can Dickerson attempted to recruit her on behalf of the Turkish network. When she refused the recruitment and started complaining to her superiors about these matters, she was fired.

That is Edmonds's story in a nutshell. She does not say that everything in the FBI files is true, but that she read all this in the files. She has specified the numbers of these files. They can be released, or subpoenaed, or given over to an investigation.

Again, large parts of Edmonds's story have already been confirmed by the likes of Sen. Leahy and the FBI's OG report.

Those who react by screaming about her sanity are merely trying to bury credible allegations of treason and corruption. The material is there for an independent prosecutor to investigate. That is what progressives should be calling for, dispassionately but insistently!

[bertman]

118. JackRiddler, thank you for that concise and rational analysis of this situation.

[cascadiance]

151. +1

[AntiFascist]

90. How deeply did they ever investigate Mena Airport?

everyone always associates that with the Clintons, not Reagan/Bush or Iran-Contra.

[PopSixSquish]

91. So Herein Lies the Problem (IMHO)

if Sibel Edmonds story about Rep. Jan Schakowsky is incorrect (and I believe that it is) then her repeating it gives cause to those who would not want investigations of her other allegations to say "everything she says is a lie".

Were this a courtroom, a judge could instruct a jury that if they were to find by the evidence that a witness had lied in any part of his/her testimony, then they (the jury) are free to find that the witness has lied in all of his/her testimony.

Even if everything else Sibel Edmonds says is true, this damages her credibility. For the authors of the article to print this "story" without contacting the Schakowsky's office or simply verifying the date of her mother's death is shoddy journalism no matter how well-intentioned they were at the beginning...

[bertman]

115. PopSixSquish, it damages ANY witness's credibility if there is some lie or misrepresentation

or even mistaken assumption in his/her testimony. That does NOT mean that the witness is not giving accurate and truthful accounts of other aspects of the case.

To judge Edmonds' credibility on the basis of one ALLEGED lie is premature, to say the least.

[jumptheshadow]

92. Why did she provide Rep. Schakowsky's name?

Ms. Edmonds has stated that she doesn't know if the accused blackmail swayed the Congresswoman. So why did she provide her name, especially to a conservative publication? The standard professional policy is that you do not reveal the names of rape victims. Doesn't it stand to reason that a woman who purportedly has had a sexual crime committed against her like this one should command the dignity of discretion until it is definitively proven that she broke the law in some way?

It also seems to me that Ms. Edmonds is making a value judgment about homosexuality here. She has succumbed to the temptation of generating a "gay" story that will finally "stick" with the mainstream media by providing a name. It seems a reflection of her own deep-seeded values about gay people.

Now, I have admired Ms. Edmonds' tenacity and her desire to clean up corruption. If this Congresswoman was indeed blackmailed by agents of another government, if any of her charges are true, then this sickening abuse of power and decency and ethics must be addressed.

However, I thoroughly disagree with the tactic of outing a victim, just as strongly as I believe that hypocritical politicians who vote against gay rights should be outed.

[robinlynne]

103. That is a good question. Sibel said all along she only named names of those who

participated in the corruption. Why would she name Jan S. now? I think Hastert's story and the others are far more important, UNLESS JAn S actually DID something wrong. So far I have not heard of any wrong move made by the congresswoman. Sleeping with someone just does not count as important to me. voting the wrong way, for the worng reason, would be of importance if it happened. Did it?

[EFerrari]

113. Precisely. n/t

[bertman]

117. jumptheshadow, please explain to me how having consensual sex with another woman is

having a sexual crime perpetrated against someone.

Whether the alleged liaison actually occurred is the question at hand, not whether Rep Schakowsky was raped.

You are conflating this being reported as a sexual relationship between two women with Sibel Edmonds trying to smear Schakowsky for having sex with another woman. Edmonds is simply stating that there was an attempt to gain power over Rep. Schakowsky by having evidence of her in an extramarital affair with a woman agent. You are drawing your own conclusions about how Edmonds feels about gay sex.

This whole story is not about Sibel Edmonds outing a gay woman, but of foreign agents trying to compromise a U.S. Congresswoman.

[EFerrari]

121. If gay sex has nothing to do with this, why is the word "Lesbian" in the subject line? n/t

[bertman]

124. because it was sex between two women and not a woman and a man. nt

[EFerrari]

126. And why is that important to the story about corruption in our Congress?

[bertman]

135. It's not important to me. The earlier comment had indicated that Sibel Edmonds

seemed to be hung up on the gay aspect of the alleged affair. I didn't get that from anything I read or heard about this story, so I stated my opinion.

[jumptheshadow]

130. Why did she release her name?

If Ms. Edmonds admits she had no proof that the Congresswoman didn't commit a crime?

The blackmail story is horrific enough and I commend Ms. Edmonds for her desire to fight corruption.

But why did she release the name?

To generate publicity?

I have admired Ms. Edmonds for her ethics, but she stepped way over the line here.

And yes, if this event occurred, then this crime was like a rape and a violation. If the Congresswoman had the affair, she wasn't breaking the law. Why release her name if there isn't proof that she broke the law?

[AntiFascist]

159. Schakowsky is the chair of the subcommittee which oversees and investigates...

the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Why is this important? Perhaps because the Chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee was recently under investigation (by the FBI) for currying favors of a related group, AIPAC:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,1549069,00.html

[cascadiance]

152. If she sees that Democrats are continuing to ignore these allegations like Republicans are...

... and she continues to get ignored which to many of us seems like a coverup if she's willing to take the stand to testify about these allegations, a lot of us smell a big coverup, which means that Dems are afraid of the cost of proceeding with the investigation as much as Republicans are.

The allegations have been mostly made towards Republicans, aside from Tom Lantos (who is now dead) and one or two other congress people who aren't active like Schankowsky is. So perhaps her interpretation is that unless she amped up the cost of not doing an investigation, she was going to continue to get ignored.

A tough choice, but not really improper. Many other people have been reported when blackmail is suspected, even if there's no proof that the blackmail attempt had any effects.

Had our Democrats followed through with having folks like Henry Waxman hear her on the stand instead of putting her off on that too, and the questions could have been asked by Waxman's committee directly in that case if he was asking the questions to determine which information that Sibel based her allegations on, to see if it could be corroborated, and perhaps it wouldn't seem so much like she's out to attack Ms. Schankowsky, which I don't believe that she is. If she was, she'd have had no reason not to bring up her name earlier in testimony. If someone says that she intentionally avoided saying it with her court testimony, keep in mind that she's likely going to testify in the beginning of October, where I believe that precisely such cross examination will occur and force her to go on record with what she claims on Ms. Schankowsky.

[Vinnie From Indy]

97. You should be ashamed!

I will say it loud and clear right here! The fact that Brad would push this shit here on DU without a single shred of supporting evidence that Edmonds claims are true should make ALL of you think twice about HIS veracity in the future! Brad tries to pass himself off as a reputable journalist and then dumps this shit on his readers. Fuck that! Think people! This is a classic hit job up and until he or Edmonds provides real evidence that the claim is true!

[MrMickeysMom]

109. How long have you been following this story, Vinnie?

Really, I want to know.

For years I've been reading all manner of accounts from this Turkish translator who was hired after the events of 9/11. It's not like this happed overnight.

She (Edmonds) has been the subject of a 60 Minutes interview and has by definition been "gagged" over 8 years. My recollection of her accounts do not indicate she was suspect.

So, all of a sudden, there are some really nasty comments. What were you saying earlier, years back when she was trying to give testimony and was gagged?

[EFerrari]

111. How does forwarding a titillating, unconfirmed story about this Congress woman

who can't be shown to have acted improperly qualify as news or as developing this story?

[MrMickeysMom]

119. I don't think it IS a developing story-

I was asking about Sibel Edmonds as a translator and comments about her credibility with a much bigger concern.

[EFerrari]

120. It's alarming to me how easily people dismiss the distress this "story" must be causing.

[MrMickeysMom]

128. Do you mean the distress on this congresswoman?

Because I'm thinking that we have some major reasons to look into the FBI files of the individuals outside her particular (and possibly non-contributory) world.

Selling intelligence to the highest bidder and working with the bin Ladens right up until 9/11 would be the example I'm thinking of.

[EFerrari]

133. See what I mean? Not to mention, this tawdry sensationalism

doesn't forward the larger story in any way.

[Vinnie From Indy]

123. Fair questions

I have followed Edmonds stories through Brad for a few years. I never commented on Edmonds claims until now because I had no idea if they were true or not. I did comment in this case primarily as a response to Brad's hyperbolic headline.

[EFerrari]

110. So, let me get this straight. Edmonds alleges that the congresswoman

was set up to be blackmailed and she and Brad offer this story as proof of Edmonds' allegations about other congressional members' guilt? When this story is unconfirmed and in spite of the fact that there is no shred of evidence the congresswoman is dirty in any way?

So basically, they went after the victim?

Classy.

[MrMickeysMom]

129. The focus of the American Conservative article and most recent post on BradBlog-

is hardly the reason BB's has been following Sibel Edmonds.

The evidence against Pentagon, White House and other members of congress has been vetted as being credible ALREADY.

Perhaps what you need to do is follow the story from it's beginning, which had nothing about this congresswoman. As soon as it did, you're ready to claim "they" went after the victim?

Do you not understand the reason for having gagged Edmonds? Have you not followed her hours in front of the 9/11 commission that were gagged?

Do you understand the real story?

[EFerrari]

134. Excuse me. I have been following this story from its inception

and smearing this member doesn't move the story in any way.

Maybe you need to review the facts and reconsider how this "report" sheds light on them.

[MrMickeysMom]

139. And excuse me- Who the HELL smeared "this member"?

You've made WAY too much of that "report" for having followed the story "from its inception".

The "report" was not FOCUSED on "this member".

[Vinnie From Indy]

143. The fact is that only PART of Edmonds claims have been declared credible

It is distressing that many people seem to think that because SOME of Edmonds claims have been found credible that all of her claims have been found to be credible. It just is not so. As I understand the facts, Edmonds first allegations claimed that there was mismanagemnet in her department of the FBI and that some of her coworkers were guilty of misconduct. These allegations by Edmonds have been supported by Senators Leahy and Grassley and an IG report as well as by the FBI itself. Those are the claims that are supported by the people repeatedly mentioned. I have yet to find that Semator Leahy has supported ANY of her claims about high treason by sitting members of Congress and government officials. I have yet to see support from these folks for her in regard to her claim that the FBI has documents that show that a long-time informer gave them DETAILED information in April of 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the US on 9/11.

I would welcome someone producing and posting here any information that Senator Leahy or Grassley support her allegations of treason and the selling of state secrets.

[cascadiance]

153. They CAN'T! Those documents are SECRET!!!

THAT is the whole problem with this. You keep asking for her to produce evidence that SHE CAN'T on her own produce.

And YOU DON'T ask that the powers that be follow the document reference numbers and verify that she's either truthful or not, when they DO have the power to do so, but instead just try to keep gagging her.

And now you want to slam her. You are part of the very problem of lack of transparency in this government with this sort of attitude.

I will be right with you if I find I've been jerked around many years to perpetuate lies that eventually hurt a Democratic congresswoman that didn't deserve it.

But until we have that established, it does NO good to doubt her and villify her, when she's put in a very difficult position to try and get the truth to us, and if she gets slammed down from the likes of many partisan folk here, how many other whistle blowers with valid tales to tell will be that just more apt to keep their mouths shut than coming forward with truths we need to hear in the future?

We should not be so willing to convict Sibel, just like we should not be so willing to convict Jan either! It's way too early to do either. They might BOTH be victims in this case!

[MrMickeysMom]

158. Exactly

I believe what we're seeing on these boards are people who have NOT READ UP.

May I suggest they all do so.

[boppers]

98. Racist uses homophobia for a smear to futher her goals?

Color me not shocked. And who is behind this horrible thing? Edmunds' old rival: the world-domineering, all powerful, but always evil, Turks, of course!

[JackRiddler]

107. Racism?

So now it's racist to talk about the wide-ranging activities of the Turkish deep state, although these are the subject of ongoing cases in Turkey itself? Taking a cue from Israeli defense sophistry, are we?

[boppers]

145. Blaming "Turks" for the evils of the world is the same as blaming "Jews".

I have no doubt that both nations are involved in active, and passive, operations.

I also have no doubt that people obsessed with either of the groups have deeper psychological problems, and that says more about the obsessed person than the group.

[cascadiance]

154. I side with her quest for the truth about Turkish corruption, like I fight corruption here!

And I used to LIVE in Turkey for five years as a kid myself, and have many Turkish friends.

I'd like to see the corruption removed from their state to help the Turks enjoy a better way of life too, much as I've fought to help remove the corruption here.

Just because she and I want to fight the corruption of the Turkish statement doesn't make us racist, any more than it doesn't make us anti-American to want to fight corruption here.

[Zorra]

138. Is it unreasonable to wonder if Sibel Edmonds was set up? n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

142. How would this happen?

She was an interpreter? False conversations?

[BuyingThyme]

155. Yes, if intelligence operatives think or know somebody is listening,

they of course use the opportunity to disseminate false information in hopes of creating problems like the one we're having now.

[cascadiance]

156. Faking the conversations would be a hard thing to do I think...

But perhaps these documents / wiretaps weren't annotated properly to lead to some confusion as to where they took place, or who "the mother" was in fact.

The conversations on a wiretap won't necessarily make it obvious who "the mother" is or where it was taped. I think Sibel herself said in her response that this was about a wiretap that took place in Chicago, not in DC.