So why don't Hastert, Schakowsky et al. sue Edmonds for slander?

[Bonobo]

Can anyone explain why a congress-critter would not sue when accused of such serious crimes as Edmonds has accused Hastert, Schakowsky of?

Is it because it's true? If not, what is your explanation and why would Edmonds take such a risk?

Sometimes translators and interpreters hear stuff. In fact, it happens a LOT. I know.

[tavalon]

1. There is that, then.

No, Sibel wouldn't say it unless it was true. She's been in the hot seat too long to do something stupid like that.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

3. I will be the first to say:

WTF are you talking about?

[Forkboy]

14. You've been here a week. Bonobo has been here since before 2003.

[Bonobo]

19. I've been carefully biding my time...

Waiting 8 years to spring this trap... Mwa ha ha ha ha!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. I'm not picking a fight with Bonobo

I'm dismissing the notion that bisexuality should be something anyone has to hide from.

Homophobia is an ugly thing but its only homophobia that allows allegations like this to have any teeth to them.

And no, I'm not calling Bonobo a homophobe; I'm saying the story as put forward by Ms Edmonds preys upon homophobic sentiments.

[Forkboy]

29. You said he was a troll and mentioned nothing that you did here in this post.

You could easily just have said that in the first place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. I was addressing the post...

...not the poster.

I did not call Bonobo a troll. The substance of the post was "Why not sue for slander?" and I made my response along with the fact that Ms Edmond's allegations do not deserve the dignity of a response.

Had I been of the opinion Bonobo did not deserve the dignity of a response--well--I would not have responded.

[Bonobo]

39. The issue is not about sexuality but about influence from a foreign nation.

Same for Hastert.

No one cares about the issue to which you are referring, but rather to the possibility of foreign govts. influencing our elected officials with either bribes or other types of coercion such as blackmail, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Yes, I understand that but that only works

because our society makes the underlying allegation an issue. It SHOULD NOT be an issue. If our society were not held in the grip of homophobia then this sort of blackmail could not exist because everyone would dismiss it with a wave of their hand.

Edmonds CLAIMS this is serious because it opened Schakowsky to blackmail...blackmail based on fears of being exposed to a homophobic society...but Edmonds is relying on that exact same homophobia to embarrass Schakowsky into towing her line.

EDMONDS: I don't want her blackmailed by foreign operatives...I want her blackmailed by ME!

[Bonobo]

51. Then forget Shakowsky. How about Hastert? He was the Speaker of the House!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. A GOPer no less.

Or perhaps facilitator/enabler of the Iraq and Afghan wars would be a better title.

Refresh my memory: why do we care about him again?

:D

[Bonobo]

62. She was fingered much more strongly by Sibel Edmonds than Schakowsky was...

and for the same reasons. She claims he was bought and sold by the Turkish lobby (above and below the boards).

Did you listen to Sibel Edmonds testimony? If the Shakowsky thing is all that has caught your radar (because of the sexuality thing), you are missing the real story.

[Subdivisions]

41. 'Alex:

"Don't feed the troll" for $100.'

That is what you said.

Then you said that Bonobo's post didn't deserve the dignity of a response. Yet, you responded with your stupid bullshit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. And when asked for clarification I made it explicitly clear

that was NOT what I was saying.

And as I have been saying the anti-gay sentiments espoused by Edmonds should be ignored since before I came to this thread I think history serves as better evidence to buttress my assertion.

I repeat, I did not aim my comments to Bonobo. If you choose to insist that I did contrary to my assurances and prior posts and posts since then I do not know what it will take to convince you. I do not come here to make enemies but find like-minded souls. Then decision is then yours: do you wish to accept my assurances and make a friend or do you wish to find fault with me even though I insist I have not offered insult?

[Subdivisions]

64. 'anti-gay sentiments espoused by Edmonds'...You know,

Sibel Edmonds is a member of DU. You are welcome to challenge her sentiments, re: homosexuality, directly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Cali seems to be challenging her just fine.

Nonetheless, it would be interesting why she's using someone's presumed sexuality as a means to attack that person.

From your post I assume that if I were to ask Edmonds: Are you a homophobe? I would be greeted with the answer: No.

FOLLOW-ON QUESTION: Then why would you reveal this about Schakowsy?

PRESUMED ANSWER: Because it could be used to blackmail her.

FOLLOW-ON QUESTION: So would the threat of public revelation make her a security risk?

PRESUMED ANSWER: Yes.

FOLLOW-ON QUESTION: So did you reveal this because you do not like the fact her lifestyle made her a security risk or were you being philanthropic by revealing it yourself thereby elimination the threat of revelation?

There's an answer I'm just dying to hear.

[cali]

4. why didn't Obama sue Larry Sinclair for slander?

Feeble thinking, dear. Not suing for slander hardly makes an accusation true. I suppose you now believe that Obama had oral sex with Sinclair while snorting cocaine simply because he didn't sue.

[Bonobo]

5. Hee hee. Good one.

I got a good smile out of this one (and I am hard to make smile today!)

"I suppose you now believe that Obama had oral sex with Sinclair while snorting cocaine simply because he didn't sue."

[Bonobo]

7. But seriously...

I don't know who Larry Sinclair is exactly, but Edmonds is an intelligent woman who has a govt. clearance and has taken a lot of risks to get this out. I don't see her "angle" in this case. What is the motive for such poor and shoddy "lying" in your opinion.

Larry Sinclair's self-promotion and angle are clear. Edmond's is not.

Obama is POTUS. Claims of him having oral sex with cocaine and a prostitute or murdering people or clearly ridiculous, but claims of a Congress-critter being coerced or bribed for influence by special interest groups representing foreign govts. is NOT a stretch of that type.

[cali]

10. I think her initial claim about her co-worker is credible.

It wasn't until well after she was fired that she started piling on some of her more fantastic claims. Is she being fed disinformation to discredit her true claims? That was one DUers suggestion.

I don't know what her angle could be. Maybe she's being duped. Maybe she's seeking revenge on the FBI.

Obama was not POTUS when Sinclair made his original claims, so that doesn't wash. Yes, claims of his having oral sex with Sinclair in the back of a limo are absurd and without evidence. So are the claims about Schakowsky. Sorry, I don't believe extraordinary claims without some evidence.

[Bonobo]

17. Not believing makes sense if you mean that you are skeptical, but...

Your position is not one of careful skepticism it seems to me. It seems you have decided that she is a liar. In fact it was the title of your OP. The problem with that IMO is this:

-You are therefore taking the position that no undue influence from the ATA has been exerted against Shakowsky (and now presumably Hastert too!) It was all crazy lies! How nice for Denny!
-Everything else that Edmonds now says will be similarly 'neutralized'.

[cali]

20. She lied about Schakowsky. Or she repeated lies.

It's that simple. She claimed that Schakowsky was specifically targeted by Turkish agents in 2000 because she was vulnerable due to her mother's death. Her mother died in 1987.

[Bonobo]

30. I am disappointed that you are hanging your hat on such a weak peg...

Edmonds heard/read things as an interpreter/translator.

If she heard an operative say "I will meet her at the mother's funeral", and incorrectly interpreted that as meaning Schakowsky's mother, she can be accused of making a faulty assumption about who's funeral it was. In Japanese, for example, it is often unclear who or what is the subject of the sentence since pronouns are rarely used and subjects commonly dropped from a conversation.

HOWEVER! Making a faulty assumption about whose funeral it was or whose townhouse it was does nothing to contradict the underlying important issues. I cannot believe you choose to hang onto that. It is so easy to imagine how Sibel may have gotten it wrong. Also, it LENDS credibility since a person making things up would be more scrupulous in checking facts like that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Doing so would have given the story more press

[Bonobo]

40. True. nt

[cali]

6. Oh, and Edmonds has not accused Schakowsky of any crime

[Bonobo]

9. She has not tied a particular quid pro quo becuase she is careful not to say things

she has no knowledge of.

She knows of the attempts at influence/coercion because she HEARD calls discussing it. Do you understand? It was her job to listen to conversations, etc.

She does Not know if there was a quid pro quo so she was careful not to say she knew of one. She is rather careful IMO about such things. It ADDS to her credibility, rather than subtracting from it.

[cali]

18. No, she's not careful to not say things she has no knowledge of.

Her interview and depo are filled with speculation.

[Bonobo]

24. I disagree strongly with that characterization. She was quite precise at all times.

Do you have any examples?

Even when she did speculate, it was my impression when I listened, that she was careful to make clear what was speculation and what was not.

In fact, it was STRONGLY my impression that she was careful about such things.

So without points to substantiate that statement, dearie, I will have to say I completely disagree.

[cali]

32. sure I have examples and she's been anything but precise.

so here's an example, sweetheart:

"The reason for attempting to get at Schakowsky, Edmonds believes, is so that they would be able to get both her "and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois," along with Hastert, who was already on the payroll, and several other Chicago officials".

Sheer speculation, of course and vague. What does she mean by "illegal operational facilitations? Seriously, wtf does that say? Nothing, that's what. And why Schakowsky? She doesn't say what Schakowsky could do that the others couldn't. Why Illinois? It's all vague shit.

And then there's this:

Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clearly. For all those changes that he was promising, he had done nothing. In fact, he had taken the opposite position, whether it was regarding the NSA’s wiretapping or the issue of national-security whistleblowers. We whistleblowers had written to his Senate office. He never responded, even though he was on the relevant committees.

As soon as Obama became president, he showed us that the State Secrets Privilege was going to continue to be a tool of choice. It’s an arcane executive privilege to cover up wrongdoing—in many cases, criminal activities. And the Obama administration has not only defended using the State Secrets Privilege, it has been trying to take it even further than the previous terrible administration by maintaining that the U.S. government has sovereign immunity. This is Obama’s change: his administration seems to think it doesn’t even have to invoke state secrets as our leaders are emperors who possess this sovereign immunity. This is not the kind of language that anybody in a democracy would use.

The other thing I noticed is how Chicago, with its culture of political corruption, is central to the new administration. When I saw that Obama’s choice of chief of staff was Rahm Emanuel, knowing his relationship with Mayor Richard Daley and with the Hastert crowd, I knew we were not going to see positive changes. Changes possibly, but changes for the worse. It was no coincidence that the Turkish criminal entity’s operation centered on Chicago.
__________________________________________
First of all, she's either misinformed or lying about Obama and the State Secrets Privilege. He most certainly has not taken it further. To the contrary, he's been working to make it harder to employ. Beyond that, what's all the Chicago crap about? What relationship with Hastert crowd has Rahm had? For that matter, who is the Hastert crowd? Changes for the worse? Worse than bush? Really? And the smear by association crap stinks to high heaven.

[Bonobo]

37. OK, I will take them one by one.

1. "The reason for attempting to get at Schakowsky, Edmonds believes, is so that they would be able to get both her "and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois," along with Hastert, who was already on the payroll, and several other Chicago officials".

Sheer speculation, of course and vague. What does she mean by "illegal operational facilitations? Seriously, wtf does that say? Nothing, that's what. And why Schakowsky? She doesn't say what Schakowsky could do that the others couldn't. Why Illinois? It's all vague shit.

COMMENT: Here, the writer is attributing a thought to Edmonds rather than Edmonds stating something. "Edmonds believes", he says. Furthermore, though speculation (on the part of writer), it is labelled as such. Also, it is vague as you point out, in order to be careful not to make charges she could not back up or did not know specifics of. She only knows what she knows. She only hears what she hears.

2. Well, even during Obama’s presidential campaign, I did not buy into his slogan of “change” being promoted by the media and, unfortunately, by the naïve blogosphere. First of all, Obama’s record as a senator, short as it was, spoke clear"

COMMENT: I agree that this whole blah blah enters into her own political opinion, which I also do not really agree with. However, it is clear that it is OPINION and is thus VERY DIFFERENT than her specific claims of having knowledge of an operative contacting people in Congress and trying to coerce them in various ways.

[Winterblues]

11. All that I gather she said was the Congresswoman could have been compromised

And is asking for an investigation. Why would a LIAR want an investigation? The only thing I have heard that she said was the Congresswoman was a bi-sexual that engaged in lesbian sex. I don't believe that is a crime. She said she left before it was determined whether blackmail had occurred or favors granted..

[cali]

16. liars ask for investigations. makes them look credible.

she said that the congresswoman was seduced by Turkish agents leaving herself vulnerable to blackmail. That's an explosive charge with NO evidence that it's true.

[Bonobo]

21. She does not need evidence nor is evidence even likely possible for her to have had.

She is not law enforcement. She is not an attorney.

She witnessed a likely crime and is speaking out about it even in the face of threats against her safety.

What is her angle?

Why does a person need evidence to alert about possible wrong-doing>?

[cali]

22. She may or may not have witnessed a crime

I think she likely did re her co-worker and her original accusation. I'm less sanguine about the charges she's piled on in the years after. And in my book, common decency requires evidence for an explosive charge.

[Bonobo]

25. So if I see you take an apple that belongs to me into the other room...

And then I never find the apple again, it is WRONG for me to suggest that you MAY have eaten the apple if I don't have EVIDENCE of your having eaten it?

[cali]

34. oh please. you can do better than that.

what a piss poor comparison.

[Bonobo]

42. Thanks for saying I can do better.

I am pleased that you have such confidence in me.

Truthfully, I came up with it pretty fast and I actually rather liked it :(

Can I get some points for speed (and cuteness?)

[cali]

43. No points. I have a stolen apple to eat.

chomp. chomp.

[Winterblues]

26. From day one she has been asking for investigations into this

She testified in front of Congress under oath and the Bush* Administration put a gag order on her. She did testify that the FBI recorded the conversations and those records are available except for the Secrets Act that was also in place. Congress does have the ability though to access those records and with enough publicity they probably will. That seems all that Edmonds is asking for. Investigate the , as you say, very serious charges and see what the truth really is..All parties should be calling for investigations, but I don't hear that from the people she has named as being involved. They just want the issue kept hidden away under some funny gag order..

[LiberalAndProud]

8. Why did Jean Schmidt sue then?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6611126&mesg_id=6611130

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.

Would this be proof of at least one lie, in your estimation?

[Bonobo]

13. Could you reiterate please?

I have read through your question and link a couple of times but don't quite get what your point is. Can you restate please?

[LiberalAndProud]

23. Schmidt sued Krikorian for lies.

Krikorian's claims were evidently based, at least in part, on Sibel Edmunds' accusations. Or at the very least, her accusations support his claims.

Oddly enough, the accusations agaisnt Schmidt are more likely than some of Sibel's other accusations. If suing is an indicator of innocence then Schmidt must be innocent, if I were to follow your argment to its logical conclusion.

And I also believe that Schmidt has been unduly influenced by the Turkish lobby, above-board lobby.

[Bonobo]

27. So we don't really disagree.

It is not my contention that the fact that they didn't sue PROVES that Edmonds is telling the truth. That would be logically ridiculous.

However, I am casting doubts on accusations that Edmonds is lying by showing she has no angle to lie.

I am also suggesting that it is also logical to conclude, IF what Edmonds says is true, that Hastert and Schakowsky would be loathe to sue her for slander.

So one does not follow the other logically, you are correct, but it is adds weight to that particular interpretation.

[cali]

36. lol. try a little logic. you can't demonstrate that she has no angle.

that's simply impossible.

and no, you don't appear to be in agreement with the poster.

[Bonobo]

45. No, I cannot demonstrate she has no angle. Similarly you cannot demonstrate or even suggest one. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

38. The lack of lawsuits correlates to nothing.

Libel and slander are exceedingly difficult lawsuits to win in this country.

I don't doubt that Sibel Edmonds believes what she is saying, but the evolution of her claims leaves me on the skeptical side of the spectrum. I don't know Edmonds personally, but I am intimately acquainted with a compulsive storyteller. His stories are always the more believable because he has first convinced himself of the truth of them.

[Bonobo]

44. I agree that the lack of lawsuits corresponds to little, so we DO agree on that.

I still come up on the "tend to believe but still unsure" side of the spectrum because of my read on Edmonds and the fact that I relate as a translator perhaps.

I would not trust Denny Hastert or most other politicians to wash my dishes.

I do not see Sibel Edmonds' angle. What she says is quite likely happening IMO (foreign govt. influence, etc), so I see little reason to conclue, as Cali does, that it is "all lies".

[cali]

47. I've been clear that I don't think that "it's all lies"

I've stated repeatedly that I think her initial accusation about her co-worker seems credible. Other of her accusations may or may not be credible, but there's no evidence to shore her up. And some of the stuff she's said and the misinformation about Schakowsky leads to the logical conclusion that questioning is appropriate here.

[Bonobo]

48. I think we have come to a point of agreement, but...

Your OP entitled

"Sibel Edmond Lies!" was a little over the top if you are merely suggesting healthy skepticism.

Do you think the issue should be looked into (Hastert AND Shakowsky)?

[cali]

52. OK, I admit it: I've been annoyed for some period of time at the uncritical

acceptance of Edmonds every utterance. Yes, my thread title was over the top.

[Bonobo]

54. Woo hoo!!!!

When an argument at DU ends as nicely as ours did, you gotta cheer!

Me like Cali.

[cali]

55. entirely reciprocated.

it was a fun discussion.

[LiberalAndProud]

56. This "coverup" has been covered by Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes.

in addition to Brad and others in the blogosphere. Now to that list we add American Conservative. Yet the "media" is accused of complicity. The links that Brad studiously includes in his coverage only add to my skepticism.

My views of this have not changed since Brad first started reporting Edmonds' story. Now that it has appeared in American Conservative Magazine, I am concerned that the mechanisms on the right may have decided there is now an angle in it for them. I find that alarming.

[Bonobo]

59. None of which addresses the ATA's influence of US policy making. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

63. The ATA?

You mean the American Translators Association?

[Bonobo]

66. Ha ha, I meant American Turkish Alliance I thought... But maybe I was thinking of the ATA

I am a translator after all. Oooops.

[LiberalAndProud]

67. I figured the Turks were in there somewhere,

I am nonplussed by this. Because the accusation as been leveled, now we must expend resources to prove the accusation false -- or true, as the case may be.

Some of Edmonds' accusations have not been true, and that makes all of it suspect in my opinion. Clearly I am in the minority in this thread, so I'll acquiesce to the majority. Carry on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Krikorian's accusation had been reported in the MSM. Edmond's have not

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Doing so would give the story more press

[FBaggins]

15. I don't know whether that makes it true or not...

...but it certainly means that he doesn't want a trial.

It isn't unreasonable to assume that's because he doesn't want to go through discovery.

[justanaverageguy]

46. For the same reason politicians rarely sue anyone for slander

It is extremely difficult as a politician or celebrity to sue for slander in this country. The courts have basically said, and I'm paraphrasing, that if you are going to put yourself out there in the public realm you have to expect people are going to lie about you and your character. That's why I could put into print basically whatever I want (short of threatening his life) about The President or Paris Hilton, but I could not print or publicly espouse those same lies about my neighbor the private citizen.


Not to mention, with a lawsuit comes discovery...they may want to avoid the discovery process for obvious reasons.

[Recursion]

50. When was the last time a politician sued someone for slander?

Making a slander case stick is almost always impossible. By this logic, nobody ever lies about politicians.

The uncomfortable (for some here) truth is this: people really don't care what Sibel had to say, which seems to amount to something like "agents of Turkey seek to influence the US Government, and use some unethical means in the process". You might as well write a front page story that reads "Experts: sky blue, water wet"

[Bonobo]

53. Good response. nt

[blueworld]

57. They may yet, whether the charges are true or not

As a former journalist, I believe in journalistic truth, however I don't believe that I have to print every unseemly thing that I know about anyone, anytime simply because it's "true". The relevance is the key: are these facts necessary for the American people to know in our American democracy?

If Ms. Edmonds testifies to relevant authorities as to what she knows, that's heroic. However she doesn't "know" whether Schakowsky has even been blackmailed, let alone done something illegal or unsavory.

As far as homophobia, that may be an issue with some folks, however for myself, infidelity is none of MY business or anyone else's. However making these statements must be hurtful to her family. Again, my editor would have called for more discretion about the issue, although eventually he would have printed it, if relevant.

Lastly, EVERYONE has personal vices & might be entrapped in some way, particularly those with money & a public face. I think the worst personal vice is using other's weaknesses as fuel for one's own ego trip - it's vicious & cowardly.

Ms. Edmonds certainly has enough credibility & information to be the basis of a serious investigation into her claims. However, she & her lawyer should be very careful about the "collateral damage" they could do along the way while exposing the actual crooks.

And any bologna sandwich, including Hastert, can file a lawsuit so I won't be shocked if it happens.

[WeDidIt]

60. Because politicians never sue for slander

Never