Is Sibel Edmonds credible?

[Vattel]

I don’t have the time to lay out the entire case for doubting her credibility. But I would like to echo a few of the reasons that some of my fellow DUers have offered in support of their skepticism about her stories. I hope that they bear repaeating.

As part of her deposition, Edmonds said the following:

Edmonds: “So they have sent Turkish female agents, and that Turkish female agents work for Turkish government, and have sexual relationship with this Congresswoman in her townhouse actually in this area, and the entire episodes of their sexual conduct was being filmed because the entire house, this Congressional woman's house was bugged. So they have all that documented to be used for certain things that they wanted to request when I left. So I don't know whether she --- that Congresswoman complied and gave. That's why I couldn't use her name because I don't --- I meant her face because I don’t know if she did anything illegal afterwards.”

Edmonds’ deposition took place in Washington DC. She never mentioned Illinois at all in the story about the Turkish agent and the Congresswoman. Thus, when she said that the Congresswoman’s townhouse was “actually in this area,” she clearly implied that it was in Washington DC. Unfortunately for Edmonds, when she repeated the story to the American Conservative and used Schakowsky’s name, Schakowsky’s office responded by pointing out that she has never owned a townhouse in Washington DC. She and her husband rent a small apartment there, and they own a single-family house in Illinois. Had Edmonds just admitted error or even said that she misspoke, fine. Instead, she does not even admit that she clearly implied that the townhouse was in Washington DC. Instead, she changes her story and says that the townhome in question was in Illinois and that she didn’t know who owned it:

Edmonds: “I am, and have been, reporting intercepted communication of targeted operatives; more or less verbatim. . . .This particular operation(s) was based in IL; not DC. The timeline covered 1996-2002 (January). The targeted townhouse in question was in IL. The operatives discussed their plans to bug the townhouse in detail. Is this a townhouse she owned/owns? I don't know. Did it belong to the female operative? I don't know. Did the set up take place? Yes; confirmed by the FBI surveillance team; Chicago-Field Office.”

She also did not admit any error in the following part of her original story:

Edmonds: “. . . in 2000, another representative was added to the list, Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability.”

Unfortunately for Edmonds, Schakowski’s mother died in 1987. Once again she changes her story in her “official response” to Schakowsky’s office:

Edmonds: “The female operative in question was to accompany Mrs. Schakowsky to the funeral for 'the mother' and stay with her afterwards.”

Having had her statements refuted by facts, Edmonds responds to the refutation by writing a letter to Schakowski that begins: “It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness.” At the very least, Edmonds lacks a sense of irony.

[glowing]

1. Seeing that she wasn't an eye witness, only a translator of info.. perhaps

the info she was translating made errors in their statements when they were speaking about a third party. I would have to say, since her life as a whistleblower must really suck, why would she have to lie. Her job was translator.. NOT spy on each of the subjects. She just kept the info that she overheard on the wire taps.

[Ian David]

3. Or perhaps the people she was listening to KNEW they were under surveillance...

... and were deliberately leaking bad information?


I mean, if I knew The FBI were listening to me, I might be talking about Jimmy Hoffa and Area 51 or something.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Do you think she spends much time translating these days?

It appears that Edmonds has been able to take a job that she worked at for less than 180 days and from which she was FIRED and turn it into an eight year media crusade. She has founded a non-profit organization and she gets to be regularly interviewed and discussed by media worldwide. She is being given awards and attention from organizations for her courage. I read that Edmonds is in the process of writing a book about her experiences. Who knows, maybe the screenplay is almost finished as well. It is probably a pretty good guess that Edmonds is no longer sitting in a cubicle pouring over and translating stacks of documents and recordings. She may spend her days now discussing which Hollywood ingenue will play her in the movie adaptation of her life. Not bad for a six month long stint as a contract employee at the FBI.

[AntiFascist]

70. According to her '60 Minutes' interview....

she was given a top secret security clearance to pour over reams of documents related to terrorism that needed translation immediately after 9-11. Why speculate about a movie project that you don't even know exists? You're the one who seems to be living in fantasyland.

[Vattel]

10. if she is just repeating what she heard,

then why did the location of the townhouse move from Washington DC to Illinois?

[Truth2Tell]

150. Because maybe she misspoke the first time?

:shrug:

She has made a very very large number of statements at this point. Even witnesses making a 100% effort to tell the complete truth make statements containing some errors. Always. Sometimes the errors are the result of incorrect recollections or recollections that change over time. Sometimes the errors are the result of thinking one thing and saying another. Any experienced judge or prosecutor can confirm to you that even the most pure of heart witness is guaranteed to make errors.

A real measure of credibility can only be made by examining a large portion of Edmond's revelations in full context. Nit picking isolated factual errors from her statements really tells us nothing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

169. You forgot to mention the biggest reason of all

SHE COULD BE LYING!!!!!!!!

Sometimes motherfuckers are simply LYING through their teeth. Edmonds has proven dick and she deserves all the scrutiny and doubt that can be heaped upon her.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. You are correct as I understand her comments

In addition, you offer that Edmonds says,"I meant her face because I don’t know if she did anything illegal afterwards.”

The fact is that Edmonds has absolutely NO IDEA if anyone committed any crimes anwhere based on simply translating documents. The fact is that her translation duties did not give her some supernatural power of deciding the guilt or innocence of anyone. By her own statements, she was merely reading what OTHER people might think or what other people MAY have done or not done. I think that when Edmonds makes claims of guilt or innocence she makes a huge jump from reading documents to determining guilt.

What is one to think of that?

Further, it is my opinion that Edmonds needs to offer what exactly would satisfy her claims of espionage and high treason. Is it an investigation by a blue ribbon panel? A Congressional inquiry? A Justice Department review? What?

Edmonds has offered that the truth of her claims lie in documents held by the FBI. Does she want these documents released publicly with no redactions?

It is certainly plausible that Edmonds does have actual knowledge of specific case files in the FBI AND that she knows that these files contain highly sensitive and secret methods and procedures or information about covert operatives that the FBI will never allow to be released publicly. Edmonds could also know that if these documents are produced for public consumption that they will be redacted. In short, Edmonds may know that even if these documents are produced for public consumption they will be redacted and she will simply claim that the redacted portions contain the truth of her allegations. It COULD be the perfect con because Edmonds knows that unless the FBI is willing to give up highly sensitive information about methods and procedures or covert operatives that have nothing to do with her claims she will always be able to claim her allegations are true but being hidden.

[Vattel]

14. Good point

about leaping from translating transcripts to assessing guilt. She certainly doesn't shy away from the bold claim. In her deposition she even said that the attempts at blackmail and bribery by the "Turkish entities" in question "always worked>" I mean, damn, those guys are good.

[AntiFascist]

78. Why does Sen. Grassley think she is credible?

because others in the FBI have corroborated much of her story.

[Vinnie From Indy]

85. Sometimes I think people are being purposely obtuse and willfully ignorant

in regard to Sibel Edmonds. It has been offered repeatedly on many threads that you yourself have commented on that Senators Grassley and Leahy and an IG report by the FBI have ONLY supported and corroborated her INITIAL claims of departmental mismanagement and worker misconduct. It is simply fiction to offer that these Senators have supported or corroborated Edmonds claims of treason, the selling of state secrets and the rest. Please show me if I am wrong about this.

[AntiFascist]

109. Please see my post #79 and the '60 Minutes' interview which covered her initial claims...

Turkish spies being present in the State Dept. and the Pentagon sounds like treason to the highest degree, if you ask me. Even the DOJ report referenced by The Magistrate makes a comparison to the Hanssen Case!! If this doesn't touch upon treason, what in the hell does?

[JackRiddler]

119. The IG's comparison to Hanssen is an excellent point.

[Vinnie From Indy]

170. Your comprehension skills are a testament to willfull ignorance!!!

Obviously you have no interest in honest debate. The fact is that that the DOJ specifically points out that Edmonds offered NO compelling or substantiated evidence in regard to treason, the selling of state secrtes and the balckmailing of sitting members of Congress. Your reply is complete nonsense and untrue to boot.

[AntiFascist]

183. If you don't believe me, then I'll let the IG report speak for itself...

We concluded that the actions taken by the FBI after Edmonds raised concerns in writing on January 22,2002, and orally on January 25,2002, were insufficient and did not address fully the concerns raised. Moreover, we found that the approach taken by the FBI in response to Edmonds' allegations compromised, in certain respects, its opportunities to investigate further.

Several FBI witnesses told the OIG that allegations suggesting potential espionage by one FBI employee against another are exceedingly rare. This allegation was extremely serious - even if the evidence was not clear. Once Edmonds submitted her detailed written complaints about her colleague, a sufficient basis existed to justify a thorough inquiry by the FBI. However, as will be described below, the FBI's inquiry was seriously deficient. 13

13 As demonstrated by the espionage of former FBI Agent Robert Hanssen, the FBI must take seriously allegations suggesting security,breaches, even if the evidence is not c1earcut. The Hanssen case demonstrates that an individual reporting a security-related concern about another employee may not have the whole story, but may provide sufficient information to focus attention on a person deserving of further scrutiny. See the OIG's report entitled "A Review of the FBI's Performance in Deterring, Detecting, and Investigating the Espionage Activities of Robert Philip Hanssen," August 2003. It is available on the OIG's website at http://www.usdoi.gov/oig/speciall0308/final.pdf.

It's true that the report itself specifically does not mention treason, but Edmonds' allegations certainly do touch upon treason, and the IG report states that "the FBI must take seriously allegations suggesting security,breaches, even if the evidence is not c1earcut." Unfortunately this investigation was compromised, so they could reach no solid conclusions.

IX. CONCLUSION
The majority of the allegations raised by Edmonds related to the actions of a co-worker. The allegations raised serious concerns that, if true, could potentially have extremely damaging consequences for the FBI. These allegations warranted a thorough and careful review by the FBI.

Our investigation concluded that the FBI did not, and still has not, adequately investigated these allegations. Our review also found that many - although not all - of Edmonds' allegations about the co-worker had some basis in fact. This evidence does not prove, and we are not suggesting, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that espionage or any improper disclosures of FBI information occurred. However, we believe the FBI should have taken Edmonds' allegations more seriously and investigated them more thoroughly. As discussed in this report, the FBI's investigation of the information regarding the co-worker was significantly flawed. Had the FBI investigated the claims thoroughly, it would have found that many of Edmonds' allegations regarding the co-worker were supported by documentary evidence or other witnesses. Instead, the FBI seems to have discounted Edmonds' allegations, believing she was a disruptive influence and not credible, and eventually terminated her services. Even now, the FBI has not carefully investigated the allegations about the co-worker to determine if the co-worker compromised any FBI information. In light of the need for FBI vigilance about security issues, as demonstrated by the Hanssen case, we believe the FBI should have investigated these serious allegations more thoroughly.

...

[Vinnie From Indy]

188. I sincerely hope all fair minded readers understand that your "proof"

is bullshit!!! In actuality, your post reduces Edmonds credibility. It is crystal clear to me that the conclusions of the report you offer concern ONLY the misconduct of a co-worker. Your offering that it supports the rest of Edmonds wild claims is your shame and I hope others recognize your attempt to pass this shit off as support for her claims of treason by members of Congress, senior White House officials, the Mayor of Chicago and the dozen or so other people named in Edmonds claims. It does not by a long shot and you should be ashamed for your naked attempt to deceive.

[AntiFascist]

190. Vinnie please calm down and understand the context of what I was responding to...

In your post, #2:

"In addition, you offer that Edmonds says,"I meant her face because I don’t know if she did anything illegal afterwards.”

The fact is that Edmonds has absolutely NO IDEA if anyone committed any crimes anwhere based on simply translating documents...."

This sub-thread was dealing with your statement above, that "Edmonds has abobsolutely NO IDEA if anyone committed any crimes anywhere..." I hope you realize that the IG report indicates that this statement is incorrect.

[Vinnie From Indy]

176. Blah Blah Blah

Your dishonesty hangs around your neck like a millstone of shame. The DOJ report SPECIFICALLY refutes your willfully ignorant post.

[AntiFascist]

186. My God, talk about willfull ignorance!!

Read through my post above carefully. You'll see that the IG report clearly states that Edmonds allegations are SERIOUS enough to be investigated and compares the situation to that of the Hanssen case. They don't reach any solid conclusions about the allegations, but they do state that "Had the FBI investigated the claims thoroughly, it would have found that many of Edmonds' allegations regarding the co-worker were supported by documentary evidence or other witnesses."

[Vinnie From Indy]

189. I am simply astonished that you think that fair minded people will be fooled by your post

You are engaging in a mind numbingly obvious deception with your repeated insistence that this report lends any support to Edmonds claims against members of Congress, senior White House officials and dozens of other folks. It simply does not and your insistence that it does marks you as willing participant in this charade. You should be ashamed!!!!

[AntiFascist]

191. I'm not ashamed, I'm embarassed for you...

because, in this particularly subthread, I was referring to Edmond's initial allegations against here coworker, which is what Grassley felt was credible.

[cascadiance]

139. And how do YOU know what were in those "initial" claims any more than we do!

The FACT is, unless YOU are misrepresenting who YOU are and actually are an insider who has inside knowledge on this, YOU DON'T KNOW what the basis of what Grassley, Leahy, and the IG report supported! So your statement is just as equivalent a "fiction" that we have of specifically knowing what events, material they were giving her credibility on.

Now since they were giving credibility to some of her claims, but didn't feel that they could come forth and explain that in detail, I think many of us can feel confident that at least on many levels she made a lot of constructive and valid criticisms and allegations of what was going on and at least on some levels was CREDIBLE, so whether or not she's credible in all of the other allegations she's made, we can't KNOW, but given that these people weren't dismissing her credibility, we can feel that there's enough there that her cases should HAVE BEEN and still should BE investigated.

[cali]

4. I have my doubts and I've long had them when it comes to Edmonds

Her story just keeps growing and growing and growing. It started with one allegation against a co-worker. Over the years she's made one additional charge after another. She has no corroboration or evidence, and without that I'm just not going to buy into everything she says. Furthermore, she was only employed by the FBI for 6 months. So until corroboration or evidence of some sort appears, I'll remain skeptical.

[glowing]

8. She's testified to some congresional staff; and apparently, its not all unfounded.

As well, she was barred from testifying by many judges. AND why did Hastert "resign" and is now a lobbyist for Turkey? I don't trust our govt. One day, 25 yrs from now, the info will be disclassified like the CIA does every now and then.. and all those people labeled "conspiracy therorists" are proven correct, all while the govt lies to us.

[cali]

9. put down the crystal ball

there's no way of knowing what will happen decades from now. It's possible that parts of Edmonds story are true. It's possible all of it is true. We don't have any evidence one way or another about most of her allegations. The only thing that Leahy and Grassley found credible was her original charge about her co-worker.

[The Magistrate]

13. That Fact, Ma'am, Is Generally Over-Looked Here

All testimonials to Ms. Edmonds' reliability are based on nothing more than her initial allegations a co-worker may have been involved with a group a person in her position should not have been involved with, and that her report on the matter was not properly followed up. This sort of thing does not carry to subsequent claims of a radically different nature, concerning the content of documents and progress of investigations.

[Crabby Appleton]

19. Exactly - nt

[AntiFascist]

79. Sir, you would do us a favor not to gloss over so many details....

"Take the case of Jan Dickerson, a Turkish translator who worked with Edmonds. The FBI has admitted that when Dickerson was hired, the bureau didn't know that she had worked for a Turkish organization being investigated by the FBI's own counter-intelligence unit.

They also didn't know she'd had a relationship with a Turkish intelligence officer stationed in Washington who was the target of that investigation. According to Edmonds, Dickerson tried to recruit her into that organization, and insisted that Dickerson be the only one to translate the FBI's wiretaps of that Turkish official.

“She got very angry, and later she threatened me and my family's life,” says Edmonds, when she decided not to go along with the plan. “She said, ‘Why would you want to place your life and your family's life in danger by translating these tapes?’”

Edmonds says that when she reviewed Dickerson's translations of those tapes, she found that Dickerson had left out information crucial to the FBI's investigation - information that Edmonds says would have revealed that the Turkish intelligence officer had spies working for him inside the U.S. State Department and at the Pentagon."

[The Magistrate]

97. You have, Sir, Read the Report In Question?

The public version, anyway?

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

Here are relevant portions of its conclusions:

"Our investigation concluded that the FBI did not, and still has not, adequately investigated these allegations. Our review also found that many - although not all - of Edmonds' allegations about the co-worker had some basis in fact. This evidence does not prove, and we are not suggesting, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that espionage or any improper disclosures of FBI information occurred. However, we believe the FBI should have taken Edmonds' allegations more seriously and investigated them more thoroughly. As discussed in this report, the FBI's investigation of the information regarding the co-worker was significantly flawed. Had the FBI investigated the claims thoroughly, it would have found that many of Edmonds' allegations regarding the co-worker were supported by documentary evidence or other witnesses. Instead, the FBI seems to have discounted Edmonds' allegations, believing she was a disruptive influence and not credible, and eventually terminated her services. Even now, the FBI has not carefully investigated the allegations about the co-worker to determine if the co-worker compromised any FBI information. In light of the need for FBI vigilance about security issues, as demonstrated by the Hanssen case, we believe the FBI should have investigated these serious allegations more thoroughly."

[AntiFascist]

107. Undoubtedly...

if they even addressed the RELATED allegations about Turkish spies working the in the State Dept. and the Pentagon, that would not have been covered in the public portion of the document.

The report goes on to state:

"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. Rather, we understand that staff from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) interviewed Edmonds regarding these claims. Our review focused on the allegations made by Edmonds to the OIG, particularly Edmonds' allegations regarding the FBI's handling of the concerns about the co-worker, her allegations about inappropriate practices in the language program, and her allegation that the FBI retaliated against her for raising those allegations.

This report is an unclassified version of the OIG's full 100-page report on Edmonds' allegations. The OIG completed the full report in July 2004 and provided copies of it to the 9/11 Commission and several congressional committees that have oversight of DOJ. Subsequently, two members of the Judiciary Committee specifically requested that the OIG create a declassified version of the report for public release. The letter stated that releasing a "declassified" version of the report, "or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight." In response, the OIG created this unclassified summary of the full report.1"


Much of this seems to be about Congressional oversight, isn't it?

[The Magistrate]

112. The Key Element is This, Sir

"This evidence does not prove, and we are not suggesting, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that espionage or any improper disclosures of FBI information occurred."

This indicates that in the opinion of the investigators Ms. Edmonds did not supply sufficient evidence to sustain the full reach of allegations she had made, and continues to make. It establishes a limit to what degree her allegations can be taken to be based on her personal knowledge of facts. Conclusory statements by her that espionage of some nature has occurred or is occurring run beyond her personal knowledge.

Most of what you have quoted simply establishes similarly the limits to which the report can be taken as testimony to the veracity of her statements beyond the question of her charges against her co-worker, and her supervisor's handling of them. It in no wise can be taken as vouching for the veracity of her claims regarding the September 11 attacks, etc.

[AntiFascist]

120. My points are...

we don't know what was addressed in the classified portions of the report, the 9-11 related allegations were presented to the 9-11 commission and not considered by the DOJ, and the DOJ was focused on the FBI's handling of the situation, not the allegations that parts of the FBI itself may be compromised. Since many of these issues involve sensitive intelligence matters, they seem to defer to congressional oversight ("releasing a "declassified" version of the report..would serve...congressional oversight"). This, I feel, is where Schakowski comes into play. As the chairwoman of the subcommittee which provides oversight and investigation into intelligence matters (for the House) she should hold a lot of control over how extensively these matters are investigated, but if she herself is compromised (a la Hastert and Harman) then what we are we left with?

[The Magistrate]

123. You Are Going Farther Than The Evidence Supports, Sir

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

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

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

[Bonobo]

128. Hilarious. I love this line, Sir.

"Hastert's subsequent employment by a Turkish lobbying arm does not suffice to demonstrate that during his tenure in Congress he was suborned or controlled by Turkish intelligence."

Indeed, Sir, and falling on your ass while blind drunk does not suffice to demonstrate that Gravity exists either.

“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”

[The Magistrate]

130. Apples And Oranges, Sir, But You Knew That

A more apt comparison would be to wonder whether "falling on your ass while blind drunk" on the tenth of September demonstrated you had been on a spree through the months of April and May previous. It would not....

[Bonobo]

131. Perhaps, but your statement re Hastert still makes me chuckle.

It reminds me of my child saying that an empty candy bar wrapper in his room does not prove that he ate it. LOL.

[The Magistrate]

133. Children Are Born Lawyers, Sir....

Mine learned quickly to disappear the evidence entire.

[Vinnie From Indy]

184. I find people like you quite pathetic and selfish beyond measure

The fact is that I would bet my last dollar that were it you or someone you loved in the crosshairs of an accuser such as Edmonds, you would be screaming bloody murder for due process and fair treatment. You are without question depriving those accused by Edmonds the same treatment you would demand for yourself and those you love.

The fact is that Edmonds COULD be lying!!! She has been able to produce NOTHING to corroborate her claims of treason, the selling of state secrets and blackmail. NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE has she laid on the table. Of course, you can always go to her website and give her money in the hope that someday the proof will be provided.

You folks mindlessly supporting Edmonds should take a moment to reflect on how YOU would feel if it were you or someone you loved being named in Edmonds unsubstantiated allegations.

[cascadiance]

206. If she DID have evidence then she'd have broken the law...

for STEALING government secret papers. THAT is why she REFERENCES the evidence ID's that support her case as opposed to saying that she has them in her possession. Those ARE "shreds" of evidence and the only ones that LEGALLY she can put forth. Are you saying that the only way she could report on other abuse is for her to have broken the law herself? Are you advocating breaking the law Vinnie?

Why are you so emotionally affected by this case Vinnie, and not willing to wait to see where the chips fall after a real investigation takes place? Something tells me that YOU have a vested stake in some of this stuff staying secret, whether it be monetary or something else. We could speculate like you are doing with her and then turn around and say that only a fool wouldn't believe that you have some sort of vested interest here, but I'm willing to wait and see how this all plays out before casting judgments on anyone.

[AntiFascist]

134. In relation to Hastert and Harman...

Edmonds has received substantial support from NSA whistleblowers. Too bad they are rewarded with intimidation by the FBI.

The IG's office looked into allegations that Malek Can Dickerson specifically was engaged in espionage,


"We closely examined nearly a dozen separate allegations by Edmonds against the co-worker which, when viewed together, amounted to accusations of possible espionage. We sought to determine, with respect to each individual allegation, whether the facts supported or refuted the allegation. However, the ultimate determination as to whether the co-worker engaged in espionage, as Edmonds' allegations implied, was beyond the scope of the OIG's investigation. We communicated to the FBI during our review that the OIG was not making such a determination, and that the potential espionage issue should be addressed by the FBI, not the OIG. Instead, our investigation focused on the FBI's response to the complaints Edmonds raised about her co-worker and other language translation issues."

[cascadiance]

140. It doesn't? Have you read the latest American Conservative article?

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

...
(part of Sibel's answer to Giraldi's question)

Grossman became a person of interest early on in the investigative file while he was the U.S. ambassador to Turkey <1994-97>, when he became personally involved with operatives both from the Turkish government and from suspected criminal groups. He also had suspicious contact with a number of official and non-official Israelis. Grossman was removed from Turkey short of tour during a scandal referred to as “Susurluk” by the media. It involved a number of high-level criminals as well as senior army and intelligence officers with whom he had been in contact.

Another individual who was working for Grossman, Air Force Major Douglas Dickerson, was also removed from Turkey and sent to Germany. After he and his Turkish wife Can returned to the U.S., he went to work for Douglas Feith and she was hired as an FBI Turkish translator. My complaints about her connection to Turkish lobbying groups led to my eventual firing.

Grossman and Dickerson had to leave the country because a big investigation had started in Turkey. Special prosecutors were appointed, and the case was headlined in England, Germany, Italy, and in some of the Balkan countries because the criminal groups were found to be active in all those places. A leading figure in the scandal, Mehmet Eymür, led a major paramilitary group for the Turkish intelligence service. To keep him from testifying, Eymür was sent by the Turkish government to the United States, where he worked for eight months as head of intelligence at the Turkish Embassy in Washington. He later became a U.S. citizen and now lives in McLean, Virginia. The central figure in this scandal was Abdullah Catli. In 1989, while “most wanted” by Interpol, he came to the U.S., was granted residency, and settled in Chicago, where he continued to conduct his operations until 1996.

...

It would appear that the Dickersons were directly connected to Marc Grossman, who's at the root of so many of her other allegations here. HOW DO WE KNOW that she didn't discover this up front, and that this is what she was forwarding to her superiors, and that this information was what Patrick Leahy and Chuck Grassley, and the Attorney General were all referring to when they said she was "credible" and that this isn't what lead to her being "gagged" at that stage! The more that set of information was known, and the more it became evident that an investigation not just into the Dickersons, but into Grossman as well (that crossed over to Brewster Jennings, drug running, WMD secrets leaks, etc.), and that there were so many people on the take in Washington for these things, that suddenly Sibel Edmonds was going to be pushed away in every way possible, and I'm guessing that they probably told her in the beginning, if she leaked out the connections of the Dickersons to Grossman, that she'd be hauled off for violating her gag rules. It seems it's coming out now, and perhaps she's now saying it since she's not as afraid with the Justice Department not clamping down another State Secrets privilege ruling on her recent court deposition.

[AntiFascist]

151. More on Turkish Deep State corruption here...

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/law/2006-0803-203021/Bovenkerk_04_OC_Turkey.pdf

A criminal organisation has been set up within the police force in such a way
as to give the impression that the people involved are combating the PKK and
Dev-Sol <an ultra-Marxist movement>. The group largely consists of former
ulkucu <Gray Wolves> and concentrates on crimes such as intimidation, robbery, extortion,
smuggling drugs and homicide. The group is under the direct command of
the General Chief of Police Mehmet Agar. The members of this group have
been provided with ʻpoliceʼ identity papers and ʻgreen <i.e. diplomatic>
passportsʼ. The members of the group give the impression of being active
in combating terrorists, but in reality they are active in smuggling drugs to
Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary and Azerbaijan.

...

The situation is more serious than we think and the public knows. There are
military men, police officers, politicians and mafia people involved. Events
have taken place that are not known to the public. We now know the names
of 58 people involved in these shady matters, and have been able to locate
47 of them. Ten of these 47 people have been murdered or are at any rate no
longer alive. Some of the more important of these 58 names are: Mehmet
Agar, Sedat Bucak, Korkut Eken, Huseyin Baybašin, Ali Yasak, Abdullah
Catli (deceased), Haluk Kirci, Tarik Umit (disappeared), O. Lutfu Topal
(murdered). <Milliyet, 24 December 1996>

...

It is no longer easy to separate crime and politics in Turkey. Representatives of the
Turkish state claim the PKK funds its activities by engaging in the heroin trade and
in extortion, which is why they ask foreign police forces to help them combat this
form of crime. Representatives of the PKK say in turn that it is the Turkish state
itself that is active in the drug trade and puts its own bands of assassins on their
trail and is thus working towards the downfall of the constitutional state itself.
What we are dealing with here are essentially political positions, but each of the
parties in the conflict defines the conduct of the other as criminal. In themselves,
these disputes are outside the scope of criminology and of this book. It should be
noted though that the both PKK and the Turkish state, or at any rate parts of them,
are involved in the drug trade and in extortion and murder. It does not particularly
interest us whether they organise the drug trade themselves or indirectly profit
from it via extortion or donations from drug dealers. What we are interested in is
that by engaging in these activities, they enter the field of organised crime.

...

Before concluding, it is important to consider the extent to which the Turkish
state is still involved in organised crime after the parliamentary investigations of
1997. According to Fikri Saglar, member of the commission and member of CHP
(Republican Peopleʼs Party) nothing much has changed since then:
We have not been able to retrieve the full truth as a result of political and
bureaucratic repression and the fact that witnesses have not appeared or have
given incomplete evidence. The report simply cannot be complete. (Saglar
and Ozgonul, 1998: 376-98)

[BuyingThyme]

5. Sibel is telling us what she heard as she remembers it.

Now that Schakowsky has offered some additional information in her attack letter, Sibel has an opportunity to piece together some more of the puzzle. That's a good thing.

Schakowsky very clearly knows what's going on here...and she's clearly covering up something. There's no way she would have otherwise issued that ridiculous response. That's a bad thing.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

17. Nonesense, Ma'am: Nothing Ridiculous About Rep. Schakowski's Rebuttal To Ms. Edmonds

On the other hand, there is a good deal that is obviously false in Ms. Edmonds' charges against her.

[BuyingThyme]

20. Schakowsky is only attacking. And she's refusing to tell the American people what's going on here.

Sibel, on the other hand, is a true patriot. She hasn't made any charges. She's just recalling what she heard. It's like listening to the news, relating the stories to somebody else, and then being blamed if the stories turn out to be false. This is not complicated if you allow yourself to think independently.

The proper response from an elected official would be to tell the American people what's going on here. Schakowsky is instead covering up, telling us absolutely nothing. If she's not allowed to talk because of "national security" concerns, she can say so. But she won't even do that.

[cali]

23. that's absurd. Schakowsky didn't attack Edmonds. She simply

denied Sibel's evidence free allegations. Not only evidence free, but clearly flawed and error ridden. There is no evidence at all that Schakowsky is covering anything up. You simply pulled that out a dark orifice.

I see you went to the Joe McCarthy school of making scurrilous innuendo filled accusations. Charming.

[BuyingThyme]

27. She likened her to Birthers and people who tout 9/11 conspiracies.

She had to because she's not interested in telling her story. She hopes this will put an end to the quest for truth.

If Schakowsky has a problem with the evidence, she's in a better position to provide it; or at lease to reference it, than is Sibel. But Jan sees herself as being above democracy, as a member of the privileged elite who rule from the shadows.

Sibel is standing out at as class act next to this Congressional clown.

[ShortnFiery]

28. +1

:thumbsup:

[mmonk]

44. Not only did she attack Edmonds, but also The Brad Blog.

All she had to do was release a press release saying that account is not true. She could even say it was ridiculous. However, her office went the personal route.

[Vattel]

52. come on,

if the account is pure fiction, then Schakowski's response was very reasonable.

[mmonk]

105. First, you do not know what is fiction or what is not.

Second, she is trying to discredit more than is necessary. When someone launches into an attack of the messenger and the vehicle of that message and pretends this is all the same as the teabaggers and birthers, she hurts herself. She is not taking on a political party or political partisans in this matter.

[cascadiance]

142. She claims there is evidence but that it is not available as one would expect with the FBI...

This isn't a normal "show me the evidence" situation when you have information that's being kept secret that could prove or disprove what she's saying. She wouldn't have been legally ALLOWED to have information that would prove or disprove this stuff, so to dismiss her allegations as those "without evidence" simply because she doesn't personally *possess* such evidence (which she legally cannot have anyway) is not a valid way of responding to this issue. In the case where we have secret information, we need to DEMAND that that information be reviewed to prove or disprove what she is saying. If she's lying, then throw the book at her. If she's not, then we have a LOT more to look at than just whether or not Ms. Schakowsky had an affair or not. She shouldn't be afraid of being the sole focal point of Sibel's allegations, especially if she also asks for an investigation.

[The Magistrate]

24. Do Not Mistake Yourself, Ma'am, for 'The American People'

Rep. Schakowski has rebutted the charges made by Ms. Edmonds, more than sufficiently for any fair-minded person. Rep. Schakowsky owes no more than that to anyone, and indeed, it woulkd be impossible for her to 'tell the American people what is going on here' because that would require her to explain what is going on in the mind of Ms. Edmonds, which is nothing Rep. Shakowsky could have, nor be expected to have, any particular expertise.

Your claim Ms. Edmonds 'hasn't made any charges' is nonesense of an unusually high grade. She has, in fact, accused Rep. Schakowsky of engaging in an extra-marital lesbian affair with an intelligence operative of a foreign country. Unfortunately for Ms. Edmonds, she has done so with a level of detail that is clearly false on its face, in regards to time and location, which makes her charges incredible in the root meaning of the word, and leads to the reasonable suspicion Ms. Edmonds is a fabricator or mythomane.

[BuyingThyme]

35. You see me as anti-American because I'm not a tool of the Democratic Party.

But the truth, of course, is that you are projecting.

No matter how many times you attempt to misrepresent the basis for Sibel's case, it won't change. She's revealing things she translated. That's it. Nothing else. It will not change.

And it's not about something going on in Sibel's mind; it's about evidence to which Schakowsy has probably had access. But Schakowsky refuses to tell us anything about that evidence. Or anything else that she does not perceive as an attack on Sibel.

I also understand why you feel that elected representatives do not owe it to the American people to explain what is going on in our own government, but I think we've already covered that.

[The Magistrate]

41. Is there A Hand-Book Out There, Ma'am, Recommending Use Of the Word 'Projecting' At Intervals?

[BuyingThyme]

45. Okay then, let's cover it: Why did you question my Americanism?

If it's not a projection based on your support of the Schackowsky cover-up, on your support for an attack on open government, what is it?

When you say "American," are you referring only to people who blindly support Democrats no matter what they do?

[The Magistrate]

49. The Statement, Ma'am, was that you Should Not Mistake Yourself For The American People

You seem to feel Rep. Shakowsky is failing some duty to us all, when in fact all she is doing is failing to gratify your taste for phantasms of scandal. That is not nearly so widely rooted as you seem to suppose.

[BuyingThyme]

53. So you're saying I'm anti-American simply based on the fact that I want to know the truth?

[The Magistrate]

56. My Statement, Ma'am, Is Simply that You Are Hardly Typical Of 'The American People'....

Your desires are not a reliable indicator of those widely encountered here; your disappointments and grudges are closer to the solitary than the universal....

[BuyingThyme]

58. I sure hope I'm not typical of the American people.

But I hope the American version of democracy is supportive of my desire to know the truth about my government.

Strange how you went so far off the tracks. It's as if you don't want to have an honest debate.

[The Magistrate]

63. Well, There You Go, Ma'am: We Agree After All....

[cascadiance]

144. I think if all folks who support Sibel only wanted to look for "phantasms of scandal"...

... there'd be FAR MORE other places to pursue that in today's society with the Mainstream media making it easy for us to pursue that.

I trying to get into people's personal life repulsive and distasteful. I hated it when they went after the Clintons for it, and whoever might have tried to "set up" Ms. Schakowsky, if in fact she was set up, I would hate those people as well.

But the bottom line is that we all have seen our country in the grips of corruption like we've never seen before, with so many actions that leave a taste in our mouth like we're not being leveled with and that so many people are being compromised or bought off which is why we have so many of the problems we have today even in things as basic as health care reform. That is why this issues goes beyond partisan party politics for us. We don't want dirty congress people in our government, whether they are the worst right wing extremists, or whether they claim to be ardent progressives (but have something they are hiding from us to keep us electing them).

There's not been any firm establishment of whether there was wrongdoing, but it does sound strongly like there was an attempt to blackmail being made or set it up in some way. We want to use that opportunity to expose it where we can, since it is so hard to otherwise expose it in so many cases, and send the message that it won't be tolerated, and that it is the blackmailers we want to go after specifically. We don't want to go after the blackmailed necessarily, unless they continue to enable the blackmailers to make things worse and worse. Schakowsky knows what really went on. I think she has some choices before her. I hope she chooses the right way for the American people, and a way that we can all feel there is a government run by those we can trust, not those that just tell us "Trust us!" but have no intention of keeping it clear that we can trust them with their actions.

Even if there are people in my party outside of the blackmailers and the blackmailed that want to also enable that process continuing, I'm sorry, but my battle line is drawn that I need to fight that battle and I don't want to be told I need to be on the wrong side to be a "loyal Democrat".

[AntiFascist]

81. Sir, once again you are glossing over some very relevent facts..

the fact being that Schadowsky was an important member of the House Intelligence committee, in fact chairing the subcommitte responsbile for oversight and investigation! Many of us feel that Congress owes us much more in the way of oversight and investigation and much less in the way of compromise and corruption. Have you forgotten the controversies surrounding Hastert and Jan Harland?

[The Magistrate]

89. You, Sir, are Ignoring the Content Of Ms. Edmonds' Claims

She picks a specific date in time, long before any of those things were so, or even in reasonable prospect. That is a hard thing to over-come.

[PassingFair]

110. Who is Jan Harland?

Do you mean Jane Harman?

[AntiFascist]

122. oops, yes when I say Jan and I mean Jane...

confused with Stanley Kubrick's producer :blush:

[Ikonoklast]

46. She's being asked, without evidence to the contrary,

"When did you stop beating your kids?", by a person that heard second, third, or fourth-hand what might have been actually happening.

Or, just repeating scuttlebutt and outright fabrications of a clevery planted smear campaign.


Why accept one on face value as a fact, and discard the other out of hand?

[BuyingThyme]

50. I haven't accepted anything Sibel's said (translated) as fact.

But I recognize Congressional-intel bullshit when I see it.

[The Magistrate]

54. And How Do You Do that, Ma'am?

"Enquiring minds want to know!"

[BuyingThyme]

55. Because Schakowsky is refusing to talk about it. She's only attacking.

[The Magistrate]

57. There Is Nothing To Talk About, Ma'am: Ms. Edmonds Made False Statements Concerning Her

She paid back, and in spades. More people in public life attacked in such a manner should do the same.

[BuyingThyme]

61. So what are you saying?

Are you saying that you believe that Sibel probably didn't translate any communications relevant to Schackowsky?

Or are you just saying that if she did, it's really none of our business?

[The Magistrate]

67. Given Obvious Factual Misstatements, Ma'am, There Is No Reason To Believe Ms. Edmonds In This Matter

[BuyingThyme]

69. Great. Let's ask Schakowsky if she has any idea how this all started.

And if she can be persuaded to stop acting like a spoiled brat, maybe she'll answer.

[The Magistrate]

73. If It Were Me, Ma'am, My Reply Would Be 'Pound Sand!', Or Something Similar

No one is under any obligation to even attempt explanation of why another person tells lies concerning them.

"What people think of me is none of my business."

[BuyingThyme]

74. I expect more than you when it comes to elected officials.

I guess that's what it comes down to.

[Vinnie From Indy]

175. Yeah I assumed as much

Levels of proof are always higher for OTHER people huh?

[Vinnie From Indy]

179. OR,

Sibel is god damned LIAR! She HAS made charges and for you to claim otherwise should tell all fair-minded readers you are full of shit!!!!

[BuyingThyme]

193. You're insane.

[cascadiance]

141. It was an "emotional response" but not a tactful one...

I can understand her emotions of having her personal life exposed in such a way, especially if she feels that she did nothing to warrant it. However, if she were completely innocent of any kind of blackmail, even if she was in a lesbian affair of some sort, I would think that the proper response would be something like

"Sibel brings up some very sensitive allegations having to do with my personal life. I don't feel I've done anything that warrants scrutiny over my personal life, which though I would like to keep it private, I would also like to find out who's behind the allegations that I was being blackmailed by foreign interests, which I personally find very disturbing in the position I'm in. I find some problems with what is described what happened here, and they don't match up with what I know to be what's really happened in my personal life. I would like to work with appropriate people to do a thorough investigation of what went on here, to establish what the FBI was being used for in my case, and how this story came an item of interest for them."

If she would have avoided trying to assassinate Ms. Edmonds character, as I think Sibel was earlier trying to do as well, the focus could have been on examining the process that put her under surveillance and if it in fact had happened at all or not and who was responsible for that sort of blackmail report going on.

If she was in fact guilty of this, then perhaps an honest admission of what her account of events that happened then, and pointing out that the facts don't all match up and that she'd like to clear the record and still maintain that she was not in fact blackmailed then, and therefore should still have the trust of the people in her district and this country to carry out her duties as congresswoman without threat of compromise.

The fact that her office is just trying to dismiss Sibel's allegations as fantasies without a call for investigation I think will do her more damage in the long run than calling for a thorough investigation into what happened then, whether she was victim of a blackmail incident or not.

[cali]

18. garbage. Schakowsky denied Sibel';s evidence free allegations

your smears against Schakowski are disgraceful. Unsurprising but disgusting.

[HamdenRice]

11. Try reading 20 trial transcripts and summarizing "what happened"

Edmonds is testifying not to first hand knowledge, but to intercepts that were wire tapped all over the country and delivered to her in DC.

The people on the tapes and transcripts themselves are reporting some first hand information, some second hand information, and some gossip and rumors.

From what she heard, read and translated, she concludes that something very sinister was going on that involved espionage, nuclear secrets and blackmail. She is saying that from the incomplete, fragmentary and contradictory transcripts she read and translated, it's pretty clear that something bad was going on, even if she cannot necessarily give us a definitive picture of what it was.

If 20 transcripts disagree about when Schakowsky's mother died or where the townhouse was, but agree that she was being blackmailed -- well chances are she was being blackmailed.

[Vattel]

12. That can't be correct.

If the various transcripts contradicted eachother about where the townhouse was, then why did Edmonds insist in her deposition that it was in DC, but when the facts emerge contradicting that claim, she doesn't admit error, preferring instead to insist that the townhouse is in Illinois?

[BuyingThyme]

22. Think about the way people communicate.

Were you to listen to a couple people talking on the phone about an apartment, townhouse, or home, what're the chances you're also going to be able to determine the location?

And if Sibel was listening to intelligence agents, they probably used vague language including cryptonyms. And if said agents thought somebody might have been listening in, they may have made up a bunch of crap. That's why we need Schakowsky to join us in supporting a transparent government similar to the one she's always pretended to support.

[The Magistrate]

25. Then You Think, Ma'am, President Obama Should urge Full Inquiry Into Larry Sinclair's Allegations?

[BuyingThyme]

29. Geez, how did Obama get into your little world of strawman denial?

[The Magistrate]

34. That The Categorical Identity Of the Situations, Ma'am, Goes Over Your Head Is No Surprise

[BuyingThyme]

37. Are you just posting random words now?

[JackRiddler]

39. Has Larry Sinclair specified where the files of a suppressed FBI investigation are to be found?

Has he named the FBI agents who should be called in a probe of his allegations?

Has he received letters buttressing his credibility from a number of Congress members?

Do you, Sir, think magically mentioning unpleasant names that are actually complete non-sequitirs to the present discussion is a valid argumentative tactic?

You say Sinclair, I say Daniel Ellsberg. Do our metaphors and parallels make the difference?

How about the government meets Edmonds's original FOIA request? Then we can judge for ourselves the veracity of her claims. She's highly specific about where the files are. But you, apparently, oppose an investigation that could, in fact, clear the names of the various people Edmonds has mentioned, like Grossman, Perle, Feith and other fine upstanding citizens. Why?

[The Magistrate]

48. Opening Files Would Not Bother Me, Sir

It would probably disappoint most of the people calling for that course severely, however, were it to be done.

The odd thing about Ms. Edmonds' saga is that her claims grow more detailed and intricate as time passes, so that the greater the distance from her reading of documents, the clearer her recollection becomes. This is not the usual pattern of human memory, but it is a common characteristic of people engaged in confabulation. If that is not the case, the increased detail can come only from things other people tell her, that she herself has no personal knowledge of, or else she has documents in her possession she does not disclose, and refreshes her memory from them. If the former is the case, then any 'testimonials' to her veracity are meaningless; if the latter is the case, then she should make those items public herself.

[JackRiddler]

59. Go ahead, "disappoint" me! I want the truth, not my own wishes.

You say you're for release, that should really be the whole issue right there. Who cares what either of us think of Edmonds otherwise? Let the case files tell the story. And please don't play smears with completely non-sequitir parallels, like "Larry Sinclair."

I have also noticed your point about her memory. But there is another, very simple explanation: she kept really good notes. (Making her own notes public would hardly constitute new evidence.) And she kept quiet, in keeping with the gag order, for many years. Then she started telling the story, a bit at a time. She spoke of the high crimes first, and kept Schakowsky's name quiet the longest. But she had already told the story much earlier, without the name.

[Vinnie From Indy]

62. Is a total release of documents referenced by Edmonds the ONLY thing that

will determine the truth of her accusations? Are these documents to be provided to the public with no redactions? Is that her position as you understand it?

[JackRiddler]

66. Is a total redaction of the "released" documents acceptable? Is that your position? (SEE POST 65).

[The Magistrate]

64. If She Made And Kept Notes About Classified Material, Sir

Then she has committed a crime, not materially different from being in possession of copies of classified documents she no longer has clearance to view, and never had authorization to possess outside her office when employed. You will recall that during her contrempts with a fellow translator, she got into a bit of trouble herself for copying classified material onto her home computer, which was taken in by the F.B.I. and scrubbed in consequence.

Certainly notes she produced at this point would not have any particular credibility, unless there was some way to demonstrate they had been made while she had access to the documents, or very shortly afterwards.

In the Inspector General's report which is often referenced as 'testimonial' to her veracity, the pattern of producing more and newer charges when the original complaints meet some difficulty is remarked on. It is one of the things people who have listened to a lot of lies and liars come to regard as a 'tell' of the first water.

[JackRiddler]

71. Nice Catch-22 there.

Is a personal diary illegal? She could have written it down months afterward.

Anyway, how is this relevant now? She has now spoken openly about what's in the files, so she is in violation of the gag order and subject to prosecution.

Why aren't they prosecuting her?

In any case, whether or not she has notes, your strategy either way amounts to attacking her and absolving the need for an investigation of Feith, Perle, Grossman et al.

In your thinking, if she didn't keep notes, then her memory of detail constitutes evidence that she is a liar.

Buyt if she did keep notes, then apparently keeping notes is the only "crime" you care about.

Either way, no need to investigate the charges against Feith, Perle, Grossman et al.?

[The Magistrate]

80. It's A Helluva Catch, Sir, That Catch-22

A personal diary containing classified material can indeed be illegal.

We do not as yet know she will not be prosecuted; the decision whether to do so or not could take some time, and turn on many factors we could only speculate concerning.

My pointing out that notes on classified documents would have legal consequences was simply for information, and the incident mentioned in the Inspector General's report seemed worth bringing forward in connection with it, since at least once she did do something of similar nature. You could take it as having some value in supporting your contention she possesses notes, but not actual documents, if you chose.

It is not detailed knowledge that sets off alarm bells for me, Sir, but a pattern where the level of detail being provided increases over time that opens the whole body of claims to suspicion in my view.

[Vinnie From Indy]

76. Your observations are very astute and they do reflect

the thoughts of professionals that deal with lying and liars everyday.

Cheers!

[cascadiance]

145. Hmm.. Maybe if it is shown that Marc Grossman did expose Brewster Jennings...

... by the same logic we should just let Scooter Libby off the hook without any further investigation, since he could say that the court case against him didn't get it right when Brewster Jennings was exposed, and therefore the whole case against him or Bush and Cheney should be thrown out because of one "error"... Don't you see how this "let's dismiss if there's one irregularity of evidence" line is so much BS when we're trying to pursue justice and transparency in a democracy? We know damn well, whether Grossman or Libby exposed Brewster Jennings and possibly Valerie Plame in both instances, that something was wrong with that set up, and that investigations shouldn't be stopped just because of one error/discrepancy in process/facts.

That's why just saying because one of the details doesn't match up that ALL of what Sibel is saying must be false is a BS argument, and is a tactic just designed to AVOID scrutiny, which tells many of us that there IS something to cover up if that attitude is taken. Whether you like it or not and feel that one can completely absolve Ms. Schakowsky by totally "dismissing" anything Sibel might bring up, there is a whole segment of society that won't accept not pursuing the real truth as more of a sign of deeper guilt than innocence. So whether you want it or not, claiming her complete innocence to the American people is not a goal she can achieve with the spectre of possible guilt hanging over her head without a proper investigation being done.

[Vattel]

60. don't be deliberately obtuse

I'm talking about what Edmonds claimed. She said the townhouse was in the Washington DC area. Then when that was shown to be false, she changed her story and said that it was in Illinois. If the translated material didn't justify either claim, she should have said so.

[BuyingThyme]

68. Sibel clearly doesn't know and is trying to find out.

We probably can't say the same about Jan. She probably knows exactly what's going on, but doesn't want us to find out.

[The Magistrate]

84. Now That, Ma'am, Takes The Mustard, and No Mistake

This bit of tail in mouth is worth a close look as it rolls by down the road....

You start by saying Ms. Edmonds clearly does not know whether what she says is true or not, but that she is trying to find out if it is.

You follow this by saying Rep. Shakowsky knows whether what Ms. Edmonds is saying is true or not, but does not want us to find out.

But of course, since Rep. Shakowsky has stated categorically what Ms. Edmonds says is false, you have to believe what Ms. Edmonds says is true for Rep. Shakowsky to not 'want us to find out' what the truth is.

This means that, even though you say Ms. Edmonds does not know if what she says is true or not, you are certain it is, though what knowledge superior to that of Ms. Edmonds you possess yourself is unclear: you have not, to my knowledge, made any claim to perusing the original documents, or any other investigative materials, personally.

It also means that, since you believe Rep. Shakowsky does know what the facts are, her denial of Ms. Edmonds' claims should be taken as determinative, since you state Rep. Shakowsky knows the facts, but that Ms. Edmonds does not know if what she says is true.

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[BuyingThyme]

88. Schakowsky says the details about the funeral and townhouse are false.

But she goes a long way not to tell us anything else.

I have never said I knew whether or not what Edmonds translated is true. I think you know that, but are trying to go down another dishonest road. Don't do that.

[The Magistrate]

98. Those Are the Story, Ma'am: there Is Nothing Else To tell, Let alone Refute

[Vattel]

92. I love deductive reasoning. n/t

[cascadiance]

147. So are you saying that blackmail was *impossible* if it wasn't done in DC or it wasn't her mother...

... in question?

The bottom line is that in order to dismiss something, you need to come up with facts that completely dismiss the problem that was alleged and that would be the act of blackmail, not whether someone was in DC or not. As noted, the blackmail still could have happened if it was another "mother" in question, or if it was in Illinois rather than DC. That doesn't exclude the possibility that the crime still didn't occur, even if the known facts didn't all ompletely line up. When you don't have a thorough investigation, that sort of thing happens, even with the best intentioned people.

If you have a murder suspect that can prove he was in a different location than the crime scene, he can then show that he didn't commit the murder. That's evidence that directly conflicts with the substance of the criminal act that's being committed (murder, and in the other case it was blackmail). Now, of course that person might have contracted someone else to murder that person and still be in a different location, but that's a different crime altogether, and the prosecution would have to build up evidence establishing connections to a murderer at the scene in other ways for that to be supported.

[AntiFascist]

91. Of course she has extensive knowledge of what is going on...

being an important member of the House Intelligence committee! Why are people so willing to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that fact?

[BuyingThyme]

93. Because they know it's true?

[PassingFair]

111. Even EDMONDS doesn't claim that Schakowsky was being blackmailed...

only that they were setting her up.

She explicitly says that she had no
idea if they actually were blackmailing her....

[wildbilln864]

15. Since Mrs. Edmonds is a member here on DU...

I'd like to see her weigh in on all this. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

16. Since Neither Exposure Nor Money is To Be Had By Doing So, Sir, You Will Likely have a Long Wait....

[Bonobo]

30. Couched in pompous language or not, that is an offensive statement. nt

[The Magistrate]

33. Ms. Edmonds Has Made a Career Out Of This, Sir: If Stating That Offends You, So Be It

In my view, a hard-working grifter ranks above many other types to be found in this vale of tears....

[Bonobo]

36. It is the suggestion of monetary profit that not only offends me, but I have seen no evidence of.

If such was Ms. Edmond's motivation, she certainly has done a piss-poor job of it.

[The Magistrate]

40. In Her Recent Deposition, Sir

She describes herself as possessed of sufficient means to need no regular employment, and "If you would like to help our efforts in other ways" as the start of her 'contact us' note reads to any clear eye as a solicitation for funds, which is doubtless successful in some degree. That her full-time pursuit is exposure for herself and her various claims is beyond reasonable dispute.

[Bonobo]

43. Soliciting funds for help in her efforts is thin evidence of your claims.

Lawsuits are expensive ventures, particularly when waged against the US government. Do you expect her to put in a 9-5 day job and then pay for it out of her penny jar?

Where is her book deal? Where is her movie deal?

Many years have passed since she began her whistle-blowing efforts. Surely if she was as avaricious as you portray her, she would have worked a deal with someone.

[The Magistrate]

51. Perhaps, Sir, the Fish Simply Are Not Biting So Well as Hoped....

Not every speculative venture succeeds, after all....

[G_j]

77. and not every speculative statement is true

either

[The Magistrate]

86. Indeed, Sir: there Are Exceptions To Every Generalization, Including This One

But it is a specific fact that funds are solicited.

[AntiFascist]

96. Sir, you too are venturing down the rabbit hole of fantasyland..

perhaps....perhaps....perhaps Sibel Edmonds happens to be doing the right thing, but this never seems to cross the mind of those who are only used to corruption and monetary motives.

[The Magistrate]

101. If You Dismiss Monetary Motives, Sir, It May Be You "Down The Rabbit-Hole To Fantasy-Land"

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

[cascadiance]

158. And therefore we should dismiss all that critiqued Bush and Cheney (Clarke, McClellan, etc.)

and that all of what they say should be "dismissed" just because they had "financial incentives" from the book revenues they got too. Sibel had 7-8 years to have published a book if that was all she was interested in. These guys didn't wait very long to get their books out by comparison. How is she someone that should be dismissed and they are not. Same with Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson too... Al Gore with global warming...

If we dismissed everyone that had important things to say about events like this we'd have no system of justice or even a system of democracy. There is a time where it might be appropriate to question someone's motives. That time requires that we know the facts. That time doesn't exist yet. To question her motives now is to SMEAR her and makes the motives of questioning her motives NOW to be questionable itself (a someone that wants to help hide the truth). Perhaps if you were to come out and state who you really are, we could make sure that YOU don't have financial incentives to prevent the truth from coming out!

[Vinnie From Indy]

173. Are you really that willfully ignorant?

The fact is that Edmonds went from an unknown translator to a media darling for all the unquestioning folks like yourself. She has founded a non-profit group devoted to "whistleblowers" and she has indicated that a book is in the works. Simply because you want to overlook these things does not mean that the rest of us need to be willfully ignorant as well. The fact is that Edmonds has turned a six month stint as a CONTRACT employee at the FBI into a full time occupation as an abused "whistleblower". I am simply astonished at your willfull refusal to acknowledge the reality in regard to Edmonds new career as a accusation spewing, non-evidence producing industry.

[wildbilln864]

38. So do you support a full investigation of her claims? nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

180. I think Edmonds should declare what type of investigation would satisfy her

She has yet to offer anything beyond accusations and wild speculation as far as I can tell.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. What is her user name?

:shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. Her user name is "showmethemoney"

Just teasin'! I have no idea, but I would like to her to clarify the points raised on this and other threads.

[wildbilln864]

118. I think it's ...

statesecrets or something like that.

[Hissyspit]

132. statesecrets nt

[Pavulon]

21. Yeah, compartmentalization is missing from her world.

my exposure to secured information would not have allowed a person in her (or my) position to the breadth of information she has claimed to have seen. The system is intentionally to prevent people who are not supposed to be analyzing information enough access to form conclusions. Context is intentionally made difficult.

[Vinnie From Indy]

42. I have also brought up this point as well

It seems inconceivable to me that the FBI would allow a NEWLY HIRED, CONTRACT employee immediate access to the length and breadth of long running investigations concerning treason, espionage and blackmail that involve senior members of the White house as well as high ranking members of Congress. It simply is mind boggling to imagine that the FBI would not AT THE VERY LEAST have compartmentalized this information within the bureau's divisions. Edmonds seems to have entire knowledge of long running investigations that she gleaned while working for a scant SIX MONTHS at the FBI. Most people would spend the first few weeks in orientation and trying to find their way around building, locating bathrooms and soda machines etc. I guess Edmonds had on her first day the summaries of the most sensitive investigations being done by the FBI waiting at her cubicle for her to digest. It simply makes no sense to me.

[AntiFascist]

194. Context is everything...

Sibel was able to translate Turkish. Turkey (if you will note my post elsewhere) is a particularly corrupt state with very sensitive high-level connections to other European and Middle Eastern nations, and not surprisingly the US. She was hired right after 9-11 in order to translate "reams of documents" involving terrorism.

On edit: forgot to add, those kinds of translators are very rare.

[Vinnie From Indy]

172. Isn't AMAZING that not ONE of the Edmonds zealots has addressed this point

The fact is that the FBI would NEVER give a NEWLY hired CONTRACT employee the complete scope and progress of any long running investigation of this sensitivity. The fact that her supporters ignore your point is a strong indicator for all fair minded readers that her story is highly suspect.

[ShortnFiery]

26. Simply "yes." eom

[mmonk]

31. I wouldn't apply any standard to someone you are not willing

to apply to everyone. Keep that in your mind as you go through life, even yourself.

[JackRiddler]

32. Another reflexive hit-piece on Edmonds? Click here for a different view.

A plea for civility & factual argument in the Sibel Edmonds matter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6622351

Vattel: The evidence to confirm or disprove Edmonds's claims already exists. It was gathered by the FBI in 1997 to 2002. Her story therefore does not rely on her personal credibility, or your judgement of it. Your omission of these simple facts suggests you are engaging in messenger killing.

The various claims from Edmonds are either true or not. She makes no claims that cannot be tested. The reason they are not tested is because the government won't release the files she tried to get by FOIA. No bodies have seen fit to initiate an investigation or subpoena the files. This, despite a number of on-the-record statements by Congress members vouching for Edmonds's personal credibility.

Edmonds has been very specific about where the files are to be found, and which witnesses should be called.

Are you for or against an investigation of Edmonds's charges? That's all she asked Schakowsky in her reply, and that's all I ask you here.

[Vinnie From Indy]

47. I have thought about your previous posts and have a few observations

I think that it is essential that Edmonds reveal what would satisfy her in regard to her claims of treason, the blackmailing of members of Congress and the selling of state secrets. Is it a blue ribbon panel of some sort? A Congressional committee review?

I think it is entirely plausible that Edmonds DOES have knowledge of files in the FBI which she has referenced in the past that DO contain highly sensitive information that she knows will never be released publicly by the FBI without some portions being redacted. I think that Edmonds may also know that she can simply claim that these redacted portions of the documents she demands contain the truth of her allegations.

Would she continue to claim that the FBI and the government are lying and hiding the truth if her claims are declared untrue by a Congressional investigation or blue ribbon panel after exmamining but not publicly releasing the documents in question?

In short, Edmonds may insist on the public revelation of FBI documents without redaction to prove her allegations. If this is her position, it could very well be true that Edmonds has created the perfect con. She knows that the FBI will never produce unredacted documents and she will simply continue to claim they are hiding the truth behind the hidden portions of the documents.

[JackRiddler]

65. Your speculative future scenario is entirely inconsistent with her actions until now.

Contrary to the false image now that she has finally told a complete story, Edmonds was very slow to reveal any details. She was patient, obedient to the law, cautious, circumspect.

Only once all avenues were exhausted did she turn to her current tactics.

And only once she spilled the beans in this dramatic fashion did she suddenly go from praiseworthy whistleblower (i.e., the kind who says nothing) to big fat target for smears and sophistry. Only once she told her story did a great many negative commenters suddenly appear, as though they just discovered her existence.

As for "redaction," it's one thing if a few lines are missing here and there to protect sources. But if the "redaction" looks like the following document recently released by the National Archives as part of the ongoing 9/11 Commission declassification, I'm not going to believe it either:

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00236.pdf

The link leads to the declassified version of Sibel Edmonds's interview by the staff of the 9/11 Commission on February 11, 2004.

For those of you too lazy to link, here's the punch line:

The "declassified" document consists of a cover page specifying where and when the interview was held, and giving a short bio of Sibel Edmonds. It is followed by the "interview," which consists of FIVE ENTIRELY BLANK PAGES.

This is a mockery to very idea of declassification, and an insult to everyone who believes in democracy.

THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU ANGRY, VINNIE FROM INDY.

As a people, we should not tolerate this kind of treatment.

Is this what you're preparing to defend?

If this pattern continues, and we see a series of other "declassified" but mostly blank documents, are you going to say, "Well, hey, they RELEASED the documents, didn't they? Why is she still complaining? Golly, they must have had their reasons to redact the entire interview! Case closed!"

I hope not.

[Vinnie From Indy]

72. So anything less than a public release of documents is unacceptable?

So it is your position that no Congressional inquiry or Justice Department review or blue ribbon panel will satisy Edmonds and yourself unless these documents are released publicly? Have I got your position correct in regard to what will satisfy you in regard to Edmonds veracity?

[JackRiddler]

83. They should arrest her.

I figure what should happen is that the government should arrest Sibel Edmonds for violating the "state secrets" invocation.

That's what she did. Effectively, that is what she is asking for with her periodic newspaper interviews and revelations. So they should go ahead.

Do they have anything to fear in that?

On general principle, no, I don't accept your latest canard for why the people should be kept in the dark about the activities of their supposedly elected government.

Secrecy doctrine is the opposite of democracy. It's poison to the idea of a republican government.

It is an absurdity that we finance a 50 or 60 billion dollar black-budget world that is effectively beyond any oversight that, in recent years, has even been privatized.

Secrecy should always be kept to an absolute minimum. The presumption should always be that secrecy is liable to easy abuse, that secret power corrupts absolutely (since secret power is effectively absolute).

Eight years later, I do not see why the government needs to keep any secrets about 9/11, or the background to the Iraq war build-up, or, for that matter, the activities of foreign lobbies seeking to influence United States policy. All these things should be made known.

It's hard to think of any credible motivations other than cover-up, and very unlikely to have anything to do with "national security" (the most common lie of all, if you know your history) or "protecting sources."

Since with every post you are out to brand Edmonds as a liar, your badgering me about what form an investigation should take is disingenuous. It's hardly credible that you're really for an independent investigation. An internal departmental review would be a joke. And as for "blue ribbon" panels, I must say I prefer the rabble to the ruling lot. We've seen enough of what happens when the likes of Kean and Zelikow are sent out to find truth. The makeup of a credible investigation would have a random selection element, like a grand jury.

Funny that you don't mention prosecutors as an option.

[Vinnie From Indy]

95. So, your position is a complete release of unredacted documents is the only way.

It seems that we have indeed reached an impasse in our discussion about what form any exploration or investigation into Edmonds claims should take.

I think that there could be an investigation into Edmonds claims that would look at these files, but not release them in their entirety to the general public. I would have to wait and see the specifics of the investigation etc. before forming an opinion on that matter.

I think your position is a bit inflexible and it appears to completely discount the possibility that releasing these documents unfettered could get people killed. If that is the case and the government refuses to release them without redactions, Edmonds may have created the perfect con.

[JackRiddler]

106. You're setting up a strawman. As a pure hypothetical, your question is absurd.

Let's see what, if anything, the government ever proposes to do with regard to Edmonds's claims. No one can answer your question in the absence of hearing what the plan is. As you say, "I would have to wait and see the specifics of the investigation etc. before forming an opinion on that matter." What you grant to yourself, please also grant to me.

The document "declassification" described in Post 65 shows the awesome and proven potential for abuse inherent in secrecy doctrine. Can you acknowledge that historically, the invocations of "national security" and "protecting sources" have both been frequently abused as ways to cover up wrongdoing?

Do you support the kind of "disclosure" described in Post 65? I've asked a couple of times now, can you tell us?

[Vinnie From Indy]

114. I am simply asking you general question about

what form an investigation might take that would satisfy you. You have already declared that massively redacted documents will not satisfy you. You have not answered whether you think there are alternatives to the mass release of unredacted documents held by the FBI. We both agree that some sort of investigation should take place to determine Edmonds truthfulness. Now, we are just discussing what form and in what venue the investigation would be acceptable to both of us.

While offering that I will withold my opinion on whatever actual form the investigation may take does not in any way prevent me (or you) from discussing the options and alternatives does it?

[JackRiddler]

115. And I answered it. Now will you answer the question about Post 65?

[Vinnie From Indy]

177. You answered nothing!!!!!!

In fact, I would offer that your defense of Emonds is PATHETIC and based on nothing substantial. I hope all fair-minded readers pick up on your perpetual evasiveness and lack of responsiveness to direct inquiry.

[Vinnie From Indy]

82. A few additionnal observations on your latest post

I am not trying to slam you, but this post, as well as your previous posts, contain a high degree of irrelevancy in regard to the truthfulness of Edmonds allegations. For example,

You write,
"Contrary to the false image now that she has finally told a complete story, Edmonds was very slow to reveal any details. She was patient, obedient to the law, cautious, circumspect."

This is irrelevant to her veracity. It is merely a description of her saga.

"Only once all avenues were exhausted did she turn to her current tactics."

Again, irrelevant to the truth of her allegations.

"And only once she spilled the beans in this dramatic fashion did she suddenly go from praiseworthy whistleblower (i.e., the kind who says nothing) to big fat target for smears and sophistry. Only once she told her story did a great many negative commenters suddenly appear, as though they just discovered her existence."

Sadly, this too is irrelevant to the question at hand of whether Edmonds is telling the truth.

I think you are a bit to cavalier in regard to what might be contained in these documents demanded by Edmonds. It is completely plausible that the documents contain highly sensitive information that has nothing to do with Edmonds claims but if released without redaction, could cause enormous security concerns or even the death of deep cover operatives. In short, the documents may never be released unredacted even though they show conclusively that Edmonds is lying. The compromising of entire clandestine networks, operations and operatives by an unfettered public release of these documents may be a cost that is too great for the FBI and our government to accept. If Edmonds knows this, she may have created the perfect con.

I would be satisfied with some sort of investigation by Congress that does not release these documents without redaction. I think Edmonds should weigh in about the specific issue of what she will accept in the way of resolving her claims.

[JackRiddler]

87. Are you happy with the style of "declassification" described in post 65?

That should help keep everyone safe!

[Vinnie From Indy]

102. Is there anyone or any body on the planet you would trust to examine

but not release the FBI documents completely free of redactions?

I think your position of total, unredacted release is unreasonable and could possibly get people killed.

[JackRiddler]

108. Strawman.

I think your use of this latest canard is indicative of how well you think the rest of your arguments are doing.

Thanks, I'll see ya tomorrow!

[Vinnie From Indy]

113. LOL!

Really? I simply asked for clarification of what options you would find acceptable in regard to going forward with an investigation into Edmonds claims. As far as I can tell, you want complete, unredacted, public access to the FBI files in questions regardless of their contents. This is a canard to you? Really? Sigh!

[JackRiddler]

116. Not what I said, which you can figure out. Answer the Post 65 question, please.

[Vinnie From Indy]

178. Why should I have to "figure out" anything??????

Are you incapable or unwilling to debate. That is the real question. I have asked you SIMPLE, DIRECT questions and you have answered with bullshit. Fuckin' A dude, answer the fucking question directly or shut the fuck up!

[JackRiddler]

201. Figuring out in this case is synonymous with "read."

You can read what I write, and you keep writing misinterpretations of it. Yes, I can see situations where redactions are acceptable, specifically to protect sources. Happy?

You are still avoiding the question I've asked you many, many times: Is the form of "disclosure" in which the ENTIRETY of the document is redacted (as with the "declassification" of Edmonds's interview with the 9/11 Commission) enough for you?

[Vattel]

90. Whether there should be an investigation

and of what sort is the key issue. I don't think that the mere fact that someone who worked for a government agency makes charges of illegality is a sufficient basis for expending resources on an investigation, and I'm sure you agree. Whether there should be an investigation depends partly on the credibility of the one making the charges. I have offered some civil and factual arguments that count against Edmonds' credibility. You may think that I am wrong, or that there are other indications of credibility that ooutweigh the considerations I have advanced. But to characterize my arguments as a "hit piece" is obviously unfair, and does nothing to advance the discussion.

[AuntPatsy]

94. Well I look at it this way if she was not credible..then why the smear campaign

going out right now when she is finally able to talk more openly and why not just disclose the papers she interpreted for the FBI in an effort to prove she is not credible..until such time I for one feel like your question is not credible without more evidence to support either answer.

[Vinnie From Indy]

99. Why do you confuse rational, critical thought with a smear campaign?

Simply because folks point out that there are inconsistencies in Edmonds story and reasons to be skeptical does not mean there is a smear campaign against her.

[BuyingThyme]

103. Why point out inconsistencies in a story when you can just tell the story?

(I'm speaking of Schakowsky.)

[Vinnie From Indy]

181. So I accuse you of having sexual relations with a goat

Let's here your story! Go ahead deny away!

[cascadiance]

207. Hmm... I'd ask. Oh you say that there's an FBI document ID on this? Let's see it and see the proof

That's ALL she has to say if she's truly innocent. If that FBI case file has been fabricated or has been destroyed, then we have other bigger problems that need to be looked at. But if they are accurate, and Edmonds is a crackpot as you suggest, then it wouldn't be there, and then problem is easily solved. I would submit that since they resort to smearing her and trying to dismiss the need to look at these case files, that this is more of a matter of *covering* up what really happened.

If your example doesn't have a case file reference, then it is not a useful analogy.

[The Magistrate]

100. What Smear Campaign, Ma'am?

Ms. Edmonds has made statements lately about Rep. Schakowsky that cannot be true. Pointing this out is not a smear campaign; drawing conclusions from it concerning her veracity in other regards is not a smear campaign.

[AuntPatsy]

121. Okay having to answer to your post is scary enough but here goes....

Yes good sir Ms Edmond's has made statements about Rep Schakowsky but..not just lately....she in fact retold this very early on but it is only recent under oath and with the okay to speak did she specifically name Rep Schakowsky in her tales...

Now you state very easily..."that cannot be true"

can I ask you..."are you sure?"

And if you are sure of your belief that the accusation against Rep Schakowsky cannot possibly be true would you be willing to state such in a court of law as an absolute true statement"?

My belief that there is indeed a smear campaign being brought about toward Ms Edmond's has much to do with the amount of time that has elapsed since she first began making these charges of supposed criminal activity inside our very own government, the very real fact that the media has not exactly pounced unto what would be a good drama demanding high ratings of "insane ranting women begins naming names against government officials detailing criminal activity by top officials that have yet to be verified and seemingly has begun changing some of her original testimony"

Now the bottom line is that our media loves nothing more than to run with smears against any and all Liberals be they high or low ranking members of any party other than the repubs...the silence from them is deafinging...

And for those that believe they simply do not see a valuable or factual story in Ms Edmond's testimony and so choose to ignore I call bs...when has that ever stopped them before in the last sixteen or so years?

answer..it hasnt..the truth is not something the current state of media talking heads cares all that much about..

So yes...I do think a smear campaign is going on..and where? why the Internet of course...and why? because those that want to ensure she gets the least amount of attention will have no problem letting the Internet writers hash it all out...what they don't want is this case highlighted in the media because simply stated..they want her to die a slow death but have to at least appear as if she is not being completely silenced..

humans have a short attention span normally and with so many other issues in this day and age requiring attention and or time from those that have little to spare how convenient for them she will soon more than likely simply be a passing if not completely forgotten memory for the majority of those that even take the time to care about political issues...

Just my two cents...

and yes I know her story seems to have changed or her memory seems to have been altered ....but has it really???

[The Magistrate]

125. Without the Name, Ma'am, It Was Hardly Possible To assess The Validity Of those Claims

Now that Ms. Edmonds has delivered up the name of Rep. Shakowsky, it is possible to compare her statements to other known facts. They do not match up well, either in time or space, to put it mildly. If you testified in court that someone did something in location A on occasion X at time Y, and that person could establish no such location A existed, and that occasion X occurred many years before time Y, your testimony would not survive cross examination, and would be disregarded by the jury, and viewed as quite a black-eye to the side which presented you as a witness. Regarding Rep. Shakowsky, that is all we have to go on. In regard to Ms. Edmonds, such a presentation licenses invocation of the old maxim, 'false once, false always', and calls anything she has said not vouched for by other sources into question. That may not be wholly fair, but it is how things go.

Personally, Ma'am, nothing would please me more than proof that a number of execrable persons such as Hastert and Feith be proven to have engaged in criminal collusion with a foreign power, be it Turkey or Timbuktu, and a few Democratic personages would be a small price to pay for the satisfaction of it, were they caught up in the affair. But the state of the evidence does not allow me that enjoyment, and the claims made regarding one Democratic Representative are not of a quality that can be believed.

[AuntPatsy]

136. as far as I am aware Ms Edmond's testimony comes from "reports"

she had been privy to and had to translate for others...now given the elapsed time we can easily and rightfully assume that sometimes certain aspects can appear to change in one's mind...the same can be said for recalling childhood memories, siblings often recall similar events abet a bit differently...

I usually agree with your posts one hundred percent but in this case I am of a different opinion, not that I believe one hundred percent that your proposal to the facts are incredible in it's entirety..it is just that I definitely question why in this case you obviously are left without a doubt that Ms Edmond's lacks any credibility at all and believe that my thoughts on this issue has about as much credibility as yours yourself...

And as far as the allegation against Shadowsky I could care less about her private desires but it is more than probable more than likely that many Dem's have been set up in situations that would help in others controlling what they have done or said to date be they made up or not and believe that if perhaps these officials would speak about attempted black mailing by the last administration that perhaps such practices in the future could be stopped..

But until I assume we americans get off our high horses with believing politicians should in fact be above reproach at all times then such practices of smearing politicians with lies regardless of such be truth might be stopped but alas, we perfect citizens stupidly fall for such practices time and time and regardless if something is true or not a lie can still seemingly ruin a person in the spotlights career as the past ten years is more than proof of..

What the good rep should come back with is ....the charge itself of myself being bisexual matters not what matters more is that someone is simply spouting lies about someone in this case myself in a vain attempt to destroy my career by hinting that I have done something illegal by allowing blackmail to determine my actions....

why cannot it be that simple and why I might add has so much time elapsed in allowing ms Edmond's to speak more openly? perhaps to muddy the waters of memory with time?

[mmonk]

204. Does a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager help?

http://americancommentary.wordpress.com/

[KoKo]

208. Yes, Aunt Patsy. Media runs with ravings of Congresscritters against Clinton,

Gore and a VP Candidate who is out to make her own fortune off outrageous statements. Look at Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Coulter, Limbaugh and you know the rest. When Chris Matthews has Tom DeLay, Bernie Keric and others who have been discredited or indicted on his show to quote him: "so you can give us your side," then one wonders why since Pat Buchanan is a regular on MSNBC there wouldn't be an effort to get more readers to the big article on Edmunds in his own magazine.

Both Republicans and Democrats don't want any of Sibol's statements to get Mainstream airing. Even when she finally reveals what she heard about Shakowsky the RW won't touch it as much as we know they'd love to bring down one of the most admired Progressives in the Dem Party.

The silence is deafening, while the ravings of the RW in Congress and in the Media drone on day after day as they have since Clinton was first elected.

Whether all of what Sibel heard is true or not...the lack of MSM exposure and a real investigation says there's something there that no one wants to get out. Could be that one small part of what she heard was so dangerous that they don't even bother to trash her on the rest. To go after her would only call attention. She may have revealed what she heard about Shakowsky only in hope that the rest of what she heard would get more attention. It was her trump card to get a wider investigation. I think it backfired because it lost her credibility with many on the Left. It's possible that she was misled into doing it.

[AntiFascist]

124. The smear campaign was initiated by Schakowsky herself...

by equating Edmonds with a 'Birther' and claiming that her allegations are complete fabrications, she is denying the FACT that Edmonds is merely reporting on what she translated, not having any solid evidence of the truth behind what was translated. Schakowsky would have us believe that the veracity of Edmonds relies on the proveability of what is disclosed, not on the tapes or documents containing the original information. I wonder, does Schakowsky speak Turkish?

[The Magistrate]

126. Nonesense, Sir: Ms. Edmonds Smeared Rep. Shakowsky, Who Fired Back Forcefully And Appropriately

More of our Party's politicians should behave in this manner; we would be better respected among the people as a political body if this were the case....

"That's the stuff to give the Hun!"

[ShortnFiery]

117. Exactly, you'd think this ONE democratic representative ID'd was a family member ...

considering all the venom that is spewed from some here. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

127. Are We Not, Ma'am, All Sisters And Brothers?

"My brother against my cousin; my cousin against the stranger."

[Iggo]

129. Yes.

[mmonk]

135. She had the state secrets privilege invoked on her in all previous court attempts,

her previous testimony to congress was retroactively classified as well as all particulars of her as a person including her birthday, education, etc. That would be a whole lot of government effort and expense to silence someone who is not credible, LOGICALLY speaking. And that's where all her detractors here fall flat on their faces in these threads.

[Vattel]

137. Everyone knows that she was privy to classified information,

So why would anyone be surprised if her testimony to Congress was classified?

[mmonk]

148. Because it was unclassified at the time. It was the first time

anyone has had their testimony retroactively classified. Anything that was classified in the testimony could have been done in a scif for the members of Congress.

[Vattel]

138. Rational discussion

requires addressing the arguments that the other party advances. Is it so difficult to see why I think that Edmonds' changing her story and her unwillingness to admit that her original story was false count against her credibility? Why not concede that, but argue that there are other considerations that count in favor of her credibility. Then we would have a rational discussion on DU. It can happen.

[mmonk]

152. I'm sorry. I thought the title of your OP was "Is Sibel Edmonds Credible?".

So I am advancing the argument that she is based on real things that happened to her.

[Vattel]

199. The post you are replying to wasn't directed at you.

I appreciate your attempt to advance reasons to think that Edmonds is credible.

[cascadiance]

154. A prosecutor doesn't have to "admit" that there are flaws in evidence for an indictment...

when they don't have ALL of the facts yet to still indict someone for a crime.

Whey you are cherry picking *little* differences which could be explained by a LOT of other things besides an intentional distortion by Sibel (which you ARE implying IS the basis of these "errors"), you and those aligning with you aren't trying to pursue the truth, but trying to dismiss those that contend that there's a problem so that the SUBSTANCE of what is being alleged can't be looked at. In other words try to smear the messenger so that those inside don't have to answer for larger issues going on.

Perhaps Schakowsky's office should ALSO apologize their allegations that Sibel's allegations are equivalent to the "birthers" which have NO basis for actually KNOWING the truth behind their allegations. THEY are speculating. Sibel DID have access to raw data AND has referenced that data that the birthers have NO done. To equivalence what she says to what they say should ALSO be acknowledged as a false and libelous claim.

Just because there are differences in the data that she transcribed and what might have been the truth doesn't mean that the substance of her story is "false". Whether or not the townhouse tapes were in DC or in Illinois, or whether or not the "mother" was Schakowsky's mother or not does NOT prove that blackmail didn't take place, and does NOT prove that Sibel didn't look at evidence pointing to such blackmail. To ask her to dismiss what she likely did see just because there might be some differences between what she was given as data and what the facts are is BS!

She shouldn't have to admit anything, and her credibility REMAINS to be seen if it is viable or not until we see the truth in the data she looked at, which SHE is asking for us to see that would give us the truth, and you and Schakowsky wants us to IGNORE (which is strange if you REALLY want Schakowsky's name to be cleared of any possible taint). If it is false YOU and SHE she should be the ones that want to see the details and Sibel would be the one that would rather it remain secret. If you are the ones that want to keep it secret and just try to smear the messenger, it tells everyone else that study this, that you and she have something to hide. It would imply that you are counting that both the government and the media will continue to keep these issues "quiet", so that you can spoonfeed to them that Sibel should be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" without trying to prove what she said is true or not true (which with the data she's pointing to shouldn' be a tough thing to do), unlike the likes o Orly Taitz who we have no idea whether any data she alleges *might* be true exists or not.

[Vattel]

198. To say I am smearing her is, of course, ridiculous.

But I do agree that, until we see the classified information that she was privy to, we have no basis for saying that her charges are of a kind with those of the birthers. Indeed, I strongly suspect that her charges are based on real information. But for a variety of reasons, including the one's mentioned in my OP, and also including the content of the OIG report, I suspect that she has a tendency to go well beyond the facts in her interpretations of that information. I'm not accusing her of deliberate distortion. There are many possible explanations for why she made false claims, failed to publicly admit that they were false, preferring instead to simply change her story.

[Budgies Revenge]

143. The problem that's arisen from the Schakowsky allegations

is that Edmonds made a very specific charge that has now been refuted by evidence. This is not to say that she didn't translate some conversation where mention of "a mother" or "the townhouse" was made. That may very well be exactly what was translated--or not, I wasn't there, so I can't speak to the veracity of the claims. However, in the "best" case scenario (where you accept that Edmonds is telling the truth about what she translated)--what it does show is that Edmonds made a leap of interpretation with the information she had access to, and then repeated this interpretation as fact. This creates a much bigger problem with the rest of her story, because now you have to wonder what other claims are based on a possibly flawed interpretation of the raw information.

[cascadiance]

155. The Blackmail allegation has NOT been refuted by evidence!

There has been NO proof that the blackmail DID NOT take place. Only that the location of the blackmail is in question (if it took place, which could EASILY be reviewed looking at the documents that Sibel refers to), and that perhaps who the "mother" is that is being referred to is in question. Those are questions about the data that need to be investigate it, but it is NOT the equivalent of placing someone at a different location than a crime scene that would dismiss evidence say in a murder case. There's no evidence that says that this blackmail didn't take place, just like we still haven't established that it did, UNTIL the data is examined and verified.

What you are implying is that she should KNOW all of the facts when she wasn't necessarily present where the data was collected, where these errors, if they are errors would have been introduced into the data. The big problem we've had is that we've not had our government doing the proper investigation it should have done YEARS AGO! And to ask that Sibel be a computer to know every fact and represent it properly without any holes is asking a lot for an individual without direct access to all of the information continually. Now is not the time to question her credibility, but to ask why we can't see this data to verify what is the real truth. Once the real truth is known, we can ask the questions why it was interpreted this way or that way and whether it implies that someone like Sibel had another agenda or reasons for misrepresenting it, if that was done at all, or why someone like Jan Schakowsky didn't own up to what might have really happened as well, if it shows that she was in fact involved with this blackmail attempt.

Now is the time NOT to question credibility, but to question whether the data is accurate but to say that we need access to it to know where the real truth is so that we know whether we need to know more not only about her case, but about the other things that Sibel is alleging as well. To smear her reputation prematurely before we know the truth IS in fact advocating DESTROYING our democratic system of justice and its commitment of transparency to the people! And people like me will NOT accept that happening without proper due process being followed!

[Vattel]

161. She undermines her own attempt to get an investigation

when she does not admit error and changes her story.

[cascadiance]

162. We don't KNOW that it was an error of WHAT SHE HEARD!

She might have been told that it was recorded in DC, or it was annotated as such, and the same thing with the mother. We don't know what the circumstances are that lead to her saying what se said.

Schakowsky only BURIES HERSELF by not demanding an investigation to CLEAR HER NAME! When she just wants to dismiss the total allegations over one or two details which are likely not any kind of willful distortion of the truth, then she's only pulling a shroud over what really is the truth, and people will always wonder if she's being truthful with us. If I were in her district and a srong progressive Democrat, I think I'd pull my vote from her over this, whether or not it is investigated or not (unless it is investigated and clears her). Had she initially just said, "Let's investigate this and clear up the facts which I think are messed up in the details", I'd likely have supported her. But she appears to be trying to facilitate a coverup, which isn't the way a progressive Democrat should do business in her job if she wants progressive constituent support.

[Vattel]

163. You are missing the point.

She claimed that the townhouse was in the Washington DC area. Now she insists that it is in Illinois. And she doesn't even admit that she is changing her story. I would take her more seriously if she had said: "What I claimed was a mistake. I should have been more cautious because my claims were based on transcripts of conversations that shouldn't be taken at face value." Instead of saying something like that, we get no admission of error at all. Just a new story.

As for Schakowski, it's hard to take seriously your contention that she should call for an investigation, given that you do not know whether the sotry about her has any basis in fact. If the story is purely fictional, then Schakowski's reply was appropriate. If the story is true, then an FBI investigation is certainly called for, and presumably there was such an investigation. If it got squelched for mysterious and no doubt nefarious reasons, a new investigation should be launched.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[Budgies Revenge]

165. I wasn't talking about the blackmail

What I was referring to was this particular section of Edmond's interview with American Conservative:

"When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois."

Here, she states unequivocally that it was Schakowsky's mother's funeral and that the townhouse belonged to Schakowsky. However, in her rebuttal to Schakowsky's statement she says this:

1) This particular operation(s) was based in IL; not DC.
The timeline covered 1996-2002 (January).
The targeted townhouse in question was in IL. The operatives discussed their plans to bug the townhouse in detail. Is this a townhouse she owned/owns? I don't know. Did it belong to the female operative? I don't know. Did the set up take place? Yes; confirmed by the FBI surveillance team; Chicago-Field Office
2) The female operative in question was to accompany Mrs. Schakowsky to the funeral for 'the mother' and stay with her afterwards.

So, now she is backing off the claim that Schakowsky owned the townhouse in question, and replaces "Jan Schakowsky's mother" with "the mother". You may say that this is nit-picking, and while I ultimately agree that these two points may be the most insignificant of the whole interview--they are important because they are some of the few statements that can be fact checked at this moment.

We now know that it could not possibly have been Schakowsky's mother's funeral--so that leaves us with these questions:
Did Edmond's A)make this connection herself or B)did those being wiretapped say "Schakowsky's mother"?
If it is B), why did she not state this in her rebuttal?
If she was merely repeating that "a townhouse" was involved in this operation, why did she state that it was Schakowsky's townhouse in the interview?
If her statement's are a collection of remembered translations AND analysis (as opposed to just translations), in what other areas might she have come to an erroneous conclusion?

I have no problem with having an investigation into Edmond's claims--and I'm not implying that she should know anything in particular. I am simply asking why she stated that she DID know something when she apparently did not.

[cascadiance]

166. But the point is, "Did she KNOWINGLY misrepresent facts", or misinterpret them or get wrong info..

... or was there another explanation for her not getting the proper delineation of what was happening. Who knows, perhaps it was at a "townhouse" that was a temporary residence (like a hotel) that technically was NOT Schakowsky's townhouse, but was in her name temporarily while she was in DC. The fact is, WE DON'T KNOW what the circumstances were, and perhaps Sibel didn't either! She was putting forth second hand information. And there probably were many other points in data she gives out that someone could pick a part and said she had one detail wrong, and even if it wasn't intentional, they'd use it as a means to exploit it.

Another example of where facts could be wrong would be if a tape mentioned that some data originated from "MIT", which could either mean the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, or the MIT which is the Turkish equivalent of the CIA, which is who Mehmet Eymur worked for which is one of the individuals that Sibel was looking at as one of her targets. If one isn't careful of understanding the context of this, this could have also been "confused" and used as a way of "dismissing" her allegations. There are likely MANY places where such translations could be flawed and which those seeking to shut down such investigations could try to dismiss them and imply that everything was wrong because one small detail was not interpreted or understood properly. There are many potential reasons for these sorts of things, and when these happen the best way to resolve such conflicts is to fully investigate the data involved to know what was really there and matching it up with what was alleged, to determine if the substance of what is being alleged is true or isn't true.

Sibel isn't a computer, and neither are the rest of us. We're human beings. We'll mess up on details. But we still have overall sensibilities, principles, and level of understanding of what goes on around us that are the important things to analyze, not whether we made minute mistakes in otherwise important efforts to bring forth issues that the American people should know about what our government is doing in our name. Now is not the time to judge Sibel. Nor is it the time to judge Ms. Schakowsky. That time will come later when we see what the real facts are. If we're not allowed to see those facts, then BOTH women will have taints on their standing, and our government itself will also, and those future whistleblowers who also want to let us know of what is going wrong in our country will have one more reason to avoid coming forward with what they know, since they know as human beings, they will be SKEWERED by those who wish to shut down our democratic processes to defend their actions, and future corrupt politicians will have that much more reason to feel they will be able to get away with criminal actions in our government.

However, if we do follow through and do an investigation, either we will validate Sibel's concerns, and help to:

a) fix the problems that she is pointing to and help make our government stronger towards serving the people instead of corrrupt individuals.
b) serve as a disincentive to those that in the future might try to profit from corrupt actions in our government, knowing that there are still processes that can shut them down if whistleblowers can be empowered to help with that effort.
c) if it is found that Sibel HAS been lying and manufacturing all of her information, it will ALSO serve as a disincentive for any who might have similar ideas of trying to manufacture false information to smear others, since the process ultimately will bring out the truth and shut those sorts of efforts down.
d) if Sibel is only guilty of misinterpreting some data, or bringing forth false data that was distorted by others, and both Sibel and Ms. Schakowsky were tainted earlier before such information could be brought forward, we show that the process can ultimately narrow in on where the wrongdoing occurred and allow others to feel that human beings such as Sibel Edmonds and Jan Schakowski can function in government and even with perhaps mistakes on both sides still be able to function if they're heart and their talents are allowed to work in the right direction.

If we don't investigate this, we will all pay the price! That is why this is NOT the time to judge either set of people. It is the time to say that the government must tell us what is really going on and make sure we the people can understand what our "employees" are actually doing, and how we as "managers" need to fix the shop we're "managing".

[Ghost in the Machine]

146. Much more so than an anonymous internet poster. I'll tell you what..

Why don't you just go ahead and post your full name, along with your job history, and let us decide whether YOU are credible enough to be posting your case against her credibility?

Go on... I DARE you....

[Poll_Blind]

149. Yes. n/t

PB

[cali]

153. no.

no evidence. and the only thing Leahy and Grassley found her credible on was her original allegation about her co-worker. Over the years, the supposedly gagged Edmonds added on allegation after allegation. All from 6 months as a contractor. Nope, she ain't credible.

[cascadiance]

156. So I guess you are saying that the evidence that she points to doesn't exist or has been destroyed?

Some other people of authority HAVE verified that the document references are valid references to documents that SHOULD exist. Now if they don't exist, there's a larger problem of documents being destroyed that shouldn't be. If they do exist then there IS evidence, but evidence we currently don't have access to. DON'T misrepresent that there is NO evidence, when there is evidence that could be looked at to confirm or dismiss her allegations. The original allegation of her coworker was noting that her coworker's and her husband relationship was tainted by their relationship with a "target" of FBI investigation. She just recently noted that Dickerson was working with Grossman, who is the root of a lot of her other allegations. If THAT was the tainted target that she was pointing to then and what has been covered up, and Leahy and Grassley were saying she was credible over those allegations, then DAMNIT, it needs to be looked at. There's nothing that should excuse IGNORING treason and smearing someone who has information that it occurred. And six months or a year, or even a few weeks doesn't make a damn difference. If she saw evidence of a criminal act, we should look at what happened.

To dismiss her credibility just because she alleges something against a Democrat is playing destructive partisan politics just as destructive as the Republicans were doing when they were covering up and ignoring Bush administration's crimes. We can't have that in a democracy.

[cali]

157. no, I'm saying there's no corroboration or evidence

produced by Edmonds. It may exist or it may not. She may be embellishing.

And sorry, I've always been doubtful of Sibel- well before the Schakowsky allegation.

[cascadiance]

159. Then you should be MORE interested in tracking down that evidence and corroborating it...

than just trying to "kill the messenger", by smearing her before we can establish that the evidence which SHE points to existing validates or doesn't validate her claims.

If Sibel DID in fact possess herself a document that should have been a "secure" document, I would actually question her credibility more, since she would have violated protocol of document security to in fact have this "corroborative evidence". She's been shown as someone that has tried to follow the rules in presenting her case, and she shouldn't be criticized for NOT violating these secure protocols. Arguably she should be able to trust our record keeping infrastructure to keep these documents in place. If they don't, then we have a BIG problem on our hands, and it is far more harmful to demonize her than to look into what she's concerned about.

The documents she references HAVE existed at one time and this is verified by FBI emails that the London Times gathered before publishing her story. Document #203A-WF-210023 was reported as "not existing" when a FOA request was made for it, but there are other corroborating evidence that it in fact HAS existed, and SHOULD exist. You are smearing THE WRONG PERSON if you are smearing Sibel. You should be asking why this document is reported as not existing when there is evidence that it did at one point exist. That is NOT a problem we should be shooting the messenger for, but trying to assess where this document is, and what its content was/is.

http://blather.net/blather/2008/10/black_market_nukes_part_one_found_in_tra_1.html

...

In January of this year, Sibel spoke to the Sunday Times in London, and seemingly defying the gag order, revealed much to the journalists Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert and Joe Lauria(13). One of the Times pieces dealt with the FBI document 203A-WF-210023. That month, acting on an anonymous tip-off (18), the American human rights group the Liberty Coalition had made a Freedom of Information request for 203A-WF-210023 and were told by the FBI that it did not exist. But the Sunday Times were able to obtain a document signed by an FBI official showing that the file did exist. Sibel said to the Times journalists: 'I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002. The file refers to the counterintelligence programme that the Department of Justice has declared to be a state secret to protect sensitive diplomatic relations' (14).

Apparently the FBI counterintelligence programme that Sibel worked on began in 1996 if not earlier, and was wound up at the end of January 2002 (15). So it seems the FBI are no longer investigating this dodgy network. And it's not just Sibel who has spoken out about the criminal activity that the counterintelligence programme uncovered. According to the Dallas Morning News in February 2008, FBI employees have written anonymous letters, confirming Sibel's story (16).

...

(13) Chris Gourlay, Jonathan Calvert and Joe Lauria in the Sunday Times:

'For Sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets', 6 January 2008.

'FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft', 20 January 2008.

'Tip-off thwarted nuclear spy ring probe', 27 January 2008.

(14) 'FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft'.

(15) 'For Sale: West's deadly nuclear secrets'.

(16) Philip Giraldi, 'What FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds found in translation', Dallas Morning News, 17 February 2008: 'Ms. Edmonds' revelations have attracted corroboration in the form of anonymous letters apparently written by FBI employees. There have been frequent reports of FBI field agents being frustrated by the premature closure of cases dealing with foreign spying, particularly when those cases involve Israel, and the State Department has frequently intervened to shut down investigations based on "sensitive foreign diplomatic relations."'

(18) Update, 22 September 2009. In an interview for Antiwar Radio (mp3), 21 minutes into it, Joe Lauria states that he asked Sibel Edmonds if she was the anonymous source and she denied it.

...

[cali]

160. I haven't smeared her. Just because I don't see her as some oracle

doesn't indicate a smear. And I do think her allegations should be investigated.

[Autumn]

164. Can we get Sibel out

from under the bus now?

[Vinnie From Indy]

168. no

She deserves to be under the bus for her copmpletely unsubstantiated claims.

[Autumn]

197. That is your claim ,that her

claims are completely unsubstantiated . That doesn't make what you claim the truth. We really don't know yet, do we ? But thats okay it's a big fucking bus.

[Gwereeya]

171. Okay, you go ME confused!

This is a scandal involving the Bush Administration: why are so many here poo-poohing it?

[Vinnie From Indy]

174. Because there is no proof for starters

And secondly because what has been offered by Edmonds has already been easily refuted by FACTS!!!!

Simply because some folks want Edmonds story to be true does not make it true by a long shot.

[Gwereeya]

182. Charles Grassley believes her!

Nearly three decades in the Senate. A Republican. Bush stalwart. You tell me!

[Vinnie From Indy]

187. It is difficult to respond to your claim without violating DU's rules.

The fact is that your are either a fool, willfully ignorant or just plain stupid!

As has been repeated dozens of times in threads concerning Edmonds, Grassley has NEVER corroborated Edmonds claims of treason and the rest of her explosive allegations. NOT ONCE! Please prove me wrong! Go ahead and post your evidence that Grassley supports her claims of treason, blackmail and the selling of state secrets. I dare you !!!

[Gwereeya]

196. "FBI Whistleblower says Neocons Negotiated Iraq Invasion with Foreign Agents in Summer 2001"

"A Department of Justice inspector general’s report called Edmonds’s allegations "credible," "serious," and "warranting a thorough and careful review by the FBI." Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee members Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have backed her publicly. "60 Minutes" launched an investigation of her claims and found them believable. No one has ever disproved any of Edmonds’s revelations, which she says can be verified by FBI investigative files."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/23/122438/966

Yes, you read that right: DailyKos.

And I'm finding it difficult to respond to your post without violating DU's rules! So smile: We have something in common!

:toast:

[cascadiance]

205. And if you claim a fool believes that he hasn't corroborated her claims of treason...

How can you can claim that and NOT be a fool for believing that he DIDN'T do corroborate her claims of treason when she has claimed that it was her coworker's husband that was tied to the man that committed treason (Grossman) and likely the "target" of investigation and was likely part of her original complaints!

You can't dismiss others as "fools" without being one yourself, unless you know something the rest of us don't. Do you want to tell us HOW you know this secret information?

Post your evidence that what Grassley's support DID NOT reflect her claims of treason, etc. Works both ways!

[AntiFascist]

192. Yes, Grassley and others have found Edmonds to be credible...

and that is the whole point of this thread, at least from the thread title. Even the IG report referenced above makes the point that Edmonds' INITIAL allegations were very serious and should have been investigated seriously.

To be fair, Grassley was not referring to the specific allegations against Schakowsky, and that seems to be what Vinnie From Indy is stuck on.

[cali]

195. no, not quite. Grassley thinks that her claims that the FBI didn't

properly investigate her allegations about her co-worker are credible. That's it.

[cascadiance]

202. And her coworker's husband has been tied to Marc Grossman too! Is that REALLY it?....

[AntiFascist]

209. Cali, your logic is flawed and you are desperately trying to parse...

from Grassley's own webpage and his press release:

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=8295

"I've got questions about whether this has anything to do with genuine national security. If it does, then the action might actually aid our enemies by alerting them to publicly available information that the U.S. government now considers sensitive."

Why would Grassley question whether this has anything to do with GENUINE national security if he didn't feel that some of Sibel's allegations were credible enough to be investigated by the FBI?! Both Grassley and the IG report make very clear the point that this could be a very serious matter and the IG report indicates that it should be investigated further by the FBI. If Sibel was really insane and thought not to be taken seriously, then obviously the IG and Sen. Grassley would not be going out on such a limb.

[Gwereeya]

185. Methinks they doth protest too much.

You know, I've only been here a short time, but even in my newbhood I've seen some strange theories about the Bush Administration get raves. Why so different on this one?

[conscious evolution]

200. yes

The only people whom I have credibilty problems with is her detractors here on DU.Seems like half of the people who are attacking her here are those on my ignore list or those soon to be on it.

[cali]

203. lol. could you possibly be anymore self-involved?

yes, yes. it's all about you, dear.