READER COMMENTS ON

"Edmonds Issues Formal Response to Schakowsky's Denial of Lesbian Affair with Turkish Operative"

(174 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... DGPNorth said on 9/24/2009 @ 7:21 pm PT...





Radio interview link with agent Cole is a 404 [Ed Note: Thanks DGP. Have now gotten the correct link for the audio file, and have corrected it in the letter above. - BF]

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2009 @ 7:52 pm PT...





Thanks DGP. That's the link she had in her original version of the letter. I'll check what it was supposed to link to, and try to get it fixed shortly for ya!

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/24/2009 @ 8:00 pm PT...





Wow. Sibel knocked one out of the ballpark with that letter. How in God's name can Schakowsky respond to that???? Brad.... Its posted at TWN with a link back to you. If Sibel can keep this kind of sharp rebuttal going, it is going to become impossible to keep it out of the mainstream. If one of the links is a 404, it needs to be fixed post haste. People will be combing this letter for holes, and a 404 or two will give them breathing room.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... arthurdecco said on 9/24/2009 @ 8:05 pm PT...





I wish I could be more imaginative but brutal times demand guttural responses: YOUZ iz da BEst! & who else is singing this song but you? I'm waiting for the four part harmony - when's that gonna happen?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 9/24/2009 @ 8:27 pm PT...





Sibel's response almost defies adjectives, but I will try:

Majestic, Unheralded, Calm steely resolve in the face of asinine playground frightened defensive empty attack. Masterful retort to feeble flailing desperate attempt to deflect, even as the "representative" was not accused of any crime. Telling.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... jbnhm said on 9/24/2009 @ 9:21 pm PT...





I'll wager that if Schakowsky even considers an investigation the NSA will have a lot of phone calls to record in Washington over the next week or so.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Stop Turkey said on 9/25/2009 @ 3:40 am PT...





Has there been any mainstream coverage of this story yet, even superficially?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:54 am PT...





Sibel is a rock. I am absolutely floored at her dedication to truth. How many would go this far? I've got a family with young kids, I'm sure I would have packed it in long ago. American Hero. Somebody give her a big red 'S' and a cape.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Edward Rynearson said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:53 am PT...





August 19, 2009 – Peter B Collins Radio Podcast Philip Giraldi, former CIA and DIA officer, on US/Israel relations, AIPAC, wiretapping and Rep. Jane Harman. This is the third installment of Boiling Frogs interviews co-hosted with Sibel Edmonds, and is quite explosive. Giraldi, a self-described conservative who was critical of the Bush administration on many issues, is equally critical of Obama and Democrats who are influenced by AIPAC. Giraldi gives background and details on the interception of Rep. Harman’s phone conversation with an Israeli: she agreed to intervene on behalf of two Israelis caught spying on the US, and in return hoped they would help her win the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Radio Du Jour (non-commercial truth radio blog) Giraldi is a member of the American Conservative Defense Alliance, and contributing editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a regular column, Smoke & Mirrors, on Antiwar.com.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Johhny Brutal said on 9/25/2009 @ 10:17 am PT...





come on Congresswoman if you are telling the truth the polygraph test will not hard a bit but if you are not telling the truth that is another matter maybe just resign and be a lobbist for Turkey you would make more money then what you are stealing for us taxpayers

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Valley Girl said on 9/25/2009 @ 12:12 pm PT...





Hi Brad and all, Apologies if this question has discussed before. And, Brad you know me, and know that this is an honest question on my part, albeit perhaps influenced by reading too much John LeCarre. But here's thought/ question re: the Schakowsky part Edmonds testimony and the Schwkowsky response- might it be possible that both Edmonds and Schakowsky are telling the absolute truth? Edmonds is correctly reporting the content of tapes she was asked to translate AND Schakowsky is correct in denying that what was on the tapes is incorrect? It you think about it, it doesn't have to be either/ or. Mind you, I am asking this ONLY in the specific context of the Edmonds/ Schakowsky issue. On the one hand (easiest to quote from BB) ~~details of what she heard while reviewing and translating wiretaps of Turkish agents who were targets of a long-running FBI investigation centered out of Chicago, but extending far beyond~~ But

~~~Edmonds was fired by the FBI in 2002, after she began reporting to her superiors on a colleague in the translation department who was, herself, a member of one of the Turkish organizations being targeted by the FBI's counterintelligence investigation~~~ Okay, I hope I can explain this correctly- the way I read this, a superior to Edmonds was a member of one of the targeted organizations, thus someone with dual allegiance or just a mole in the FBI. What is important is part is how long that superior had been at the FBI, and the extent of their knowledge about the FBI investigation, and THUS, the ability to shape the info that Turkish agents conveyed? Supposing these Turkish agents had a head's up that they were being wire tapped? And thus, could throw a spanner in the works by discussing on some occasions true "info" and but on select other occasions throwing out a total fabrication to be taped? Bluff, double bluff, or something like that? The intent being to totally confuse the issue? Brad, you know me, and I hope you know I am not being a crank here. It just occurs to me that in matters of espionage there may extra levels of misdirection. xo VG

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Jim cirile said on 9/25/2009 @ 1:44 pm PT...





With all due respect to Ms. Edmonds, what we have here is a massively blown opportunity. Here's what she/we SHOULD have done with this: she should have used this information to arm-twist Schakowsky into using her influential position to spearhead a congressional investigation --- on promise of full immunity and zero disclosure ABOUT HER. This is the way it's done. You cut deals. Someone should have said to her, you pursue this, or the information goes out wide and the shitstorm will hit. There may still be a chance to salvage this.

But otherwise jeez. Golden opportunity, blown. This info will all disappear shortly down the rabbit hole.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Cosimo diRondo said on 9/25/2009 @ 1:59 pm PT...





Um...isn't that, like, blackmail? I think I just got high from the irony.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2009 @ 2:37 pm PT...





VG @ 11: Yes, both Schakowsky and Edmonds could be telling the truth as they each understand it. And yes, there could have been disinformation on the tapes. There are also a number of other plausible scenarios along similar lines. (Eg, Edmonds could be correct, but has mis-remembered several details, etc.) Trying to untangle it all in the background, as well as I can, as noted in my update abobve. In regard to the co-worker, I don't believe she was not a "superior", but rather another colleague in the translation dept. as I recall the details. But when Edmonds complained to superiors, that's what eventually lead to her firing (about which she filed for whistleblower protection, but was blocked from presenting her case by the invocation of "State Secrets Privilege" all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court). For the specifics and best details on the co-worker issue, I'd refer you to David Rose's excellent 2005 Vanity Fair piece.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2009 @ 2:39 pm PT...





Jim Cirile @ 12: I would agree with Cosimo's comment, that your suggestion sounds a LOT like extortion. At least in the way you've spelled it out. Certainly the "Someone should have said to her, you pursue this, or the information goes out wide and the shitstorm will hit" part!

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Jim cirile said on 9/25/2009 @ 2:56 pm PT...





I would contend it's a basic law enforcement technique and used all the time. You give the little fish immunity to go after the big ones. I'm the son of 2 NYPD Detectives. This is how it's done.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2009 @ 3:42 pm PT...





The whistleblower is not the cops! It may work the other way around, where law enforcement can make such legal deals, with the permission of a judge, etc. But if you reverse it, it's extortion (which is an interesting contrast, in and of itself, but an entirely different matter )

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Valley Girl said on 9/25/2009 @ 3:54 pm PT...





Brad @#14- Thanks for your response, and the link. And, for the rest of you, what Brad is pointing out is that I misread one part that was actually quite clear in the BB comment I quoted (As I see upon rereading; Ouch, my apologies Brad) Edmonds was reporting to a superior about a co-worker- follow the link Brad gives to this odd part of the story. And Brad I hope you know I wasn't meaning to cast a negative light on your great reporting and all efforts throughout, nor on your critical nouse. I was just wondering "what if..." and posted it as a comment. Tho, given that I misread one major detail, maybe I've ruined my own cred. Thanks for your continuing work on this and other issues since way back when I first discovered BradBlog. I'm happy to give my $$ when I can manage, to BB, the only blog I give $$ to. Hmmm... okay, where's my debit card?

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Valley Girl said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:04 pm PT...





Brad- update okay, found my debit card and used it on your behalf. Thank you also for accepting straight out debit/ credit cards for contributions without making donors (e.g. me) go through the hoops of having to get a f*****g PayPal account!!!

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... nader paul kucinich gravel said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:05 pm PT...





Looks, brains, & a heart.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Michael Monk said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:26 pm PT...





Brad, you have done good work and have been fair in all this. So Schakowsky's office will be no help in any of this or investigations it appears.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Cosimo diRondo said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:50 pm PT...





OK, so this is largely an exercise in pedantry, as clearly there would be ethical/moral issues with coercing Schakowsky's cooperation, but Findlaw describes extortion as: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim." Doesn't really apply. The "only" gain would be the public good resulting from her simply doing her job. Lawyers.com defines blackmail as: "extortion or coercion by often written threats esp. of public exposure, physical harm, or criminal prosecution" Maybe. Anyway, the real reason I'm posting is to point out that Raw Story once again has some links to this issue (though no original reporting). Hopefully these are less ephemeral than the last one they had for all of about an hour or two a couple of weeks back.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... kathleen said on 9/25/2009 @ 4:55 pm PT...





the silence about this in the MSM is deafenning. Anyone else notice how the MSMer's are not even questioning what Obama said about Iran today. Now let's just say they (Brown, Sarkozy, Obama) are right. Why after the run up to the invasion of Iraq and all of the false claims that the MSM endlessly repeated. Why the fuck would they not simply ask some logical quesions "where is the intelligence from? Are these verifiable claims? Does Iran have to alert the IAEA to these constructions? What is the time line? All we are seeing is the same script, new country, different President. Hope this is not Obama's "Niger Document" moment Oh by the way we have never seen one person held accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. No those murderers have moved on to re-write history

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Vinnie From Indy said on 9/25/2009 @ 5:50 pm PT...





I have a few problems with Edmonds response. The very first sentence of her open letter to Shakowsky contians a glaring falsehood. Edmonds writes,

"It is an age-old tactic, when one cannot refute statements with facts, to attempt to discredit the witness. Rather than exchanging accusations, let me just go on record with facts and detailed citations." That is simply not true! Shakowsky DID respond to Edmonds initial allegations with factual information. Shakowsky pointed out that Edmonds was incorrect about the date of Shakowsky's mother's funeral by many years and that Edmonds was incorrect about Shakowski living in or owning a townhouse. What is one to make of that? Further, Edmonds initial claim about Shakowsky only provided a FEW details and two of those details were factually incorrect. I find it extremely odd and deeply distressing that Edmonds does not address these errors of fact in her long open letter. She certainly was aware that she was incorrect in her initial claim as she obviously responds directly to Shakowsky's rebuttal in this response. Why does she not explain or clarify these glaring falsehoods in her claims against Shakowsky? Lastly, Edmonds ends her letter with:

"The last time I saw a similar attack on my credibility was when Dennis Hastert issued a non-denial denial to information contained in a previous magazine article. He later gave up his seat, registered himself (under FARA) as an agent for the government of Turkey, and went on to collect $35,000 per month as a foreign agent. I certainly hope you are not planning to follow his footsteps by giving up your seat and officially registering with a foreign government." This bit of slime reveals just a bit more about Edmonds. She ends her long open letter by smearing Shakowsky by implication. What is one to think of that cheap shot? In short, each time Edmonds drops a new bombshell or pens an open letter, she reveals a bit more about herself. What she reveals here does not do her credibility any good in my mind.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/25/2009 @ 6:39 pm PT...





The interesting thing about this recent chapter is that I see NO rebuttal, or attempt to discredit, the numerous collaborative people, files, and transcripts that Sibel lists in her letter. Even the poster above me, "Vinnie", goes out of his way to assault Sibel's character, while completely ignoring the meat of her letter. Kincaid's reputtal is equally as devoid of substance. It is truly a shame that debate on this has became one of arguing side issues and trivia, while ignoring the more disarming aspects of Sibel's accusations. I can't help but wonder if the Shakowsky part of this thing is the weak link in Sibel's assertions, therefore the area that Grossman, Hastert, and crew have decided to make their first stand. If Sibel's info on this has holes they realize they can exploit to discredit the whole of Sibel's accusations, it may explain why Shakowsky has been handed the dueling pistols. Today, I called our local conservative radio talk show host, and, on the air, assked her if she was following the Sibel Edmonds affair. She claimed to have never heard of Sibel, so I referred her to the American Conservative article. She has a small amount of national exposure, as she has appeared with Hannity on Fox, so it will be interesting to call in again on Monday, press her again, and see how she reacts. But at least Sibel's name got out on the mainstream airwaves in Central California, so even if she refuses to air the issue, I can assume a listener or two did some surfing. I hope people concerned about this issue, and reading this, take the time to do the same. It took me less than five minutes, and hundreds of thousands of people heard Sibel Edmonds name, and a brief summary about the accusations. Its not a wasteful expenditure of time. Still no support over at TWN, basically tooting the horn there on my own. Too bad, some very heavyweight people read TWN, and when just one person argues an issue, people tend to tune out. This won't go mainstream because they come looking for us, we have to take it to them. Another note...It is beginning to remind me very much of the pre-Invasion days running up to the attack on Iraq. The MSM is rattling the terrorist fear klaxon at us big time, and now we are hearing about "secret" Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities. Remember the Iraqi "secret" bio weapons labs that they bullshitted us with? Are we really dumb enough to fall for this horseshit again?? It appears that Obama and crew think we are. I hope they're wrong, but I'm not optimistic. One thing is for sure, something big is coming up, and be prepared to see Sibel's thing die on the vine unless we REALLY push it.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Joe Blow said on 9/25/2009 @ 7:00 pm PT...





"Vinnie" I don't believe you are anything other than a Turkish lobby stooge or a Schakowsky supporter. 1. Schakowsky nowhere denies a relationship with the Turkish woman. She does use ad hominem attacks. Contrary to your impression, attacking the character of the speaker rather than answering the factual allegations made is a classic rhetorical technique which is easily unmasked. 2. Sibel's character is not relevant, although it has been vouchsafed at every turn- Inspector General, Senators, fellow FBI Agents. What evidence do you have that she has consciously exaggerated or lied about anything? 3. Do you seriously believe that her charges do not deserve open public investigation? On what basis can her charges be ignored? 4. As to her claims of what the tapes say, or what special agents told her, her testimony is easy to corroborate or disprove. What is the harm in that?

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/25/2009 @ 7:29 pm PT...





It would be interesting, to me at least, if somebody would do the research to see if anyone close to Schakowsky died during the period Edmonds claims to have heard of said affair.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 9/25/2009 @ 7:34 pm PT...





I don't know enough about the Edmonds/Schakowsky conflict to attempt any opinion on which side has the right of it as yet. But I do know that I am truly saddened and a bit disgusted that with all the allegations Sibel has made concerning potentially treasonous acts by members of Congress, the one act we are focused on contains no wrongdoing by this congresswoman in terms of national security, but is the alleged sex act between same-sex partners and ouside the bounds of marriage, allegedly set up for the purpose of potential blackmail and/or espionage. Ooooooh! Secret Agent Man! You let the wrong word slip

While kissing persuasive lips

Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow When will we grow up? Frankly I think Congresswoman Schakowsky and all of us should insist that her private life is private and any attempt to investigate her sex life should be stopped at once. Don't we have better things to do and actual serious wrongs to investigate? We risk ruining s person's career over an allegation about forbidden sex. Come on, people. Been there, done that, haven't we? In the words of Tripper (Bill Murray, Meatballs): It Just Doesn't Matter. What DOES matter is who's selling which secrets to another government! Or whose cooperation was bought in order to save another government big bucks!

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/25/2009 @ 7:58 pm PT...





Lora is correct that someone's sexual orientation is their own business, excepting that it's also the business of their partner(s). That said, the important matter is whether or not Schakowsky was ever blackmailed, assuming there to be any truth to the allegations. Edmonds has already stated she has no knowledge of any blackmail occurring. Frankly, for me I'm just astounded that Turkey could be performing such successful espionage against our government and its people. I mean, c'mon, Turkey?! I never would've have guessed them to be such proficient spies. I would've thought Russia or Israel, or China. If this is even partially true than I hate to imagine what those guys are busy doing to us right now. There's a big part of me that hopes this stuff isn't true, but the rest of me knows that someone else out there will want to take advantage of that part. In the end, all I can ask myself is what the hell do I know anyway? I'll just have to sit back with the rest of you and see how this unfolds.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Styve said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:10 pm PT...





I'm sorry to say, but a reason I rarely posted on this site over the past few years is that the site's functionality just SUCKS!! It spastically jumps as you try to scroll down through comments, and it is even worse going from thread to thread. Nothing, or very little has changed...please update your software!!

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:13 pm PT...





"I'll just have to sit back with the rest of you and see how this unfolds" Well, you won't be "sitting back" with me. I'm old enough, and savvy enough, to know that we won't expose a damned thing by "sitting back". What would we be talking about if Brad, Sibel, and Philip has just "sat back" to see what unfolded? Get with the program, man. Call your local media and raise a stink. We stand a better chance of getting some momentum for this story by targeting local media, as it is already obvious the big player MSM media is purposely avoiding it. Reach out to HUNGRY editors, station managers, and radio hosts.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... NoOneYouKnow said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:16 pm PT...





I think Vinnie from Indy has a point. Schakowsky's refutations of Sibel's assertions may seem picayune, but I'd also like to hear how Sibel explains the discrepancies. Mind you, I think Schakowsky and her communications director are running scared, but it's key that we keep our side of the street as clean as we can.

And I mean "we" in the sense that I'm on Sibel's side in this; I think she's telling the truth.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:31 pm PT...





"It spastically jumps as you try to scroll down through comments, and it is even worse going from thread to thread" Thats not the site. It a problem with your PC.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:32 pm PT...





Oh, PissedOffAmerican, I knew someone would take that part of my comment in that manner. I'm trying to do my part. I plan to e-mail two sources kooky enough to cover this. Glenn Beck (because he's insane, but he claims to be neither republican nor democrat (a debatable assertion I know) and this story is perfect for such a claimant as it has people from both sides of the aisle) and the Daily Show (because aspects of this are funny, at least to me (I mean, really, Turkey?))In the end however my super powers are limited and eventually all anyone can do is sit back and watch life unfold. At least to some extent. Maybe that's being too existentialist. But I'm telling people I know about it, trying to do my part.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:38 pm PT...





Lora @ 28 said: Frankly I think Congresswoman Schakowsky and all of us should insist that her private life is private and any attempt to investigate her sex life should be stopped at once. Don't we have better things to do and actual serious wrongs to investigate? You do not think that it's an issue if a member of the U.S. House Select Comm. on Intelligence (and the chair of it's Subcomm on Oversight and Investigation) has been exposed, opened to, potentially compromised by blackmail?? I share your feeling, in that I don't give a damn what she does in her personal life. And were it something that couldn't be used for blackmail purposes, there would be no point to either these discussions, or the supposed attempts at a setup for blackmail purposes. But for someone in that position to allegedly have something like that which could compromise them, that seems like a concern to me. And also a good reason to determine if it's accurate or not accurate. I appreciate your (and others) thoughts on all of this, of course.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2009 @ 8:53 pm PT...





POA - Thanks. For all. Vinnie from Indy - Your thoughts are appreciated. Certainly more than your persistent, inaccurate attacks on another whistleblower, Clint Curtis, if I remember correctly, back in the day. Styve - Sorry you're having problems with the site. If/when people like yourself decide to actually donate in any reasonable amount that I can afford to use some of it to hire a programmer to upgrade/redesign, I'll be happy to. Would love to, in fact. Until then, we're all stuck with my own somewhat limited skills and nearly non-existent free time. But other than that, I hope you find a way to enjoy the content offered here, for free, nonetheless.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Rob Clark said on 9/26/2009 @ 4:35 am PT...





I, too, offer kudos for her courage.

She also seems to be doing the best that she can with the tools at her disposal.

http://www.archive.org/details/killthemessenger

Very well produced documentary. Also certain to go the way of "The Power of Nightmares". It won't be licensed for viewing in this country.

Keep it up, Sibel. You got close to an opening.

Brad, some of us out here in the e-mist have some skills. What would you like to see changed?

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:32 am PT...





Brad, You do not think that it's an issue if a member of the U.S. House Select Comm. on Intelligence (and the chair of it's Subcomm on Oversight and Investigation) has been exposed, opened to, potentially compromised by blackmail? The key word here is potentially. This allegation has more to do with sex than blackmail. Sibel's other allegations have to do with alleged actual serious, possibly traitorous wrongdoings. Sadly, the public will be focused on the forbidden sex part and elements will try to use it to ruin a democratic congressperson's career, when her sex life just doesn't matter. We should, IMO, say it and mean it, and give backing to all public figures who are harrassed because of their alleged sex life with consenting adults. The sex part will also serve as a major distraction from issues that really do matter. However, because the allegation is out there, and because the allegation may have serious consequences, I do appreciate and applaud your efforts to get the facts straight and look at the evidence. Unless there is evidence of actual blackmail with regard to the Congresswoman, and there isn't as far as we know, I think it best for all of us to focus on some of Sibel's other allegations. I have deep respect for your site and your investigative work.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:45 am PT...





The problem I have with all of this is that Sibel is a little naive about what she thinks are "the facts." I believe she translated what she translated, but what isn't answered is why she would believe those who spoke it on the tapes were being truthful? These are conversations among underworld types and spies. What is the name of the operative who spoke this, so we can verify "the fact" she claims on the record? This is the trouble with pseudo-journalism like this blog. I admire your work and defend it --- don't get me wrong --- but trained, professional journalists would dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Joe Blow said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:08 am PT...





Cheeky, your comments ignore that The Times of London, Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes all covered Sibel's charges, as did TAC. Moreover, Sibel is prohibited by law and patriotism from disclosing information about sources and methods- she cannot identify information that journalists ordinarily have with which to follow up. It is also simply untrue that charges mmade by whistleblowers don't get published. Nor is it fair to claim that this blog is a purely journalistic one. Brad has a point of view. But that point of view as I read it has never concluded that Sibel's statements are true. It has been that her charges are credible and worth investigating.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 8:28 am PT...





Sadly, if it takes raking Shakowsky's sex live over the coals to get Sibel's charges to be investigated, so be it. Certainly, we live in a society that can be more motivated by tittilation than by moral concern. Shakowsky's reputation and career are a small price to pay if it leads to further investigation before the public's eye. Lora, considering Shakowsky's responses thus far, do you think she would hesitate to drag Sibel's name into the gutter if she felt it would shut her up? And hasn't Sibel already paid with HER career, and much more? Let it all hang out, and let the chips fall where they may.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/26/2009 @ 9:06 am PT...





Lora @ 38 said: This allegation has more to do with sex than blackmail. Sibel's other allegations have to do with alleged actual serious, possibly traitorous wrongdoings. I will respectfully disagree with you there, even as I appreciate your point of view. If the allegations of a secretly video-taped sexual affair with a female Turkish agent are true, then --- while I don't give a damn about someone's private sexual life, as long as it's legal and consenting --- it raises serious issues of a compromised, high-ranking government official tasked with overseeing the very thing that she may herself have become involved in, in such a way that she'd have a difficult, if not impossible time, exposing, due to her own conflicts. That's a problem, as I see it. A big one. Sadly, the public will be focused on the forbidden sex part and elements will try to use it to ruin a democratic congressperson's career, when her sex life just doesn't matter. As stated, I disagree on whether it matters or not. That said, I suspect the point that she's a "democratic congressperson" may be affecting your judgement here. For the record, I too likely Schakowsky. But that's not the issue here. We should, IMO, say it and mean it, and give backing to all public figures who are harrassed because of their alleged sex life with consenting adults. That's not why she's being "harrassed" here, Lora.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/26/2009 @ 9:11 am PT...





Cheeky @ 39: This is the trouble with pseudo-journalism like this blog. I admire your work and defend it --- don't get me wrong --- but trained, professional journalists would dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging. In fact, we did "dig deeper for substantiation before publishing something so potentially damaging". In fact, we didn't publish it, even though we long knew who the Congresswoman in question actually was! The American Conservative published it. We reported that they did so, and then attempted to offer perspective and comment from those involved, etc. as quickly as possible. We believe that was the right thing to do, and something other outlets who practice pseudo-journalism, such as AP, New York Times, Washington Post et al, should have done long ago.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 12:26 pm PT...





Here is a link to a short letter to the editor, in regards to Sibel's accusations, that was ran on the Concord Monitor... http://www.cmonitor.com/...909250324/1029/OPINION03 The writer of that letter, Dan Kervick, is a regular and well respected commentor at the TWN blogsite. The reason I bring this up is to demonstrate the dividend that a very small effort can pay. I found this letter by doing a google advanced search on "Sibel Edmonds" this morning. So, expending the time it took to compose three short paragraphs, Dan not only put Sibel into the minds of an unknown number of Concord Monitor subscribers, he also managed to get his comment up as the third item on a date sorted google news search on "Sibel Edmonds". How many people has Dan reached through minimal effort? These are the kinds of efforts that will slowly nudge this story into the mainstream. Philip, Brad, and Sibel have worked dilligently to do their part, but all for naught if we don't do our part. Over at TWN, the usual suspect is working hard to shove Sibel's story into the same chapter the birthers have been consigned to. And he has far more time to flood the issue with obsfucation and bullshit than I have to rebut his every post. Its a shame that those of you that are in the know on this issue, far more than I am, aren't making an effort to carry some water for Sibel over there. Its an important blog, and some reasonable informed debate about Sibel has the potential to grow legs.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 9/26/2009 @ 12:56 pm PT...





OK PO Am, what is TWN. I googled it and got "Third World Network" You act like everyone should know, but the web is sooo vast, so many sites, so little time. Please enlighten me, I need a new battleground.....having vanquished all my foes on other right leaning sites. And as much as I love Brad's, a few similar great ones, where 90 some odd % agree w/me........i often get in an ornery mood where I prefer to be disagreed with, then let the vitriol and poetic snarkyness flow, oh boy, maybe even the odd fact or logical argument.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 1:15 pm PT...





Heres the blog.... http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/ And heres a thread to wade into.... http://www.thewashington...uest_note_by_r/#comments

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 1:31 pm PT...





BTW, Camus... If you do wander over there, the CAPTCHA feature sucks. If you have trouble getting a post up... https://bradblog.com/?p=7429#comment-409522

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 2:40 pm PT...





Brad and Joe Blow, reporting names in what Sibel translated isn't responsible journalism, which is why the major media sources aren't publishing it and not because they are afraid or protecting anyone. Sibel is not a privileged, first-hand source for these facts. She is a translator ... the person who heard others say it and who isn't telling us the name of the person who she heard it from so we can trace it back to the privileged source. She may not even know the name of the person who said it, and likely wasn't privy to the full context of the conversation, let alone the players or the reason for the conversation. It's tantamount to gossip, just a political version of the National Enquirer or Star magazine. Naming the congresswoman crossed the line. I am a professional journalist, and I don't defend much in MSM today, but this is a matter of fundamental news judgment. The fact you're repeating the American Conservative's poor judgment isn't very satisfying. Most of us learned early in our careers that the pen is, indeed, powerful. Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy. It's not something professional journalists take lightly. I hope my 2 cents gives you some worthwhile food for thought.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 3:13 pm PT...





Example, Brad, you reported, as a matter of fact: "The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed." In professional terms, attributing this to Edmonds means that you have verified that she, personally, received the videotape from the Turk who filmed it and she watched the whole tape to make these claims. It also means she spoke directly, first-hand with the person who was scheming to blackmail, but she did not speak to anyone who actually reached the congresswoman to make the deal. I doubt that attribution is reliable to the information given. I understood Edmonds to say she overheard someone on a phone recording make claims that such things happened. That person could have been making it all up to manipulate behavior from the listener. The attribution dots haven't been connected. This is a long, looong way from being a "fact." The only fact is that Edmonds translated underworld conversations whose authenticity she is in no position to validate. There's no moral high-ground in naming someone, especially as party to a "tryst" that wouldn't be illegal even if every bit of gossip Edmonds heard were true.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Vinnie From Indy said on 9/26/2009 @ 3:37 pm PT...





I think it would be helpful for Edmonds to provide a simple list of the people she has named in her allegations of treason, blackmail and the selling of state secrets. As far as I have been able to tell the list is quite long and continues to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview or writes an open letter. One thing is certain, if Edmonds claims are true, she can easily lay claim to the most eventful few weeks as a contract employee at the FBI EVER! She worked there for 24 weeks as I understand it. Hell, most people spend the first few weeks simply finding there way around the building etc. In Edmonds few weeks at the FBI she allegedly uncovered a conspiracy of high treason and the selling of state secrets by powerful, sitting members of Congress and senior White House officials as well as an enormous spy network run by the Turks that included not only several members of Congress and senior White House officials, but also the Mayor of Chicago and several Illinois state legislators. If that were not enough to shock and awe, Edmonds was also allegedly recruited to join the very same network that she was reading about in her day to day work translating documents. If true, it is without question one of the most amazing stories in the history of America.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 3:40 pm PT...





"I am a professional journalist" Then you'd think you'd be "professionally" working to inform the public sufficiently that a hew and cry can be raised to demand investigations into the more egregious of Sibel's claims, instead of nipping at Brad's hamstrings. I doubt your self proclaimed journalistic professionalism, because of the transparent focus and intent of your comments. "Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy" And they do so on a daily basis, if your version of "respected media" is what currently masquerades as the Fourth Estate. Who are these "respected media" that you so glowingly endorse? Name one, just one. Miller??? Novak?? Hannity? Beck?? Olbermann? Does being a well paid mouthpiece, disguising political marketing as "news" qualify you? So, here we have Friedman, trying to investigate a story that any moral and ethical "professional journalist" should be conscience driven to investigate, if only to disprove Sibel's assertions so that the names of those accused can be cleared... And we have you, posting comments in the back room of a blog that has very lttle exposure when compared to that of MSNBC, CNN, FOX, the NYTimes, etc., nitpicking over what is really trivia when compared to the whole body of what Sibel alleges. "Professional journalist". Yeah, right. You're "cheeky" all right. Trouble is, your attitude and focus shows us that your head is firmly lodged tightly between the two fleshy masses from which you draw your name.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 4:47 pm PT...





Hey, just chiming in to agree with POA on the matter of Cheeky. At least to agree with the gist of what he said. Also, I propose we rename Lora as Mrs.Shakowsky. Seriously, she seems to employ some wonderful sophistry by suggesting that we are all actually interested in Shakowsky's sex life, when that is a secondary consideration that only matters if it has been used against her to compromise her integrity. Seriouly, Lora, you are the one so tightly focused on that one allegation. You're looking at the tree and missing the forest, or you're trying to control and divert the conversation. Who knows which? Not me.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 4:56 pm PT...





PissedOff, journalists report verified, first-hand facts from their vetted sources, so their audiences may decide for themselves how they might choose to react. Journalists do not crusade to manipulate reactions, although the management may do so in its editorials. Rule of thumb, with rare exception, is that we verify a newsworthy claim by three independent sources before it's certain enough to publish as fact. I am not minimizing the role of a blog to crusade for a cause based on facts that are professionally reported, but in this case the line is being blurred. No professional media has vetted and reported as fact the claims Edmonds understood on those tapes she translated. You can doubt me if you like; that's your choice. I'm just telling you how news judgments are made in the old-school professional world, back when MSM was respected. And I understand the way MSM today operates gives you plenty of reason to doubt any of us, all the time. I think the ball is in Edmonds' court to produce the person whose conversation she was transcribing, much as the NYT should have made Dick Cheney and Condi Rice produce Curveball for editors to vet with such critical "news" that was key to a march to an unjust war.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:09 pm PT...





OK, cheeky, Edmonds will just go find the person or persons whose conversation she was transcribing, take them to Larry King and talk about how they were involved in Turkish espionage against the US. That'll be a cinch. Seriously, as a professional journalist, are you allowed to report on what other people are reporting if you can verify from three sources that it was reported? And where did you cut your teeth as a journalist, at a newspaper or on TV?

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:14 pm PT...





No, Olin. That would be gossip, not news. Has anyone asked Edmonds if she knows the name of the person who she transcribed saying this stuff? Has she done any vetting of who this person is, his/her history or reliability? Did you even wonder? Some of you don't sound very intellectual curious at all. I wish Judith Miller's editors had asked her these questions, to make sure she wasn't relying on Dick Cheney's third-hand claims of what a drunkard whose name she was never told was saying about Iraq.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:17 pm PT...





".....journalists report verified, first-hand facts from their vetted sources, so their audiences may decide for themselves how they might choose to react" What a bunch of rot. You need look no further than the current snakeoil being bandied about the not so secret "secret" Iranian nuclear facility to dispel your bizzarro representation of modern day journalistic integrity. A look into the current state of American media renders those such as Brad into the category of "proffessional journalist", while necessarily concluding that what passes for "news" these days, mainstream, is a compilation of management scripted talking points that rarely, if ever, resemble the actual facts. "Journalists", apparently, have become a highly paid contingent of buffoonish marionettes, mixing sarcasm and propaganda into a divisive stew designed to keep the masses bickering over bullshit while their corporate masters loot the coffers, with the able assistance of the type of scum Sibel seeks to expose. Now, you want to natter on about journalistic integrity??? Fine. Show us some. I dare ya. Wheres it at? Point us to it.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:26 pm PT...





Cheeky, I don't claim to be very "intellectual curious" but I've always had a thing for smart chicks. Anyway, I don't believe any of Edmonds' claims can be verified without government assistance, and that's what we're all having a hard time getting. Thus the need to have the story more widely reported so as to put public pressure on a potentially highly corrupt government to come clean. Or something like that. And you didn't tell me, newspaper or TV?

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:26 pm PT...





PissedOff, if you actually read my post you'd see I agree you have cause to be distrustful of modern American journalism. Funny though, you're not the least bit distrustful of the American Conservative magazine. Sy Hersch is one of the very few journalists I trust today. And I haven't seen him reporting he has verified anything Edmonds remembers translating from those circa 2001 audio tapes of alleged phone taps of unknown players.

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:34 pm PT...





Well, Olin, irresponsible "reporting" of gossip as "facts," as some people here allege they are doing, is the quickest way to repel the people you want to compel to look into it. That argument makes no sense to me. If you want to sound reasonable, you should start by searching for the name of the person Edmonds translated. Sorry I got hasty and submitted with the error in "intellectually curious." Sorry even more that it confused you.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 5:40 pm PT...





Cheeky, I'm sorry that I am easily confused and you don't have your editor looking over your shoulder correcting your mistakes. You must be from print journalism, I'm now going to assume. Now, print journalist Cheeky, help me further by telling me how to find the name of the person (and are we sure it was only one person, as I thought she was transcribing conversations and there were probably at least two people involved)? Google search the FBI files?

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:21 pm PT...





Also, cheeky, you are the one who is alleging that people here are irresponsibly reporting "gossip as 'facts'". It is a fact that serious allegations have been made by Edmonds, but I don't think anyone here is convinced of the veracity of the allegations. We're just curious why we're the only ones so curious about such serious allegations. And if you haven't actually done it please check out this link-http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00006/

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:34 pm PT...





"funny though, you're not the least bit distrustful of the American Conservative magazine" Look, Cheeky, questions,....whatever your name is..... American Conservative printed an INTERVIEW. It really doesn't matter whether or not I trust American Conservative, Philip Giraldi, or Santa Claus. It really doesn't even matter if I do or don't trust Sibel. No matter what side of the trust aisle I stand, common sense dictates that I'd like to see the truth come out about Sibel's accusations. Is Sibel some sort of lying publicity seeker??? Is our government hiding corruption and espionage on a huge scale??? Are our foreign policies being dictated by concerns for national security, or blackmail, bribery, and treason? Have you seen me state categorically that Sibel speaks the truth? I don't believe I ever have. I advocate for some "journalists", of the caliber you are fond of fantacizing yourself to be, to launch thorough and comprehensive investigations, in the hopes that enough can be unearthed to warrant and demand governmental investigations. The object, it seems to me, should be to get at the truth. Now, Mr. Proffessional Journalist, just what the hell are YOU doing to reach that end? Its easy to ask questions of your readers that you know they have no way to answer, cheeky. Its also a dissingenuous and despicable manner of debate. It is yet one more reason I distrust your self proclaimed designation of "proffessional journalist". As far as American Conservative goes, printing the Sibel Edmonds interview does not give me a reason to "trust" them, or distrust them. It does, however, give me some incentive to respect them. I tried a trial subscription to AC magazine, and let the offer lapse because its content didn't seem to match my ideological leanings. I may reconsider.

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:37 pm PT...





Cheeky, in re: several of your comments above (and apologies that I haven't been able to respond to each, as I'm on the road this weekend, speaking on a Media Reform panel in San Diego, so this will have to be quick for now...with my apologies again): Example, Brad, you reported, as a matter of fact: "The tryst, according to Edmonds, was video-taped by the Turks for possible use in a blackmail scheme, though Edmonds left the FBI before learning whether or not the Congresswoman was ever blackmailed." In professional terms, attributing this to Edmonds means that you have verified that she, personally, received the videotape from the Turk who filmed it and she watched the whole tape to make these claims. With all due respect, Cheeky, that's just utterly incorrect. A respected FBI source (respected by bi-partisan Congressmembers on the record, the DoJ IG, etc.) has said the tryst was video-taped. I reported that that's what she said. I have looked into various aspects of that allegation, and others, and hope to keep looking. Her knowledge is based, as she says, on what she heard while translating direct wiretaps. Not, as you seem to indicate in several of your notes, from someone else talking about the wiretaps. Sibel is not a privileged, first-hand source for these facts. She is a translator ... the person who heard others say it and who isn't telling us the name of the person who she heard it from so we can trace it back to the privileged source. Also incorect. As noted above, she is reporting what she heard on those tapes, and what was learned during the course of the FBI counterintel investigation, on which she worked very closely with field agents, had to be fully briefed on the case to date, the reason for the wiretaps, etc. She IS "the person who heard others say it", at least if she is to be believed. And there is plenty of reason, so far, to believe her (which I'll presume you're all aware of, since I don't have time right now to go back and offer the cites to the public officials and official reports who have shored up her credibility, or the reports from news outlets from UK Sunday Time or Vanity Fair, etc. who have similarly corroborated elements of her allegations.) It's tantamount to gossip, just a political version of the National Enquirer or Star magazine. Naming the congresswoman crossed the line Complete and utter nonsense. She is an official source. And yes, I'm glad you noted that Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bolton, Perle, Wolfowitz, et all were allowed for years, to say whatever they liked, no matter how untrue it was --- and no matter how much it had already actually even been debunked! --- across every major corporate media outlet. As to crossing the line, did you feel similiarly when she had named Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Solarz, Lantos, Grossman, etc.? Because those were all named, in various ways, years ago. Did you write similar letters to Vanity Fair? To UK Sunday Times? Did you feel that was the political version of the National Enquirer? Or only now that Schakowsky's name has shown up amongst those named??? PissedOff, journalists report verified, first-hand facts from their vetted sources, Wrong again. See above (re: Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al). Furthermore, if you believe the alleged espionage agents are going to step forward to say "Yes, I was the one who gave a hundred thousands dollars to Congressman X", I think you'll be waiting for quite a while. Even if I knew the name of that person, it seems unlikely that "first-hand ... vetted source" will be admitting it on the record. No professional media has vetted and reported as fact the claims Edmonds understood on those tapes she translated. Wrong again. See UK Sunday Times three part series, see Vanity Fair (David Rose, 2005), and a bit of CBS 60 Minutes from 2002. I think the ball is in Edmonds' court to produce the person whose conversation she was transcribing As noted above, the criminals she was listening to, are not likely to come forward. She has, however, produced, by name, those she says were criminal elements in the U.S. government. I don't know that she'll be able to torture out a public confession from the saboteur agents, however. Requesting same before the story can be investigated/reported, seems rather absurd. I do appreciate the discussion, however. Apologize if I'm more terse than necessary (as I'm on the road, and must get to a meeting 10 mins ago). And if I can't get back to this one until later tonight or tomorrow. But I'll try.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:41 pm PT...





Vinnie from Indy @ 50 said: I think it would be helpful for Edmonds to provide a simple list of the people she has named in her allegations of treason, blackmail and the selling of state secrets. As far as I have been able to tell the list is quite long and continues to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview or writes an open letter. That list was provided long ago, years ago (minus Schakowsky's name, though her "photo" was always there with a question mark), right here. It's really not my fault that you didn't know about it. And no, the list has not "continue[d] to grow each time Edmonds grants an interview". It's the same list. Again, not my fault you haven't bothered to find out about it. One thing is certain, if Edmonds claims are true, she can easily lay claim to the most eventful few weeks as a contract employee at the FBI EVER! She worked there for 24 weeks as I understand it. Um, you do understand that she was plowing through YEARS of wiretaps from 1996 through 2002, right? If true, it is without question one of the most amazing stories in the history of America. I agree.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:42 pm PT...





POA: Re your comment @ 51. While I appreciate the spirited defense, and worthwhile debate, please avoid personal attacks on other commenters (you may personally attack me and/or any public officials all you like, but not other commenters). That would be in violation of our rules. As your attack on "Cheeky" here also included legitimate points, I'm loathe to delete the entire comment, as I normally would. But I will do so if "Cheeky" so requests. Beyond that, I'd ask you to tone back the attacks, if you can. On the other hand, since folks are allowed to attack me, I'm allowed to fire back in kind. Though I try to avoid such personal attacks in all but the most important of cases!

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Vinnie From Indy said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:44 pm PT...





Since the internet has such a long memory, I will wager here and now that if documents are ever produced by the FBI that seem to refute Edmonds claims and they have ANY redactions at all, she will still claim that the FBI is hiding the truth of her claims. Any takers? Edmonds has the perfect excuse for never having to corroborate any of her explosive claims. For example, it could very well be that Edmonds does have specific file references of documents that she translated. She has routinely referenced these file numbers in her open letters and interviews. She may also know that in those files are highly secret operational methods and procedures that will be redacted if they are ever produced. She also knows that she will be able to claim that these redactions contain all the information she claims will verify her allegations. I don't know what the answer is and I do not know if Edmonds is telling the truth. I do know that her story deserves intense scrutiny based on her allegations, her open letters and her interviews. In short, regardless of whether the FBI someday reveals these files, albeit with redactions, Edmonds may still claim she is telling truth. That being the case, she may have constructed the perfect con and it may well be impossible to EVER know the truth. I wonder if Edmonds would ever accept the results of ANY investigation by any person or body that does not provide to the general public all of the FBI documents she references without a single redaction and if the investigators/panel members/whatever determine and report that she is not telling the truth.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:44 pm PT...





Also, I've joined the Daily Show forum and there's already discussion there about the story. Not much, but the subject has been posted recently by others already. Interested people should go to other MSM sites with forums (that's if you consider the Daily Show MSM) and start threads on the subject there. Then bump that constantly to the top of the forum.

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 6:56 pm PT...





Hey Brad, how about I ask you to delete the #51 post, and simply insert the following.... I am a professional journalist" Then you'd think you'd be "professionally" working to inform the public sufficiently that a hew and cry can be raised to demand investigations into the more egregious of Sibel's claims, instead of nipping at Brad's hamstrings. "Respected media have the power to ruin lives and change public policy" And they do so on a daily basis, if your version of "respected media" is what currently masquerades as the Fourth Estate. Who are these "respected media" that you so glowingly endorse? Name one, just one. Miller??? Novak?? Hannity? Beck?? Olbermann? Does being a well paid mouthpiece, disguising political marketing as "news" qualify you? So, here we have Friedman, trying to investigate a story that any moral and ethical "professional journalist" should be conscience driven to investigate, if only to disprove Sibel's assertions so that the names of those accused can be cleared... And we have you, posting comments in the back room of a blog that has very lttle exposure when compared to that of MSNBC, CNN, FOX, the NYTimes, etc., nitpicking over what is really trivia when compared to the whole body of what Sibel alleges.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... Vinnie From Indy said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:02 pm PT...





Brad, Doesn't Edmonds name additional members of the conspiracy beyond Shakowsky in her AmCon interview? Was the Mayor of Chicago (I am assuming Chicago) and several unamed Illinois state legislators included in her earlier allegations? I will admit that I still getting up to speed with Edmonds saga since she began making these claims. I will try to have a more comprehensive overview later this week.

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:06 pm PT...





http://forum.thedailysho...ions&thread.id=14140

http://forum.thedailysho...ions&thread.id=11400

These are the links to the daily show forums rather small little threads about this subject. For the curious.

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:26 pm PT...





Olin, since the claims about these conversations come from Sibel Edmonds, you would start with her to get the names of those people. Have your or Brad or anyone else asked her for those names? Someone posting here speculated Edmonds must be professionally bound to keep the conversants secret, but I say pshaw to that. If she's not professionally bound --- or if circumstances warrant the breach --- to name the people who were the subject of gossip, surely the names of those doing the gossip are more worthy of identity. That's not just good journalism; it's moral decency. Some of you seem more intent will bullying anyone who dares to rain on your parade of assumptions than in finding the facts from the first-hand sources. I don't agree with you that you're "the only ones curious" about the allegations. Why do you think I read Brad's blog and keep up with Sibel's claim? Talking about what Sibel heard is one thing, but going over the line to claim that what she heard was verified fact just because she heard it is quite a leap in logic.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:41 pm PT...





"but going over the line to claim that what she heard was verified fact just because she heard it is quite a leap in logic".

Cheeky, I never did that. Please show where anyone has done that. Maybe somebody above us has. But not recently.

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:44 pm PT...





Cheeky, your English is also somewhat stilted. Are you perhaps a Turkish journalist? Just tell me the name of the newspaper at which you work.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:46 pm PT...





Memo to Trevor Kincaid: Please do not insult the intelligence of readers at The Brad Blog, some of whom are attorneys. You have not "shown" that the "allegations she [Sibel Edmonds] made about Congresswoman Schakowsky [were]...untrue on their face." You did nothing more than establish that Schakowsky's mother did not die during the relevant period of the FBI intercepts and that Ms. Edmonds erred when she interpreted "the mother" with respect to the FBI intercept as "Schakowsky's mother." You have not denied that Schakowsky attended a funeral for someone's mother during the relevant period. You have not "specifically denied" that Schkowsky became romantically involved with a female during this same period. Your use of the word "imaginary" does not amount to a specific denial. Why, if there's nothing to this, are you being so obtuse? Please note that Ms. Edmonds did not reveal this information first during The Conservative Magazine interview but, instead, did so during the course of testimony provided while under oath. She understood that if she lied about material facts during her deposition, this could constitute perjury, a felony. That sworn testimony occurred at a deposition in which Ms. Edmonds was subject to cross-examination. I note that the Congresswoman you work for has not stepped forward personally to say anything, let alone do so while under oath and subject to cross-examination. Keep in mind Ms. Edmonds had no qualms about revealing the names of other members of Congress, and high level government officials, whom, per the FBI intercepts, had not only been corrupted by the Turkish lobby but had engaged in espionage and treason! Yet, during the deposition, Edmonds testified under oath that she did not want to identify the Congresswoman because she, Edmonds, left the FBI prior to reviewing any intercepts that would reveal whether the blackmail scheme had been successful. To me, and no doubt to most others who have objectively followed this story, the core of your argument --- that Edmonds somehow targeted Schakowsky for a smear --- is fatally flawed. It simply makes no sense to suggest that Ms. Edmonds was out to smear the Congresswoman while, at the same time, insisting that she, Ms. Edmonds, had never seen evidence the blackmail scheme had succeeded --- especially since Ms. Edmonds named names of other members of Congress and high government officials whom she implicates in espionage and treason! Finally, Mr. Kincaid, I would respectfully suggest that your latest diatribe does a disservice to your employer, Congresswoman Schakowsky. I, and no doubt many others, could care less about Schakowsky's sexual preferences. Whether she engaged in an extra-marital affair with a male or a female is a matter for Schakowsky and her husband. But, as a citizen, I and others have a right to know whether a foreign government sought to blackmail a Congresswoman on the basis of her sexual preference. Ms. Edmonds extended an olive branch --- in essence suggesting that we move past the sexual content toward a full airing of the truly serious allegations --- espionage, treason --- again stressing she "did not accuse [Schakowsky] of any criminal or espionage-related activity." By responding with another diatribe, Mr. Kincaid, you've caused me, and no doubt many others, to openly wonder whether Sibel Edmonds had simply not remained at the FBI long enough to learn that the blackmail scheme succeeded. You, Mr. Kincaid, have thus cast suspicion directly upon your employer. If your employer is innocent, and I sincerely hope that she is, it is in her best interest to step forward with a truthful, point-by-point account that comes directly out of her own mouth. As a member of Congress, who took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of these United States, your employer has a vested interest in pursuing the very investigation Ms. Edmonds has called for. Anything less, will leave a cloud over Congresswoman Schakowsky and the office she holds.

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:50 pm PT...





"Talking about what Sibel heard is one thing, but going over the line to claim that what she heard was verified fact just because she heard it is quite a leap in logic" Out comes the straw man arguments.

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Michael Jones said on 9/26/2009 @ 8:24 pm PT...





It's a sad comment on our society when the implication of a lesbian affair gets more attention than that of treason. It's funny how those that she has specifically charged with treason are not making any noise that could get specifics on the record in court.

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 9:11 pm PT...





Yipes! Responses to your claims, Brad: You wrote, "A respected FBI source (respected by bi-partisan Congressmembers on the record, the DoJ IG, etc.) has said the tryst was video-taped." If this FBI source told you that, why didn't you name him/her and use him/her for privileged attribution as having seen the video of the tryst? Why attribute to an apparently unpriviledged source, Edmonds? You wrote, "Her knowledge is based, as she says, on what she heard while translating direct wiretaps. Not, as you seem to indicate in several of your notes, from someone else talking about the wiretaps." Classic straw man. I never indicated any such thing. I only point out that knowledge of a third party's conversation doesn't mean she has knowledge of whether what any third party said was true. We agree on the former, but apparently disagree on the latter. You wrote, " .. (S)he is reporting what she heard on those tapes, and what was learned during the course of the FBI counterintel investigation, on which she worked very closely with field agents, had to be fully briefed on the case to date, the reason for the wiretaps, etc." I don't remember her stating her access was quite that in-depth, but be that as it may, I don't recall any legislator or intelligence official verifying she had a role beyond translating the wiretaps. I doubt a newbie GS-7 or so translator was "fully briefed" on all aspects of who was being wiretapped and why. I doubt they told her if any of the actors was a covert intel agent and not who they told the other party in the conversation they were. Edmonds may feel information her boss gave her made her well informed, but that doesn't make her thoroughly informed. I don't doubt Edmonds at all in what she says she heard on the tapes. My only point is that hearing it doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth. If you "don't have time right now to go back and offer the cites to the public officials and official reports who have shored up her credibility," you might consider doing so next time before you file your blog post stating it yourself as fact. I recall some of those corroborators, too, and I don't recall them corroborating quite the depth of Edmonds' knowledge of facts that you now claim. You wrote, "She is an official source." No, she was a translator. And, for what, 24 weeks? The FBI never deemed her a spokewoman for their operations. Sadly, I have to point out the contrary, that the intelligence agencies gagged her, and recently did such a lackluster job of enforcing the gag in the Ohio case that her lawyer told her to go ahead. The federal gag orders aren't lifted, as far as I understand your reporting. That makes her very much an "unofficial" not "official" source. You wrote, "As to crossing the line, did you feel similiarly when she had named Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Solarz, Lantos, Grossman, etc.?" I admit some ambivalence there. I thought Vanity Fair toed the line as far as professional journalism could in naming Hastert. I think the train has gone off the tracks since then. With those who are alleged to have committed treason, one could at least make a case for its public impact. However, the sexual allegations that Edmonds was emphatic she had no reason to believe actually rose to blackmail are clearly purient, in my opinion. What didn't happen but she says "could have" reminds me of that movie, "Majority Report." I hope we haven't come to that in America. You wrote, " ... (I)f you believe the alleged espionage agents are going to step forward to say "Yes, I was the one who gave a hundred thousands dollars to Congressman X", I think you'll be waiting for quite a while." But, Brad, this is what I'm trying to tell you. These agents often DO tell trusted journalists such things. It takes time and responsible reporting to develop those sources and relationships. Of those media you cited as reliable MSM coverage paralleling yours, those I've read don't state what you do as fact. They only reported what Edmonds said she transcribed in translations. They didn't go the extra step and claim what was said in those translation was necessarily fact. But here's the biggest cringe I had in your reply, Brad. You just aren't getting it. You wrote, ".. (T)he criminals she was listening to, are not likely to come forward. She has, however, produced, by name, those she says were criminal elements in the U.S. government. ..." Edmonds doesn't have standing to accuse any of these people with criminal acts. And she's a translator, not a criminal lawyer. She is a whistleblower reporting what she heard on tapes, and a little about her department's internal disputes over what to do about it. She doesn't know the full context, history or relationships of these players. She put the pieces she had together and believes crimes took place. But that's her perception, not a fact, yet. No court has convicted any of these people of crimes. In fact, no grand jury has determined these perceived relationships might be criminal. I see no reporting that any investigative agency or prosecutor has prepared a criminal case to take to a grand jury. I don't see a point in furthering the debate over your attributions. I would, however, appreciate an answer to my previous questions: Does Edmonds know the names of all the parties in those conversations she was translating? If so, is she going to name them all, matched with the other party in their conversations?

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 9:13 pm PT...





john olin said on 9/26/2009 @ 7:44 pm PT... Cheeky, your English is also somewhat stilted. Are you perhaps a Turkish journalist? Just tell me the name of the newspaper at which you work Oh, really? ROTFLMAO. You and Orlie Taitz have come to this conclusion, I suppose.

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/26/2009 @ 9:28 pm PT...





By the way, if I remember right, there may be a salient little fact no one is considering in the Rep. Jan Schakowsky flap. Sibel originally claimed this alleged video of a "tryst" was staged to compel the congresswoman in it to change her vote. The original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote, then she backed off and said she didn't know how the congresswoman voted. Well, I checked every member's committee votes in the two years there were Armenian genocide votes. As I recall, Schakowsky's vote didn't change. Another congresswoman's did, without explanation, however. Check and see. I could be wrong. It has been awhile.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/27/2009 @ 12:21 am PT...





Cheeky, your inability to answer my simple question as to whether you worked for the print media or the visual media has led me to believe you are not a professional journalist at all. Seriously. And comparing me to a birther is retarded. You don't know me from Adam, as some idiot once told me. I'd never deny American citizenship to a child born of an American citizen. You appear to me to be nothing but a sophist. Just answer my simple question, dear journalist, where did you cut your teeth?

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... Agent 99 said on 9/27/2009 @ 12:35 am PT...





Hey, I know everyone's exasperated here, but it really is against our commenting rules to personally attack other commenters. I don't want to have to start deleting comments all you professional and amateur journalists work so hard to produce, but, well, it's my gig here. So could everybody just try to take a few deep breaths, count to ten, soak your heads, or whatever works the best for you, before addressing each other. It's easy to express disagreement or even antipathy without calling names. Please?

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Greg Arzoomanian said on 9/27/2009 @ 7:29 am PT...





Congratulations on getting Congresswoman's Schakowsky's attention. A few points: No need to worry about Edmonds' credibility. If 60 Minutes, Vanity Fair, and the London Times found her worth covering, you're in good company. To this list you can add high profile attorney Mark Geragos, who is putting her on the stand and is nobody's idea of a fool. More to the point, what matters isn't what Edmonds remembers hearing a number of years ago. What matters is her saying that there are FBI agents and tapes that will confirm what she says. What's needed is for someone in government, say the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence Oversight and Investigation, to bring these agents forward and see what they have to say, and then see what's on the tapes. Finally, you keep bringing up "Turkey" as being the perpertrator of various illegal activity. But in the 60 Minutes story, they refer to a "Turkish organization." Well, it so happens that the government of Turkey is currently in the middle of its own investigation of a "Turkish organization", called Ergenekon, which has been implicated in a number of criminal activities, including the lynching of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. So Turkey is doing its job. Its our own government that is shirking its responsibility.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 7:34 am PT...





I'm going to take back what I said about having faith Edmonds heard what she says she heard. As I went back to Brad's sources that allegedly back up her credibility, I find that they did not back her up on any of the accusations she recently "revealed." She really has gone off the track of her original claims about the Turkish council, her co-workers and her work environment. I see zero substantiation of any claims she is making today. And now she keeps changing her memory of what she says she translated eight years ago on tapes of unidentified conversants talking about Schakowsky. Stop and think about this. If you translated this allegedly vast number of years' worth of secret recordings between what now appears to be at least dozens of different people --- people you didn't actually see for yourself to corroborate whether they were the person you may have been told you were transcribing --- during 24 weeks in 2001-02, do you really think you would recall a detail of whether you transcribed "her mother" or "the mother," as Sibel now claims? Would you rely on that memory, solely, to insist that what people other than yourself talked about were true facts? What will Edmonds change next about what she thinks she heard on those tapes, now that facts have been checked and she attended no mother's funeral that year? Edmond's memory or understanding of what she heard might be mistaken about a number of things. It's poison now to publish anything she says if you can't corroborate the facts. By the way, Pat Buchanan's guy claimed it would be impossible to have checked details of Edmonds' claim. I could have had the facts about a Schakowsky funeral and townhouse verified-- or in this case discredited --- within two minutes, and so could Brad have done so before publishing claims based solely on one woman's memory of second-hand information, at best. That's what old-school professional journalists do before publishing defamatory allegations. The MSM today is deeply flawed and disappointing because it has strayed from those ethical standards, but new media won't help media consumers by practicing even more reckless standards and neglect of attributions. Brad, it doesn't matter ethically if it's a sitting member of Congress or a John Doe. Unless you've checked Edmond's information with the first-hand people she believes she heard say it on the wiretaps, you should be attributing every sentence to Edmonds, if you publish her memories at all. Edmonds didn't give details in the past. Now that she is, they are blowing up in her face, so far. That hurts her credibility on other claims that she may have understood correctly. Ask yourself, what if your single source for this story turns out to be as crazy as Orlie Taitz? What will your credibility be then, Brad? There's an old saying in journalism: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/27/2009 @ 7:35 am PT...





@ cheeky, I've read your comment 77 (again that is; I only skipped through it last night) and have to admit it is your most even handed comment yet. However, as a pro journalist perhaps you could do the dirty work to track down information relating to the actual deposition Sibel gave, as that is at least something factual in that it actually occurred. What coverage beyond the American Conservative has it received? And really, does Orlie Taitz also think you are a Turkish journalist? I mean really, where did that little jab come from?

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/27/2009 @ 8:03 am PT...





One more thing @ Cheeky I never said you were not also curious. I did use the inclusive "we". That would include you. I like you, because you are a skeptic. However, for the record, I don't trust skeptics. And I don't take cynics seriously. Also I'm not even an amateur journalist. I'm at best a commenter on a blog which makes me little more than an electronic blip.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/27/2009 @ 8:52 am PT...





While it appears, Cheeky, that you enjoy playing the Devil's advocate, your uninformed advocacy is not helpful for those who are interested in truth. For example, you wrote: The original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote, then she backed off and said she didn't know how the congresswoman voted. Fact: It is unclear what you mean by "original reporting." If you are referring to Brad Friedman's "coverage," you would do well to actually read Brad's pieces which linked to the transcripts of Sibel Edmonds' sworn testimony. Had you done so, you would find that contrary to what you wrote, Sibel Edmonds asserted then, as she does now, that while the aim of the Turkish lobby often entailed various illegal means for influencing Congressional votes, she could not say whether the blackmail scheme directed at what then remained an unnamed Congresswoman (only lately identified as Schakowsky) had succeeded. Unlike those who have followed this story, who are appropriately concerned about the gravity of allegations entailing corruption, bribery, extortion, espionage and treason at the highest levels of the U.S. government, it is obvious that you, Cheeky, have come onto the blog with an agenda --- a desire to discredit anything Sibel Edmonds has to say even if it means your making up something like your "original reporting" remark. Indeed, the best that can be said of your many rants is that you apparently enjoy erecting and demolishing a series of straw men. For example, you state: Edmonds doesn't have standing to accuse any of these people with criminal acts. And she's a translator, not a criminal lawyer. She is a whistleblower reporting what she heard on tapes... First, "standing" is a legal concept used by our courts to determine whether a party has a right to initiate a law suit. For example, ordinarily only some one who is injured as a result of a tort of another has a right to sue. The legal concept of "standing" has absolutely no connection to what has occurred here. Second: The question of guilt or innocence is not a pre-requisite to the question of whether allegations made by a government whistle blower are newsworthy. If that were the case, the media (MSM & alternative) would never report on an indictment unless and until a conviction was secured. Third: Neither Sibel Edmonds nor Brad Friedman have asserted that they know, for a fact, that any of the individuals involved in this scandal are, in fact, guilty. What Ms. Edmonds did was to expose what she learned from the FBI intercepts which raises a serious questions as to whether these individuals engaged in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason. Fourth, it is no more inappropriate for Brad Friedman to "cover" the revelations about these intercepts than it is for the MSM to cover the recent story about a previously undisclosed Iranian uranium enrichment site. The fact that the U.S. has not "proven" that Iran has used the hidden sites to produced weapons grade, enriched uranium does not mean that the latter story is not newsworthy.

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... john olin said on 9/27/2009 @ 8:54 am PT...





Alright I'm bored and was reading through comment 83. I'm just wondering where the facts were checked that she attended no mothers funeral. I missed that part of the discussion. Are you speaking hypothetically?

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 8:54 am PT...





Yeah, sorry Olin, but I'm not that into you. I couldn't care less about your analysis of me. Brad, in rereading your long rebuttal to me, I think I may have misunderstood what you believe Edmonds claims to have heard. It now seems to me that you think Edmonds claims to have translated conversations in which Hastert, Schakowsky, etc. were the conversants. I did not make that assumption at any time, because unless all these members of Congress, State Department, etc. speak fluent Turkish, it makes no sense that she'd be translating their conversations. I'm commenting on the assumption that she was not listening to first-hand conversations from any American, but rather chatter amongst Turks or other Turkish native speakers. Please verify if there's any evidence these American officials were speaking Turkish, or if she is confirmed to have had an intelligence status other than her job title "linguist" that would have enabled her to listen to covert conversations recorded in English. That would change my position, somewhat.

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:03 am PT...





Canning wrote, "Neither Sibel Edmonds nor Brad Friedman have asserted that they know, for a fact, that any of the individuals involved in this scandal are, in fact, guilty." Those who refer to these American officials as "criminals" or allege them to conspire in "criminal activity" do, exacty, falsely claim a court have found guilt. Crime is not an opinion. Events either fulfill criminal statute or they do not. Anyway, did you check the actual voting record of named people you claim Sibel knows for a true fact were compromised by these activities? In particular, did you check the women members of Congress who were there for both committee votes in the about six-year span between the two? Because ... if someone didn't change their vote, it's hard to claim they were criminally compromised, isn't it?

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:22 am PT...





Does anyone know what Sibel Edmonds' husband does for a living?

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:27 am PT...





There appear to be two people (?) posting parallel arguments here and at Steve Clemons site, The Washington Note. I don't consider that a "concidence". http://www.thewashington...uest_note_by_r/#comments So, I will post here an edited response of what I posted at TWN...... Cheeky.... So, it is your opinion that further investigation is not necessary because none of Sibel's assertions have been proven? Yes, questions, that make a lot of sense; To an idiot, perhaps. Please show me where I, Dan Kervick, Brad Friedman, Philip Giraldi, the American Conservative, Harpers, or any other entity claims that all of Sibel's assertions are the truth. The common reaction to Sibel's accusations is the feeling that there is enough smoke to warrant looking for fire. You load your longwinded essays up with the assertion that everyone is claiming Sibel speaks the gospel. That is a straw argument; in short, bullshit. You claim to be doing, finally, the research to justify your position. And that is exactly what you are doing, research, TO JUSTIFY FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS on your part. You could just as easily find credible and tenable aspects of Sibel's accusations, but those aspects of her story don't interest you, because it is not about the truth to you, it is about winning an intellectual duel. The pleasure you find in playing mind games to win an argument over-rides any moral conviction that should fuel debate and argument. Almost to a person, everyone commenting on this issue has expressed a desire to see further investigation and media exposure of Sibel's claims. You have twisted the whole thing to implying that all of us have argued that Sibel has proven her assertions and accusations. You had to do that, because common sense cries out for further investigation, and you could not frame a logical argument against further investigation. Hence your army of strawmen, and questions being posed that you KNOW none of us are in the position to answer, precisely because of the lack of investigation that we argue should be conducted. This is a very disingenuous manner of debate, and I hope you are not of the mistaken opinion that we are unable to see through it.

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:28 am PT...





As an addendum to my last comment, there are portions of Cheeky's posts which reflect either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Cheeky at one point describes Edmonds' revelations as defamatory and even goes so far as to attempt to compare Edmonds to Orly Taitz, the slime-ball who presented an obvious forgery as if it were an authentic birth certificate. As defined by Black's Law Dictionary: Defamation. The taking of one's reputation. The offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation by false and malicious statements. Where the use of the word "defamatory" and the comparison to Taitz would suggest that Cheeky knows that the Edmonds' allegations are false, Cheeky concedes otherwise. I don't doubt Edmonds at all in what she says she heard on the tapes. My only point is that hearing it doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth. Since Cheeky concedes that Edmonds may have accurately reported what she heard on the tapes, it is Cheeky who has defamed Edmonds by attempting to describe Edmonds' truthful account as vicious defamation of the Orly Taitz variety. The "doesn't mean the people who spoke it were speaking the truth" is especially amusing. At this point we do not have the content of the FBI tapes or any FBI summaries of them. All we know is that these are FBI intercepts that potentially captured the words of the very individuals (members of Congress & high-level US government officials) whom Edmonds' testimony implicates in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason. Are you suggesting, Cheeky, that these members of Congress and high placed U.S. government officials may have been lying when they uttered words that were picked up by the FBI intercepts? Think before you write!

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:30 am PT...





cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:22 am PT... "Does anyone know what Sibel Edmonds' husband does for a living?"

___________________________ Relevance?

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:40 am PT...





"Does anyone know what Sibel Edmonds' husband does for a living?" How is that relevant? So you can birth another strawman through which to obsfucate?

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:43 am PT...





We seem to think alike, Ernest.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/27/2009 @ 9:54 am PT...





Cheeky asks: "Anyway, did you check the actual voting record of named people you claim Sibel knows for a true fact were compromised by these activities?" Which "named people" and which "changed votes" are you talking about? My recollection of the 241 page deposition transcript is that it contained specific references to specific members of Congress pertaining to their vote on the Armenian genocide issue, but I'm not about to go searching that transcript and pouring through the Congressional record just to satisfy the whims of a passive/aggressive obstructionist who doesn't even have the courage to use his/her real name when posting this blog. I will provide you with precise testimony which shows that you made up "original reporting had Sibel saying that congresswoman did change her vote" from whole cloth. Here's what Sibel's sworn testimony actually said: I don't know if she did anything illegal afterwards. ... the Turkish entities, wanted both congressional related favoritism from her, but also her husband was in a high position in the area in the state she was elected from, and these Turkish entities ran certain illegal operations, and they wanted her husband's help. But I don't know if she provided them with those. At this point, Cheeky, it is your credibility which is at issue, not Ms. Edmonds'.

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:05 am PT...





PissedOff "Orlie" American, sorry to disillusion you. I only now clicked on your creation at Steve Clemons' blog to see what you are talking about. Of course, two individuals couldn't possibly come to similar conclusions because they actually think logically. The only explanation can be that the person posting as "question" and I are one and the same person trying to deceive PO "Orlie" American. It is clear in you illogic here that you will announce I am one and the same if I do not deny it, so, no POOA, I am not the poster known as question, nor have I ever met him or her, nor was I privy to his/her comments before making mine. Satisfied? I'm sure you're not, LOL.

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:14 am PT...





To answer your legitimate question, POOA, what I'm saying is simply that people publishing Edmonds' defamatory claims against individuals should verify the facts before -- BEFORE -- publishing the accusations. Their attributions should be painfully pointed, as the Vanity Fair did in addressing the Hastert claim. What I'm further saying is that it's not that hard to do. What I'm further saying is that if media generally considered respected media haven't published it, it could be because they did check the facts and her facts didn't check out (imagine that!), as they now are famously not checking on in the Schakowsky allegation. There isn't enough meat here to even ask an editor to consider spending the time with it. Brad is on the story, so I'd suggest he start with some FOIA requests on those FBI files Edmonds names by alleged document number. If you're serious about getting to the bottom of this, why haven't you spent your energy doing that, instead of ranting here about the neglect of MSM? A FOIA costs only the price of the photocopy, and often not even that. Go for it, POOA.

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:17 am PT...





Well, its really quite simple. All one need do is read the thread here, and draw conclusions about credibility based on the manner in which arguments are presented. Then, one can go over to the Washington Note, and utilize the same manner of examination and conclusion. Composition, word usage, punctuation....hmmmm. Method of presentation, use of strawmen, methods of denial......hmmmmm. Is it ad hominem to draw logical conclusions??

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:22 am PT...





Canning: "All we know is that these are FBI intercepts that potentially captured the words of the very individuals (members of Congress & high-level US government officials) whom Edmonds' testimony implicates in corruption, bribery, espionage and treason." ... Not unless all those members of Congress spoke clandestinely in fluent Turkish for Edmonds to translate. Why are you assuming she heard this out of the Americans' mouths, and that she was able to confirm who she was told she was listening to on an audio tape? Why assume that?! But I doubt that anything rational is going to get through to the few bulldogs here. I look forward to reading what Brad really has to back up his advocacy of Edmonds' assertions as fact. I didn't come here to be defiant or inciteful, but the lack of open-minded debate here makes it seem so.

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:28 am PT...





POOA, you say the person posting as question and I write similarly in proper English? NO!? But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here ... fool you into ... um ... well, I don't know what purpose I would have for these attempts to deceive you. This is becoming amusing, so please do go on. What is my ulterior motive to be here and why am I denying your claim that I am also the poster named question?

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... PissedOffAmerican said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:45 am PT...





As I said above, all one need do is examine both threads. "But you told me last night that my English is weird and so I am surely a Turkish journalist trying to fool you here" And you know full well that I did not make that statement, and am not the same poster as "John Olin"; as Brad or "agent 99" should be able to verify, and have my full permission to do. Of course, it would be interesting to have Steve and Brad compare notes to check my intuition as to my assertion, but I doubt, considering Steve's efforts to distance himself from this issue, that he would cooperate. Perhaps Brad could make an off the record inquiry to Steve, just out of curiousity. But really, I entertain no hopes of such an exchange ocurring, considering the admittedly petty nature of this kind of argument. The only thing I can think of that would be more petty and shallow, would be the implementation of such a ruse. And we already know my opinion of whether or not that is occurring.

COMMENT #103 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:47 am PT...





Vinnie from Indy @ 66: Just as you spent months attempting to disingenuously poke holes into the Clint Curtis story years ago, offing doing so with inaccurate and absurd charges, you seem rather keen to do the same with Edmonds' story suddenly. Very interesting, if predictable. While being skeptical about such allegations, be they from whistleblowers like Curtis or Edmonds, is always appropriate, in order to get to the bottom of such matters, your interests seem rather different than that, as illustrated by your comment here: "Edmonds may still claim she is telling truth. That being the case, she may have constructed the perfect con and it may well be impossible to EVER know the truth." Skeptically and dispassionately questioning and investigating is one thing, attempts at discrediting, as you seem to be doing again here (as with the Curtis story) are another. For a start, it difficult to discern just what motivation Edmonds (or Curtis, for that matter) would have in pulling off a "con", perfect or otherwise. Edmonds allegations have resulted in the loss of her job, extraordinary costs, both personal and financial, in taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court, and seem to cut across both major parties, such that it would be very difficult to call her a political opportunist or operative for someone. If you would like to make a credible case that it's a "con", you'd also need to begin building a credible motivation for such a years-long "con", at such an extraodinary cost. Until then, from my own observation, it seems that you are the one laying out the "con" at this point, just as you have done for years on the Clint Curtis case. Good luck with that. At least both she and Curtis (and hell, myself to that matter), had the courage to put their names behind their public claims and reporting. Your predictable spitballs, hurled from behind the cowardly shadows of anonymity continue to both miss their target and fail to impress. But perhaps that's just from my perspective.

COMMENT #104 [Permalink]

... cheeky said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:48 am PT...





Canning and POOA, why are you hiding what Mr. Edmonds does for a living? Why?! WHY!?!? Wait, you think alike, so you must be ... the same person! Yeah, that's the ticket!! Seriously, does Mr. Edmonds work in government? Does he have security clearance? That information would tell me something about the likelihood that Sibel was privy to some of the inside information some sites, including this one, claim she was privy to. Sibel's multiple infractions for having classified U.S. material on her home computer is somewhat incongruous with the image we're led to have of her being some deep insider with detailed knowledge beyond her transcriptions as a run-of-the-mill linguist. It also makes me wonder if she continues to have such information or if she is truly speaking from memory of what she translated eight years ago, which could be faulty for even the most brilliant person. An insider knows better than to have classified material on their home computer. She's lucky she didn't go to jail for those infractions. I'm guessing she didn't because she was just a lowly, short-term contract linguist and nothing more. That's not to say she might not have stumbled on something significant. It's worth checking out ... but checking out before defaming individuals. Surely, Canning, since you seem to imply you are a lawyer, you can appreciate that boundary, can't you?

COMMENT #105 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/27/2009 @ 10:53 am PT...





Cheeky (and others) - I much appreciate the healthy discussion, debate, skepticism (and even criticism) etc. in this thread. I regret that I'm on the road, at a conference, and large