Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Conservatives Begin Attacks On Jan Shakowsky Over Supposed Lesbian Affair

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on October 3, 2009.

10/03/09- by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Janschakowsky

“My lord,” Leonard almost wailed, “I really cannot guarantee that sufficiently clever people will be unable to read your messages!”
“Good.”
“But, my lord, they will know what you are thinking!”
Vetinari patted him on the shoulder. “No, Leonard. They will merely know what is in my messages.”

The passage above comes from Terry Pratchett’s The Fifth Elephant, Leonard da Quirm and Lord Havelock Vetenari are discussing the codes that the former has created to hide messages being sent to Lord Vetenari’s spies in other cities. In many ways, this is the problem that Ms Sibel Edmonds has with her assertions, and something that the Conservatives who have slobberingly latched onto them seem to forget. All war is deception, as Sun-Tzu said. The fact that these messages were intercepted does not mean that they are accurate.

Suspicion is guilt, and one is guilty until proven innocent, at least to those Conservatives who seem intent to condemn Rep. Schakowsky and forget that, if these allegations are true, then six members of the Republican Party are also likely to face charges, and in this case, far worse charges than those facing Schakowsky. Somewhere lost in this is the fact that Sibel Edmonds has, basically, charged six Republicans including former Speaker Dennis Hastert of, quite frankly, treason.

Representative Jan Schakowsky may be absolutely correct in the belief that this is fantasy, but not to those who have decided to attack first and hope that they’re right. There are a lot of things that do not add up regarding this entire scheme beyond that which has already been said by Rep. Schakowsky. Robert Creamer, Schakowsky’s husband, was a lobbyist. What the Turkish government is alleged to have wanted him to do falls within that, and hiring him, and even bribing him, would actually have been a whole lot simpler than this complicated scheme.

The biggest problem with this case is that it took six years to hire someone to translate these documents. Turkish is not a rare language, and the FBI would probably have brought someone in to translate the communications long before that point if they believed that there was anything to this case.

Despite allegations that Ms Edmonds was fired to shut her up because she knew too much, the reality is that she was fired because she began seeing ‘compromised’ individuals everywhere. She began accusing people of being Turkish agents all the time. So, yes, Ms Edmonds was fired to shut her up. As for the invocation of the State’s Secret Act, we really were dealing with a Presidential Administration which abused that law for its own gain, and the gain here was political. Had Ms Edmonds attacked Speaker Hastert for treasonous behaviors, the Democrats would have shredded the Republicans.

The FBI has stated that these allegations are of concern and that there should be an investigation. There should be, but do not expect that what it proves will satisfy anyone attacking Rep. Schakowsky for the refrain that will follow an exoneration (assuming that these are baseless) will be that the FBI is covering this up to protect Schakowsky.

The intentions of Sibel Edmonds are honorable. She wants to clean up the FBI and make it more transparent, and she is more than likely telling the truth. The problem here is that the truth that she believes is what she read in a series of communications written between a spy and her handler, and those are not likely to be accurate.

After all, spies are not likely to openly discuss their operations in a manner that can be intercepted and translated easily.

What follows is a video attempting to attack Rep. Schakowsky for denying the supposed affair.

Author’s Note: For those who are going to come in guns blazing attacking me for questioning Ms Edmonds’ assertions, I am doing the job, though without the same humor, that Jon Stewart and crew often do on the Daily Show. That is, I am questioning an account given by someone and reporting what I see wrong with a given explanation. On a personal level, I do believe that there should be an investigation since the allegations are severe enough. However, do not assume that suspicion equals guilt in this case, which has been the tendency of late to do.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Share This Post

Gif-animated

14 Responses to Conservatives Begin Attacks On Jan Shakowsky Over Supposed Lesbian Affair

  1. Brad Friedman Reply

    October 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Bridgette – You posted on this matter, several times, to suggest that Edmonds charges did not add up. I don’t believe I’ve challenged your general opinion, other than to point out how some of the points on which it seems to have been made were already shown to be inaccurate, and that a bit of digging/verifying those points might have been in order. I even offered to help where I could. You seem to have taken great offense at those gentle and respectful suggestions.

    You are under no obligation, of course, to do so. But I believe you ill-serve readers when opions are proffered based on inaccurate information. I was hoping to help clarify those points — if you were interested. Clearly, you are not, and that is fine, of course, if unfortunate, since I do believe this story merits investigation, could use more intelligent folks like yourself looking into it, etc.

    You wrote: “I have emailed members of Congress for comment or a statement, unfortunately, most do not seem to be willing to send those to an LGBT blog with few professional connections.”

    I’d say you “misunderstimate” your ability to move the ball forward as a blogger, but that joke didn’t work previously here, so I’ll just say you “underestimate” it. At least from my estimation. Email is very easy to ignore, but I’ve found a phone call is much harder to ignore. In the future, please consider calling rather than writing when seeking comment. When/if they don’t respond to that, you can always report it as much (“Rep. XXXX’s office did not return multiple calls seeking comment”). They don’t seem to like that, as it doesn’t look good, so I find they *tend* to call me back (though not always) with comment.

    “on Monday I laughed rather heartily at your post for the day. The way you were going on, I expected you to have proof of Ms Edmonds’ assertions, and not someone just supporting her. I did read through it, incidentally. I am not dismissing its importance, but it is just another person calling for an investigation. … No matter their reputation, people get information wrong.”

    You DID read it? And yet *that’s* all you took away from it???

    It was not merely an 18-year FBI executive manager of the Counterintel/espionage division offering his opinion. He confirmed a number of the key elements of Edmonds’ allegations, including (but not limited to):

    - A “decade-long investigation” by the FBI of espionage by Marc Grossman (Third-highest ranking official in the Bush State Dept.), as Edmonds had long alleged.
    - That probe “ultimately was buried and covered-up”.
    - In 2002, when the allegations first emerged “”Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate. … They were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn’t want Sibel to come out.”
    - Edmonds has been “one hundred percent right on the money, on the mark”
    - In 2002 he was told by the assistant executive director at the FBI: “Well, all I know is that everything that Sibel is stating is true. I read her file. Everything she stated is, in fact, accurate.”
    - “it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases.”

    Those are far more than “someone just supporting her”, Bridgette. Now he could be lying as much as Edmonds could be. I don’t know. Though others (eg. UK Sunday Times, Vanity Fair, members of Congress, DoJ IG) have also previously corroborated key elements of her story. But I’m glad you “laughed rather heartily at” my article pointing that out. At least it had *some* positive effect over there. I’ll take what I can get at this point, I guess :-)

    “take a GOOD look at what this blog is, Mr. Friedman, and then ask yourself whether or not my normal readership would be all that interested in a crusade to reform the FBI.”

    For the record, we cover a number of LGBT issues at The BRAD BLOG. That said, I don’t believe “a crusade to reform the FBI” is what I was calling for, but rather, informed, accurate reporting for your readership who, yes, I believe would be interested if an allegedly closeted Congresswoman’s sexuality is being used against her by foreign spies.

    I hope you’ll appreciate that I share your ambivilence about that aspect of the entire matter, and have spoken to a number of friends in the LGBT media about it, as it raises a very interesting point: Where I have no problem seeing a hypocritical anti-LGBT official “outed” when they live differently than they would allow for others, the question of “outing” a senior official who stands to be compromised and/or blackmailed, to the detriment of national security, because of their sexuality is another matter and one worthy of discussion/consideration, I believe. I would, of course, be interested in both your thoughts on that, and that of your readers, though I suspect you would rather move on to other issues, for whatever reason at this time.

    “I am sorry, but I am something of a solid evidence kind of person.”

    Nothing to apologize for. I am too. And I believe my years of coverage at The BRAD BLOG bears that out. In spades.

    Best of luck to you, Bridgette. Truly. – Brad

    • Sei

      October 9, 2009 at 2:38 pm

      While I doubt that this will continue. I shall say my last bit. Mr. Friedman, you still have not figured out what the hell pissed me off at you.

    • Brad Friedman

      October 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm

      Apparently I haven’t. Sorry. Feel free to share if you wish.

  2. Brad Friedman Reply

    October 8, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    (Trying again to post the comment that disappeared into the ether)….

    “Mr. Friedman, you and the rest of those defending Ms Edmonds (and quite frankly that is what you are doing) have acted as judge and jury with Rep. Schakowsky and descended with glee upon this case without actually questioning the veracity of the information involved.”

    Sorry, Bridgette, but that’s absurd. I have spent *hours* questioning the veracity of the Schakowsky allegations (a rather small part of the overall allegations, btw). I believe the evidence is seen in my numerous stories covering that aspect of the claims, all of which include lengthy formal and informal responses/denials/rebuttals from the Congreswoman’s office.

    The stories in which I focused on the allegations…

    9/22/09: “Exclusive: Schakowsky Responds to Edmonds Claim, Vehemently Denies Lesbian Tryst With Turkish Agent”
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7429

    9/24/09: “Edmonds Issues Formal Response to Schakowsky’s Denial of Lesbian Affair with Turkish Operative”
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7433

    and

    9/28/09: “VIDEO: Schakowsky Publicly Denies Affair With Turkish Agent as ‘Total Fantasy,’ ‘Totally Made Up’”
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7436

    …all contain responses from Schakowsky’s office rebutting Edmonds’ claims. The Congresswoman’s spokesperson has continued to cooperate with our coverage because he has noted that we’ve been very fair in the treatment of the entire matter.

    I appreciate that you may have an interest in defending Schakowsky, as do I, as she has proven to be a good progressive Democrat in most cases. That doesn’t mean the serious allegations being made by an FBI whistleblower should be ignored, or that unanswered questions should go unasked. That’s what I have done (similarly as I have done to folks like Hastert, Grossman, etc., who have chosen to NOT reply to requests for comment.)

    You said: “This passed Monday, you made a big production of pumping up interest in Ms Edmonds allegations and her veracity as if you had proof that what she was saying was accurate.”

    I believe that story speaks for itself, and that you’ve grossely mischaracterized it. Had you bothered to link to it (“FBI Veteran Executive Calls For Special Counsel Investigation, Prosecutions in Sibel Edmonds Case” http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7449) readers could decide for themselves.

    You said: “Unfortunately, I do not have your credentials, and my emails to Members of Congress tend not to get answered.”

    For the record, my credentials include calling the Congress members office, asking to speak to the communications director, identifying myself by name, and as a blogger and/or member of the press, and asking if they wish to offer comment. I’d suggest you would be more than welcome to do the same. I know *I’d* certainly welcome your doing so. We could use a lot more bloggers who actually go out and dig to offer original reporting.

    Sorry to see you did not appreciate my joke in using Bush’s “misunderestimate”. I use quite a bit of humor in my various coverage of various issues, but here, clearly, that point fell flat. My apologies for what appears to have ended up offended, rather than amusing you.

    I continue to appreciate your skepticism, even as I understand a potential interest/bias in protecting Schakowsky from criticism, particularly from the nutball right. Such concern, however, is no excuse for a free pass, and I believe that’s what your analysis has tended to offer, rather than critical evaluation based on substantive reporting which is needed, from top to bottom, in this case.

    That is just my opinion, however, and you are welcome to disagree. That you seem interested in torpedoing my credibility and reporting, along with Edmonds’ in the bargain, due to various gut-instincts and otherwise misunderstood off-handed remarks (“misunderestimate”, “conservative v. right-wing”) seems both inappropriate and great waste of time and resources. Again, that’s just my opinion, and I’ll hope having it doesn’t earn me a “one way trip to the delete bin”.

    The invitation is still open for you to contact me privately if you actually wish to work on pursuing the serious, unanswered allegations in this matter. As mentioned, the case goes FAR beyond the allegations made against the Chair of the U.S. House Intel Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.

    • Sei

      October 8, 2009 at 10:19 pm

      Mr. Friedman,

      I’ll be blunt, had the allegations not been that a woman had seduced Rep. Schakowsky, I would never have seen this story. I hate to put it that way, but it is the honest truth. This is, after all, an LGBT blog. I at least hope you have noticed that. Before this story came to my attention, I had never heard of Rep. Schakowsky, nor did I know of her reputation as a Progressive. I am not defending her because she is alleged to be bisexual either (something I highly doubt). I still doubt the veracity of Ms Edmonds information. You’ll notice something here, and in the original post, I do not doubt Ms Edmonds is telling what she believes is the truth, I doubt the veracity of her information. You have come to this blog numerous times to denounce my opinion, and that is all that it is, and all I have ever portrayed it as. It is my opinion. It could be wrong. If it is wrong, then I will admit that, but I have never presented this as anything other than my opinion.

      Mr. Friedman, you have painted a lofty picture of Ms Edmonds’ reputation, and you seem to feel as if a single blog written by a woman who is seen as ‘defending one of her own’ will have an effect on Ms Edmonds’ reputation. I think you overestimate my ability to change minds on this. I think that Ms Edmonds is in greater danger just from the initial exchange with Rep. Schakowsky’s representative and what one who truly wants to hurt her reputation will do with that.

      I am not here to defend Rep. Schakowsky. I had intended to simply write up a simple story about this and then move on. Something about what Ms Edmonds said made no sense, so I crafted an opinion piece in which I questioned the veracity of the information, not of Ms Edmonds. When no one seemed to grasp that point, I wrote a second one. No one seems to have grasped that either.

      Mr. Friedman, yes, your joke fell flat. I use humor too, but after having to delete about dozen or so comments calling me all kinds of things, I get a little defensive and my humor kind of goes south. I have not claimed that Ms Edmonds was a liar, or a fabricator of information. However, everyone under the sun seems to think that I am. I get it a lot, Mr. Friedman, especially when I have done my research. I have emailed members of Congress for comment or a statement, unfortunately, most do not seem to be willing to send those to an LGBT blog with few professional connections. So, I am often unable to do a lot of original reporting. Currently, we get press releases from a couple of Members of Congress, but not many.

      I have my doubts about the veracity of Ms Edmonds’ information. I am sorry, but I do not see it shared beyond what you say in these comments. I certainly do not see it shared by the Reactionaries, such a more accurate term than Right-Winger, who have come on this site repeatedly to attack me for daring to suggest that there is healthy room for skepticism in this case.

      Mr. Friedman, on Monday I laughed rather heartily at your post for the day. The way you were going on, I expected you to have proof of Ms Edmonds’ assertions, and not someone just supporting her. I did read through it, incidentally. I am not dismissing its importance, but it is just another person calling for an investigation. No matter the reputation, Mr. Friedman, I have learned over the last decade, that information can be wrong, and that a person with a glorious reputation can have, as the saying goes, feet of clay. There is an old Russian proverb, Mr. Friedman, that goes “No one lies like an eyewitness.” No matter their reputation, people get information wrong.

      I agree that there needs to be an investigation and housecleaning. However, take a GOOD look at what this blog is, Mr. Friedman, and then ask yourself whether or not my normal readership would be all that interested in a crusade to reform the FBI. It is often quite difficult to even write about something which is not, shall we say, tangentially related to the LGBT community.

      Mr. Friedman, you are right about one thing. I think that this little conversation has gone on to the point where it is a great waste of resources. I somehow doubt that I can torpedo either your or Ms Edmonds credibility, and if you think that I can, then I would really like to know where I got that ability. I am sorry, but I am something of a solid evidence kind of person. Until there is evidence to back up or completely discredit the allegations made against Rep. Schakowsky, I had planned on this being my last piece on this subject. I have voiced my opinion and skepticism. I was not planning on doing some kind of hatchet job. Would you like me to? At which point, I fall back into my kind of humor where I tell you that we’re a bit short staffed here, and would you mind playing ‘bad cop’ to your own ‘good cop’, or something like that.

      Good bye, Mr. Friedman.

  3. Brad Friedman Reply

    October 8, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Are you really blocking my reply to your note?? Would you like me to repost it??

    • Brad Friedman

      October 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm

      Tried to repost my reply to your comment and was told “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!” — Can you approve the reply that has been in the moderation queue for a few days please? Thanks.

    • Sei

      October 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm

      Mr. Friedman, it was passed through a while ago and replied to. We’ve had a couple of glitches with the set up, so it may not be showing up properly for you.

    • Brad Friedman

      October 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm

      I see all these other replies. Just not that one (nor your reply to it). Should I try to repost my previous one again?

  4. Brad Friedman Reply

    October 6, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    (I CAN’T SEEM TO ADD BLANK LINES IN YOUR COMMENT EDITOR, SO USING && FOR GRAF MARKS INSTEAD!)

    &&

    Bridgette (I hope I may call you Bridgette, you may call me Brad if you like) – You seem to have taken umbrage at my, (I thought) rather respectfully worded suggestion that you were offering information that was not supported by the facts. Why such a post would “almost earn [a] one way trip to the delete bin” is beyond me. Though I did go back to read my original comment to see if I could figure it out. I couldn’t. It’s still beyond me.

    &&

    But on to the substance of your reply. It was long. So please forgive the long-ish reply in return. You asked some questions, I’ll try to answer them.

    &&

    “I have been skeptical about this whole thing for a number of reasons, and I hate to say this to you, you should have been too. You should have been more forthcoming about them as well.”

    &&

    Actually, I *have* been quite skeptical (more about that in a moment), but I’m not sure what you’re suggesting I should have been “more forthcoming” about? Are you suggesting I have not been forthcoming about something? Have kept some information secret somewhere in my 4 or 5 years of reporting on this matter? If so, I’m not sure what I have held a secret.

    &&

    “Why in six years had the FBI not hired a translator for this information?”

    &&

    I’d love to know. I only just learned about that point — or at least, in only just now registered for me — when I heard it reported by Diane Sawyer in the video I linked to in the previous comment.

    &&

    “Why had this not been used to destroy a large chunk of the Republican leadership at a time when they were attempting to destroy Bill Clinton?”

    &&

    My guesses. a) Because the bulk of the charges had been covered up by the absurd and unprecedented use of the “State Secrets Privilege” by the Bush Administration, who invoked it twice, retroactively declassified almost any public statement ever made by Edmonds, and even turned her into a possible criminal if she were to tell anybody where and when she was born, where she went to school, etc. Thats’ why the ACLU called her “the most gagged woman in the history of the U.S.”. b) Her charges didn’t come to light at all until 2002. She was not working at the FBI when the GOP was trying to destroy Clinton. c) If the information wasn’t properly reviewed during that time, it couldn’t have been used for anything. d) Democrats were, according to Edmonds (and others who have corroborated elements of her claims) also involved. eg. Tom Lantos, Steven Solarz, and even Marc Grossman, the alleged U.S. ring-leader, was the Turkish Ambassador for Bill Clinton.

    &&

    That’s just a few possible answers to your perfectly appropriate question.

    &&

    “Why did Bush not use this information to destroy Schakowsky and further weaken the Democrats?”

    &&

    Again, can only speculate, but it seems the Repubs were as much, if not more, involved in the same trap. Particularly Hastert, Burton, Feith, Perle, Grossman, etc. If Bush exposes Dems, then the Repubs risk exposure themselves. This is why it was/is such a brilliant scheme, as 17-year CIA officier Phil Giraldi recently confirmed to me when I interviewed him on the Mike Malloy Show (I was guest hosting for Malloy. You can listen to that interview here if you wish: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7442)

    &&

    “There are a lot of questions that should be answered, but the most important is this, and it has been the central point of two posts everyone’s railed against-Why does Ms Edmonds trust the word of a spy?”

    &&

    Why are you presuming her information came from a spy? I’m not. I don’t know the details (means and methods) of the intelligence gathering, as Edmonds remains under secrecy agreements with the Bureau and has gone out of her way to not expose, jeopardize other ongoing investigations.

    &&

    It’s a perfectly good question, however, and I hope you’ll dig in to find out. One place to start might be by asking Edmonds and/or others who have corroborated much of her story (eg. former FBI executive John Cole, please see this article from yesterday covering his recent interview on these matters: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7449). Finding out the answer to those questions would be far more valuable than presuming an answer to them, and dismissing Edmonds allegations based on your presumptions, rather than based on actual evidence one way or another.

    &&

    “Now, before you sit there and think I misunderstand the role of a translator or linguist, I would like to point out that I do not. I am more than well aware of what translators and linguists do having trained as one.”

    &&

    Then you know, as Cole pointed out in the article I linked to above, that (quoting from that article):

    &&

    [blockquote]“the position that Sibel was in, she had access to extremely sensitive information. The translators have access to some of the most sensitive information that we receive.”

    He detailed how first-hand information goes first from the translators to the investigators who then act on it, as some of the most important information collected by FBI language specialists could have “implications that may affect even the White House, or policy.”

    &&

    “So what I’m saying is, I know she had access to some very sensitive stuff, and I could see why the Bureau would squirm over her coming out and speaking about some of the things that were going on.”[/blockquote]

    &&

    (Please see the article for extended transcript excerpts from that interview, where he officers more specifics on that.) Hopefully you also further know that Cole has said “Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate. … They were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn’t want Sibel to come out.”

    &&

    “I will point out, Mr. Friedman, that Ms Edmonds stated specifically a number of times that she has not seen the whole case file, and do not have all the facts regarding this case.”

    &&

    As I have reported in virtually every article where I mentioned the Schakowsky allegations, even before she was actually named. Though you somewhat miscategorize Edmonds statement on this. She saw the whole case file while she was at the FBI, as I understand it, but left before the investigation had been closed. Thus, as she has said every time the Schakowsky issue has come up (even before she was named), that she was unaware of any criminal wrongoing by her.

    &&

    As to your quibble about whether blackmail or bribery makes more sense, I appreciate your suspicions, even as I stand by the point that “hooking” someone (which was the M.O. here, reportedly) by trapping them with some piece of information so that HAD NO CHOICE but to cooperate with your demands, makes more sense than offering to buy them off, and giving them the chance to turn you in, in the bargain. But you are free to speculate on the matter as you see fit, as I am speculating here as well. However, I fail to see how it all adds up to your apparent conclusion that the story makes no sense, on the presumed basis that attempted to buy someone off “legally” is more effective than setting a trap to FORCE someone to cooperate. We’ll just have to agree to disagree there.

    &&

    As to the Right Wing v. Conservative quibble. Yes, that’s largely semantics. But, as it’s a pet peave of mine, and as nobody could consider themselves legitimately conservative on one hand, even while excusing extraordinary violations of the law (treason, in fact), as is being alleged here, on the other. I don’t wish to give them the courtesy of recognizing them as “conservative”. I was not criticizing you for using the word, I was correcting the inappropriate (in my opinion) presumption.

    &&

    “Mr. Friedman, I am skeptical and I want to know why you do not seem to be as skeptical about Ms Edmonds’ information as I am.”

    &&

    Frankly, I don’t know where you get that presumption, unless you’ve not bothered to read much of my work on her case, or many others. In fact, since it’s the Schakowsky case you seem up in arms about, I hope you’d note that of the three lengthy pieces I ran on that aspect of her story, all of them offered official statements from her office rebutting Edmonds charges. I have yet to take a side in that issue, other than to report what all sides have said, point out that Schakowsky is the Chair of the House Subcom on Intel Oversight and Investigation, and ought to be holding hearings on the entire set of allegations as I see it.

    &&

    I have spent hours speaking to both Schakowsky’s office AND to Edmonds AND to others who have been able to offer insight on this and the entire matter. I have spent a great many pixels reporting on all of that in my search for the truth. I had hoped, with my last comment, to encourage you to do the same. But, instead, you seem interested in attacking the charges based on your suspicions (versus evidence) and then attacking me.

    &&

    As I noted in my original comment, I WELCOME your skepticism and especially your investigation, if you’re interested in doing any here. I’d more than happy to help and share what I know where useful. Please feel free to contact my privately if you’d like to take up that charge. You’d be doing the nation a great service IMHO.

    &&

    “It comes down to this, Mr. Friedman, why are you and everyone else believing a bunch of Turkish spies?”

    &&

    I’m not.

    &&

    Best,
    Brad

    • Sei

      October 7, 2009 at 10:24 am

      Mr. Friedman,

      Quite frankly, the burden of proof in this case rests solely upon Ms Edmonds, a fact that seems lost here. This is especially true after her assertions had holes drilled right through them with public records information and her rather clumsy refutation of what Rep. Schakowsky stated. The person who alerted me to this story use to do what Ms Edmonds did for the FBI, so, yes, I asked her a bunch of questions before leveling any kind of disbelief.

      Mr. Friedman, you and the rest of those defending Ms Edmonds (and quite frankly that is what you are doing) have acted as judge and jury with Rep. Schakowsky and descended with glee upon this case without actually questioning the veracity of the information involved. Before Rep. Schakowsky had even issued her first rebuttal, I had looked up to see if she had attended any funerals in 2000. From what I could find, she did not attend any funerals at all, but then, we know that her mother passed away thirteen years prior.

      This passed Monday, you made a big production of pumping up interest in Ms Edmonds allegations and her veracity as if you had proof that what she was saying was accurate. Had you presented proof that Schakowsky had done something wrong, I would have been more than willing to cover it. However, what you gave us was another FBI person calling for an investigation and housecleaning of the FBI.

      I’m sorry, if you don’t know that there are issues with the FBI by now and there needs to be a housecleaning, your head’s been under a rock somewhere.

      AS for what nearly got you dumped in the ‘delete box’ was your presumptions of a lack of research (which I have done) and the use of that damnable malapropism created by our former President. By using that term, my estimation of you dropped into the toilet. Sure, my research has not involved getting in touch with either Ms Edmonds or Rep. Schakowsky. Unfortunately, I do not have your credentials, and my emails to Members of Congress tend not to get answered. I have, however, asked people I do know who work in the same line as Ms Edmonds use to and checked the public records.

      This story sounds incredible…as in not having any credibility. And, if you think that I am trying to do a hatchet job on Ms Edmonds, I am not. I am simply being far more skeptical than you or anyone else is. I am also not stating that Ms Edmonds is lying. I do not believe that she is. I just do not think that she is in possession of accurate information.

  5. Brad Friedman Reply

    October 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm

    Bridgette – With all due respect, I think you “misunderestimate” the role of an FBI translator/linguist in your efforts to protect Schakowsky here. I’ll have more at BradBlog.com on that on Monday, so I hope you’ll continue to follow along.
    I appreciate (and share) your skepticism here, on all points in this remarkable story, but it seems as if you may need to dig a bit more because a number of your assumptions are simply counter to the facts. Just to note two of them which jump out at me from the above piece, 1) The FBI had NO Turkish translators, incredibly enough, before Edmonds was hired following 9/11 when, as you may recall, the call was put out for translators of all types (See Diane Sawyer’s narration of the Edmonds story created when she received the PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award in 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxBWFwpC3FQ) and 2) Buying off Creamer may have worked, though its risky, and finding something to blackmail them both with is far “safer”. 3) There is nothing “conservative” about anybody who would make excuses for folks like Hastert and the rest committing treason, as alleged. Those would be right-wingers, NOT conservatives (no matter what they call themselves). All of that said, your skepticism is appropriate as mentioned, and I share it. But you may wish to get up to speed on more of the facts before offering somewhat mislead information on what’s going on here and/or what is alleged to have gone on.

    • Sei

      October 3, 2009 at 8:18 pm

      Mr. Friedman,

      I have been skeptical about this whole thing for a number of reasons, and I hate to say this to you, you should have been too. You should have been more forthcoming about them as well. Why in six years had the FBI not hired a translator for this information? Why had this not been used to destroy a large chunk of the Republican leadership at a time when they were attempting to destroy Bill Clinton? Why did Bush not use this information to destroy Schakowsky and further weaken the Democrats? There are a lot of questions that should be answered, but the most important is this, and it has been the central point of two posts everyone’s railed against-

      Why does Ms Edmonds trust the word of a spy?

      Mr. Friedman, that, in and of itself, made me suspicious of this whole thing. The rest of it, honestly, is simply window dressing. It’s why I’m skeptical.

      Now, before you sit there and think I misunderstand the role of a translator or linguist, I would like to point out that I do not. I am more than well aware of what translators and linguists do having trained as one. I also spent quite some time training in counter-terrorism and police procedures before walking away from that all. You have assumed that I do not know what I’m talking about, or that I do not understand the role of Ms Edmonds. Given your tone in accusing me of not knowing, Mr. Friedman, almost earned this comment a one way trip to the delete bin. I also checked with several friends on this whole thing who would know even more about this than I do, and I will point out, Mr. Friedman, that Ms Edmonds stated specifically a number of times that she has not seen the whole case file, and do not have all the facts regarding this case.

      Now, Mr. Friedman, I do quibble with a couple of things you just said. The first of those is the fact that ‘bribing someone’ is more risky than setting up an elaborate affair to blackmail someone. Honestly, once they take the first bribe, then you can just blackmail them for taking the bribe. Besides, Mr. Creamer was charged and plead guilty to certain criminal activities regarding his taxes in 2004. Somehow, I don’t think that it would have been all that hard. But, that was not what I was talking about. Mr. Creamer was a lobbyist. Why not just hire him? I somehow doubt that they would have needed to blackmail him to get him to do anything, and so far nothing about what they wanted him to do has been specified. If it has been specified, then I must have missed it, which does happen occasionally.

      Now, about my calling those Right Wingers Conservatives, that is quibbling over semantics. I used a terminology which is common American parlance. If I really wanted to be specific, I would call those people Reactionaries, but of course, most Americans couldn’t find Reactionary on a political spectrum map if it fell out of the sky and cleaved their head open. Everyone to the right of Moderate IS a Right Winger no matter what the current definition is. Of course, my language skills tend to be slightly antiquated, so my understanding of modern parlance tends to be slightly off.

      Mr. Friedman, I am skeptical and I want to know why you do not seem to be as skeptical about Ms Edmonds’ information as I am. I actually do not have a quibble with Ms Edmonds and I applaud what she is trying to do. It is a noble aim to try to reform and open up the FBI. I am skeptical about her information. I am not here to defend Rep. Schakowsky other than to condemn those who have already damned her because they believe that suspicion is guilt, and one is guilty until proven innocent.

      My point, which has gotten lost in three attacks on my ‘research’ is that Ms Edmonds seems to be pushing information which, itself, is more than suspect.

      It comes down to this, Mr. Friedman, why are you and everyone else believing a bunch of Turkish spies?

  6. Pingback: lezgetreal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>