Skip to main content

View Diary: Sibel Edmonds Tells All! (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no evidence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mia Dolan, littlebird33

    that Schakowsky is bisexual first of all.

    Rub raw the sores of discontent - Saul Alinsky

    by JayGR on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 07:22:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Testimony of Sibel is evidence (0+ / 0-)

      She is an eyewitness (more like an earwitness).  As an attorney, you can dispute the evidence.  You can question it.

      But it is evidence.

      •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shane Hensinger

        its not evidence.  There has to be foundation for her testimony for it to be admissible evidence.  Most of the things she is talking about occurred either before or after she worked for the FBI.  There is a section where she is talking about bribes to Jean Schmidt, who was elected congress in 2005 - three years after Edmonds got fired.  

        This isn't evidence.  This is garbage.  And this is a troll diary.  

        •  You are wrong on your facts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kafkananda

          Sibel Edmonds specifically stated in her deposition she knows nothing about Jean Schmidt.

          Get your facts right before you start throwing out baseless charges.

        •  Sworn Testimony IS Evidence! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica, kafkananda, Johnny Q

          Uh, that's what evidence is. From an FBI translator who listened to this surveillance herself. With a high security clearance. Chew on this: Notice nobody's sued her for libel? If your reputation is sullied by being labeled a foreign spy, and you aren't, why do Marc Grossman, Denny Hastert, et al., stay silent through all this?

          •  Thank You David (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Terra Mystica

            I forgot to mention her testimony, which includes much of which was in this most recent article, was under oath.  In other words, if she's lying, she can be prosecuted criminally.

            I really don't understand the attitude of KOSers.  Jan Schakowsky is a very small part of this.

            •  You're Welcome! (0+ / 0-)

              And Edmonds herself is clear about what she alleges about Schakowsy: that the Congresswoman was sexually compromised and surveilled doing so by Turkish intelligence, but that Edmonds has zero evidence Schakowsky did anything illegal. Edmonds does say that the Congresswoman's husband, HuffPo diarist/felon/lobbyist R. Creamer, engaged in illegal acts.

          •  LOL (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hhex65, Shane Hensinger, littlebird33

            Christ, there is nothing I can't stand more than people who think they understand how the law works.  Sworn testimony is evidence so long as she has first hand knowledge to support that testimony.  While she apparently did listen to surveillance, most of the shit she says is pure speculation and not admissible.

            If you are a public figure it is nearly impossible to sue someone for defamation, and the fact that the information in question involves national security makes it even harder.  I expect that those previously named just ignored Edmonds because she is a nutcase who hangs out with Alex Jones.  

            I expect you will see denials following from the vicious smear of Jan Schakowsky.  I also expect that Sibel Edmonds and her nonsense will soon be explicitly added to the conspiracy ban on DailyKos.

            •  Hearing Surveillance IS First-Hand Knowledge! (0+ / 0-)

              as you admit yourself, Ms. Dolan. "Reckless disregard for the truth" is the very reachable standard for defaming a public figure, and calling someone a spy who just isn't would meet that standard with ease. And yeah, I know the law. Saying someone was surveilled while being seduced by a Turkish spy when she wasn't would easily meet that standard too.

            •  You'll get a 'non denial' denial from Schakowsky (0+ / 0-)

              These allegations are 'outrageous' or something like that.

              Or she'll ignore it all together.

              And for the record, Sibel can't stand Alex Jones.  She made the mistake of being on his program once and listened as he twisted her words around to support his own paranoid view of the universe.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site