Skip to main content

View Diary: American Conservative Magazine Gets Sibel Edmonds Scoop on Nuclear Treason & New Democratic Name (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It absolutely astounds me that so many here ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, WIds, newfie

    seem to consider her completely credible.  I was a litigator for 30 years, and have examined literally thousands of witnesses at trial or deposition, and the more I see from Ms. Edmonds, the brighter a flashing red neon sign saying "WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!" flashes in my mind.

    1. For somebody who was one of several Turkish language translators in the FBI for a grand total of 6 months, she seems to have been at the middle of far too much highly explosive information for it to be credible to me.
    1. Her allegations keep getting more and more sensational.  From initially claiming what were basically sloppiness and breaches of security in her office, she has expanded her allegations to a stunning web of conspiracies.
    1. Her allegations have enough details to give them verisimilitude, but then when the details turn out to be dead wrong (the stuff about Jan Schakowsky's mother's funeral and her townhouse), she claims the details aren't important and nobody can disprove the core of her story.  I've seen this happen time after time with witnesses, and most lawyers I know who have tried many cases consider it a dead giveaway that a witness is lying.
    •  Oh sure. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      YOu use 30 years of litigation experience to get to that point.  The best I can do is say - "hmmm something's got my spidey senses tingling."

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 07:45:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You've got very good "spidey senses" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And that's a new phrase for me.  Did you coin it, or what's it from?

        •  I think it comes (0+ / 0-)

          from Spiderman - not that I am a huge fan.  Just something I remember.  His spidey senses would tingle when trouble was about.  Just a different way of referring to instinct.  I am a firm believer the if you get a nagging sense that something isn't quite right yet you cannot put your finger on what that is - many times you are correct.  Although I will use those times to ask more questions so that I can learn what it is that is making me suspicious - because it could be a misinterpretation.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 08:38:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's very important to have good ones (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Most of the time, when I would become convinced a witness was lying, it wasn't anything in particular that I could put my finger on at first, but then when you start digging (generally more deeply than you'd do if you didn't get that feeling), there generally start to be lots of very specific things that just don't add up.

            One of the most frustrating cases of my career was where another experienced lawyer and I BOTH got those feelings to an extraordinary expense, and convinced our client to spend money on a private investigator, and spent a lot of time and money turning over every rock we could think of, and still found absolute zero evidence that the witness was actually lying.  We ended up recommending a very large settlement, which was completely justifiable if he was telling the truth but outrageously generous if he was lying, simply because you can't walk into court and say, "Well, I can't prove it, but I just KNOW this guy is lying."  Turning the check over to plaintiff's counsel was hugely painful, because we were both still convinced that we just hadn't turned over the right rocks, but we had NOTHING.  I think that was the only time in 30 years that I was totally convinced somebody was lying, and was nevertheless unsuccessful in coming up with any actual evidence to contradict their story.

        •  Or I could just give you this (0+ / 0-)

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 08:39:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your anonymous attacks fail to cut mustard (0+ / 0-)

      since the only Edmonds critics willing to self-identify have had explicit links to the Turkish lobby.

      If you have a real beef with Edmonds, publish it under your real name, so that we may assess your own credibility.

      •  But you anonymous attacks on ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Jan Schakowsky are just wonderful.  Now I understand.

        •  I have not attacked Jan Schakowsky (0+ / 0-)

          except to point up the lameness of her non-denial denial.

          All I did was report what was reported in the American Conservative -- because it's news.

          It's funny you object to the reporting about Ms. Schakowsky but not the much more serious allegations about the figures who are not Democrats.

          Ms. Schakowsky didn't necessarily do anything wrong -- until she started attacking Sibel Edmonds with blatant mischaracterizations that reveal something she is trying to hide.

          •  Um ... I'd consider repeating uncorroborated ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            stories about a married woman carrying on a lesbian affair, and then claiming that her denials weren't credible, as being attacks.  But then I guess you've got a different definition.

            •  Courts have ruled in recent years that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              calling someone homosexual is not defamation per se.

              The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

              by lysias on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:31:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nor is calling someone bisexual an "allegation" (0+ / 0-)

                it was Ms. Schakowsky who went into attack mode here. But she has experience here. Consider this from Schakowsky's Wikipedia page:

                On March 11, 2004, Schakowsky's husband, lobbyist Robert Creamer, the executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund, was indicted in federal court on 16 counts of bank fraud involving three alleged check-kiting schemes in the mid-1990s, leading several banks to experience shortfalls of at least $2.3 million.[10] "He is innocent," Schakowsky said in a statement.[11] In August 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to one count of failure to collect withholding tax, and bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds. All of the money was repaid. According to USA Today, "Schakowsky has not been accused of any wrongdoing."[12] Schakowsky served on the organization's board during the time the crimes occurred,[13] and Schakowsky signed the IRS filings along with her husband.[11] U.S. District Judge James B. Moran noted no one suffered "out of pocket losses," and Creamer acted not out of greed but in an effort to keep his community action group going without cutting programs, though Creamer paid his own $100,000 salary with fraudulently obtained funds.[14] On April 5, 2006, Creamer was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months of house arrest.[15] Creamer served his five-month incarceration at the Federal Correction Institute in Terre Haute, Indiana and was released on November 3, 2006.[16]

              •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Lots of things are attacks (and even defamatory) that aren't defamation per se.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site