Skip to main content

View Diary: Day of Atonement: Guess Who's the Jew (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Edmonds does not validate the information (0+ / 0-)

    She is merely relaying the information as she heard it when she worked from the FBI. OF COURSE much of the information may be erroneous, which Edmonds freely admits. If you listen to a wiretap, you may be listening to intentional deception -- reporting what you heard is just a matter of accurate reporting.

    Understanding that makes the Schakowsky non-denial denial especially irrelevant. It matters not how Schakowsky might have first encountered the Turkish agent -- at a funeral or wherever.

    What matters is that the Turkish agent did target her and may have attempted to influence her actions in Congress. Schakowsky doesn't speak to those questions, and that is why her statement is not pertinent.

    In fact, picking issues with irrelevent facts while avoiding the important issues is a classic tactic of the guilty. Schakowsky's statement speaks poorly of her, and was of a piece with her admanat defense of her husband when criminally charged -- just before her husband pled guilty.


    •  Wait .. I'm confused now. (0+ / 0-)

      you say "you may be listening to intentional deception" and then go on to repeat the bogus charge against Schakowsky like it is a fact.

      So you saying Turkish agents deliberately planted false details about a factual encounter, something that really happened.

      Can you tell me how this would benefit anyone's interests, deliberately planting false details? Details that can very easily be verified?

      Logically, one should presume either Edmonds is mistaken, she misheard or misinterpreted the information, it's not Schakowsky but someone else, the Turkish agents misspoke, it was someone else. to use details like "her mother's funeral" and "bugged townhouse", which the facts clearly show to be not accurate benefits no one.

      It serves to discredit the people speaking or repeating the story. In Edmonds' case, her defense is clearly that she simply repeated what she heard. What, pray tell is the motivation for the Turkish agents in putting out this bogus information?

      And yes, like sort of like Larry's 'Whitey Tape' there may be some video tape, but as we have not seen it, so how you then make the conclusion the story is true?

      I don't get it.

      •  Yes I agree you are confused ;-) (0+ / 0-)

        I think your confusion may stem from hearing the Schakowsky statement and trying to work backwards -- sort of like trying to sort out the truth about the Governor of South Carolina starting from the Appalachian Trail story.

        Let's start with Edmonds's actual and credible allegations. Turkish agents wanted to influence Schakowsky because: a) she served on the Intelligence Committee, b) she was influential in the liberal Jewish community, and c) she came from Illinois, connected to a variety of important political players.

        The Turks were then fed information by the Group 3 neocons that Schakowsky was bisexual. It's not important to our present purposes whether this was true or false.

        A female Turkish agent then approached Schakowsky and seduced her into an affair. The details of how, where or what was done are irrelevant. Maybe someone's funeral, maybe not -- all unimportant.

        Edmonds claims no knowledge as to whether Schakowsky performed any quid pro quo for the Turks.

        The REASON that Edmonds relates this story, based on what she learned directly from FBI wiretaps, is to reveal the extent of the Turkish influence-peddling effort. THAT is the important thing, and the only focus of the Edmonds allegations.

        Schakowsky has responded in a way that speaks only to the incidental details of her alleged bisexuality and infidelity. NONE OF US CARE ABOUT THAT.  And facts about it would be irrelevant if they were not germane to the modus operandi of the Turkish agents.

        Therefore, Edmonds has asked Schakowsky to speak to whether she was indeed approached by a Turkish agent, compromised, and asked to perform any quid pro quo for the Turks. Schakowsky avoids all those questions in her statement.

        This is not a matter about Ms. Schakowsky's sexual preference. But as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, her vulnerability to blackmail IS a matter of national security. FBI wiretaps caught her being compromised by a Turkish agent. That's what she needs to answer to, instead of her personal concerns.

        That Schakowsky already lied blatantly in her husband's criminal case does go to credibility here.

        •  None of what you posted is factual. (0+ / 0-)

          You have zero evidence to back your allegation.

          I've already given Sibel an 'out', as I think she has nothing to gain from lying. She simply repeated what she heard. She's in position to judge or make allegations.

          'None of us care about that' in caps doesn't make your interpretation true or worthy of any further consideration.

          Factually, Schakowsky was and has continued to be a strong supporter of the Armenian community, her district has a fairly large Armenian population. Turkish elements had and continue to have every reason to try to smear and attack Schakowsky.

          Your fantasy:
          "FBI wiretaps caught her being compromised by a Turkish agent."

          FBI wiretaps caught her being allegedly being compromised by a Turkish agent.

          Yet you keep insisting it's factual.
          I find this fascinating.

          •  correction .. (0+ / 0-)

            "She's in position to judge or make allegations."


            Sibel is NOT in a position to judge or make allegations. She's simply repeating what she heard. In fact, she has said as much under oath.

          •  Your confusion continues unabated (0+ / 0-)

            In my post I summarized Edmonds's allegations. They are not MY allegations. I just provided a summary to help you get clear.

            The FBI wiretaps revealed that Schakowsky had the affair. Edmonds had access to those wiretaps. Therefore, to Edmonds, the compromising was not alleged, it actually happened.

            NO ONE has alleged that Schakowsky performed a quid pro quo. Edmonds has clearly said she has no knowledge of that. I said the Turks were unsuccessful generally with the Democrats. You're fighting a straw man on that.

            What IS important is whether Schakowsky was asked to perform a quid pro quo. She has not addressed that question publicly. She has an obligation to place country above her personal issues and disclose exactly what transpired between her and Turkish agents, including anything she was asked to do for them.

            •  No. (0+ / 0-)

              "The FBI wiretaps revealed that Schakowsky had the affair."


              The FBI wiretaps intercepted communications between Turkish agents that claim they set up Schakowsky.

              The details provided with the claim either point to a different person, or they are deliberate and sloppy ruse, intended to smear a person the Turks were trying to intimidate.  

              It doesn't make the story true.
              Yet you keep repeating this bogus alleged 'seduction' as fact.

              Got proof it happened?
              Got a copy of the video tape?  

              •  There is no smear (0+ / 0-)

                since no criminal wrongdoing on Schakowsky's part is alleged.

                You want to use the language of criminal law to refer to a person's sexual preference and personal behavior. That's wrong.

                Whether the congresswoman is bisexual, or what she does sexually with anyone IS HER OWN BUSINESS and is not the subject of any legal "allegations." Those facts are UNIMPORTANT.

                She was a target of Turkish agents. That was established. It's not criminal to be a target.

                The ball is now in Schakowsky's court to reveal what the Turkish agents did and what they asked of her. Not anyone else's court, her court.

                •  I see, it's no smear to allege someone is (0+ / 0-)

                  having an illicit affair, without proof.
                  Should be allowed anywhere, anytime.

                  Got it, Thanks.

                  •  You define it as "illicit" not me (0+ / 0-)

                    I happen to think that adult consensual sex is not "illicit," unless some public trust is violated, such as use of public funds.

                    Schakowsky's personal feelings being hurt are simply trivial in light of the major issues of state involved. She needs to come forward about the details about the Turks, and forget about the sex, which no one cares about, except maybe you.

    •  Oh, and as for Schakowsky's 'adamant defense' (0+ / 0-)

      of her husband, I'd consider that to be a sign of loyalty, perhaps undeserved but loyalty nonetheless.

      To make the assumption that since Sibel repeated what she heard on a tape it therefore must be true and accurate, even when factual details clearly point out a gross disconnect between what she heard and reality leads me to ask "do you have some sort of vendetta or axe to grind against the Congresswoman?"

      •  Sorry but (0+ / 0-)

        lying about your husband's criminal actions, whether out of "loyalty" or whatever, establishes a pattern that completely destroys your idea that we should accept her present denial statement on faith.

        Maybe she's acting out of loyalty again?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site