Skip to main content

View Diary: Leahy and Grassley:  FBI Verified Allegations of Sibel Edmonds (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sibel Edmonds is a disgrace (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, Mariken

    Here is what Sibel Edmonds had to say about Jan Schakowsky in the American Conservative Magazine:

    Jan Schakowsky, the Democratic congresswoman from Illinois. Turkish agents started gathering information on her, and they found out that she was bisexual. So a Turkish agent struck up a relationship with her. When Jan Schakowsky’s mother died, the Turkish woman went to the funeral, hoping to exploit her vulnerability. They later were intimate in Schakowsky’s townhouse, which had been set up with recording devices and hidden cameras. They needed Schakowsky and her husband Robert Creamer to perform certain illegal operational facilitations for them in Illinois. They already had Hastert, the mayor, and several other Illinois state senators involved. I don’t know if Congresswoman Schakowsky ever was actually blackmailed or did anything for the Turkish woman.

    Here is Schakowsky's response:

    "The American Conservative's most recent hit piece against Congresswoman Schakowsky is complete fantasy; cut from the same cloth as the stories by "birthers" that President Obama is not an American citizen. The source of this story subscribes to the bizarre conspiracy theory that elements of the United States government were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    A simple review of the facts would lead any responsible person to conclude that there is not a shred of truth to any aspect of this story.

    It would be just as accurate to say the Congresswoman was kidnapped by little green men and carried in a space ship to the planet Xenon.

    From the start, the fantasy is riddled with factual errors. It claims that an "intimate" relationship between a fictional female Turkish spy and the congresswoman began at the funeral of the congresswoman's mother after 2000, however, Rep. Schakowsky's mother died thirteen years earlier in 1987.

    Furthermore, it is alleged that the "relationship" occurred in the congresswoman's bugged town house even though she has never owned or lived in a town house in her life. Congresswoman Schakowsky shares a small apartment with her husband in a busy Washington, DC apartment building and owns a single-family home in Illinois.

    In fact not one of the events in this fantastic tale ever took place.

    Had The American Conservative, (which was founded by Pat Buchanan) adhered to normal journalistic standards it would have fact checked the story and contacted our office. Its goal was not apparently good journalism, but to fabricate one more story line for the right wing smear machine and conspiracy theorists everywhere."

    One might think the fact that the verifiable infomation in Edmonds story is complete bullshit would end this.  Since Edmonds was just a translator who worked for the FBI for six months, I figured her response would just be "well, that's what I heard."  Edmonds instead responds as follows:  

    Here is my 'on the record' response:

    I am, and have been, reporting intercepted communication of targeted operatives; more or less verbatim.

    1. This particular operation(s) was based in IL; not DC.

    The timeline covered 1996-2002 (January).
    The targeted townhouse in question was in IL. The operatives discussed their plans to bug the townhouse in detail. Is this a townhouse she owned/owns? I don't know. Did it belong to the female operative? I don't know. Did the set up take place? Yes; confirmed by the FBI surveillance team; Chicago-Field Office.

    1. The female operative in question was to accompany Mrs. Schakowsky to the funeral for 'the mother' and stay with her afterwards.
    1. What the targets wanted from Mrs. Schakowsky had to do with their operations in IL. Her husband's role was important in that operation.

    Now, to make it fair ask Mrs. Schakowsky the following:

    1- Do you deny having sexual relationship with a Turkish woman between late 1990s and early 2001?

    2- Do you deny having communication with her (Turkish operative) 'front' office in Chicago, TACA [Turkish American Cultural Alliance]? (Because the records would prove direct communication).

    And finally, most importantly: if she denies: I am willing to take public polygraph (independent polygraph service) on these points if she accepts doing the same.


    What the hell?  Edmonds comes up with story that has already been proved to be bullshit and has been denied in its entirety by Schakowsky, and she thinks Schakowsky should take a lie detector test to see if she's secretly a lesbian and had an affair with a turkish spy?   If I was Schakowsky, my response to Edmonds would be: fuck off.  I can't wait to see if Edmonds thinks any other public figures (or not public figures) should take lie detector tests about their sexual orientation or whether they have had extramarital affais.  What a piece of garbage Edmonds is.

    Not only is Edmonds behavior offensive, it completely undermines her credibility.  Again, if her response had simply been that this is what she heard, that might be credible.  But Edmonds is not just a witness - she is pushing the whole conspiracy theory.   That is why she is not credible.  That is why she is no different from the birthers.  

    •  What Edmonds says about Schakowsky is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, Mariken

      hearsay, based on what she says she heard the people she was listening to say.  Intelligence agencies have been known to boast about their accomplishments, exaggerating them and sometimes just lying about them.

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

      by lysias on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:10:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is hearsay (0+ / 0-)

        and that hearsay has been disproven.  Edmonds response should have exactly what your comment was.  But it wasn't.  Instead, Edmonds  who isn't just a witness, but it emotionally invested in her story, tries to salvage it by calling for a lie detector test for Schakowksy's sexual orientation.  Not only does that make Edmonds a wretched piece of shit excuse for a human being, it also destroys her credibily.

        Sibel Edmonds = birthers.

    •  Mia, If You're Proven Wrong Later (0+ / 0-)

      Do you promise to eat your words publicly?

      •  Of course (2+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        pico, Its the Supreme Court Stupid
        Hidden by:
        miller415, kafkananda

        and if not, will you admit that Edmonds is a lying sack of shit who wants to engage in gay witchhunts to prove her bullshit story.  

        •  Let's Be Civil Mia (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kefauver, miller415

          This is not about sex, it is about blackmail.

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            I am not the one engaging in gay witchhunts - Sibel Edmonds is.  Why would Schakowshy answer those questions - which she has denied -when Edmonds story was so completely wrong to begin with?  Why didn't Edmonds just say "well, that's what I heard."

            Edmonds is an absolute disgrace.  That is why this story is getting nowhere other than with a few people on the blogs who want to believe the conspiracy as badly as she does.  

            •  Where is the gay witchhunt? (0+ / 0-)

              Once again, the whole point of this story is to show what lengths foreign agents will go to in order to get Congresspersons in their back pocket.

              Not only will they bribe, but they will sexually blackmail.

              •  Lets go through it (0+ / 0-)
                1. Edmonds comes up with a story about Shackowsky.
                1. Shackowsky comes up with evidence that shows that the story is bullshit and denies that she had a lesbian affair.
                1. In order to save her discredited story, Edmonds disbelieves Shackowsky's denial and asks her to take a lie detector test regarding whether she had a lesbian affair.  

                Edmonds knows that Schakowsky won't take the test, and so Edmonds can imply that she's lying and really did have a lesbian affair.  There is the gay witch hunt.   And the reason that Edmonds is a horrible, horrible piece of shit excuse for a human being.  Its an absolute disgrace that any progressive would defend this woman.

                •  So you condone blackmail? (0+ / 0-)

                  You think it is something that should be swept under the rug?

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    Well, if the blackmail allegation is based on the testimony of someone who got all the facts wrong and has no credibilty and needs to have someone undertake a lie detector test about their sexual orientation and whether they cheated on their spouse, then yes.  Its not out from the rug now.  In any investigation, there has to be some foundation, some probably cause, to get to the next step.  That is missing here.  

        •  That's over the line, IMHO. (0+ / 0-)

          Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

          by kafkananda on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:41:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (0+ / 0-)

            What is over the line is Edmonds conduct. You are simply HRing the truth.  Edmonds wants Schakowsky to prove her sexual orientation by a lie detector test becaused Edmonds story has been discredited.

            •  Spam/Troll Alert (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I just counted 11 'Mia Dolan' comments out of a total of 31 for this diary. It's not your diary. And you were just insincere in your response to my HR, which was about profanity more than anything else. You have made your point. Please let the discussion proceed. If you are as adamant as you seem, at this point writing a diary to present your viewpoint is a more appropriate way to spread your ideas, IMHO.

              Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

              by kafkananda on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:55:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not really hide-worthy, (0+ / 0-)

          language notwithstanding.  Plus I can see why Mia is losing patience, since people seem to be brushing off a pretty egregious bit of misinformation, which Edmonds' response addressed not at all (She didn't talk at all about those aspects of the story - second hand or not - that are clearly not true; instead she wrote a letter talking about herself and the fact that she's been gagged more than anyone else.  I find that more than a little problematic).  

          I'm not going to jump into the fray over whether that discredits her outright, but Mia has a fairly solid reason to be offended and angry about this particular issue.  If this were a less emotionally-loaded subject, I doubt people would be fighting over it.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:37:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (74)
  • 2016 (53)
  • Elections (50)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Environment (39)
  • Climate Change (37)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Civil Rights (31)
  • Science (31)
  • Media (30)
  • Education (30)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Law (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Congress (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site