I probably shouldn't venture into Sibel Edmonds territory again -- she seems to attract a "CD" audience, and I'm not popular with that crowd. But I just received an interesting anonymous tip suggesting a new candidate for the "mystery congresswoman" -- a currently married Democrat with children who switched her allegiance on an Armenian genocide resolution because she was (allegedly) blackmailed by Turkish intelligence. According to Edmonds (speaking in court), the Turks set up a lesbian honeytrap for this congresswoman. Edmonds would not give a name.
Many names have been bandied about, especially that of Jan Schakowsky. Here's the problem: Blackmail doesn't go away -- at least, not until the blackmail target 'fesses up in public, in which case the blackmailer loses all power.
Schakowsky is a co-sponsor of the current version of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. The Armenians consider her good on their issues. Why would she be blackmailable then but not now?
We have the same problem with just about every other female member of Congress who has served for at least nine years. I went down the list and could not find someone who matched all the criteria. The candidates -- suspects? -- either are not currently married, do not have children, are not Democrats, or do not oppose an Armenian Genocide Resolution.
There is one exception. (At least, so far I've found but one.)
The anonymous tipster pinpointed one congresswoman who does match all the criteria: Louise Slaughter of New York. Her record on Armenian issues is poor, even though she is otherwise a classic liberal.
There are two problems with Slaughter:
1. The candidate should be someone who once was good on Armenian issues but then, under duress, changed her stance. I haven't seen any evidence that Slaughter once supported a genocide resolution. However, I am still in the process of learning about her. (The only congresswoman who has made a major, public and genuinely mysterious flip-flop on the Armenian question is Jane Harmon -- but her conversion came well after Edmonds' brief FBI tenure.)
2. Slaughter is 79. She would have been 70-ish at the time of the alleged extramarital tryst. Maybe I'm naive or old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that a person of that age is unlikely to be ruled (and ruined) by passion.
Is that belief foolish? What do you think?
(Of course, Edmonds' testimony is problematic in its own right. You know the adage: Testis Unus, testis nullus.)
8 comments:
Slaughter is the only one that fits all criteria Edmonds describes. Her record with the Armenians is so-so and perhaps they blackmailed her to keep it that way.
I agree with you about the age issue though, she's actually going to be 80 in a few days. Not impossible, but unlikely the Turks would target her with a bisexual scandal.
Of course there is another possibility, Edmonds made the whole thing up or backtracked when she realized naming Harmen wouldn't work.
Is it a HOUSE member we're discussing? Or could it be a member (or former member) of the SENATE?
It's my view that older people, regardless of gender, can be ensnared in a sexual relationship. Whereas young people are more superficial and fall for good looking types, older people fall when emotionally touched.
Marital status is, in my humble opinion, an irrelevant criteria for trying to determine whether a person is gay, straight, or bisexual. Gay men and lesbians who want political careers may well marry a person of the opposite sex as cover. Marriage to a person of the opposite sex doesn't make one "bisexual"--you could still be 100% gay. As to the first Anonymous commenter here: I have no idea what a "bisexual scandal" means if it's about two women having an affair. Hello? Was there a man there with them? Then it's a lesbian scandal. It's okay to say the word: LESBIAN.
Maybe Edmonds if full of crap, or maybe it's difficult for some people to believe that a middle aged woman could be seduced by another woman. There's so much weirdness and denial around gay and lesbian issues and women's sexuality in general.
Anyway, these are just the passing thoughts of a lesbian commenter. I agree with you in that I doubt Slaughter is a likely candidate at age 70. Schakowsky and Harmon definitely tweak my gaydar. Which, of course, means nothing.
Older people are not necessarily less susceptible to such tactics.
djmm
Folks, let's be clear. Although I generally consider Wayne Madsen to be unreliable, he broke a key piece of the Edmonds case (the Brewster Jennings angle) months before the Times of London reported the same story. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on the congressperson who Madsen named because I know he's had credible sources on the Edmonds case in the past.
(I will have to say that I find part of the Madsen story a 'stretch', specifically the part where Rahm Emanuel and Obama wanted Schakowsky appointed to the Senate and that Blago resisted. That doesn't ring true to me but who knows).
Second, there is no evidence that this congressperson did anything wrong. As far as I can tell, they are mostly a vicitm, so in some sense I don't care who the person is. I am more concerned about a foreign lobby blackmailing a member of Congress, regardless of their ideology. If this story is true and it has been suppressed by the FBI and Justice, all Americans should be outraged.
Third, it does seem a bit much to set up an elaborate blackmail operation simply based on a nonbinding Congressional Resolution. I imagine there was something else the blackmailers were after and we've only heard part of the story.
creepy http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/congresswomans-son-in-law-dies-snorkeling.html
Sounds like Pelosi to me....http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aD5_dx1DQhrA&refer=politics
Post a Comment