You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #37: She would do better to explain the factual inconsistencies in her account [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. She would do better to explain the factual inconsistencies in her account
Like explaining how a Turkish agent was supposed to have developed a relationship with Schakowsky after her mothers funeral, when that event took place in 1987 and Schakowsky wasn't in Congress until 1999, or even an elected representative in Illinois until 1990.

Or why Edmonds refers to affairs taking place in 'Schakowsky's townhouse' which had been bugged with microphones and hidden cameras, then backtracking and saying she doesn't know whose townhouse it was when Schakowsky points out she has never owned or lived in such a residence. Yanno, if you don't know whose house it was, maybe you shouldn't go round saying it was her house?


When Edmonds insists Schakowsky take a lie detector test, she's basically asserting that her story, and everything she heard on the tapes, is true and that Schakowsky isn't. But it's just a bluff, because she knows perfectly well that nobody in Congress is going to fit themselves up for a lie detector test like some BS reality show. And so it goes on.

But here's a thought: if Edmonds wanted her claims verified, why not just name the supposed Turkish lesbian agent? She's already named a member of Congress, so why worry about concealing the identity of this supposed sex spy? Spill the name and let's see if someone can track her down provide some independent confirmation. I feel pretty comfortable guessing that this will never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC