Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

[MannyIsGod]

You are a more patient man than I.

[Winehole23]

You are jumping to conclusions where other possibilities exist. Can you not admit that?

No. My own inferences are based on credible accounts substantiated by independent investigation and from sources inside the FBI.

Whereas yours are based on...

What are they based on, WC?

A rational account no doubt, but one that is hard to believe, since there is not even cir stantial evidence to back it up, but only sheer speculation.

[Wild Cobra]

No. My own inferences are based on credible accounts substantiated by independent investigation and from sources inside the FBI.

Whereas yours are based on...

What are they based on, WC?

A rational account no doubt, but one that is hard to believe, since there is not even cir stantial evidence to back it up, but only sheer speculation.

Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.

[Wild Cobra]

You are a more patient man than I.

Have any evidence that doesn't have reasonable doubt attached? If so, show me please.

[Winehole23]

At any rate WC, you take mere allegations-- even unsubstantiated ones -- for evidence all the time if the target is someone you dislike.

I'd have thought you'd jump at the chance to characterize the Clinton State department as corrupt. But it seems you'd rather protect it against credible whistleblowers based on mental freewheeling.

Suit yourself.

[LnGrrrR]

Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.

WC, I don't think WH23 is trying to make a case. He's just comparing the known evidence with what's out there.

Right now, it's POSSIBLE that Edmonds stumbled into something. However, I see no evidence on your part but speculation. It's also POSSIBLE that she's making this all up in order to get a book deal. Or maybe it's POSSIBLE that she had an affair with the person she's accusing, and she's merely a jilted lover.

Of course, I have as much evidence for those other scenarios as you seemingly do for yours. Whereas the evidence for Edmonds telling the truth would be the IG report backing her up.

[Winehole23]

Then show me one of those accounts that have convinced you.

Like I said, I haven't seen any that could mean more than one thing.

Please show me.

What you have would never stand up in court. The prosecution has to make a case beyond reasonable doubt. I see reasonable doubt at every turn in this case.

Red herring. This isn't a court, it's a discussion forum.

Just because something can't be proven to criminal standards of evidence doesn't mean the allegations aren't credible. You seem to be unwilling to weigh the credibility of Edmonds (partly substantiated) allegations of official corruption against your own naked inferences.

I find that telling.

[Winehole23]

Besides, the legal standard to proceed with action is preponderance of the evidence. On that count, the IG backed up Edmunds, not her employer.

[Wild Cobra]

Your post #75:

Somebody else might believe WC. I'd hate for people to think I had no good reply to him.

I also hold out hope that he might learn someday to be more reasonable with people who disagree with him, and less stuck on his own view of things.

I even conceded he could could turn out to be right, but I won't hold my breath waiting for reciprocity. It's always his way or the highway.

Bull . I have never taken the stance she was wrong.

My post #67:

Trust me. I would like to believe it was Grossman who leaked the secrets during the Clinton administration. Then maybe we could put that to bed. I'm just not willing to convict the man on no evidence.

My post #47:

What if that's not the real story? If there is a veil of secrecy, the opposing side isn't going to give their side.

What if, that's what it appears to be. What if she outed people trying to uncover something deeper.

I'm only playing Devil-Advocate here. There may be truth in what she says. Still, going public was the wrong course. I once had a security concern, and I went outside my employer strait to the NSA with it.

My post #30:

Point is, we don't know. She may have been fired because she was jeopardizing active agents. That is why you don't talk about things you see in classified jobs. I find that far more likely than being fired for finding bad people in the agency she worked for.

Either way is possible. Point is, do not jump to conclusions.

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, WC. Mea culpa. I generalized from past impressions.

My bad, bro.

[Wild Cobra]

At any rate WC, you take mere allegations-- even unsubstantiated ones -- for evidence all the time if the target is someone you dislike.

There's a difference when you have a solid believe of the other persons M.O.

I'd have thought you'd jump at the chance to characterize the Clinton State department as corrupt. But it seems you'd rather protect it against credible whistleblowers based on mental freewheeling.

My post #67:

Trust me. I would like to believe it was Grossman who leaked the secrets during the Clinton administration. Then maybe we could put that to bed. I'm just not willing to convict the man on no evidence.

[Winehole23]

There's a difference when you have a solid believe of the other persons M.O.

Well, at least that's honest. Your private beliefs about the actor trumps the evidence or the lack of it. That's fine as long as people agree with you.

But how will you ever persuade people who don't?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, I don't think WH23 is trying to make a case. He's just comparing the known evidence with what's out there.

And one side will not make a case on the basis it is classified. We only have one side of the story.

Right now, it's POSSIBLE that Edmonds stumbled into something.

Absolutely.

However, I see no evidence on your part but speculation.

Offering other possibilities rather than jumping to conclusions.

It's also POSSIBLE that she's making this all up in order to get a book deal. Or maybe it's POSSIBLE that she had an affair with the person she's accusing, and she's merely a jilted lover.

Nope. I believe she believes what she says. She did pass a polygraph over the matter.

Of course, I have as much evidence for those other scenarios as you seemingly do for yours. Whereas the evidence for Edmonds telling the truth would be the IG report backing her up.

But the IG only says the situation warrants investigation. It does not say her allegations are correct.

[Wild Cobra]

Red herring. This isn't a court, it's a discussion forum.

I'm only asking you to show me convincing evidence that I may not have seen.

Just because something can't be proven to legal standards of evidence doesn't mean the allegations aren't credible. You seem to be unwilling to weigh the credibility of Edmonds (partly substantiated) allegations of official corruption against your own naked inferences.

I'd say she is 100% credible in what she says happened. I'm not claiming she's not credible. Just the conclusion she made on so little.

[LnGrrrR]

But the IG only says the situation warrants investigation. It does not say her allegations are correct.

Fair enough.

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, the legal standard to proceed with action is preponderance of the evidence. On that count, the IG backed up Edmunds, not her employer.

They said her claims warranted an investigation. Not that she was correct in her assessment.

Or did I miss something more substantial?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, at least that's honest. Your private beliefs about the actor trumps the evidence or the lack of it. That's fine as long as people agree with you.

But how will you ever persuade people who don't?

I'm not going to try to remember the situations I may have had too little evidence. We all do base things at times from our own bias, so I wasn't going to outright dismiss your words.

[Winehole23]

They said her claims warranted an investigation. Not that she was correct in her assessment.

Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying.

OK, what is the credibility claimed?

I read it that she was credible in her belief, and that if she is correct, it is a serious matter. Not that her allegations were credible.

Can you back up the difference?

[Winehole23]

Hair splitting.

I can't be responsible for you misreading me, WC.

The IG said her allegations warranted investigation. That goes to the credibility of more than Ms. Edmunds private state of mind IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, her allegations are credible and serious. That's what I've been saying.

Hair splitting.

I can't be responsible for you misreading me, WC.

Then please say what you mean. I'm not psychic. Her allegations are not credible. That facts of what she heard on the tapes is credible. One does not equal the other.

If you are saying that she is qualified to conclude the truth of possible counter-intelligence and possible treason from compartmentalized information, then you should rethink your thoughts.

The IG said her allegations warranted investigation. That goes to the credibility of more than Ms. Edmunds private state of mind IMO.

What are you saying about her state of mind? My major point about her speaking out on this is that she should have gone to someone like the NSA. Not public disclosure.

Do you think there is something with her state of mind? I don't.

[Winehole23]

If you are saying that she is qualified to conclude the truth of possible counter-intelligence and possible treason from compartmentalized information, then you should rethink your thoughts.

I said no such thing. Credible does not mean conclusive. It means "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."

[Wild Cobra]

I said no such thing. Credible does not mean conclusive. It means "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."

And again, I believe she is credible in the accounts of what she heard. Just that her conclusions of what she heard are unqualified.

[Winehole23]

What are you saying about her state of mind? My major point about her speaking out on this is that she should have gone to someone like the NSA. Not public disclosure.

She went to her superiors first. In retaliation, they fired her.

To my knowledge Ms. Edmunds has disclosed nothing that is classified, but has limited herself to what has already been publicly disclosed. If you read her carefully, you can tell how seriously she takes her obligation to remain silent about what is still secret. Mr. Grossman, for example, was outed by the British press, and her more recent allegations were germane to a lawsuit.

The propriety of her doing so was not officially challenged.

[Winehole23]

And again, I believe she is credible in the accounts of what she heard. Just that her conclusions of what she heard are unqualified.

Perhaps.

But they deserve at least to be investigated, wouldn't you say? if the results of such an investigation should prove too sensitive, the results can be classified. But at a minimum there should be due diligence to assure national security wasn't compromised, and US officials corrupted.