READER COMMENTS ON
"Some New News, Twists in the Schmidt v. Krikorian (Sibel Edmonds-related) Election Case in Ohio"
(44 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 2:14 pm PT...
Great reporting, Brad! So, you think Monday would be the date for her testimony, if the delay is granted?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 2:32 pm PT...
Nice work Brad! I hope the house of cards tumbles.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 2:51 pm PT...
I would like to know what your phrase:"despite the paucity of any actual ethnic Turks in her district" means. Does it mean that there are ABSOLUTELY no Turks in her district in Ohio, or does it mean that no "ethnic Turk" contributed to her campaign from her district?
There are Turks all over this country, yes even in rural Ohio. BTW, how do you categorize an "ethnic Turk"? Do you consider Azerbaijanis (north and south), Ahiskas (Meshketians), Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Cypriot, Turkmen, Turkoman, Turki, Bulgarian, Thracian, Romanian,Volga Tatar, Bashkordistani, Uygur,Karapapakian,Uzbek,Chuvashian,German, French, Crimean,etc., not to be Turks if they are not from Turkey itself? Of course I mean born and bred, not a refugee from Iran to Turkey like Sibel Edmonds.
How does Krikorian tell who is an "ethnic Turk" in her district? Did he go through the voter records, the contributions records, the population records to posit this claim? What was YOUR methodology in ascertaining that " a paucity of ethnic Turks" exists in her district?
I am asking this because without background on the methodology utilized to make such an assertion, the phrase is devoid of any truth.
Surely you can do better than this Brad. If you seek to have a dog in the fight between these two, make sure that logic is employed. Otherwise you become a propagandist for Krikorian and the same base liar he is in making such an unsubstantiated claim.
BTW, CK out Rep. Pallone's "contributer lists", how many live in his district and how many are Armenians. The clue is most likely the -yan or -ian at the end of the names.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:06 pm PT...
You think Monday would be the date for her testimony, if the delay is granted?
Not sure when the date would be if they moved it. My understanding is the Krikorian asked for an extension, to allow her to be a witness during the hearing, though I don't know if he requested a specific date or not (or, just told them when she'd be coming back, and thus available, etc.)
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:09 pm PT...
Fein may have sounded like an obstructionist and laughable jackass in the deposition, but he was doing his job, and maybe I haven't paid enough attention or something, but I'm at a loss to figure out what could be gained by subpoenaing him for deposition... other than to highlight that he represents the very people Krikorian was accusing of giving blood money to Mean Jean. What of further value to the case is he even allowed to testify about?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:12 pm PT...
The OEC's order permitting Krikorian to depose Bruce Fein is exceedingly significant. It suggests that Fein is a material "fact" witness, and, as such, should withdraw from his representation of Schmidt.
Of course, Fein has not merely the right but the legal obligation to refuse to answer any questions that would be protected by the attorney/client privilege with respect to any and all confidential communications he'd had with Schmidt.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:15 pm PT...
Exactly, Ernie. So is this just a ploy to take him off the case, or what?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:16 pm PT...
If you seek to have a dog in the
fight between these two, make sure that logic is employed.
Actually, as I've stated previously, I have no particular dog in the Turk v. Armenian fight (though some astounding behavior I've seen of late, from the Turkish Lobby, certainly threatens to try and force me to choose sides. Here's just one recent example.)
you become a propagandist for Krikorian and the same base liar he is in making such an unsubstantiated claim.
Well, for the record, Krikorian has also stated that there is not a substantial Armenian-American in the 2nd district. Now, granted, though I haven't personally bothered to count the numbers of either in that district, I've relied on a number of media accounts about the Schmidt v. Krikorian case on that score.
If you'd like to correct the record, and present evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly welcome it, and even post a correction if/where merited.
Attacking *me* (and Sibel, again, a Turkish-American, ironically enough, who you now dismiss as little more than "a refugee") however, seems to be another misguided waste of the pro-Turkish Lobby's time. But that hasn't seemed to have stopped them before, apparently.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:16 pm PT...
He can't be a fact witness against his other clients either.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:22 pm PT...
99 - See the video interview/grilling with him (linked in the story above) as he came out of the Edmonds deposition. Some tough questions are asked, including about his participation with one of the alleged Turkish orgs, during the time of the tapes Sibel was translating.
What of further value to the case is he even allowed to testify about?
As the case --- or at least Sibel's part in it --- has become about illustrating how the Turkish Lobby's influence works, I'll presume Krikorian feels that Fein's first-hand knowledge of that, as an associate of one of those organizations, is valueable. The OEC seems to have agreed.
BTW, I was tipped off, even prior to Sibel's deposition, about the fact that Fein could be a material witness in the case, by an Armenian source who questioned the appropriateness of Schmidt being represented by him in the first place. FWIW.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:29 pm PT...
I think the examination of Fein will concentrate on issues that are not likely to be within the attorney scope of work. Don't expect there to be much of an effort to find out about Jean Schmidt's sudden [non]mastery of Ottoman history, although he will surely be asked who and how the first contacts were made with Schmidt. It was not her idea.
For example, Fein is labelled as "resident scholar" at one of the Turkish lobby groups. From this perch he regualrly issues pronouncements on the Armenian Genocide, using the preferred talking points of the Turkish lobby, whenever he does his parrot job. Examples:
1. You cannot call the "events of 1915" a Genocide because no international tribunal has labelled them as such after an adversarial fact fiinding.
Answer 1: Lemkin, who authored the term Genocide, had the Armenian case in mind.
Answer 1.1: In his defense of another group called "Tamils against Genocide" Fein has stated in print that Sinhalese culture and government is Genocidal and has committed same against his clients. Yet, there is no tribunal there, either.
2. He has dreamed up the claim that there was a Turkish-Armenian war, and the Armenians lost. Sorry for all the collateral damage.
This 'civil war' thesis is hooted at by virtually every historian, because the vast majority of Armenians [and Assyrians, and Greeks, and Pontians, all Christians] were unarmed, and under the guard of state actors, when they were killed by their guards or other state actors. Even reputable Turkish historians laugh at this one, which the ultranationalist TA lobby advances, see the works of Taner Akcam, Selim Derengil [who called this civil war thesis a "travesty of history which no hsitorian with a conscience could advance"; Engin Akarli, Fikret Adanir, Yektan Turkyilmaz, Baskin Oran [who reported crying while a Yale graduate student when he came upon evidence of the Genocide, which had been denied him in Turkey, Ahmet Insel, Umit Ungor.
Even Fein client Guenter Lewy, adheres to the Derengil point of view.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:30 pm PT...
Yeah, I grok that, Brad, and find it troubling, since I have respected him so much for his trouble trying to defend the Constitution, but I'm bugged about a court finding it okay to subpoena him as a material witness against his clients. Seems to me anything they would want to make him testify about would already be supported by documents and so making the counsel for this group, or these groups, and Mean Jean, come in and stand on attorney/client privilege seems weird to me.
Of course, I can't get used to third millennium courts. Nothing seems to go now as it always did before.... Maybe they are avid to interfere with the Turkish perfidies Sibel has been trying so long to expose and just want to turn the heat up.
Or... I'm still just too fuzzy on the concepts here.... I guess we're going to see.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 3:34 pm PT...
Well, maybe Joe has just broken my brain blockage. If he is "resident scholar" and doesn't act as their attorney in any way, maybe he can actually be compelled to testify.
But... that's still thin... and kind of sloppy on his part if he can't show the privilege exists there....
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 8/31/2009 @ 5:23 pm PT...
99: Judges take a dim view of ploys to call an attorney as a witness simply to force them off a case. That is the reason Krikorian had to make a motion for leave to depose him. They had to show that he had knowledge outside the course of his representation of Schmidt that justify calling him as a fact witness. That knowledge could pertain to his links to the Turkish lobby that are separate and distinct from his representation of Schmidt.
I have not read Krikorian's motion and do not know what showing his lawyers demonstrated in the motion. What I do know is that if I were an OEC judge, I would require a strong showing before I would permit the deposition of an opposing legal counsel. I am assuming that the OEC operated by that standard and that the granting of the motion reflects that this is not a frivolous attempt to interfere with Schmidt's choice of legal counsel.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 6:29 pm PT...
...show that he had knowledge outside the course of his representation of Schmidt...
And wouldn't it also have to be knowledge outside of the course of his representation of other "Turkish Lobby" persons and organizations? I don't see how Krikorian could have made a very strong showing. I'm skeptical as heck about this. I didn't read Sibel's whole deposition, but can't imagine she gave any testimony that would point to Fein having such knowledge, and unless he has bubkes for grounds to assert the privilege as pertains to his other "Turkish Lobby" affiliations, this just seems so way left field to me... especially when the case is about a squabble between candidates.... Maybe they're just trying to get Mean Jean to drop the suit. Maybe hissing at her is more serious in the eyes of the Court than I imagine.
I guess we're gonna see....
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 6:41 pm PT...
I guess the crux of my bewilderment here is that I expect the OEC judges to live up to your standard, too, but this doesn't feel to me as though they are.... Deposing attorneys about stuff they probably only know in the course of their work with clients is creepy... or even going near there... unless it's armed robbery or murder or something... but besmirching Mean Jean? She won, didn't she? [Appalling as I find that....]
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 6:50 pm PT...
She does refer to his membership in TALDF during the deposition. As well, see that video interview outside the deposition between Fein and the Armenian journalist as I mentioned previously.
I can tell you this: I don't get the sense the OEC is favoring Krikorian over Schmidt here, or in this case in general. FWIW. It is OH, remember.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 7:58 pm PT...
Brad, I couldn't find any video link in the piece and thought there was a video earlier, but...?
And I am assuming that his membership in that legal defense fund means he's an attorney for Turkish Americans, and I'm assuming that his "resident scholar" designation at the other organization would be his legal scholarship and so it's still going to be kind of hard to parse out what he can testify about completely outside the scope of his client relationships.
I mean, he's probably the perfect person to ask about a lot of stuff, but it's not kosher to ask an attorney to testify about stuff he knows through his clients. It's done, or attorneys sometimes find themselves having to be witnesses but the attorney/client thing keeps them from having to be helpful. There are probably things one could ask him that fall outside it, but, well, I'm just surprised.... I mean, ultimately, whatever they feel he can testify about would be in the course of exonerating Mr. Krikorian in Ms. Schmidt's case against him... which amounts to using her counsel against her, which isn't as awful because she's the plaintiff, not the defendant, but it's just not done except in very extenuating circumstances... or wasn't back when I was roaming with the dinosaurs... so.... I'll just hang out here in cyberspace and the answer will eventually make itself known....
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 8/31/2009 @ 8:13 pm PT...
99 --- there's a difference between confidential information received from a client in the course of representation and knowledge gained from lobbying which does not necessarily entail divulging confidential communications between attorney and client.
For example, an attorney can come into possession of internal business memorandum reflecting that a cigarette company knew the dangers of smoking. If the document itself was not a confidential communication between attorney and client but was instead simply an internal memo between two officers of the corporation, the memo does not gain privileged status simply because it was turned over to the attorney.
An attorney representing one client can, in the course of his/her representation, engage in communications with individuals or entities who are not his/her client. Those too are not privileged communications.
There are a whole range of subjects for which an attorney can be questioned without straying into the realm of the attorney/client privilege, and, so long as the questions posed by Krikorian's attorneyss do not intrude into privileged matters, Fein will have to answer them.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 8:17 pm PT...
Or, heck, the OEC judges could be miffed that the Turkish Lobby seems to be suing Krikorian by use of Jean Schmidt... and this accounts for it. It was really, really weird that she would choose a Turkish Lobby lawyer against an alleged libel about taking blood money from them....
Okay. Even though I find it hard to believe that Fein would be involved in any of this nonsense, he clearly is. I thought it was weird that he'd take the case, considering his other clients, to begin with, and if he's acted imprudently, if not illegally, then I guess having to go in for a grilling isn't too harsh. Even if he just sits there and refuses to answer, it will at least chasten him for making so bold as to take this case... no matter at whose request.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 8:29 pm PT...
Well, right, Ernie. I just don't think they NEED him to answer THOSE kinds of questions, that there would be a strong enough showing for that kind of stuff to get the judges to go along with it, but if they're irked by this smarty pants Turkish Lobby using Schmidt for standing to sue Krikorian for libel, then that explains it to me. I just had to clear my decks and wonder aloud for a while before I could get rid of the dissonance there. Had to get over the hurdle of my respect for Fein on Constitutional matters, remember that doesn't make him a saint....
Had to wade through my mental defaults. Sorry.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 8:57 pm PT...
Another one of my mental blocks is that I don't believe anything coming from Jean Schmidt! I think she's an embarrassment to Republicans everywhere, am floored she wasn't a one-term Representative after that appalling outburst in the House about Jack Murtha. I know I'm supposed to believe that psychedelic stuff because it's happened enough, but, well. it's still too hard to bear in mind, and I have to boot myself in the rear to think around the blanket of that fog.
... which must be why they do it....
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 10:25 pm PT...
Agent 99 @ 18 said:
Brad, I couldn't find any video link in the piece
Whoops! You're absolutely right. Had the text in there linking to it, but forgot to include the actual link. Have fixed.
For your convenience though, it's here:
Fein's interview begins around the 5:30 mark.
I mean, he's probably the perfect person to ask about a lot of stuff, but it's not kosher to ask an attorney to testify about stuff he knows through his clients.
Krikorian is not doing so. See the video. Read the deposition. And besides, Schmidt knows nothing about the Turkish Lobby according to her deposition, etc. So there's nothing to learn from him via attorney/client privilege. He was one of the main Turkish Lobby reps during the time of the tapes Sibel was listening to. That will be what the ?'s are about, no doubt. You sure do latch onto things you like believing in, eh? (In this case, your love for Bruce Fein, I guess.)
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 10:53 pm PT...
Thanks for fixing that. I thought I was the befuddled one!
Yes. I do latch on to things I like... but I usually do one of three things, because I know I do this, and those are:
 I immediately un-latch;
 let myself stay latched as long as I'm vigilant; or
 immediately unlatch when I realize I've latched and dropped my guard.
Really hotshot Zen Masters don't latch to begin with. Us bumblers fuck up once in a while.
My excuse for latching onto you was that I was in a very weakened state from a recent major surgery. They decked me! So I'm not responsible....
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 11:22 pm PT...
Pssst...99, read the UPDATE I've now added to the story. May explain even more so why they want to call Fein. Wow.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2009 @ 11:54 pm PT...
So. They think Fein, or someone he would have knowledge about, is feeding her the pro-Turkish/anti-genocide stuff... and she's amenable to it because the "Turkish Lobby" gave her that $30,000....
I'm thinking they're going to drop the allegation against Krikorian now... or Bruce Fein is going to have to get up and do some masterful stonewalling, or masterful decimation of Krikorian's attorney.
Still, it would be outright appalling if Fein would represent her, knowing that what Krikorian said was true. Some places they call that "chutzpah"....
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 1:15 am PT...
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 5:02 am PT...
When we finally seize and redistribute the mainstream media, I vote we give one of the major outlets (CNN, FOX, ABC, etc) to Brad Friedman. This is the only place I get serious, hardcore reporting.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 9:59 am PT...
when is the Bruce Fein depo?
will bob livingston, dick gebhardt, steven solarz be added to the witness list?
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 12:43 pm PT...
Turkey, Armenia agree to establish diplomatic ties
By Susan Fraser The Associated Press
08/31/2009 12:55:09 PM PDT
ANKARA, Turkey - Armenia and Turkey agreed Monday to establish diplomatic relations, overcoming a seemingly intractable rift that dates to the early 20th century and was marked by massacres of Armenians under Ottoman rule.
Sibel's testimony re: Turkey, the upcoming interview with Peter Lance, and Joseph Trento's clear historical link to middle east geopolitics offer clear direction for Sibel to gain wider attention. The Armenian press is covering her. Get her posts in Europe, and force U.S. policymakers to address our concerns. Israel stands to benefit from a continued divide between Armenia and Turkey. Let's expose their complicity in this process. Heroin manufacturing was linked to Russian/Israeli Mafiya in Turkey. Perhaps more exposure in this direction will gain a larger readership.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 2:07 pm PT...
Glad to see someone posted the recent news of an accord bet. Turkey and Armenia, and you make good points about exposure of Sibel's matter.
Could Sibel's depo have precipitated the alliance, since the uncovering of the spying on the US would be detrimental to both, so it's better that they work together, in one voice, to try to get beyond Sibel's claims??
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 3:01 pm PT...
JoeBlow @ 29 asks:
when is the Bruce Fein depo?
will bob livingston, dick gebhardt, steven solarz be added to the witness list?
I don't believe there was a date set yet when I spoke to Krikorian. Will see what I can learn and report back.
Hadn't heard anything about the members you mention being added as witnesses, though I would add that Sibel went out of her way to note that Gephardt was NOT among those she was charging with wrong doing (though Burton, Hastert, Blunt, Solarz and the now-deceased Lantos all made the list).
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 3:34 pm PT...
JoeBlow - Your question now answered. Fein was deposed yesterday. See the new 9/1/09 UPDATE in the story above for details!
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/1/2009 @ 4:13 pm PT...
Recall, 99, the following from my Lanny Davis piece:
One former and four current Patton Boggs attorneys were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in San Diego...Prosecutors allege company founder Michael Ellis lied about Metabolife's safety record in a 1998 letter to the [FDA], which documents say Patton Boggs attorneys helped draft....In mid 2002, Patton Boggs lobbyist Lanny Davis wrote a senator whose subcommittee was investigating Metabolife that the company had received only 78 'unproven, anecdotal allegations' of strokes, heart attacks, seizures and deaths." Company documents released just one week later revealed that the number of health complaints actually numbered in the thousands."
There can be occasions in which an attorney is appropriately called as a witness.
Brad: Sibel's unavailability probably will permit Krikorian to offer her deposition in evidence, though Fein is in a position to raise seek to exclude those portions he objected to. Since the ability to observe the demeanor of a witness is vital, it's a good thing they videotaped.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 4:43 pm PT...
From Turkey Topix Forum, a favorite haunt of Ergun Kirlikovali, the incoming ATAA President Elect [He uses the name "Norman Israel"]:
Bruce Fein, almost one time super-lawyer, was deposed yesterday. Next stop Bruce: insurance defense.
According to the brad blog he didn't do his clients any favors. Geragos is described as doing an awesome job. Gergaos does capital trial cases. Bruce does not.
Bruce does occasionally don his aluminum hat and pontificates from Mt Arafat about all things Armenian. He is now, by proclamation of the Institute of Turkish racial and jurisprudential science, the official Jewish American lawyer of the Turkish Lobby and Armenian Genocide Denial Institute,by apopintment of the Royal Turkish military(c)[sorry, Brad].
More Imodium! Maathilde, better get the 36 roll from Costco, too!
Ergun, buddy, stop calling him so much. It makes his wee, cramped, Collie-like narrow face even more wee, narrow and collie-like. [sorry, Lassie].
And I bet the FBI will be reading the transcripts too. They have taken an interest in the ATAA before, per Sibel.
Bruce, Ergun, et al; great work. Not only have you humiliated your token client Jean ["we must never forget the events of 1915, but I don't know what they were, cause I did not live then, uhhh, I am pretty sure, when can I get back to Ohio?"] Schmidt, but you have exposed the underside of your support for the subversion of our democracy.
Talk about loyalty to the Constitution. Here is the Bruce Fein oath:
"I Bruce Fein, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God. And the instant I am no longer an Assistant United States Attorney fuhgeddabout it."
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 5:27 pm PT...
Bruce Fein is a potted plant with no resistance to Roundup.
"I don't remember, I can't recall, I don't know anything about anything at all." - Peter Gabriel
"They're not laughing anymore." - The Call - When the walls came down.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 5:39 pm PT...
Brad you have written:
"Actually, as I've stated previously, I have no particular dog in the Turk v. Armenian fight (though some astounding behavior I've seen of late, from the Turkish Lobby, certainly threatens to try and force me to choose sides. Here's just one recent example.)"
As an American with Turkish, etc. heritage, I have a right to voice my opinions,without being accused of being a part of a mythical "Turkish Lobby".
My opinion is my own and my questioning your motives are appropriate given that you are promoting a side of a story without any objectivity. You have become a propagandist for Krikorian and by associating with a liar, you yourself choose to be one.
You also wrote:
"If you'd like to correct the record, and present evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly welcome it, and even post a correction if/where merited."
Politico, July 16, 2009
Flier fuels fierce debate in Ohio
'Ohio’s 2nd District, however, is an improbable venue for that contentious debate to take place. According to census data, fewer than 500 Armenian-Americans and Turkish-Americans in total live there —216 individuals of Armenian ancestry and 194 of Turkish ancestry.'
So, there was a record, a full month before you deliberately chose your words to reflect what Krikorian was saying, whereby denying that there were Turks; (ethnic and otherwise), since you did not define what it is you meant by "ethnic Turk" in the 2nd district of Ohio.
You claimed I attacked you.
No one "attacked" you. You repeated, in violation of any objectivity, what Krikorian was saying about the lack of Turks in that district. I have asked you to define what is an "ethnic Turk", you still have not.
Then you continue with more allegations with a
nonsensical diatribe deliberately misreading what I wrote:
"(and Sibel, again, a Turkish-American, ironically enough, who you now dismiss as little more than "a refugee")
How is her being a refugee from Iran, an "attack" on her or "dismissing" her? She is Azeri as I am from my dad's side. Are you denying that she and her family are refugees who fled to Turkey from Iran? Since you have not defined what is an "ethnic Turk",
how is she a "Turkish-American"? Definition of term, please.
Then you end with another allegation on me and my background by stating:
"however, seems to be another misguided waste of the pro-Turkish Lobby's time. But that hasn't seemed to have stopped them before, apparently."
Prove that I am party to your allegations of a "Turkish Lobby".
This reminds me of Armenians who always claim anyone who disagrees with them has to be "a Turkish Government agent." Obviously no "ethnic Turk, etc." can be disagreeing with their version of history.
Brad, you have claimed:
From the Brad Blog: 8/14/2009
"He has alleged that the 2nd Congressional district in Ohio has very few, if any, ethnic Turk's among the voting population".
Krikorian's exact words were:
"despite there being almost no Turkish people or interests in Ohio's 2nd congressional district."
This is from:
Krikorian For Congress Press Release
Schmidt Drops Four False Statement Claims Against Krikorian
Republican Congresswoman Essentially Admits Denial of Armenian Genocide
Cincinnati, OH - August 12, 2009
you claimed a "paucity" of "ethnic Turks" in the district, obviously you did not look beyond Krikorian's account and conferred with his opinion. There was evidence, as I posted above, that you did not utilize. Is this your objective reporting methodology? Why didn't you do the research?
This is the crux of my argument on your treatment of this issue. You claim you do not take sides on this case, yet anyone reading your blog sees the skewed information you choose to provide. This information is readily available by doing a simple search on the background.
I would still like to know what your phrase:"despite the paucity of any actual ethnic Turks in her district" means. Just for the record.
Since there was evidence, that Politico obtained, in July, about the similar number of Turks and Armenians in the 2nd district of Ohio, why do you refer to "the paucity of any actual ethnic Turks in her district"?
It is clear that Krikorian did not want this information to be broadcast because it would hurt his other scurrilous charges, so what was your reason for not researching this simple point and providing the correct information?
This is the reason he is a liar. The information was available and he chose to conceal it.
I have proven that relevant information was
available in this instance, now you can start to question his other allegations instead of relying on them as if they were the absolute truth and anyone who disagrees has to be part of an alleged "Turkish Lobby".
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 6:42 pm PT...
the issue is not whether Brad has been unfair, neither is it whether he had conflates you with the well known Turkish lobby shills like Mr. Kirlikovali, the incoming President Elect of the ATAA.
It is instead whether we as loyal Americans dedicated to the Constitution are going to protect our country and it's laws, by demanding a full public investigation of Sibel Edmonds' charges. Forget your particular ethnic ties and assume that her testimony concerned Greek, Armenian or Russian bribery and blackmail.
Under those circumstances I think you would have no trouble seeing where your duty as a loyal American lays.
As a Turk, how do you account for the TCA attacks on Ms. Edmonds? Isn't it risky for a group to attack her for merely setting forth the contents of tapes she heard, which still exist?
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2009 @ 11:45 pm PT...
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2009 @ 11:47 am PT...
One thing about her testimony that really caught my attention had to do with the progress of events from Mujaheddin to Al Qaeda to the KLA which she referenced indirectly.
I had been aware that after the US piled on vis-à-vis Kosovo that the heroin route became much more dealer friendly, whereas before that it had to go all the way to Siberia and sneak back to Europe by train; after the Kosovo intervention, with all its attendant obscenities, like DynCorp's child and girl sex rackets, figuring big-time into the ongoing Cold-War (Chechnya, Georgia, Ossetia, &c) mentality of Rumsfeldian types — anyway, the KLA, being muslims and aided by al Qaeda which, as she points out, were our muslims who changed their logo patch for 9/11 — the KLA were the final kingpin in the perfect drug distribution system, from the fields of Afghanistan to the labs in Turkey to the streets of London, Berlin and Paris.
OK? I knew that. But the stunner was, the former "sick man of Europe" was still fighting its cold war, still fighting Russia, still fighting Serbia, still killing Lord Byron at Missoulonghi — it's a Turkish Empire issue, the undead Turkish Empire, which my grandparents might recognize, but we have all lost sight of. I had totally missed that until this video. Did that strike anyone else? That the Turkish Empire is alive and kicking and a major player in all this awful mess, as opposed to being just a crater of an extinct volcano?
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2009 @ 1:26 pm PT...
They [the "neo-Ottomanists"] really, really want Mosul back.
They wil live - for the time being - with Arabs runing Iraq andSaudi Arabia.
But only for the time being.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2009 @ 7:27 pm PT...
Thanks, Neni1955 for admitting you have never read the Turkish constitution--the one written by the pashas and ratified in 1982. If you had, you wouldn't have to ask what a Turk is nor would you have made such a stupid comment about the Turkishness of Sibel Edmonds.
But we all know how this little ethnic game is played by the regime; this way one moment, that way the next, depending on how convenient each argument is for the regime. And that's how we all know there's not a single Kurd in Turkey and there never has been, right?
For general reference, here's the Zaman article written by Schmidt.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2009 @ 10:17 pm PT...
What happened in 1915 must never be forgotten. To quote the great poet Maya Angelou, “History cannot be unlived, despite its wrenching pain, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”
The above quotation from the Turkish daily, Today's Zaman, by Jean Schmidt, ironically demonstrates her own inability to face history with courage, just as those who have purchased her loyalty continue to fail to face history.
Neni, it is wrong to say that Armenians accuse all Turks who do not agree with them as being "Turkish government agents". Armenians simply say you blindly believe what the "Turkish government agents" say.
In any case, this whole issue has little to do with whether you believe one side or the other, this has to do with covering up illicit activities involving the Turkish Lobby, the Turkish embassy and US officials who accept bribes and involve in espionage.
After listening to Sibel Edmonds accounts, it is not inconceivable to think that Jean Schmidt was at least targeted for money-for-favors. One would be disingenuous to think that her letter in Zaman is anything less than a reciprocal service, in content and spirit, thus, Mr. Krikorian's accusation of her accepting "blood money" cannot be regarded as outrageous as Bruce Fein wants people to believe.
A district that does not have Turkish-American electorate combined with her fuzzy knowledge of history points to such purchase of services, and I am sure we would not be having this discussion if a neo-Nazi group were to fund a US Representative who would adopt a notion that says "war is war and Holocaust is Holocaust", meaning: "get over it". ( read Schmidt's letter in Zaman)
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 9/8/2009 @ 3:14 pm PT...
Where are the Turkish Americans who should be denying the overt, Nazi racism of Ergun Kirlikovali? He routinely uses Nazi language to describe Armenians, those of 1915 and those of today ["terrorists" "traitors" "rats" "they want to kill any Turk on sight"]. He has compared the deaths of Armenians to the deaths of flies.
Spend 15 sickening minutes on the web to verify these remarks for yourself.
[And while you're at it, go to the Orange County Register website to see his racist attacks on Mexicans.]
If any Armenians wrote in essentialist and racist ways about Turks or Moslems, Armenians would generally rise to attack such slurs, because they had grandparents who were killed en masse by state actors. But that's another issue. Seems to mem you can deny the AG all you want without referencing Armenians in the language of Der Sturmer.
Where are you?
The racism of Kirlikovali, ratified by Turkish Forum, Turkla, Turkish digest [in which he accused Armeians of killing Hrant Dink on the day of the klilling] and the ATAA which he will lead soon, is all over the web.
When I challenge Turks on these issues, they disappear. What are you all so afraid of?