“RESPONSE FROM LARISA ALEXANDROVNA
I would agree here. We cannot confirm a good deal of it because it is classified. But as to what I have confirmed about Grossman, this lends credibility to her allegations. In addition, a States Secret gag is not a minor thing. She clearly was witness to something that so scared the Bush admin, they had to shut her up – including not allowing her a day in court. So with the Grossman thing confirmed, the States Secret gag, and the reality that no one wants to be a whistleblower for fun, not to mention that she has testified to these things in sworn testimony, makes a strong case that we should take her claims seriously. I am not saying we have to believe them outright. But we are obligated to take her assertions very seriously and to attempt to get answers for them. And as I have now said over and over, on the Grossman question, that has been confirmed.

I also agree that the nature of her work is unknown to us, so we are in no position to opine as to the length of her employment vs. the amount of access she had.

She deserves at least the benefit of the doubt.”

I just don’t think Congress should continue to ignore this. She’s claiming a Democratic member of Congress was blackmailed in a “hooking” scheme. A still serving member. If true, that cannot stand. She should be named or resign.
Not because she had sex with someone outside of her marriage, but because her vote can be manipulated!

An unnamed high-ranking official at the State Department arranges the release of four foreign operatives that have been taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the 9/11 attacks, according to FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds will later leave the FBI, becoming a whistleblower, and say she knows this based on telephone conversations she translated. Edmonds will say that the target of an FBI investigation into a nuclear smuggling ring calls the official, indicates names of people who have been taken into custody since 9/11, and says, “We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans.” The official says he will “take care of it,” and the four suspects on the list are released from interrogation and extradited. [Sunday Times (London), 1/6/2008] The names of the four suspects are not known, but one of the lead 9/11 hijackers, Marwan Alshehhi, and the sister of another, Mohamed Atta, will later be associated with the target of an FBI investigation connected to nuclear sciences, so this could possibly be a reference to this person (see July 1999). The high-ranking State Department official who is not named in the Sunday Times article is said to be Marc Grossman by both Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story and former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the American Conservative. [Raw Story, 1/20/2008; American Conservative, 1/28/2008]

The FBI has stumbled across a lot of CIA relations in its past
Agreed, that’s what I was getting at @ 36 with “She might not know about quite a few interlocking covert operations that might color some of what she heard differently.”

And even if it wasn’t all on the up and up at the time, while we were trying to get Turkish approvals and cooperation for the Iraq invasion wouldn’t really have been a good time in the admin’s perspective to go after this. But if what she did was stumble onto an approved covert op, then the FBI handled her really really badly it seems.

BTW – I don’t think you need to cover it EW. I’m just trying to figure out how I missed the info that Grossman was caught by the FBI giving out classified info on B & J to Turkish interests coming out. To me, that was new. And Armitage was new. And the allegation that the FBI asked for an assessment when they caught Grossman was new. If you’ve already btdt, I’m sure it’s annoying for you though, sorry.

But the mere fact that a bunch of people are spending this thread asking why I didn’t cover something that came out 3 years ago which I know to be refuted by other evidence? That suggests peopel are putting far too much on this.

EW,
As one of those who was asking you to cover this, let me say that your response in these comments is quite sufficient for me. I know you have a lot on your plate, and much appreciate all the other work you are doing in the weeds.

Thanks,
Bob in HI

There are lots of ways to misuse such info, including that you mentioned. I just don’t know the best way to insure everyone and still protect their privacy.

But the mere fact that a bunch of people are spending this thread asking why I didn’t cover something that came out 3 years ago which I know to be refuted by other evidence?

It is your duty to educate us. As my math professor used to say “Based on the results of this quiz, perhaps some review is in order”.

Boxturtle (I can’t even remember yesterday consistantly and you want me to go back three YEARS?!?)