WHISTLEBLOWERS/OPEN GOVERNMENT — Sibel Edmonds, the War on Terror's most frustratedand celebratedwhistleblower, wonders whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have quashed public hearings into her case by fellow California Democrat Henry Waxman's aggressive watchdog committee, to protect yet a third California Democrat, Jane Harman, long before she came under public scrutiny for alleged background efforts on behalf of a foreign government.
In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'
Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to
protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a
deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to
keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the
answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current
state of our mainstream media.
Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to
protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a
deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to
keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the
answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current
state of our mainstream media.
