I have read it, in detail. I just wondered why you chose that phrase"
Again, meant no imlied message one way or another. Trying to tell the story, as mentioned, as fairly as I can. It WAS a bit of a parting shot (which you likely know if you read the formal response), and -- though I failed to answer this in reply to your first note here -- Schakowsky's office DID avoid answering the direct points that Edmonds raised. Perhaps they had good reason to (eg. "we won't even entertain such outrageous questions", or some such), but they did not answer the 3 direct points that Edmonds asked them. They could have, but they chose not to. And I verified that with them several times to make sure they definitely did not wish to issue a direct response to those questions.
I think there's more to fairness than just quoting both sides' statements, ... It's not that I think you're biased so much as it seems to me you're milking the story rather than investigating it.
I'll not speak to the "milking the story" part, but rather leave that to your opinion and others. I believe the story merits the coverage I've been able to offer it (and much more, if I had the resources, frankly!), but that's just *my* opinion in contrast to yours. But as to your first point, I concur. There IS more to fairness than just quoting both sides.
To that end, in my original story, offering up the background, the specific allegations (from both the sworn deposition and the recent AmCon interview) and quoting everybody's direct responses, and replies and rebutals to each of those, I had another long, incomplete section that attempted to untangle what was what at the end, and whose stories held up and where, etc. which I removed before publishing. Reason for removal was largely two fold: a) The story, as is, with everyone's additional responses to responses had already grown longer and longer and longer and b) The "fact-check" type section at the end, trying to sort it all out, had also grown both *really* long, and yet, still incomplete, since there are a number of unexplained issues on both sides of the story.
But I felt it was important to get Schakowsky's response to the very serious charges, up in full, as quickly as possible, since the allegations had been out, at that time, for at least 24 hours. So I didn't want to hold that up while trying to investigate, figure out what was what in the rest of the already very long piece.
Let me ask you this, which you can answer or not as you see fit: Schakowsky asserts matters of fact which flatly contradict Edmonds' account - to wit, the death of her mother occurring back in '87, 12 years before she entered Congress, and her historic lack of residence in a townhouse, which I suppose could be verified with a trawl through public records, albeit at some minor expense. Edmonds declines to address these contentions in her rebuttal, and reverts to telling her own story rather than supply any substantive detail to corroborate her earlier remarks.
All good points. And those issues were among the ones in that additional section that I ultimately didn't run (though may in the future, as i can fill in more of the details).
Sibel has told me she plans to offer more information in the coming days, as I noted at end of the piece, and I have made further inquiries to Schakowsky's office, which they may or may not chose to answer. The date of the mother's funeral is certainly a hole in the original allegation. Though that could be explained by determing the death date of one Schakowsky's mothers-in-law, for example. That's one of the points I'm trying to look into. (I welcome anybody's help on such points, btw!)
So that detail requires more investigation, as far as I'm concerned. While I could have run really really long and pointed that out (along with other similar details and questions), I chose instead to get "what we know" from all parties, on the record as is for the moment. Hope that helps to explain.
Given this lack of substantive rebuttal or checkable corroboration, how much longer can this story go on? To me it raises very basic questions about the reliability of Edmonds as a source. If (for example) she were to claim that she's just reporting what she heard the Turks speaking about and can't vouch for its accuracy, then she is ill-advised to describe Schakowsky's supposed affair to AmCon as if it were a matter of fact, and even less to challenge the congresswoman to a lie detector test.
Can't answer to "how much longer can this story go on". There seem to be VERY substantive questions in regard to not just Schakowsky (a rather small piece of the much larger story, in fact), that need to be investigated. If anybody else in the media bothered to jump in to investigate such things, perhaps it could all be refuted as stuff and nonsense in short order, and then the story goes away. But currently they aren't doing so. Similarly, if they jumped in to investigate, they might find there is much more there, as UK's Sunday Times did when they ran a three part series of front page articles on these claims, and were able to corroborate a number of elements of them independently.
Your questions are good and legtimate, as far as I'm concered, and demand answers. Let's hope we can get them!