I’m very skeptical about that.
A JinC commenter responding to Edwards admits to sexual affair; denies paternity just said:
We are now asked to believe that the meeting between Rielle Hunter nd Edwards at a clandestine location in the middle of the night occured even though the affair had long since ended and the child was someone else's? He knew nothing of monthly payments?I’m right with the commenter.
And reasonable people are expected to believe this?
Then there’s this from a Politico.com story concerning what ABC News is reporting Edwards is now saying:
He denied being the father of Hunter’s child and also that the affair was over before his wife’s cancer recurred in March of last year.OK, you got that?
In his statement, Edwards said that, "I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established."
"I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby," Edwards said. A former Edwards staffer has claimed to be the father of the child.
Left unanswered in the ABC release is whether Edwards is asked to explain why he was apparently in a Los Angeles hotel room with his former mistress last month.
A source familiar with the ABC interview said that Edwards does the broadcast alone and explains why his wife is not beside him. Edwards says that while politicians often have their wives beside them in similar situations, he has embarrassed her enough.
Edwards had heatedly denied the affair after the Enquirer floated the possibility last Oct. 11." ...
He’s not the daddy. He's not involved in regular payments to Rielle Hunter. The affair is over.
Those denials go against what the National Enquirer’s been reporting.
So what are we to make of what follows in Politico’s story:
ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross said the Enquirer’s reporting was “95 to 96 percent” accurate[?]Would Ross score the Enquirer "95 to 96" if he thought it was wrong about Edwards being the daddy?
And there are those press reports that Enquirer editor David Perel says his paper will be able to prove the parts of its reports Edwards is still denying.
The Politico story's here; the ABC News report's here.
5 comments:
John, I know that you are a gentleman and want to avoid attacking a wife of a candidate, but just like a cable news reporter said today, Elizabeth Edwards was in on this with her husband.
She's just as much of an opportunist and political animal as he. He told her about this in 2006. She has gone about being self-righteous and covering up and telling the public how wonderful her husband is ever since.
They both used her illness as a publicity stunt off Franklin Street in Chapel Hill with that big news conference.
Face it. There are some women like Elizabeth Edwards who are content within a marriage knowing that their husbands are not always faithful.
She lives a millionaire's life. How often do you think she has to worry about paying medical bills?
Well, the rest of us do and they are so high in part because of her husband's lawsuits and having run many out of business. That expense is past down to the rest of us.
In the past you have championed Elizabeth Edwards but just like some of the journalists today said, she was in on all this with him and lying to the public about what kind of person he is.
His former campaign manager David Bonior is livid and you can bet he's just as disgusted with both of them.
I have to hand it to John Kerry. He had John and Elizabeth Edwards pegged just right long ago. They both disgust me in so many ways.
The hypocrisy of the Edwards is what gets to me. They both rail on about the poor yet live in a McMansion that was funded by ambulance chasing. They talk about the need to instill morals yet two America Johnny thinks nothing about stepping out on his spouse. I like the fact that he uses the word liason to explain his relationship with Ms. Hunter - he is probably betting on the fact that most people do not know what the word means. Liason does imply a long term relationship - no one night stand - which means that his strying from his marriage vows was no temptation fueled by alcohol, loneliness of the moment, or what ever it is that causes otherwise respectable people to make a foolish mistake.
I would hope that the Democrats will not be so foolish as to have Elizabeth Edwards speak at the convention (one would hope that she has enough self-respect not to go). If so, it is providing cover for John Edwards (look his wife has forgiven him his indiscretion, we should all be as magnanimous) and once again (as in the case of Clinton, Spitzer, etc.) setting the stage for him to return to public life (look at those tonight who are already trying to excuse or condone his behavior).
Edwards, Spitzer, Clinton, the Kennedy men, FDR. THe Democratic Party - home of those who can't keep a zipper zipped.
cks
I suppose that John Edwards will take a paternity test as soon as John Kerry has released ALL of his Navy records, as he so many times promised....
Two peas out the same pod
Via Just One Minute, the NYT offers their explanation of why the MSM was fast asleep for months:
--- begin excerpt ---
When The Enquirer first reported the affair, a group of Edwards associates, including from past campaigns, assembled at his headquarters to try to stop the story from moving from the tabloid into major newspapers. They declined to respond to questions or issue any statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort. It was led by Jennifer Palmieri, a longtime associate of both Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. At the time, two of Mr. Edwards’s associates said, some of his aides did not believe the reports, but others were suspicious.
But by this summer, the team had shrunk. Ms. Palmieri managed the crisis again, working mainly with Mrs. Edwards and Harrison Hickman, Mr. Edwards’s longtime pollster. Initially Mr. Edwards argued that he could ride out the latest report, but several associates said that if the reports were not true, he should denounce them.
Mr. Edwards said in his statement Friday that he had denounced the tabloid reports earlier because most of the details were not true. “But,” he added, “being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.”
--- end excerpt ---
Who could make this stuff up?
"We didn't investigate this credible story for months. That is, until, all of a sudden, it became front page news, because...
... uh, because the Edwards campaign mounted a determined public-relations effort to keep the lid on a story that made their candidate look bad.
Brilliant! Who knew that a P.R. campaign would more than suffice to shut down all the major news outlets?
An interesting note - a persusal of the electronic version of the NY Times headlines reveals no mention of the Edwards imbroglio at all. There is an editorial piece by Gail Collins but even that does not have Edwards name in the headline.
The Edwards story does have legs - it will be interesting to see if any enterprising journalist will follow the story. Why the sudden visit to LA if the affair ended in 2006? What prompted him to announce that he had in fact been unfaithful yesterday? Is Rielle Hunter a party girl (if one believes Edward's story that he is not the father, that means that she was rather free and easy with her favors - especially with married men)? What is the story with the series of videos that she made for his campaign? what were her qualifications to produce said videos? Why is there no father listed on the birth certificate - is there anyone paying child support? Why the extravagant payments to Ms Hunter - made by someone in the Edwards campaign? These questions easily come to mind and there are probably a hundred more that one could formulate without much thought. whether the msm will follow through or whether they will let this story die a quick and relatively painless death will say even more about their liberal bias.
cks
Post a Comment