Brodhead helped Seligmann? Where’s the evidence?

An Aug. 6 Durham Herald Sun story, “Duke helped lacrosse player transfer to Brown,” under Ray Gronberg’s byline begins:

The Durham Herald Sun reported Charlotte attorney Jim Cooney shed some insight Tuesday into Duke President Richard Brodhead's involvement with one of the university's three lacrosse players falsely accused of rape in 2006.

Brodhead "personally assisted Reade [Seligmann] in transferring" to Brown University after the players' exoneration, by going "out of his way to contact the right people," writing letters of support and doing "everything he could to make sure Reade landed at a good school," Cooney said.

Without Brodhead's help and similar backing from a couple of Duke professors, "Reade wouldn't have ended up at Brown," he said. …

Cooney and his law firm, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, have often represented Duke.

Cooney also represented Seligmann for a portion of the time the then Duke sophomore was under indictment as a result of a frame-up attempt by now disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong and others.

In this post University of Maryland law professor Jason Trumpbour considers how Cooney was able to represent Seligmann in light of his representation of Duke in other cases.

Now what about all this help Cooney says Brodhead gave Seligmann without which, the H-S reports, Cooney said, "Reade wouldn't have ended up at Brown[?]"

On Aug. 7 the H-S published “Seligmann unaware of Duke help,” which like the previous day’s story, carried Ray Gronberg’s byline.

The Aug. 7 story began:

If Duke University President Richard Brodhead indeed helped Reade Seligmann transfer to Brown University last year, he did so largely without the exonerated lacrosse player's knowledge, Seligmann and one of his civil lawyers say.

Seligmann "knows of no support that Brodhead gave him at Brown," lawyer Richard Emery said Wednesday after his office e-mailed a statement from his client to The Herald-Sun. "Whether that happened behind his back, he can't be sure. It may have happened, but he doesn't know about it." . . .

In the statement Emery's office released Wednesday, Seligmann said it's his "clear recollection" that one of the last two times Brodhead communicated with him or his family was to wish them happy holidays late in 2006.

The Duke president also called to say he'd reinstated Seligmann at Duke, Seligmann said, without specifying when that occurred. Duke formally announced the reinstatement on Jan. 3, 2007.

Paralleling Cooney's comments, Seligmann said he was "aware of one letter I was told Mr. Brodhead wrote on my behalf," though neither he nor his family had ever seen it.

Emery said Seligmann doesn't know what the letter said, who received it or even if it went to officials at Brown.

"Nobody ever communicated to him anything specific about any letter," Emery said. "There was some general knowledge that Brodhead was writing a letter to assertively help him. But [that knowledge] was very general and very vague."

Emery, who's based in New York City, also said he and Seligmann "have no knowledge, one way or another," to say whether Brodhead did or didn't make any calls on the student's behalf.

The lawyer added that he thinks Duke should help "set the record straight" by opening its records on the matter. ...

KC Johnson posted concerning Cooney’s claims and Seligmann and Emery’s response. He’s highly dubious about Brodhead’s purported letter on Seligmann’s behalf:

What would such a letter have entailed? To have actually been of assistance to Seligmann, any such letter would have needed, at the very least, to address Brodhead’s (false) April 5, 2006 statement that Seligmann was part of a group that had been subject of reports of racist behavior; and his (seemingly defamatory) April 20, 2006 statement that even if Seligmann and Finnerty were innocent, “whatever they did was bad enough.”

Seligmann attorney Richard Emery said that Duke should “set the record straight” and release relevant records. The response of a Duke spokesperson: “Student privacy laws constrain us from discussing such matters.”

But in this case, the student—Seligmann—has waived his privacy rights. So, Duke’s official position is that it can’t release the alleged Brodhead letter because of privacy rights that the student himself has waived?

Such a position would suggest that either: (a) no letter exists; or (b) Duke doesn’t want the contents of the letter to see the light of day.

Cooney and Duke have created a very peculiar situation.

Cooney, who is now representing it in a suit brought by another Duke student-athlete (not a lacrosse player), tells the Herald Sun Brodhead wrote a letter on Seligmann’s behalf; and what’s more, without Brodhead’s help "Reade wouldn't have ended up at Brown."

Seligmann and one of his current attorneys say they know of no such help from Brodhead and have never seen any letter he wrote on Seligmann’s behalf. They add they’d be happy for Duke to make the letter public.

But Duke says it can’t do that. It invokes “student privacy rights” even though the student has apparently waived his privacy rights in this matter.

Questions:

An attorney retained by Duke is quoted in a newspaper making lavish claims about help Brodhead purportedly gave Seligmann at the same time Duke says it can’t release the letter the attorney says was such a central part of the help Brodhead provided Seligmann. Does that make sense to you?

It Brodhead’s purported letter and other actions on Seligmann’s behalf are covered by student privacy, why is Cooney talking about them to the press?

If Seligmann has waived his privacy rights in this matter, what’s stopping Duke from releasing the letter immediately?

And finally, does Cooney know why Brodhead never spoke out in May 2006 when racists outside and within the Durham County Courthouse shouted threats at Seligmann, including death threats?

Did the NY Times scam for Edwards and some Dems?

That question will upset Pinch Sulzberger, but we need to ask it because Times reporter Katherine Q. Seelye’s story, “Edwards Admits to Affair in 2006” (Aug. 8), has been significantly altered since first published online.

And I’m not talking minor revisions or updating with new information.

As first published, Seelye’s story included the following three paragraphs:

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.”

Edwards has been “99 percent honest?”

Let’s get back to reality.

When you go now to the Times story, the three paragraphs have been reduced to just two, with part of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph missing.

As altered, the Times story now reads:

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 statements that might produce news reports, according to those involved in the effort.

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.”

Yiks! Look at that!

Anything naming Elizabeth Edwards and identifying when she was involved in suppressing news of her hubby’s affair has been removed.

And any naming of big-time Dem operatives and their “hush about John’s affair” roles have also been removed since the Times first published Seelye’s story.

You’ll see that when you reread the three paragraphs. Everything in bold appeared in Seelye’s story as first published, but has subsequently been removed as of 11:00 PM ET Aug. 10.

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.”

What happened? Why were such significant changes made in Seelye's story?

At the bottom of the Times' page hosting the latest version of Seelye’s story, there’s this in extremely small, gray font so light you might hardly notice it:

A version of this article appeared in print on August 9, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition.

WHAT’S GOING ON?

I thank blogger AMac for calling this “Times latest” to our attention.

AMac linked to Tom Maguire at Just One Minute whose post still contains the material the Times removed from the version of Seelye’s Aug. 8 story AMac and Tom first found.

What to do now?

First, thanks go to AMac.

Second, I’m about to send Tom Maguire a link to this post. He has a lot of heft and smarts.

We’ll see what happens.

Stay tuned.

Is the NY Times serious about the Edwards scandal?

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?

What's Obama need now?

I think everyone hoped it would end with Obama's good friends, Mr. Rezko and Rev. Wright.

But there were others after that.

And now we have the poverty-fighter, John Edwards, and His Honor Kwame Kilpatrick.

What's Obama to do now?

JinC Regular Ken in Dallas says:

I think Obama is going to need a bigger bus.

Indeed! Obama needs a bigger bus.

But so many of his old friends, campaign aides and leading Dems have been thrown under the old bus, I'm wondering who he'll get to drive his new big one.

What do you think?

Edwards - Hunter 3-minute video (a repost)

Readers Note: The post below was published Aug. 1. I'm reposting it today partly in tribute to the Death By 1000 Cuts folks who made the video; and partly with many of you in mind who are now finally learning from MSM news orgs about the "Webisodes" Rielle Hunter made with John Edwards. Parts of the "Webisodes" are in the video, including the "camera girl" moment.

John
__________________________________________________

An Anon commenter sent a link to a Death By 1000 Cuts video which it says covers the "entire John Edwards Love Child Scandal from October 2007 to July 2008 in 3 minutes."

It's extremely well done and IMO captures "the essential Edwards." It works cuts of Rielle Hunter speaking about Edwards into the swift-moving narrative. The satirical use made of that is devastating.

The video ends with a few graphics concerning MSM coverage of the affair and a challenging question for the news media.

And oh yes, you will hear a mirthful Edwards refer to Hunter as "camera girl."

Thanks to Anon for sending the link. And congratulations and thanks to Death By 1000 Cuts for an outstanding video on a very important matter.

Now I hope you all give the video a look.



John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Love Child Scandal - video powered by Metacafe

Raleigh N & O's Edwards pretense (Part 1)

In his Aug. 3 column Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden told readers:

The Edwards story -- or, maybe, nonstory -- is a good illustration of the dilemma the "mainstream media" increasingly face operating in a no-holds-barred, 24-7, instant-news environment. Newspapers and other media that once were news gatekeepers -- applying traditional standards of fact-finding and verification -- are finding themselves guarding the gate to a news corral that has been stampeded by bloggers, cable "news," talk radio and, in this case, tabloids. (emphasis added)

Vaden is pretending when he offers readers “traditional standards of fact-finding and verification” as excuses for the N&O’s failure to tell readers anything about the Edwards affair scandal until July 31 and not very much after that until Edwards himself told his “story” on ABC to Bob Woodruff.

The N&O didn’t apply any standard of fact-finding or verification when it reported on Mar. 25, 2006 on its front page above the fold the accusations of the Duke lacrosse accuser, who the N&O said was granted anonymity because that was N&O policy for “victims of sex crimes.”

Crystal Mangum a “victim” of “sex crimes?”

“Sure, she is. I read it in the N&O. They fact-checked and verified it. What do you think they publish at 215 S. McDowell? A tabloid? You’re not starting to read blogs again, are you? You know how Mr. Vaden is always warning us about that.”

The N&O’s Mar. 25 story which it told readers without any qualification to suggest doubt was about Mangum's “ordeal” which ended “finally in sexual violence” included Mangum’s claim she was new to dancing before men.

In fact, as was then widely known, she’s been stripping at “gentlemen’s clubs” and serving as a “private escort” for years.

The N&O knew that. It had reported as far back as June 2002 Mangum’s theft of a car from a man she’d lapped danced for at a “gentlemen’s club.”

Also in the Mar. 25 story, the N&O reported Mangum’s account of entering, with the second dancer, the house where the lacrosse party was held and being immediately surrounded by men “barking” racial slurs. “We were so scared. We started to cry.”

But no one who was in the house that night has ever verified the N&O’s “barking” racial slurs report, which was so critical in stirring racial animosity in our community and poisoning the public’s mind against the Duke students.

The N&O has never retracted and apologized for publishing either false claim. Instead, it continues to hide its failure to fact-check and verify with the “police report” excuse.

This from Vaden’s Apr. 2, 2006 column:

But let's talk more about the anonymous interview. [Editor Linda] Williams said editors and the reporter discussed the fairness issue at length before interviewing the woman and publishing the story. The governing decision, she said, was to print only information from the interview that conformed with the police reports. (emphasis added)

The N&O has never referred readers to any police report containing information that Mangum was new to dancing before men or that the men inside the house barked racial slurs.

None of the attorneys who obtained discovery material and no one at the state attorney general’s office where the entire Duke frame-up attempt case file was reviewed has ever reported finding any such police reports.

Most people familiar with the case and the N&O's Mar. 25 story, including journalists, tell me the N&O must have made up “the police reports” claim to hide the falsity of its “new to dancing” and "barking racial slurs” reports.

Otherwise, they say, the N&O would have produced copies of the reports or directed readers where to find them.

Police reports are, afterall, public records.

Folks, I want to continue with this post, but I’m going to break off now to spend some time with my family.

I’ll continue this post this evening.

Thank you for your patience.


http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/vaden/story/1163300.html


http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/vaden/2006/story/424275-p2.html

Sen. Obama's Kikpatrick problems

John Hinderacker at Powerline posts a You Tube clip from May 2007 in which Sen. Obama lavishly praises Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

His Honor's recent bail bond violation earned him a night in the slammer. And lo, when he walked out of it the next morning, he got hit with new criminal charges to add to the perjury and other charges he's facing.

I think the video is further proof Obama is - to use one of Rev. Wright's "snippets" - "a typical politician."



Mayor Kilpartick's problems may effect Obama's chances of carrying Michigan.

Hinderacker explains - - -

The Mayor is obviously radioactive, but his situation poses a delicate problem for Obama. Kwame's mother, Carolyn Kilpatrick, is Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. She faced a tough re-election race this year, mostly because of her outspoken support for her son, but Obama never endorsed her. She won the Democratic primary anyway, narrowly, on Tuesday.

Now Obama may need the Kilparticks' support in order to carry Michigan, which appears to be in play:

Adolph Mongo, a political analyst and former consultant to Mayor Kilpatrick, said that Obama’s support would be a “tremendous endorsement” for Carolyn Kilpatrick in terms of the good perception it would generate amongst voters. But he suggested it might be more important for Obama.

“Barack Obama cannot afford to snub the congresswoman and the mayor,” Mongo said. “The mayor is the only one in Detroit that has the machine to turn out the vote.”

So, does Obama's friend the "great mayor" get thrown under the bus, or not? Time will tell. ...

You can read the entire post here.

Question: Have you noticed almost all the people hurting Obama's election chances are either in the Obama camp or were until the Senator "disowned" them?

Hat tip: AC

Does the Raleigh N&O’s public editor serve readers?(Post 1)

N&O public editor Ted Vaden tells readers he’s their “advocate“ and “watchdog at the paper.”

With that in mind, consider the following:

On Dec. 16, 2007 Vaden defended the N&O's frequent stories puffing John Edwards:

The paper gives disproportionate attention to John Edwards because he is a hometown candidate who still has a decent shot at being president of These United States.

Just two months before Vaden defended the N&O’s “disproportionate attention” to its hometown candidate [with] a decent shot at being president of These United States,” Edwards was forced to publicly deny reports of his affair with Rielle Hunter.

And right at the time Vaden’s Dec. 16 column was published, a pregnant Hunter denied Edwards was the father. A close Edwards aide and friend, Andrew Young, announced he was.

You can read more about Edwards' affair in this National Enquirer story.

But neither Edwards’ October denial or Hunter’s December denial and Young’s “I’m the father” claim made it into the N&O.

It seems there are certain limits to the “disproportionate attention” the N&O gives its “hometown” presidential candidate.

In fact, the N&O editors blacked-out any mention of Edwards' affair until July 31, when the liberal/leftist paper finally published a story with few details (it didn’t even mention Hunter by name) and buried the story in the “B” section.

On Aug. 3, 2008 Vaden devoted his column to defending the N&O’s almost year-long news blackout.

He ended his column with this:

Yes, Edwards has been mentioned as a vice presidential candidate, although this controversy makes that less likely. But he is now, after all, a private figure, and there's a point where examining his sex life doesn't serve a public interest and risks turning a respectable newspaper into "The News and Enquirer."

Is it any wonder political insiders refer to the N&O
as Edwards' "back pocket newspaper?"

The N&O's news blackout of the Edwards affair was certainly a great service to Edwards, an N&O reader.

But I can't see how it served the rest of us N&O readers.

Can you?

I just reported and commented.

Now you decide: Does public editor Ted Vaden serve readers?

We’ll hear plenty of this from MSM

Byron York at NRO:

In the coming days, look for representatives of big media organizations to describe how aggressively they were reporting on the Edwards story — and how they were this close to having something to publish or broadcast when Edwards short-circuited the story by confessing to the Hunter affair.

Who doubts it?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Edwards or MSM: A “Which is Worse?” Reader Poll

At Instapundit you get to cast your vote for either:

A politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer, and lies about it.

Or

A reporter or editor who covers for the politician who has an affair while his wife has cancer.

You can check the vote totals, too.

As of 10:30 AM ET the reporters and editors were racking up about 80% of the vote.

That seems about right.

The Churchill Series - Aug. 8, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I won't be wrapping the Abdication Crisis posts today because I need to spend most of my blogging time on the Edwards-Hunter affair story. I'll finish with the Abdication Crisis Monday. I'm sorry for the delay but trust you'll understand.

For today I'm reposting this oldie from Feb. 2007.

Most Americans who know of Chequers think of it as a kind of Camp David for British Prime Ministers. And that’s on the mark as to its purpose, but it has a much richer history and architecture than Camp David. Chequers is a large Elizabethan house with marbled and richly paneled rooms.

As you would guess, Churchill loved the place. After its last private owners gave it to the nation as a country place of rest and enjoyment for Prime Ministers, Churchill was one of the first quests.

The first Prime Minister to use it as an official residence was Lloyd George starting in January, 1921. A few weeks thereafter, he invited Churchill to stay as his weekend guest. Clementine did not accompany Churchill so we find him on Feb. 6, 1921 writing Clementine:

My darling,

Here I am. You would like to see this place – Perhaps you will some day!

It is just the kind of house you admire – a paneled museum, full of history, full of treasures – but insufficiently warmed – Anyhow a wonderful possession. […]

”Perhaps you will some day!” Churchill saw to it that she did.

BTW – “insufficiently warmed” was an understatement. The house had no central heating when Churchill was PM, and I’m mot certain it does now.

During WWII when Eisenhower would be getting ready to visit Chequers, he would sometimes tell aides he was going to “that damned icebox.”

I hope you all have a good weekend.

John
__________________________________________________________
Churchill’s letter to Clementine is found on pg. 225 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, edited by their daughter, Mary Soames. She also provided background on Chequers.

Will Edwards now challenge Kerry?

A JinC commenter, tongue-in-cheek, thinks he might.

The commenter says:

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.

Well, sure.

All of us except most MSM news orgs and Dems would like to see Kerry release his Navy records. Finally!

But I'm betting the commenter and most of you know that if the stakes depend on Kerry publicly releasing ALL his Navy records, Edwards can take a very slow walk to the DNA lab and still beat Kerry.

Has John Edwards finally told the truth?

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?

And reasonable people are expected to believe this?

I’m right with the commenter.

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.

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." ...

OK, you got that?

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.

Edwards admits to sexual affair; denies paternity

ABC News is reporting - - -

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.
A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards said the affair began during the campaign after she was hired. Hunter traveled with Edwards around the country and to Africa.

Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.

Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter. Elizabeth Edwards has since been diagnosed with an incurable form of the disease.

When the National Enquirer first reported the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair last October 11, Edwards, his campaign staff and Hunter vociferously denounced the report.
"The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards told reporters then.

He repeated his denials just two weeks ago.

Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month. ….

The rest of the story’s here.

Comments:

Edwards will be a guest tonight on “Nightline” at 11:35 ET. The network says it will broadcast the Edwards interview in its entirety.

What’s happened is a searing ordeal for the Edwards family. I’m sorry for its innocent members.

The affair and Edwards’ lies create problems for the Dems, not least the questions it raises about Sen. Obama’s vaunted judgment.

The Obama camp has done nothing to distance itself from frequent reports Edwards was on Obama’s short V-P candidate list; or at least a sure shot for an important post in President presumptive Obama’s administration.

Did Edwards fool Obama or did Obama know about Edwards’ affair?

And if he knew about it, did Obama hope as Edwards has for many months that the Dem-dominated MSM would cover it up?

Edwards has also made it much harder for the Dems to campaign this fall attacking the GOP for sleaze.

The Edwards family’s ordeal and the Dems problems caused by Edwards’ odious behavior are important.

But IMO the most important and troubling aspect of the affair is what its revealed about the bias of so many of our news organizations that led them to do all they could to avoid reporting the story or grossly downplaying it and trivializing its importance.

If you don’t think political bias was at play in MSM’s treatment of liberal/leftist Edwards, just recall what happened when Anita Hill, with no supporting evidence or witness – simply her accusation – charged Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment.

Or recall what happened when a woman in Durham told a series of wildly improbable stories about being beaten, strangled, and raped orally, vaginally and anally over the course of 30 minutes by three while members of the Duke lacrosse team in a tiny bathroom people who’ve seen it say they have trouble understanding how four people could ever squeeze into it in the first place, and if they somehow did, how they'd have room enough to lift their arms.

And speaking of the Duke hoax and the frame-up attempt it spawned, none of you have ever seen a picture of that tiny bathroom, have you?

You haven’t seen a photo of three reporters squeezed into the bathroom, with the photo taken by a press photographer who was also in there with them, have you?

Yet as the Edwards-Hunter affair story played out these two-plus weeks, MSM orgs keep saying, “Gee, we don’t have pictures. We wouldn’t touch the Edwards story until we do.”

Polls typically show only about 20 or 25 percent of Americans say they have "some" or "a great deal" of trust in MSM news orgs.

It's no wonder.

Hat tip: Ed in NY

McClatchy’s N&O’s unbelievable “credible” sources

This past Sunday, Ted Vaden, the Raleigh News & Observer’s public editor pitched readers the N&O’s explanation for why it had never published anything about the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair until just days before; and then only a few details buried in the "B" section.

Vaden didn’t remind readers the former Senator, Presidential-nominee candidate and self-described “poverty fighter” has been an N&O favorite since he entered public life.

Vaden said nothing about the N&O’s 1998 endorsement of Edwards during his only Senate race; or the N&O's 2004 endorsement when Edwards ran for Vice-president with Sen. John Kerry.

And Vaden never explained why the Dems at McClatchy’s N&O reported nothing last year about Edwards’ affair with Hunter and her pregnancy, even when Edwards and Hunter both publicly denied the affair and another man in the N&O’s circulation area, Andrew Young (not the former UN Amb.) stepped forward to say he was the daddy.

Wouldn't you think the N&O, which John Edwards calls "my hometown newspaper," would view Edwards as a "credible source of news?"

But this past Sunday public editor Vaden told N&O readers:

The N&O approached the story cautiously. On Wednesday, John Drescher, executive editor, told me that N&O reporters were investigating the allegations but that the paper would not publish a story about the tabloid report. "I don't view the National Enquirer as a credible source of news," he said.

There you go.

That’s what readers and advertisers pay the N&O to do, right?

"Filtering the news" is what former N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill called it.

By the way, does anyone know why the N&O thought Crystal Mangum was such a "credible source of news?"

Vaden's entire column's here.

MSM's failure to follow-up on the Enquirer's Edwards-Hunter stories

National Review's Byron York writes about it. I comment below the star line.

York begins - - -

I spent part of Thursday corresponding with people at major news organizations that have not reported the John Edwards “love child” story. Why haven’t they mentioned the scandal? Are they doing their own investigating of the National Enquirer’s allegations? Are they under management directives not to report it?

Most of the conversations — all of the revealing ones — were off the record; like anyone else, people in the press aren’t particularly eager to speak publicly about topics that make them uncomfortable.

But from the exchanges, it’s possible to piece together some of the rationales journalists are using to continue not to report the Edwards story — and to see how the whole strange episode will end. So without quoting anyone or betraying any confidences, here is what appears to be going on:

First, the journalists don’t believe that news organizations should just uncritically pass on the reporting of the Enquirer. They have a point; the Enquirer has been quite accurate on some stories and inaccurate on others. One could argue that the tabloid’s reporting on this particular story contains a wealth of detail that remains un-denied by Edwards or anyone else. Still, there’s nothing wrong with news organizations being skeptical of the source.

But the question is not whether the news organizations should simply repeat the Enquirer’s reporting. It’s whether they are actively pursuing the story, doing their own reporting in an effort to confirm the basic allegations that Edwards had an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter, and then had a baby with her, and is now covering it up. And here it appears — from this completely unscientific survey — that there is not a lot of independent reporting going on.

Instead, some big-time journalists seem to believe the Enquirer has nailed the story, and they are waiting for the tabloid to release the full results of its reporting. In the meantime, they are staying away from the story because it appeared in the Enquirer.
In other words, they’re waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn’t otherwise report… because it’s in the Enquirer.

That could have changed by this point.

If news organizations had thrown a lot of resources at the story in an attempt to confirm (or disprove) the Enquirer’s allegations, it’s likely some of them would have come up with something in the two and a half weeks since the Enquirer reported the story on July 22. Instead, there has been nothing. ...

York's entire article's here

*******************************************************************

Comments:

One excuse most MSM have used for their failure to investigate and report on the story has to do with "there were no witnesses."

That's not true as far as the Enguirer's July 22 report is concerned. Five witnesses are named: two Enguirer reporters, Bill McGovern who the NE says drove Hunter to the hotel, Rielle Hunter and John Edwards.

Remember Anita Hill's sexual harassment charge against Clarence Thomas?

Hill and her media flacks who rushed her unsubstantiated charge onto the front pages of America's newspapers and demanded the Senate Judiciary Committee investigate it (which the committee did , with the hearings televised), have never produced a single witness to what Hill charged, unless you count Hill and Thomas as witnesses.

The MSM's treatment of the Edwards-Hunter story has demonstrated once again the old MSM double standard.

Hat tip: Jack in Silver Springs

Charlotte Observer & the Edwards-Hunter story

At alternet.org the Columbia Journalism Review's Clint Hendler has a very good, link-rich account of the Charlotte Observer's efforts to report on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair story.

Handler begins - - -


For the Charlotte Observer, it began in October, when the National Enquirer published an article suggesting that presidential candidate--and former North Carolina senator--John Edwards was having an affair.

The Enquirer's story purported to quote crush emails the woman-in-question, Rielle Hunter, had sent to friends. But otherwise the piece was thin. And the tabloid, while enjoying a quiet reputation for being libel-proof, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the hearts of editors and readers.

Still, the McClatchy-owned Observer, the largest paper in Edwards's home state, sent Lisa Zagaroli, its Washington reporter, up to New York to make contacts and check around.

"I looked at it as a news tip," says Rick Thames, the Observer's editor. "I wasn't put off by it being in the National Enquirer. I was worried it if it was true."

Thames felt Zagaroli was making progress. But then Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, stepped forward to claim that he, not his boss, had impregnated Hunter. In Thames eyes, "the story cooled."

But on July 22nd, the National Enquirer published a luridly written tale asserting that Edwards had joined Hunter and her now some-months-old baby behind closed doors in the Beverly Hills Hilton. After said meeting, the Enquirer reporters wrote that Edwards led them on a Keystone Kops style chase through the stairways, basements, and bathrooms of the hotel.

That ratcheted things up in North Carolina. On July 24, Jim Morrill, a veteran political reporter at the paper, posted an item on his blog linking the Enquirer's account. Morrill called the Hilton to confirm, as best he could, the substance of the story. But they weren't talking. Neither were his Edwards contacts. ...

The rest of the story's here.

I think Hendler's account underplays some of the work the Observer has done on the story, especially lately.

Observer reporter Mark Johnson's story I linked to here gets my vote for the best MSM reporting on the story to date.

Until Johnson's story yesterday, those few MSM news outlets that mentioned the story relied almost entirely on rewrites of the July 22 National Enquirer story. There's nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge the other paper, which the accounts I read did. But they didn't advance the story.

Johnson, by getting leading Democratic party strategists to talk on the record, advanced the story.

The Churchill Series - Aug. 8, 2008

(One of a weekday series of posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Like the three preceding posts, this one concerns the abdication crisis of 1936 caused by King Edward VIII's determination to marry the twice divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson.

Below you'll find a section of the Wikipedia entry for the crisis. In general outline it appears accurate. It also gives you an idea of how complex and unpopular was Churchill's role in the crisis.

The Wikipedia section begins with a description of the three options that would have resolved the crisis. Option 1 was favored by the King but was never a likely outcome given the Government's and the Parliament's the fierce opposition to a royal marriage.

The options were that:

1. Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry and she become queen (a "royal marriage")

2. they marry and she not become queen but receive some courtesy title instead (a "morganatic marriage")

3. abdication for Edward and any potential heirs he might father, thus allowing him to make any marital decisions without further constitutional implications.

The second option had European precedents, including Edward's own great-grandfather, Duke Alexander of Württemberg, but no parallel in British constitutional history. The Commonwealth's prime ministers were consulted, and the majority agreed that there was "no alternative to course (3)".^[44] Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, Australian Prime Minister Joseph Lyons and South African Premier J. B. M. Hertzog opposed options 1 and 2. New Zealand Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage rejected option 1 but thought that option 2 "might be possible ... if some solution along these lines were found to be practicable" but "would be guided by the decision of the Home government".^[45]

Irish Prime Minister Éamon de Valera claimed to be disinterested while also remarking that, as a Catholic country, Ireland did not recognize divorce. He supposed that if the British people would not accept Mrs. Simpson then abdication was the only possible solution.^[46]

On 24 November, Baldwin consulted the three leading opposition politicians in Britain: Leader of the Opposition Clement Attlee, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair, and Winston Churchill. Sinclair and Attlee agreed that options 1 and 2 were unacceptable and Churchill pledged to support the Government.^[47]

In fact, Churchill did not support the Government. In July, Churchill had advised the King's legal counsel, Walter Turner Monckton, against the divorce but his advice was ignored.^[48] As soon as the affair became public knowledge, Churchill started to pressure Baldwin and the King to delay any decisions until Parliament and the people had been consulted.^[49]

In a private letter to Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of The Times newspaper, Churchill suggested that a delay would be beneficial because given time the King might fall out of love with Mrs. Simpson.^[50]

Political support for the King was scattered, comprising politicians outside of the mainstream parties such as Churchill, Oswald Mosley and the Communists.^[51] David Lloyd George also supported the King, though he disliked Mrs. Simpson. He was, however, unable to take any active role in the crisis because he was vacationing in Jamaica with his mistress.^[52]

In early December, rumours circulated that the King's supporters would join together in a "King's Party" led by Churchill, but they were untrue. There was no concerted effort to form an organised movement, and Churchill had no intention of leading one.^[53] Nevertheless, the rumours damaged the King and Churchill severely, as Members of Parliament were horrified at the idea of the King interfering in politics.^[54]

The letters and diaries of working-class people and ex-servicemen generally demonstrate support for the King, while those from the middle and upper classes tend to express indignation and distaste.^[55] The Times, The Morning Post, The Daily Herald and newspapers owned by Lord Kemsley, such as The Daily Telegraph, opposed the marriage. On the other hand, the Express and Mail newspapers, owned by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere respectively, appeared to support a morganatic marriage.^[56] The King estimated that the newspapers in favour had a circulation of 12.5 million, while those against had 8.5 million.^[57]

Backed by Churchill and Beaverbrook, Edward now proposed to broadcast a speech indicating his desire to remain on the throne or to be recalled to it if forced to abdicate, while marrying Mrs. Simpson morganatically. In one section, Edward proposed to say:

Neither Mrs. Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife. Now that I have at last been able to take you into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly, but without undue delay, on what I have said.^[58]

Baldwin and the Cabinet blocked the speech, saying it would shock many people as well as entail a grave breach of constitutional principles.^[59] By convention, the Sovereign could and can only act with the advice and counsel of Ministers drawn from, or approved by, Parliament. In seeking the people's support against the Government, Edward was opting to oppose the binding advice of his ministers in all the Commonwealth states, and instead act as a private individual. The Cabinet felt that in proposing the speech Edward had revealed his disdainful attitude towards the constitutions of his realms, and threatened the political neutrality of the Crown.^[60]

On 5 December, having in effect been told that he could not keep the throne and marry Mrs. Simpson, and having had his request to broadcast to the Empire to explain "his side of the story" blocked on constitutional grounds,^[61] Edward chose the third option,^[62] becoming the first monarch in modern British and Dominion history to abdicate voluntarily.

Obama-supporting Prof needs scandal lessons

Excerpts from a Fox News story, "Edwards’ Party Role Clouded by Allegations," followed by my comments below the star line.

According to Fox - - -

…Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, an author and Obama supporter, said convention planners can hardly deny Edwards a speaking role, but unless he unequivocally discredits the charges, his role will be diminished.

“It would be sort of party suicide to take someone with that kind of scandal and place them up,” Hill said.

“At a moment where the Democratic advantage partially hinges on not only the public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration but also the wide range of scandals … over the last three years of the GOP … it would be unwise for the DNC to prominently position someone who has ethical issues swirling around,” he added.

The entire Fox story’s here.

*****************************************************************

Comments:

When Prof. Hill speaks of “public dissatisfaction” and “ the wide range of scandals … over the last three years of the GOP,” does he ever think of former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, forced to resign earlier this year when his involvement in a prostitution ring became public knowledge?

And new information has just surfaced about the scandalous manner in which Spitzer, once considered a possible Democratic presidential nominee, conducted himself in office? (Spitzer, btw, was endorsed by the NY Times. - - JinC)

Did Prof. Hill read a few months ago a NY Post story which began:

A former driver and aide to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey yesterday made the bombshell claim that Dina Matos McGreevey must have always known her husband was gay - because he was the other man in bed with them.

In an explosive interview with The Post, the McGreeveys' self-professed man in the middle, Teddy Pedersen, gave explicit details of three-way sex romps that he claimed to have had with the now-divorcing duo, starting during their courtship and continuing into the marriage. …

I know Democrat McGreevey had to resign when the public learned he’d given a government job to his gay lover. The job was supposed to go to someone expert in counter- terrorism work.

I honestly don’t know if Teddy Pedersen was McGreevey’s appointee lover or whether he’s another “actor” in the scandal. (McGreevey, btw, was endorsed by the NY Times. - - JinC)

I know some of you are saying, “Please mention Democratic Congressman William (“Cash in the freezer") Jefferson who’s up for re-election this year.”

OK, I just did.

And what's the latest on Detroit’s Democratic Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick?

His Honor will be spending tonight in jail because he violated the terms of his bail bond.

Then there's this from the July 11 NY Times:

While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.

Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence. …

I can think of many more Dems involved in the past three years in sleaze and corruption – Sens. Dodd and Conrad, former top Obama aide Jim Johnson and his close friend Tony (“Not the Tony Rezko I know”) Rezko, recently found guilty on 16 criminal counts.

Conclusion: Prof. Hill needs a lesson in the corruption, sleaze and criminality of many of Sen. Obama’s fellow Democrats.

McCain aims at Independents

using Dems to help him.



What do you think?

Hat tip: AC