Saturday, July 26, 2008

Traveling now blogging resumes

at 6 PM ET Saturday, July 26 with posts on John Edwards, some nice outcomes from my work with Martha Raddatz re: the McCain-54 hoax and more.

I hope you're back.



A Duke Rogues Gallery Revisited

Journalist Stuart Taylor was one of the first of his profession to get the Duke Hoax and the criminal frame-up attempt right.

He was also quick to recognize Duke's abandonment of the lacrosse players and its enablement of the now disbarred and disgraced Mike Nifong.

He was never been fooled by Duke President Richard Brodhead's after the fact excused about how confusing it all was when "the facts kept changing."

With all that in mind, I invite you to take a look at a column he published on May 22, 2006 just a few days after Nifong and certain Durham police officers, having suppressed exculpatory evidence and manufactured bogus "evidence" arranged the indictment of David Evans who they knew to be innocent.

If you read the column about what Taylor called the Duke Rogues Gallery, I think you'll agree everyone in it earned their places.

But "walking through the gallery" today, are there people you feel are not Duke people "in there who belong there?"

What do you say?

The column's here.

No Churchill Series - July 24, 2008


This is not one of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.

It's a brief note saying because of heavy blogging demands, there will be no post today.

I'll explain about the blogging demands in another post on the main page.

I hope you all have a good weekend and are back Monday.



Friday, July 25, 2008

If the Enquirer weren’t a hundred percent confident

At his eponymous blog Roger L. Simon, novelist and a 1989 Academy Award winner for his screen writing of Isaac Singer’s Enemies, A Love Story begins - - -

I wasn’t keen on blogging more on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter Affair (her real name is Lisa Druck, by the way… then Lisa Hunter… her father-in-law was attorney Alex Hunter of Boulder fame) - gossip isn’t my thing (though I enjoy it like the rest of the world).

But since the Los Angeles Times is now forbidding its bloggers from talking, I now thought I’d say a bit more…. especially since the National Enquirer is filing a criminal complaint against the Beverly Hilton and its security force for manhandling the paper’s reporters.

If the Enquirer weren’t a hundred percent confident that Edwards was at the hotel with Rielle, I doubt they’d be going to the law.

Is this news? The mainstream media seems to think not.

They hide behind professionalism, whatever that means, when the extent of their bias has been documented everywhere. It’s beyond comic. It makes you yearn for the days when reporters were grunts with a high school education.

They were more honest. (emphasis added)

Edwards was a candidate for vice president of the United States and, until very recently, a candidate for president. He was also being bandied about, quite recently in Newsweek, among other places, as a candidate for vice president once again, a heart beat away, as they say.

Normally that would be more than enough. So enough said.

. . .


Enough said, indeed.

MSM news organizations say when they charge us subscription money and charge advertisers who pass their costs on to us, it’s all in the name of “getting the truth out to you.”

I believe some journalists work to do that; and so do some print publications and voice media.

But does anyone want to argue that “getting the truth out” to us is the prime goal of most MSM?

Simon’s entire post’s here.

LA Times editor’s email & MSM’s implosion

Micky Kaus at Slate:

In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story.
Kaus notes even bloggers who wanted to blog on the story only to express their skepticism of it were forbidden to mention it.

Kaus obtained a copy of the email Times’ bloggers received from LAT editor Tony Pierce.

After removing the recipient list and Pierce’s email address, Kaus provided a copy of the email:- - -

From: "Pierce, Tony"

Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT

To: [XXX]

Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,


Folks, can you believe it?

A major story is reported to have played out in the LAT’s circulation area.

It involves a nationally known politician who is being talked about as a possible running mate for the LAT’s presidential candidate Barack Obama or a possible attorney general in an Obama administration.

A tabloid reports on the story in detail, naming multiple witnesses and providing easily verified or disproved details, on the story. (See NE's Edwards-Hunter tryst story's verifiable)

If the story is true, it involves behavior which makes the politician a target of blackmailers intent on actions which could jeopardize American interests, including security interests.

Given all of that, the LAT’s editor Tony Pierce decided the right thing to do was cover-up instead of follow-up. He issued an order “not to blog about this topic until further notified.”

The story is starting to break through the MSM barriers.

I’m confident it will.

When that happens, I don’t doubt we’ll soon hear from editor Pierce that there was no cover-up. The LAT, he’ll say was “asking questions” and “trying to get more information.”

Don’t believe that. There was plenty for the LAT to follow-up on the moment the National Enquirer’s very important story appeared.

If you have any friends who don’t understand why the MSM is imploding as Americans by the millions turn to alternative news sources, show them the Enquirer story and Pierce’s email.

And, of course, keep rockin.

Kaus' post is here.

Edwards' "hometown" paper still silent on LA tryst, "love child"

If you haven't been following events related to the National Enquirer's July 21 story concerning former Sen. John Edwards' tryst at the Beverly Hilton with his former filmmaker Rielle Hunter, see here, here and here.

Moving on - - -

Former Sen. John Edwards lived for many years in Raleigh before building a 30,000 sq. ft. house in Chapel Hill.

Edwards has had a long and useful relationship with the McClatchy Company's liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer, which Edwards often calls "my hometown newspaper."

The N&O endorsed Edwards in 1996, the one time he ran for the U. S. Senate. It also endorsed the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004.

Throughout his public career, the N&O's given Edwards the kind of "isn't he fantastic" treatment it now gives Sen. Barack Obama.

For his part, Edwards has usually been very available to N&O reporters, columnists and editors, even seeking them out at public events. He's on a first name basis with many of them.

He's also been known to visit the N&O's S. McDowell St. offices to "lather up" political reporters and senior editors, a process the N&O journalists describe as "providing background and answering our questions."

All that's FYI. So is the following email. I'll let you know what, if anything, I hear back from editor Drescher.


John Drescher
Managing Editor
Raleigh News & Observer

Dear Editor Drescher:

Why has the N&O so far told readers nothing about the detailed and extensively documented National Enquirer report of Sen. John Edwards’ tryst at LA’s Beverly Hilton Hotel with his former filmmaker Rielle Hunter?

As you know, the NE states unequivocally Edwards and Hunter met in one hotel room while a friend of Hunter’s looked after what the NE says is their “love child. The paper also names witnesses who saw Edwards at the hotel including two of its reporters and the man who drove Hunter and the child to the hotel.

The NE also reports security agents for the Beverly Hilton escorted Edwards out of the hotel shortly after 2:40 AM in an effort to shield him from reporters.

I published on the N&O’s silence in this post: N&O silent on Edwards affair story.

This post - NE's Edwards-Hunter tryst story's verifiable - demonstrates how easily Edwards-supporting liberal/leftist newspapers such as the N&O could seek to verify or refute the story in part or in whole.

This post - A journalists take on Edwards' tryst, MSM reluctance to report, & more - links to National Review’s Byron York’s column in The Hill which also talks about how easily MSM organizations like the N&O can confirm or disprove in part or in whole what the NE has reported.

Edwards, whom you and others at the N&O know well, would be the most important person to interview.

Have you or anyone else at the N&O asked Edwards for an interview?

If not, why not? If you have, why haven't you reported his responses?

Has the N&O even asked Edwards whether he was at the Beverly Hilton the night the NE says he was chauffeured there in a BMW and entered the hotel wearing a blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up.

Has the N&O done anything about the NE's the report a resident of Chapel Hill’s Governors Club, Andrew Young (not the former civil rights leader) has claimed he’s the child’s father, and that Hunter and the child have stayed in a separate dwelling at the club.

The NE reports its sources say Young claiming paternity is part of an elaborate cover-up engineered by Edwards.

What has the N&O learned about any of that?

What does Edwards say? And is he willing to submit to simple DNA testing so questions regarding the child's paternity can be put to rest?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I look forward to your response, which I’ll publish in full at my blog.


John in Carolina

PS Did you hear two reporters have today filed a criminal complaint against certain of the hotel’s security employees? That means LAPD will have to interview Edwards as a witness.

Jon Ham reacts to Obama’s Berlin speech

Many JinC Regulars know blogger and former journalist Jon Ham thanks to his his excellent commentary on the Duke hoax and frame-up attempt.

Jon had a front row seat for all of that. He’s a former editor of the Durham Herald Sun (back when it was a respected community newspaper) who lives in Trinity Park near the house where the lacrosse party was held.

He wasn’t in Berlin yesterday, but he offers Observations on Obama’s Berlin speech. His post begins:

1. The two biggest applause lines were about ending the war in Iraq and cutting the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.

2. It was nice that he spent so much time explaining what the Berlin Airlift was. I bet a lot of those people didn’t know all that.

3. If you want to make eye contact with Barack Obama don’t stand in the center of the audience. Because he’s so dependent on the TelePrompters, he never, and I mean never, looks straight ahead.

The rest of Jon's observations are here.

Right Ankles is always worth visiting.

A journalist’s take on Edwards’ tryst, MSM’s reluctance to report & more

Following publication of Raleigh N&O silent on Edwards affair story and NE's Edwards - Hunter tryst story's verifiable , I heard offline from a journalist friend who provided this link to a column by National Review’s White House correspondent Byron York published in The Hill.

York makes the same points I made in NE's Edwards - Hunter tryst post: there’s plenty in the story MSM can verify; and the matters in reports on are important in any circumstances (a polititician with ambition for high national office putting himself in a situation where he could be blackmailed), but which are particulay important in Edwards’ case since he’s built his career on asking us to judge him by, among other things, his devotion to his wife Elizebeth and their marriage.

Now the journalist's email after which I make a few comments below the star line:

John, have you seen the Edwards escapade as reported in The Hill?

I think you're right: Edwards has been caught with his pants down, at least enough to lend credence to the story.

Note that Edwards hasn't threatened to sue the Enquirer for libel. To me, that means (1) he doesn't want to raise the profile of the story, whether it's right or wrong; (2) the story is true. I believe it's the latter.

But will the story get national legs? I wouldn't count on it. For one thing, the MSM abhor being scooped by a tabloid. So if the story doesn't appear in the MSM, it isn't legitimate. Moreover, the MSM will go to extraordinary lengths to protect Edwards, one of their own.

Edwards, as you have pointed out so well, is an empty suit. Now it appears he is also a hypocrite, a liar and an adulterer cheating on his dying spouse.

After the 2004 election debacle, Edwards' pal Gene Nichol gave him safe harbor and an imposing title as an anti-poverty messiah at the UNC Law School, but all that was as transparent as Edwards himself. What a joke. Meanwhile, Nichols decamps to Williamsburg to head William and Mary, falls on his face and, thanks to Law Dean Jack Boger, is returning to UNC for a safe harbor of his own. (Including his wife, of course -- package deals are expected in such cases. North Carolina taxpayers once more have the honor of supporting these vapid, tiresome people.)


Those of you not from North Carolina may not know that after the 2004 election Edwards announced he’d devote his life to “poverty fighting.” His friend, liberal Democratic activist and UNC Chapel Hill Law School Dean Gene Nichol announced that Edwards had agreed to locate his “poverty fighting center” in the Law School building.

There was never any announcement that I recall about rent. It was all pitched as a great opportunity for students to work with Edwards and learn “poverty fighting.”

There’s more to the story but I’m running out of time.

I’ll return to the Law School matter soon.

I’ll stay on the tryst part of this important story with another post late this afternoon.

Between now and then I’ll be talking to two other journalists whose takes I’ll share with you.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The Churchill Series - July 24, 2008

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

I first published this post in Nov. 2005. I'm republishing it today because it provides in one sentence from a Cabinet meeting minutes a wonderful example of Churchill's wisdom and sense of humor in its puckish form.

In late December, 1941 Churchill arrived in Washington to meet with Roosevelt and begin joint Anglo-American war planning.

With the exception of a brief trip to Canada, Churchill remained in America for almost four weeks. While in Washington, he stayed at the White House.

The British government and people were understandably very interested to know what was transpiring with the Americans.

When Churchill flew back to England, landing at Plymouth on Jan. 17, 1942, a train was waiting to take him to London where at 10 PM that evening, the War Cabinet assembled to hear his report.

The minutes of that meeting include this:

The Prime Minister thought that (the Americans) were not above learning from us provided we did not set out to teach them.
Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, 1941-1945. (p. 43)

Is it John Edwards “tryst” or “trust,” Google asks?

I searched Google at 11 PM ET on July 24 using the entry words – john edwards tryst.

Google responded with some hits, but also asked: Did you mean – john Edwards trust (emphasis Google’s)

It's likely Edwards' back-pocket newspaper, the McClatchy Company’s Raleigh N & O, is searching for anything about him it can link to “trust.” So the N&O will appreciate Google's suggestion of "trust."

The N&O knows it may be forced to finally report on it’s favorite millionaire “poverty fighter’s” tryst July 21 at LA’s Beverly Hilton Hotel with filmmaker Rielle Hunter. (See posts here and here)

It wants anything it can find to "soften" the story.

But I entered – john Edwards tryst – because this afternoon I posted: NE’s Edwards-Hunter tryst story’s verifiable.

My post has nothing to do with trust unless you mean trust given by Edwards wife and children, and trust given by at least some of his liberal/leftist supporters he's been telling for years how much his wife, marriage and children mean to him.

But I doubt Google was thinking of any of that?

Whatever the case with Google, when will McClatchy’s Raleigh N&O finally report on Edwards' T-R-Y-S-T at LA’s Beverly Hilton Hotel?

My prediction is not until the N&O knows Edwards is about to be forced to make some kind of public statement that acknowledges at least some of the details of his tryst.

Trust me on that.

Now it's your turn.

A new Duke suit but

this one has no connection to the university’s disgraceful response to the lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong which empowered them and contributed to the slandering, libeling, threats and a vicious frame-up attempt – all targeting Duke students who played on the Men’s 2006 lacrosse.

Regarding this latest suit Newsday columnist Ellis Henican said today:

Andrew Giuliani has hit a rough patch in his drive to become a pro golfer -- being tossed off the Duke University golf team, his lawyers say, over "unfounded accusations" and a coach's "bizarre Lord of the Flies scheme."

But New York City's former first son is swinging back hard.

Late Wednesday, his attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in North Carolina, contending the university has violated its obligations to him as a student-athlete and demanding he be invited back to Duke's state-of-the-art golf-training facility.

It's obviously been a tense few months on campus.

On Feb. 11, the lawsuit says, men's golf coach "O.D. Vincent announced to the team that he was unilaterally canceling Andrew's eligibility to participate in the University's Athletics Program immediately and indefinitely.

Andrew and his teammates were shocked. Andrew had no prior notice of what was about to happen. At no time was Andrew ever given an opportunity to defend himself; instead he was summarily dismissed."

No response yet from Duke administrators. "We have not been provided a copy of the lawsuit so we are not in the position to comment," Keith Lawrence, Duke's director of media relations, said Wednesday night. Coach Vincent did not return a telephone message left at his home.

Andrew, 22, is the only son of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and broadcaster Donna Hanover. A high-spirited kid and budding sports fan when his dad was mayor, he is now entering his senior year at Duke. He was recruited by the late Rod Myers, who'd coached at Duke for 34 years. Coach Vincent arrived last summer from UCLA.

So why was Andrew suspended? That's not entirely clear. ...
You can read the rest of Henican's column here.

I don’t know enough to comment on the particulars of what Newsday’s Henican says except for one very important thing. It’s this:
Andrew is represented by Durham, N.C., attorney Robert Ekstrand, a Duke law school lecturer and attorney for several former members of the Duke lacrosse team in a civil suit over sex-assault allegations.(emphasis added)
I’ve left the following comment on Henican’s column thread:
You say: "Andrew is represented by Durham, N.C., attorney Robert Ekstrand, a Duke law school lecturer and attorney for several former members of the Duke lacrosse team in a civil suit over sex-assault allegations."

That suit is not "over sex-assault allegations."

Those allegations, part of a vicious frame-up attempt by a now disbarred DA and others, were exposed as lies on Apr. 11, 2007 when North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper issued a public statement in which he said there never was any credible evidence to support the allegations and declared the players "innocent."

The suit is about the violations of the plaintiffs civil rights by Duke University, DU Medical Center, Durham City, Durham Police Department, a DNA testing lab and numerous individuals including Duke's President Richard Brodhead.

Please consider some way you can set the record straight.


John in Carolina
I plan to follow-up with Henican this weekend.

Hat tip: BN

Obama for President

of the Council of the European Union.

At present, the non-elective office rotates according to agreements you can learn more about here.

But can’t that be changed?

What’s to prevent the EU from electing Sen. Obama President-for-Life?

That works for me.

What about you?

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

Excerpts from William Tate’s Investor’s Business Daily on journalists campaign contributions which first appeared on the American Thinker Web site:

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Tate’s entire story’s here.

I’ll say just two things:

To Tate: Well done!

To you: I’ll bet 100-to-1 none of you are surprised by the huge giving tilt in favor of the Dems.

Hat tip: AC

The most laughable part of Obama’s campaign

In the Ottawa Citizen David Warren tells us about it after some smart, beautifully written lead-in. I comment below the star line.

Warren begins - - -

Seriousness is a perception, and I am struck by the tone of American media, even from the conservative side, as they review the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. (John McCain is also running, but they're not covering that.)

The welter of his empty rhetorical gestures and contradictions are analyzed with a gravity to suggest deep thought had gone into each twist of his "evolving" electoral manifesto.

Running for the Democrat nomination, Obama posed as the reliable progressive, free of all Clintonian baggage -- as a kind of "Hillary Clinton you can believe in." He would get out of Iraq, cut a deal with Iran, bomb Pakistan, trash America's free trade agreements, deliver socialist medicine, cool global warming, and "heal" everything that ails you. Shades of John F. Kennedy: at least in his supporters' imagination.

Running now against a Republican, and with the progressive vote safely in the bag, he will stay the course in Iraq, confront Iran, show diplomacy in Pakistan, defend free trade, spend cautiously, ignore global warming, and "heal" everything that ails you. Shades of Ronald Reagan.

The most laughable part of the campaign is the new, first-ever, "I am the world" tour, currently in progress. Obama, realizing he has no credentials in this field, but is even more a rock star abroad than at home, seeks photo ops looking presidential in front of backdrops such as the Brandenburg Gate.

Of course, he cannot get all the backdrops he wants, since his demand for them as a mere candidate for office is unprecedented, and leaves foreign leaders embarrassed that he asked.

The rest of Warren’s column’s here.

Warren goes on to say that, should Sen. Obama be elected, all the “rah-rah” we hear now from Europe won’t last five minutes into Obama’s presidency when he acts in America’s interests.

Warren’s so right.

All Obama will need to say is something like: “Sorry, Europeans, I still want to cool the globe, but I can’t endorse the Kyoto treaty. If you thought I would, then you weren’t listening when I made those campaign stops in some of your countries in July.”

When European’s hear that, the honeymoon will be over.

And it may well be followed by a certain resentment that he let them down.

Hat tip:

NE’s Edwards-Hunter tryst story’s verifiable

Many people are cautious about believing the National Enquirer’s July 21 story reporting former Senator and self-described “poverty fighter” John Edwards' tryst at LA’s Beverly Hilton Hotel with his former filmmaker Rielle Hunter.

According to the NE, Edwards and Hunter met in one hotel room while a friend of Hunter’s looked after what the NE says is their “love child.”

I can understand readers’ caution. I’m often cautious about stories I read in publications like the NE, the NY Times and the Raleigh N&O.

However, with this story there are many witnesses to the events reported who can be interviewed. There are many critical details mentioned which can easily be fact-checked. And while the NE doesn’t mention them, I feel certain there are photos and videos of some very significant parts of the events the NE reports, including ones which prominently feature Edwards.

I’m convinced the story has substance.

As far as witnesses go, there’s Edwards himself who so far has dismissed the story as “tabloid,” but hasn’t denied any of its specifics. We’ve had no “I wasn’t even at the Beverly Hilton that night;” or “I just ducked in to use the Men’s Room.”

The NE names two of its reporters and provides details of what they witnessed, including descriptions of the car Edwards was driven to the hotel in (a BMW ) and the shirt he was wearing (“a blue dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up.”).

The NE mentions but doesn't name a photographer Edwards fled from and hotel security staffers who helped escort Edwards out of the Beverly Hilton in the wee morning hours after NE reporters caught him trying to sneak out of the hotel.

This from one of the NE reporters: "Some guests up at this late hour watched the spectacle in amusement from a staircase nearby."

The NE’s story includes this:

Meanwhile, Rielle had reserved rooms 246 and 252 under the name of the friend who had accompanied her from Santa Barbara, Bob McGovern. Rielle was in one room and McGovern was in another with her baby. This allowed her and Edwards to spend time alone, a source revealed.

Edwards went out of the hotel briefly with Rielle, they were observed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and then went back to her room, where he stayed until attempting to sneak out of the hotel unseen at 2:40 a.m. (PST). But when he emerged alone from an elevator into the hotel basement he was greeted by several reporters from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

Senior NATIONAL ENQUIRER Reporter Alexander Hitchen asked Edwards why he was visiting Rielle and whether he was ready to confirm that he was the father of her baby.

Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Rielle.

Edwards did not answer and then ran into a nearby restroom. He stayed inside for about 15 minutes, refusing to answer questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER about what he was doing in the hotel.

A group of hotel security men eventually escorted him from the men's room, while preventing the NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters from following him out of the hotel.
Who reserved rooms 246 and 252 can be checked. The hotel security on duty can be interviewed. At least some parts of Edwards running up and down the stairwell and into the Men’s Room were very, very likely caught on security videos. The 2:40 AM timing report tells anyone seeking to verify NE’s story where to look on the videos.

There’s a great deal more in the story that’s easily verified, including the child’s paternity which Edwards denies. DNA testing could quickly and reliably do that, couldn’t it?

I hope you read the entire NE story.

I think you’ll agree the Edwards tryst story isn’t just another one of those “Kucinich says Martians support Bush impeachment” stories.

The MSM has no excuse for ignoring this extensively documented NE story about one of America’s leading Democrats.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Churchill Series - July 23, 2008

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

Today we go to a book store: Chartwell Booksellers.

If you’re not familiar with the store the first thing to know is it’s not near Churchill's Chartwell home in Kent, England. It’s in midtown Manhattan. The second thing to know about it you’ve already guessed: the shop deals in all kinds of books regarding Churchill.

Chartwell has rare first editions of some of Churchll’s own works, including ones signed by him. Many of them run into the thousands of dollars. But there are also some of his works still in print that are offered at the jacket price.

Then there are the “about” books. They number in the hundreds.

Chartwell has a good selection of “wit and wisdom of Churchill” books which will make nice holiday gifts. Kay Halle’s is one of my favorites. Kay was a long-time friend of Churchill’s and led the effort here to convince our government to award Churchill honorary American citizenship, which he received in April, 1963.

Chartwell sells only at full price; no discounts.

I’ve no connection to Chartwell other then I love searching its site and ordering from time to time.

Raleigh N&O silent on Edwards affair story

Are you following the latest concerning former Sen. John Edwards, a self-proclaimed “poverty fighter and a possible Vice Presidential running mate of President-presumptive Barack Obama?

If you are, you know Edwards may have done more than just get $400 haircuts and “fight poverty.”

You must know about his filmmaker "friend," Rielle Hunter, and a “love child” whose paternity Edwards denies.

But you didn’t learn any of that from reading Edwards’ “hometown newspaper,” the McClatchy Company’s liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer.

As of 8:00 PM ET Wed. July 23 there’s nothing at the N&O’s website, and there’s been nothing in its print edition, about reports Edwards on July 21 “visited” with Hunter in a room at Los Angeles’ posh Beverly Hilton Hotel, while a friend of Hunter’s cared for the child in another room at the same hotel.

You can read more about it all here.

A search of the N&O’s archives using the entry terms “John Edwards,” “Sen. John Edwards” and “Edwards” for the period July 1, 2008 through July 23, 2008 returned no hits concerning Edwards’ reported affair with Hunter; or anything concerning a stay at LA’s Beverly Hilton at any time within the search period.

I then tried the entry term “Rielle Hunter” for a broader time span - Jan. 1, 2000 to July 23, 2008 - because in the past she was hired by a pro-Edwards group called One America Committee and paid $114,000 to produce videos for Edwards' campaign. Or were they about his "poverty fighting?"

People I’ve talked to in Raleigh and Chapel Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, say Hunter and Edwards have traveled together in order for Hunter to get “footage” for the videos.

But I found nothing in the N&O reporting on the two ever traveling together.

The only search “hit” returned for “Rielle Hunter” was a brief story dated Dec. 12, 2006.

With the headline - “Web clips show hip Edwards” - and underneath Edwards-friendly reporter Rob Christensen’s byline, here’s the story in full:

First there was John Edwards the book. Now there is John Edwards the movie.

Last week, Edwards began posting scenes from the campaign trail on his One America Committee Web site and on YouTube.

The camera catches him on planes and in cars, in jeans, and tucking in his shirt as he heads to a teachers' conference in Iowa and a union-sponsored anti-Wal-Mart rally in Pittsburgh.

"I've come to the conclusion I just want the country to see who I really am -- not based on some plastic Ken Doll you put up in front of audiences."

During his 2004 campaign for the vice presidency, Edwards was sometimes criticized as too programmed -- giving the same speech, the same gestures at every stop.

The "Webisodes" are the idea of Rielle Hunter, a New York filmmaker.
That’s all the N&O has reported that I could find.

Now maybe I missed the Birth Announcements or something else.

If you know of anything in the N&O I've missed, please let me know.

I’ll be back to this story tomorrow updating with developments and comparing some of the N&O’s racially inflammatory, biased and often false reporting of the Duke frame-up attempt with the N&O’s much more “restrained” coverage of Poverty Fighter Edwards and his "Webisodes" Maker, Rielle Hunter.

An “honor” killing in America

John Avlon writes about it in today’s NY Post. I comment below the star line.

Avlon begins - - -

On July 6, police say, a Pakistani named Chaudhry Rashid strangled his 25-year-old daughter San- deela Kanwal with a Bungee cord in her bedroom because she wanted to end her arranged marriage. This "honor killing" came not in Pakistan, but in Jonesboro, Ga. - a suburb 16 miles outside Atlanta.

At his arraignment, Rashid said through an Urdu interpreter that he was "not in the state of mind to talk because of the death of his daughter," but stated "I have done nothing wrong."

This is not the same as declaring innocence. His attorney, Tammy Long, explained, "My client is going through a difficult time. As you can imagine, he is distraught."

Apparently, it takes a stronger man to murder his daughter without sentiment.

The national media has paid little attention to the story of Kanwal's murder, though most outlets found plenty of time to debate the cover of The New Yorker.

When a blonde girl goes missing, cable networks stop in their tracks - but when a Muslim woman is murdered by her father, there's not a ripple of sustained interest. Where's the outrage?

Maybe it's muted because we've grown reluctant to pass judgment on other culture's customs - but multiculturalism hits a crossroads when honor killings come to America. …

The rest of Avlon’s column’s here.


God rest San- deela Kanwal.

That so much of our national media would pay little attention to her murder while raging about the New Yorker cover should disturb us all.

Where was the outrage when San- deela Kanwal was killed by her father?

If we let multiculturalism “help us understand” people like Chaudhry Rashid we'll be perverting the America we have now: a place that doesn't tolerate people who murder women, not even fathers who murder their daughters because they wish to get divorces.

There’s no better time to assert America’s absolute unwillingness to tolerate “honor” killings than now: the first time we know it’s happened.

If America doesn’t move swiftly to punish this crime, we’ll be sliding down a deadly- for-innocents slope much as Britain has the past 30 years or so as it ignored it historic common law practice of protecting the innocent.

Police in the UK have a pretty good idea of what really happens to those “young Asian women.” (the UK euphemism for Muslim girls and young women who go missing, with their bodies sometimes later found in conditions leaving no doubt they died violently)

President-presumptive Barack Obama and his NY Times

In the last few days members of Sen. Barack Obama’s staff have referred to him as “the President” and demanded off the record and backgrounder considerations the press has previously accorded only a President and the White House. And who’s forgetting the Brandenburg Gate?

But really – Obama Come to Save Us – isn’t quite President yet.

So I’ll stick with President-presumptive and hope his supporters understand.

With that cleared up, let’s look at an IBS editorial posted yesterday afternoon. My comments follow below the star line.

IBS begins - - -

If you doubt the media are in the tank for Obama, doubt no more. The refusal of the New York Times to print McCain's op-ed on Obama after an Obama piece was published has nothing to do with editorial judgment and everything to do with protecting the media's heartthrob.

Times op-ed editor David Shipley, who served in the Clinton administration from 1995 to 1997, insists it was just a request for a rewrite, as is frequently done with other writers.

But McCain isn't a freelance writer or NYT staffer. He's a candidate for president of the United States and ought to be able to express his views — unedited and unfiltered.(emphasis added)

Shipley wanted McCain to define what he meant by victory and submit a timetable for achieving both victory and total withdrawal. He wanted McCain to write his editorial on Obama's terms.

We suspect the Times was trying to protect Obama, at least during his trip, from reminders that he opposed the surge and the war and was wrong on both counts.

Obama, whose foreign policy consists of talking to our enemies while bombing our allies, told the assembled veterans at the VFW Convention in Kansas City last year, "All our top military commanders recognize that there is no military solution in Iraq."

But there was a military solution in Iraq in Gen. David Petraeus' brilliant anti-terrorism strategy that paved the way for Iraqi political and religious reconciliation.

The rest of the editorial's here.



Since he won the Iowa caucuses, I’ve never doubted most of the media’s in the tank for Sen. Obama.

I know Obama himself sometimes doubts that, but the Times’ latest Anything for Obama treatment of Sen. McCain should reassure him.

On the other hand, it should wake up those Americans who still think the Times and many other news organizations are in business "To give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of any party, sect or interest involved."

I’ll say more about IBS’s editorial later today.

What did you think?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

The Churchill Series - July 22, 2008

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

Lord Randolph Churchill died January 20, 1895 convinced that his son Winston would be a failure and bring no honor to the family name.

Four weeks later, on February 20, 1895 Winston began his life of service to his country. His biographer, Martin Gilbert, records:

”Churchill entered the cavalry. …

His commission was made out, according to custom, from Queen Victoria to ‘Our Trusty and well beloved Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Gentleman,’ and was signed by the Secretary of State for War, Campbell-Bannerman, who less than eleven years later as Prime Minister would appoint Churchill his first Ministerial office, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
During the next half-century, Churchill served four Kings - Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII and George VI - and another Queen - Elizabeth II - in a number of Ministerial offices, including the premiership during Britain's darkest and finest hour.

Churchill’s last day of inisterial service was April 5, 1955, when he resigned as the Queen’s Prime Minister.

In his remaining years, Churchill often expressed regret that his father, whom he loved and admired, had not lived long enough to see the course his life took. He died on January 20, 1965, seventy years to the day of his father’s death.
For this post, I drew from Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life. The passage quoted is found on pg. 51 of the Henry Holt & Co’s 1991 American Edition.

N&O’s biased Times’ McCain op-ed story

McClatchy’s liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer isn’t eager for its readers to learn the NY Times refused to publish Sen. John McCain’s op-ed response to one the Times’ published for its presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

It buried the story at the bottom of page 3 under what’s the smallest font headline I’ve ever seen in an N&O headline.

And at that, the headline pitched the story from a Times’ perspective: “Paper defends rejection of McCain piece.”

It followed that with this brief, 184-word story:

The New York Times defended its decision not to publish an op-ed article about the Iraq war as first submitted by Republican candidate John McCain on grounds it customarily reviews such pieces with the author.

McCain's presidential campaign submitted the op-ed on Friday. In it, the Arizona senator describes how the buildup of U.S. forces in Iraq has helped curb violence. He also chides Democratic rival Barack Obama for outlining his plan for Iraq before his current meetings there with commanders and Iraqi leaders.

In e-mail to the campaign on Friday, David Shipley, an op-ed editor at the newspaper, said he could not accept the piece in its current form but would look at another version. In the message, released by McCain's campaign, Shipley wrote that McCain's article would "have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said the campaign will not submit a revised op-ed.
The N&O’s political bias in its story based on “reporting” by the Anything for Obama AP is evident in its failure to mention a single “quoted” example of what Times editor Shipley objected to in McCain's op-ed.

And speaking of Shipley, do you have to ask why the N&O failed to tell readers he’s a former speech writer for President Clinton and is married to Al Gore staffer Naomi Wolf?

Maybe the N&O didn't mention any of that because the people who control and spin news reporting at the N&O feel Shipley's "a professional MSM journalist" just like them.

Well, who’ll disagree with that?

Still, a passionate Dem like Shipley telling McCain he has to change his op-ed so it "mirrors" his candidate's op-ed is really news fit to print.

And N&O readers deserved to know about it, even if that would upset Obama's MSM flacks at the Times, and help expose how so much of MSM really works.

Andrea Mitchell blasts staged Obama events

Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews NBC’s Andrea Mitchell blasted the limited access reporters had to Sen. Obama and his activities during the Afghanistan and Iraq parts of his trip.

She used the work “fake” to characterize some of the Obama interviews; and said a lot more.

You can access a clip of Mitchell’s remarks here. (The clip, about 2 minutes long, may take 10 seconds or so to load up.)

It includes a follow-up question Matthews asks Mitchell about the high percentage of black soldiers appearing in video footage from Afghanistan.

Again, the clips here.

Hat tip: AMac

Obama’s grand European tour hits bumps

Excerpts from Der Spiegel followed by my comments below the star line.

According to Der Spiegel - - -

Barack Obama's visit to Berlin has upset officials in other European capitals who feel the presumptive Democratic Party presidential candidate is slighting their countries. The French and British are feeling neglected.

Barack Obama is making Germany the major focus of his trip to Europe this week, a choice that is being viewed with some displeasure in Paris and London. One day after the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee officially announced his plan to hold a speech at the Siegesäule, or "Victory Column," in Berlin, SPIEGEL ONLINE also obtained information about his preliminary European agenda.

One-on-one meetings for Obama have now been confirmed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

But so far he is only including time in his stops in Paris and London for French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. A decision still hasn't been made on whether the Democratic candidate will meet with the foreign ministers of those countries.

The source said this had caused additional irritation in government circles in Paris and London.

High-ranking politicians there are already annoyed that the controversy about Obama's desire to hold his speech at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate had distracted attention from the purpose of his European visit -- to outline his vision for trans-Atlantic relations. …

“The French and British feel that Germany is getting too much attention," a source told SPIEGEL ONLINE. This could prove to be a prickly issue considering traditionally close British-American ties. The Brits are also an important part of the US-led alliance in Iraq.

Resentment has been stirred in London because Obama is no longer starting his Europe trip in the British capital as was initially planned.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, for his part, has demonstratively pursued a path of political rapprochement with Washington following years of antagonistic relations between former President Jacque Chirac and George W. Bush.

Obama's team has left no doubts about the fact that it considers German Chancellor Angela Merkel to be the strongest leader in Europe at present. Their reasoning: Sarkozy hasn't been in office long enough yet and Brown has been swept up in a domestic crisis.

US Congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat, recently spoke on behalf of Obama on Germany's N-TV cable news channel, emphasizing that German-American relations were the "most established."

But not even the Germans are totally satisfied. They are calling for further one-on-one meetings with Obama -- conversations that, according to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE are not very likely to happen. …

The entire report’s here


First off, I’m sure very few of you missed the report’s unspoken message: “Der Spiegel is very happy to be able to tell its German readers the French and Brits are feeling dissed.”

How many times did the mag have to say and then explain why Obama’s grand tour “is being viewed with some displeasure in Paris and London?”

Der Spiegel gets it wrong when it says “the purpose of his European visit [is] to outline his vision for trans-Atlantic relations.”

If that was Sen. Obama’s purpose, he could've accomplished it with a major speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York or at an appropriate venue in Washington. In October, 1963 President Kennedy used Washington's American University as the site for one his most important speeches.

If Obama had chosen to speak in either city, Ambassadors and the press from all the European nations could've been invited to witness and hear it.

In years past, that’s how presidential candidates have done things when they wanted to explain just a few months before the election their visions "for trans-Atlantic relations.”

The very presumptive Barack Obama’s grand European tour is, as even most Dems recognize, really a campaign swing.

Perhaps it would help the French and British feel less dissed and clear things up for all our European friends if Obama begins his Berlin speech with the sentence: “Mesdames et Messieurs, Ich bin ein typical politician."

The Pump ad is McCain's best to date

I think The Pump as McCain's best one to date. Take a look at it (30 seconds) and see what you think. Below the ad I explain why I think it will be effective

This ad catches your attention not with a "shout," but with the pump image and a reminder "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil."

That's followed with: "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"

If the ad had stopped there, it would still be very effective because by that point its gotten people thinking about a question Americans are worried about and to which most of them think Obama and the Dems are offering the wrong answer.

With "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" the ad's "teed it up" for Americans watching to say to themselves: "Obama and the Dems oppose more offshore drilling."

With a photo of Obama and the "Obama, Obama, Obama!" chants in the background, the ad immediately tells viewers they're right.

The ad's creators couldn't have come up with a more effective way of both highlighting Obama's opposition to offshore drilling and turning the orchestrated chanting at his carefully staged rallies to use against him.

The ad than uses a blackout moment to transistion to the positive, solution-focused, McCain-admiring remainder of the ad.

Obama and the Dems "in Washington ... still saying no to drilling in America" are left behind. We now see the attractive, heroic image of McCain who "knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets."

That's immediately followed by: "Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain."

The final image of a thin gold bar with a star in the center reminded me - as I'm sure it was intended to do - of McCain's military service.

All things considered, I think The Pump is McCain's best ad to date.

What do you think?

Hat tip: AC

Monday, July 21, 2008

The Churchill Series - July 21, 2008

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

The Great London Blitz began on September 7, 1940 and did not end until May 11, 1941 a night when a very heavy raid killed over 3,000 Londoners.

The Blitz presented Churchill and The Government with enormous and complex problems. One had to do with evacuating children. The Government was initially in favor or that. But where were they to go and with whom would they stay?

Families in rural areas were volunteered to take in children, but would they be suitable families? Was a family prepared to take in six brothers and sister ranging in age from 2 to 14, two of whom were what were then called "problem children?"

What about parents who refused to send their children to the countryside?

Then there was the problem of how to keep public morale high under the extreme duress of daily bombing? How do you convince people that when the "all clear" is sounded, they must not go to their homes to see if they are still standing and their families and neighbors all right, but instead stay at their jobs until their shifts ended?

Fighting the fires. Treating the wounded. Identifying and arranging burial for the dead. Clearing debris which blocked roadways. Getting safe water to areas of the city where water mains were broken.

All those problems and many more including the one Churchill felt compelled to deal with on Sept. 18, almost two weeks after the start of the German bombing:


Prime Minister to Postmaster-General,

There are considerable complaints about the Post Office service during air raids. Prehaps you will give me a report on what you are doing.
I’ve been accused of making up that memo, but you can find it in Churchill’s Their Finest Hour, vol. 2, pg 671 (Houghton Mifflin, 1949)

As for what was done with the children, initially plans were made and orders given for their evacuation. Some children even came to the States and Canada where they lived out the war or most of it. Churchill's official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert was one of them.

There was much resistance from many parents to evacuating the children as well as all the problems of settling the children in new locations. The Government soon adopted a “Whatever the parents thinks best; HM's government will help provide options” policy that it followed until the war's end.

McClatchy Watch & Times Watch blogs

JinC Regulars know about McClatchy Watch, an outstanding blog that keeps an eye on the liberal/leftist McClatchy news organization.

The blog reports on everything from McClatchy’s frequent slamming of America's military to McClatchy's exec board's decisions to richly reward top executives even as the company's stock price crashes (It's down more than 85% in just the last three years.) and it lays off workers.

Following today's news that the NY Times was trying to manipulate what Sen. John McCain could say on its op-ed page in response to a Times' op-ed by the paper's preferred presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, an Anon commenter suggested: “in addition to a 'McClatchy Watch,' there should be a 'Times Watch.'"

Thank you, Anon.

Now some great news. There is a Times Watch. You can access it here.

It's lead post tonight is: “The Times Disses McCain Op-ed After Running Obama's “

The post's subhead: “The Times isn't about to give John McCain a break, setting stringent standards before it will take a pro-surge op-ed from him, even though it printed Obama's pro-withdrawal op-ed last week.”

The post begins - - -

When Hillary dropped out under a wave of hostile coverage, she left John McCain the only person standing between Barack Obama and a history-making presidency. With Obama rocking waves of positive coverage overseas, the media tide is out for the Republican nominee, and the Times surely isn't going to give McCain any breaks now.

The same New York Times that endorsed McCain (albeit in hold-your-nose fashion) during the Republican primaries now refuses to run an op-ed by him that: laid out recent successes in Iraq; said Obama was wrong in opposing the surge; and accused the Democrat of having "learned nothing from recent history."

Times' op-ed editor David Shipley emailed McCain's staff: "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."

Yet the McCain op-ed was in response to one from Obama, "My Plan for Iraq," that had appeared in the Times on July 14. Did the Times at least invite the McCain camp to submit an op-ed in defense of the war and the surge (to accompany Obama's call for withdrawal) before Obama's op-ed appeared?

Shipley said he wanted something more forward-looking that paralleled more closely with Obama's piece, which mentioned McCain only twice while sketching out a vision of withdrawing troops from Iraq. The piece McCain submitted to the Times attacked Obama on his past statements on the surge and also went after points from Obama's NYT op-ed. …

The entire post’s here.

We're fortunate to have McClatchy Watch and Times Watch.

I hope you'll visit both often.

NY Times rejects McCain op-ed


His report begins - - -

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] (Who's surprised by that? - - JinC)

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.' ....

The rest of the story’s here. Drudge follows his story with the text of McCain’s op-ed so you can judge it and the NYT for yourself.

I often refer to the NYT as Obama’s Times and the Anything for Obama Times.

I think I’ve got that right with Shipley providing one more example of that.

Your turn.

Duke-Durham defendant Linwood Wilson & attorney representation

If you don’t know much about Linwood Wilson, once referred to as disgraced and disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong’s “go-to guy,” see here, here and here.

Wilson, along with Wachovia CEO and Duke BOT chair Bob Steel and others, is now a defendant in massive civil rights violations suits brought by Duke lacrosse players. But unlike all the other defendants who are represented by attorneys, Wilson is representing himself.

Commenters have asked whether Wilson might be entitled to a court appointed attorney and other questions concerning Wilson's situation.

The Ex-prosecutor who has often provided helpful information and commentary on various aspects of the Duke hoax and frame-up attempt has provided the following concerning Wilson:

A civil unlike a criminal defendant has no right to a free lawyer. So, Linwood Wilson is on his own.

Here's some of what he faces. There will be many, many depositions taken in this case. Court reporters charge by the page for copies, and I'll bet that their charges for a single set of depositions will be many thousands of dollars, easily $25,000 or much more. This figure doesn't count getting copies of records, which also are expensive.

If I were Linwood Wilson, I'd attend just the depositions of those who could impact me, meaning I'd skip those of the Duke administrators. He'll need to hear what others are saying about him so he can get his trial testimony ready.

If Linwood Wilson simply ignores the lawsuit, because he knows that he could never pay such a massive judgment as is likely, the plaintiffs can take a default judgment against him in whatever amount they can prove he damaged them.

This may sound like heresy, but I think that Linwood Wilson may do better by representing himself that he would if he had a lawyer.

The cases against him and Mr. Nifong look to me close to slam dunks, and that’s why I think the judgment against him may be lessened by his self-representation.

There's always a danger that jurors will feel somewhat sorry for a defendant who represents himself. It's obvious the defendant can't afford to hire a lawyer, so a big judgment against him will be uncollectible.

Such a result is more likely when there are other defendants who can pay a big judgment, such as Duke and the city of Durham.

It also means that the plaintiffs' lawyers may have to take it somewhat easier in their treatment of him because his being alone in the courtroom contrasts with the other defendants and their hoards of lawyers.

However, I suspect that even if the jury feels somewhat sorry for Linwood Wilson, the judgment against him will far exceed his assets. Then he can hire a bankruptcy lawyer and see if the judgment is dischargeable.

I thank the Ex-prosecutor for his informed and helpful commentary.


MSM is not telling us about Michelle Obama

Writing in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Ralph Reiland gives us his take on the articulate, accomplished woman who wants her husband to be President of a “downright mean country.”

Here's the first part of Reiland's column with my comments below the star line:

"We don't need a world full of corporate attorneys and hedge-fund managers," Michelle Obama told a crowd in a Baptist church in South Carolina in January. "But see, that's the only way you can pay back your educational debt!"

It's true, exactly 20 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, she's still complaining about her tuition payments, even while living in a $1.65 million house and with a household income that puts her firmly in the top 1 percent of U.S. families.

"The couple's combined salaries were more than $430,000 in 2006, according to their tax return," reported Los Angeles Times writer Robin Abcarian in February. "In addition, Barack Obama earned $551,000 in book royalties."

In 2007, the year prior to Mrs. Obama's perpetual bellyaching on the campaign trail about her tuition bill, Barack Obama was paid $4 million in book royalties, as reported on his financial disclosure report in June.

The philosophy? We wouldn't need "a world full of corporate attorneys and hedge-fund managers" -- i.e., a world full of self-seeking individualism and capitalist compromises -- if tuition were free and we could all be debt-free community organizers, working the streets to make everything "free."

As it now stands, according to Michelle Obama, we're stuck in a pre-Obama nation that's "just downright mean," a country of "broken souls" that never much made her proud.

And the salvation, the way to mend our mean and busted spirits? Times writer Abcarian reports Mrs. Obama's answer: "She talks about how brilliant he is and often implies that voters would be crazy not to vote for her husband, calling him 'the only rational choice.' She calls his candidacy a 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to be graced with a man like him.'"

We will have "to sacrifice for one another to get things done," explains Mrs. Obama, and "Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that" -- not only the "only person" who understands, she says, but also "one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics."

The definition of "deign": "to condescend, to do something that one considers to be below one's dignity." One wonders if Michelle also thinks that Barack's 20 years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was below his level of elevated dignity.

Just as "our souls are broken in this nation," Michelle Obama claims that we've been going straight down economically for four decades.

"The life that I am talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl," she asserts. "And this is through Republican and Democratic administrations. It doesn't matter who was in the White House."

And her challenge if you disagree? "If you want to pretend there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy, I wanna meet you!" …

The rest of Reiland’s column’s here. It includes information about the growth of living standards in recent decades. Reiland ends by recounting what happened to a man who passed on the corporate life in order to “minister” to Chicago’s South Side poor.

Americans need to hear more about what Michelle Obama thinks.

What makes America “a downright mean country?” What was it about Rev. Jeremiah Wright that convinced Michelle and Barack Obama to take their daughters to his church for their religious instruction?

Sen. Obama claims never to have heard any of Rev. Wright’s “controversial" sermons. What about Ms. Obama? Did she hear any of them? Did she ever discuss them with her husband?

We don’t have answered to those questions. Why? It's almost five months since Americans first began to learn about what Obama’s supporters call Wright’s “snippets.”

That those and other important questions about the Obamas remain unanswered gives us some idea of the extent to which the Obama campaign and a largely fawning press have combined to avoid telling the American people things we should know before deciding whether to elect Barack Obama President.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Some 1976 campaign lessons

Michael Barone talks about them at NRO [excerpts].

Barone’s in italics; I'm in plain.

Looking back over the last 40 years, the presidential campaign that most closely resembles this year's is the contest between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in 1976. The Republicans were the incumbent presidential party that year, as they are now, but the Democrats had a big advantage in party identification — on the order of 49 percent to 26 percent then, far more than today.

I didn’t know the Dems in ’76 had an almost 2 to 1 party identification advantage over the GOP. That makes the Dems’ current party affiliation advantage the MSM keeps telling us is a strong indicator of Dem success in November seem like not such a strong indicator after all.

The Republican president who had been elected and re-elected in the last two campaigns, Richard Nixon, had dismal favorability ratings, far lower than George W. Bush's. His name could scarcely be mentioned at the Republican National Convention.

I remember ’76. President Bush will be nowhere near the drag this year Nixon was in ‘76. But you can be sure a day won’t go by between now and November without the Dems’ media flacks telling us what a drag Bush is followed by a litany of why he’s a drag.

The Democratic nominee was a little-known outsider, with an appeal that was based on the idea that he could transcend the nation's racial divisions. Jimmy Carter, a governor from the Deep South, had placed a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. in the state Capitol in Atlanta.

Obama’s claim that he’s the candidate who can transcend race is already fractured and will become more so as we get closer to the election.

Ford's political situation then was far more parlous than McCain's today. An early summer Gallup poll showed him trailing Carter by 62 percent to 29 percent.

We’re well past early summer with polls generally showing Obama and McCain in a statistical tie or Obama with a single digit lead. Carter’s early summer lead was 33% and Ford closed it to 2% on election day.

Barone goes on to discuss how that happened. He also has some advice for McCain.

Barone’s entire column is here.

Be sure to give it a look if you’re following the campaign.

Jay Leno on the Dems 10 Year Oil Plan

I'll bet Sen. McCain's campaign staff wishes he was as good at exposing the folly of the Dems opposition to offshore drilling as Jay Leno is in this 16-second clip.

Remember when President Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR?


Raddatz, ABC News targets of bogus claim

This past Friday I posted a bogus claim that ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz and the network suppressed almost all the information Raddatz gathered in April in Iraq from 60 U. S. soldiers concerning their presidential candidate preferences. (Raddatz was there covering a trip by Vice President Dick Cheney)

In an April 7 ABC News story Raddatz reported on interviews by my count with 4 soldiers who favored Sen. Obama, 1 "leaning" toward Sen. Clinton, a number who favored no candidate, but talked about their concerns including multiple deployments, the economy,etc., and a few who said they weren't following the campaign closely. The story’s here.

Subsequently a bogus claim began circulating on the Net. The claim is Raddatz and ABC suppressed the news that 54 soldiers she interviewed all expressed a preference for Sen. McCain. There's zero evidence to support the claim, and a great deal of evidence that leaves no doubt the McCain-54 claim is bogus.

I’d like to tell you how I came to post the bogus claim and how – with help first from commenter Tarheel Hawkeye, then from others of you commenting on- and offline, another blogger and Martha Raddatz herself – I learned the claim is bogus.

Many of you know Mike Williams has aggregated here outstanding WOT reporting we rarely get from MSM. Mike’s also provided his own superb military analyses.

Mike’s work has always been so reliable that when he passed on the McCain-54 claim, I didn’t do the fact-checking I should have done in fairness to him, you, Raddatz and ABC.

Within a few minutes of my posting Friday on McCain-54, Tarheel Hawkeye let me know it might be an urban legend or worse. (See his comment on the thread here. His comment links to a site he directed me to.)

At the site I read that the sole “starter” for McCain-54 – an email supposedly from a retired USAF Maj. Gen. who’d learned about the supposed 54 pro-McCain soldiers Raddatz had interviewed from his military-serving niece in Iraq who “witnessed” the interviews – was disowned by the general said to be the email's author.

I began to question what I’d posted, but I felt I didn’t know enough yet to say McCain-54 was bogus. I added a Readers Alert to the head of the post letting people know of Tarheel Hawkeye's comment.

Friday evening I emailed Mike to let him know what was happening. I told him that Saturday morning I was going to put aside the question of whether Raddatz-ABC suppressed news of interviews with 54 pro-McCain soldiers, and instead post on what I see as a pro-Obama tilt in Raddatz's report.

Saturday morning while working on that post, I received the following comment on the thread here:


I respect your love of history...but the email you have up slamming me is pure fantasy.

[USAF Maj. Gen.] Buckman denies he authored it and would like it taken down. I have spoken directly to him and he has emailed me as well.

I know it is easy to mistrust the media. But don't throw us all under the bus.

I have been to Iraq 17 times and have covered the military for decades. I respect the military enormously---and I know that I have great respect from those who know me, as well.

I wrote a book, published last year called "The Long Road Home" that profiled the brave soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division and the families who support them. The book was praised as one of the few about the Iraq war that was "non political". The "praise" on the back of the book comes from General David Petraeus among others.

For more about this email I suggest you check out this blog:

I would also ask that if you have forwarded the email, you let people know it was false. And if you would like to contact me directly, please don't hesitate.


Martha Raddatz
The comment seemed genuine, but you can’t always be sure.

So I called ABC News and explained the situation. They helped me get in touch with Raddatz whom I emailed:
I wish to confirm the email below was sent by you. I'll post the email once I've confirmed it's from you.

I'm trying to reach MG Buckman, but that may take a few days.

I will work to give JinC readers the full, true story concerning your report. When I have sufficient facts in hand, I'll correct and apologize, if necessary.

In the meantime, I'm letting readers know of the legend concerns.
Raddatz emailed back:
It was indeed sent by me. If you could go to the post I sent you, you will see that MG Buckman is tired of being called (he is 75)__I could send you the email he sent to me if that will convince you (but please don't publish his email address)
I replied
Dear Ms. Raddatz:

Thank you for a prompt and helpful response.

I would like the email MG Buckman sent you; not because I doubt what you say but to allow me to speak to JinC readers with greater authority.

I will certainly respect the confidentiality of his email address.

It's always good to correct a wrong and it looks like I may be on the verge of having another chance to do so.


In reply, Raddatz sent a copy of Buchman’s email:
Martha-the referenced e-mail about the reaction of our men and women in Iraq was not authored by me. I would not send or forward an e-mail that I knew to be bogus or untrue and would appreciate it not being associated with me.
You can read at Let There Be Truth the experience of a blogger who directly contacted Buckman and, like Raddatz, received an unequivocal denial of authorship from Buckman.

Searching the Net I've found plenty of places that are passing on the bogus McCain-54 story. They all rely solely on the debunked Buckman email. I could find not one instance of a U. S. military source who has stepped forward to confirm McCain-54.

Like the Duke Hoax, McCain-54 is improbable on its face. The bogus email claims Raddatz:
"asked 60 GI’s who they planned to vote for in November. 54 said John McCain, 4 for Obama, and 2 for Hillary."
But what are the chances that in April in Iraq the following would all happen: Of 60 soldiers interviewed, none would say they were undecided; none would express a preference for Rep. Ron Paul; just 2 would express a preference for Sen. Clinton and 4 a preference for Sen. Obama, while 54 of the 60 would express a preference for Sen. McCain?

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said there was no credible evidence to support the charges in the Duke Hoax. The same is true for McCain-54.

I would have realized that if I’d done some fact-checking before posting.

I apologize for not doing so. I’ll work to do better in the future.

While I believe the Raddatz-ABC story has a definite pro-Obama tilt – something I let Raddatz know during our email exchanges – I no longer plan to post concerning it.

That’s because what I most needed to do was explain and correct my error which I began doing yesterday with the update of Our "unbiased" MSM in action (Update - contains error) and have sought to do here.

If I posted at this time something about “on the other hand, what Martha Raddatz and ABC did in terms of Obama …,” it would muddy the clear explanation and unequivocal apology I want to provide.

I’d wind up sounding like the boy who said: “Ma’am, I’m so sorry I stole your cookies that weren’t very good.”

I’m copying this to Raddatz today.

Tomorrow I’ll send an apology note to her and ABC News which I’ll post here.

From past experience I know I can rely on the understanding and decency of almost all of you.

For that, you have my thanks.


That New Yorker cover

First, an excerpt from Newsweek's Eleanor Clift's most recent column. Then my comments below the star line.

Clift begins - - -

When Democratic strategist Mark Siegel first saw this week's New Yorker cover with Barack Obama in Muslim garb and wife, Michelle, with a huge afro looking like '60s Black Panther activist Angela Davis, he could imagine a million of the satirical images distributed on flyers around the country.

This would not be good for a presidential candidate just now introducing himself to a whole new set of voters who didn't participate in the Democratic primaries, and who have heard little about him beyond the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

It's not The New Yorker's job to elect Obama. Still, what were they thinking? The cartoon cover image pictures the Obamas in the Oval Office with a framed portrait of Osama bin Laden over the mantel and an American flag burning in the fireplace.

If these same depictions appeared on a white supremacist site, the FBI and the Secret Service would monitor the purveyors.

If a conservative magazine like The National Review or The Weekly Standard put these images on their cover, we'd all be outraged, and rightfully so.

The New Yorker expects all of us sophisticates to understand they're poking fun at the politics of fear. A banner headline across the cover saying just that might have lent some clarity to the exercise. Without it, even people familiar with The New Yorker's satirical sensibility were offended.

One reader shared with me this e-mail that she fired off to "Your embarrassing attempt at satire is disgraceful in this climate of fear and ignorance. There is no journalistic freedom to justify this cartoon that could have easily been generated by the merchants of hate and fear and will certainly be used by them to justify their own moronic diatribes against this most American family. Shame on you New Yorker for this blatant attention grabbing exercise!"

The rest of Clift's column's here.



Where has Clift been this past week? There's been a great deal of outrage expressed by many people and organizations. Sen. McCain has spoken out. So have many Independents and Republicans.

And the Dems and their MSM allies have been in loud cry.

The outrage has been so intense the New Yorker editor's been doing more explaining and apologizing than Jesse Jackson.

What Clift and others outraged by the New Yorker cover need to explain is where's their outrage has been all these years cartoonists have caricturtured President Bush as Hitler?

Farenheit 911, Michaal Moore's libel claiming President Bush knew of the impending 911 attacks and did nothing to stop them, didn't provoke any outrage from most liberals and Democrats.

In fact, Moore was seated at the Dems' 2004 national convention in something called "The Honor Box."

When a California Democratic Member of Congress recently said on the House floor that President Bush liked to see soldiers in Iraq get "their heads blown off," I don't recall hearing any outrage from Clift and others among the Dems' MSM media flacks.

We all know what their reation would be if a GOP House Member said their President-presumptive Barack Obama liked to see our troops get "their heads blown off. "

Clift's column is one more example of the double standard that's done so much in recent years to hurt our country.

Hat tip: