John Edwards Affair; Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Rush Limbaugh and Assumptions

"Assumptions are sometimes useful, sometimes worthless. Assumptions based on someone's lies should be labeled, 'ABOSL'."
--DBKP's Guide to the Aspiring Writer





We always read the comments to stories here at DBKP. In fact, one of our mantras is, "The comments are part of the story".

Another is, "Sometimes, the comments are better than the story".

One comment alerted us to a story, Is Rush Limbaugh Reille Hunter´s Sugar Daddy?, written by Dee, at Immigration Talk with a Mexican American. Dee is anything if not economical: she shoehorns a lot into her story.

Think of Edwards story. The timeline! He is convinced it is NOT his baby because his last quickie with her was in April. She is not impregnated until late May. His ego does not allow him to consider IVF.

We mention this because it points out a danger that all writers--DBKP included--face; i.e., of basing assumptions on a public figure's lies. The lies are found out and POOF!, there goes all your theories.

In the John Edwards scandal, the biggest two assumptions were made by the Mainstream Media and plague them today as they struggle to explain to their readers why they didn't trust them with information on this story before August 8.

The first: that John Edwards told the truth. The second assumption was that because the National Enquirer reported the information, it couldn't be trusted, not even enough for them to do their own investigations, prior to late July.

As we point out in our soon-to-be published writer's guidelines: Assumptions are sometimes useful, sometimes worthless. Assumptions based on someone's lies should be labeled, 'ABOSL'.

NOW, we're not picking on Dee: we're sure that after you read her story, you'll come to the conclusion that she's got her tongue in her cheek. She seems so pleasant in her comments to DBKP's stories, we're sure of it.

One item did strike us, Dee's quote that, "The odds of a first time pregnancy after 40 are astronomical."

From Older mothers - facts and figures:

Additionally, there is an almost 50% increase from ten years ago in the number of women over forty who are now having babies. The rate for women aged 40 and over increased fastest, by over six per cent from 11.5 per 1,000 women aged 40-44 in 2005, to 12.2 in 2006.

The number of live births in England and Wales to mothers aged 40 plus was 12,103 in 1996 and 23,706 in 2006.

Again, here's more info from the United Kingdom. From
Parenting: Age Of First Time Mothers Shows A Sharp Increase:

The number of women having children in their 30s and 40s has climbed steadily over the last 20 years at a time when the overall birth rate has been dropping, in 2003, the fertility rate for women aged 35-39 and over 40 both increased almost 8%.

Later pregnancies are particularly evident among the wealthier social classes, where women persue a career before embarking on motherhood. The only draw back to later parenting is that as a woman gets older their fertility declines.

We realize that the data's from the U.K., not the USA. And there's precious little data about the pregnancy rates of mistresses over 40, but perhaps this might make a good project for some enterprising blogger.

The poster pictured at the beginning of this story? It's not there exclusively in reference to Dee or the Mainstream Media.

It hangs on the side of a computer at DBKP.

by Mondoreb
image: wsmonty

John Edwards Affair: Edwards Statement Admits Little

"Breathtakingly Brazen"
--DBKP's description of Edwards' Nightline appearance

"[Edwards] used the interview to play the Supermarket Tabloid Credibility Card to trash his nemesis, The National Equirer."
--DBKP's LBG,




John Edwards Statement:
* The Words "Affair" and "Lied" never appear in Statement
* No Mention of "Rielle Hunter" to be Found
* Taking "Full Responsibility" Doesn't Include Admission of Guilt
* "99% Honest"--Even While I Lied


Mainstream Media: "Admits", "Lied" and "Affair" in Most Headlines--But Those Words Not Found in Edwards' Statement
No Mention of "Lied", "Affair" or "Rielle Hunter" during Nightline Interview Either






"I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006."
--John Edwards, August 8, 2008 Statement


"One question which immediately comes to mind: What was Edwards doing leaving the Beverly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning, visiting a woman he says he did not love and her baby, which he says he did not father?"
--DBKP: John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Admits Affair, Lies, to ABC News


If admission is the first of the twelve steps toward recovery, John Edwards has yet to take that first step.

At least, that's one conclusion after reading Edwards' press statement or watching his performance on ABC's Nightline.

One hardly knows where to begin.

That was the thought that occurred while reading John Edwards' breathtakingly brazen statement on his "error in judgment" with Rielle Hunter. "Brazen" might also be an appropriate word for Edwards' Nightline appearance.

Edwards' announcement may prove to raise more questions than it answered.

Edwards' statement alleges that he has "given a complete interview on this matter" and "will have nothing more to say". Was this part of the statement an attempt to enable Edwards to appear at the Democrat National Convention without being dogged by pesky reporters' questions?

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access over 60 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

Are "have already given a complete interview on this matter" and "have nothing more to say" today's substitute for yesterday's failed answers of "tabloid trash" and "lies"?

One guess: The National Enquirer--who wields a far better record of veracity on this subject than Edwards--might have something to say about whether Edwards revisits the topic in the future.

Edwards claims he was 99% honest. Yet, he leaves the specifics of that 99% to the reader's imagination--as well as the remaining 1%. There's a lot that has to be shoe-horned into that 1%.

As LBG points out [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Defends Affair with Supermarket Tabloid Credibility Card ]:

The MSM claimed Edwards “fessed” up to “lying” about the affair.

“Edwards: Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public.”

“I did not tell the public” is an omission, not an admission of lying. Remember, Edwards knew exactly the impact each and every word he chose to use when arguing his case before the public on Nightline.

LBG goes on to explain.

Edwards never said he lied, he said he “denied”, but mitigated the denial by trashing the National Enquirer, saying it “contained many falsities”. Edwards never expounded on any of the “falsities”. Edwards also chose to defend himself by claiming he was “99% honest”. In fact, the only claim about “lying” was from Edwards in his interview, who charged it was the Enquirer who was lying.

2006

In his statement, Edwards mentioned a "mistake", "an error in judgment" and "my actions in 2006". He also referred to his "misconduct".

But nowhere in his statement or on TV, does he state what that "mistake", "error" or "misconduct" actually was. So, image the surprise it must have been to the millions hearing of all this for the first time, when Edwards starts talking about a baby.

Could it be possible that these words referred to Frances Quinn Hunter?

Edwards was careful to use the phrase "my actions in 2006--so careful, in fact, that he repeated the claim, both in his statement and in his TV interview. Edwards--who disappeared completely from public view after reporters attempted to question him about the affair in Washington, D.C. on July 30--had at least a week to craft his statement. This was no slap-dash effort: every word was painstakingly weighed with the precision of a trial attorney; every sentence parsed, before it made its way into Edwards' press release.

Again, if we take Edwards' word on this, could this not be an attempt to settle the matter of Frances Quinn Hunter, so as not to be questioned in Denver? Is "my actions in 2006" a hypnotic device to lull a once-sonambulant, Big Media back to sleep?

Edwards' precisely-worded, "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," is interesting.

The Enquirer previously reported, in its August 11 print edition, that Edwards had refused to take a DNA test.

National Enquirer Editor-in-Chief, David Perel, appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and was direct.

That's true. We know that Rielle believes that he is the father. And Mr. Edwards today, in his own statement, said he did not take a paternity test. He's now saying that he will take one. We've asked him for months if he would take one and he's ignored that request.

Perel also touched on various claims Edwards made in his statement.

Blitzer: What happens, David, if he does take the paternity test and it doesn't match and it shows he is not the father?

Perel: We'll publish that. I've made the offer to him repeatedly: take a paternity test, whatever the results are, we'll publish it. He has refused to do that, as he's been calling this story lies and tabloid trash and lying to the American public. Unfortunately, I think the only reason he came forward and admitted the affair is because we did catch him at the hotel meeting on July 21 and we did publish a photograph this week in the National Enquirer showing him holding the baby.

We can also reveal that in addition to that meeting, he met at the same hotel a month before with Rielle Hunter and the baby, so his actions are what counts. His words have proven not to be credible.

Blitzer: I guess a lot of people question the reporting of the "National Enquirer," in part, David, because you pay sources for information, is that right?

Perel: Wolf, we do pay sources for information after it checks out as credible and accurate. I think, in retrospect, nobody can deny the accuracy of these stories. We've been reporting on the affair for about 10 months now. He says his statements were 99 percent truthful and yet he told the American public while running for the highest office in the land that he did not have an affair, that these were lies, lies? This is a character issue, and he still insists he's 99 percent truthful?

I think the truest thing that he said today in his statement was when he admitted that he's narcissistic.

Edwards' peculiar wording only leads to more questions.

"[T]ruly hopeful that a test will be done"?

"[A]m and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby"?

After a week's seclusion, why these two phrases, particularly the ambiguous second one? Why not the more simple and direct, "I will submit DNA for a paternity test"?



Doubts

DBKP is not the only ones who harbor doubts about the Edwards' statements. The National Enquirer also expressed skepticism at the claims made by Edwards.

Shortly after ABC announced Edwards' Nightline appearance, the Enquirer, at its website published "JOHN EDWARDS ADMITS AFFAIR!".

The article was short, direct and, as stated, skeptical.

Perhaps the Enquirer was referring to Edwards' claim that "Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family," when it revealed that "His wife had not known about the [Beverly Hilton] meeting."

What did the Enquirer have to say about Edwards' claims that he had "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 denied paying Hunter to keep her silent but said it may be possible friends or supporters of his made the payments.

Edwards says he will now investigate any possible hush money payoffs.

Obviously, the Enquirer was thinking of another famous self-investigation: O.J. Simpson's famous "I will find the real killers".

Following clues left in this week's Enquirer, DBKP [John Edwards Scandal: Is Fred Baron the Enquirer ‘Hush Money Man’?] and Doug Ross [Rumors Run Wild: Is Fred Baron the Wallet for John Edwards Scandal] both speculated Thursday about the identity of the man the Enquirer says "funneled hush money" to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young.

Today, Fred Baron, came forward, talking to the Dallas Morning News: [Dallas lawyer Fred Baron paid for Edwards' mistress to relocate]

Dallas lawyer Fred Baron, who helped bankroll the former North Carolina senator's presidential run, told The Dallas Morning News that he paid for the woman, Rielle Hunter, to leave Chapel Hill, N.C., because she was being hounded by tabloids.

Mr. Baron, who was chairman of the Democrat's campaign finance committee in 2004 and 2008, said Mr. Edwards didn't know about his aid to Ms. Hunter.

Two comments to a Radar story also speculated that the Enquirer's money man could be Baron or ex-Dallas Mavericks coach, Don Nelson.

Forced to endure John Edwards' "tabloid trash" attacks--Edwards repeatedly played the "tabloid card" during his interview in lieu of answering Brian Woodruff's questions--the Enquirer, at last, answered back.

As far as being the father of Hunter's love child, you might as well go all the way now, Johnny Boy.

Submit to a DNA test.

By the way what was it you said about The ENQUIRER's journalistic chops when the main stream media was silent until we gave them more than a smoking gun by dropping a bomb on August 6?

Oh yeah - "Tabloid Trash."

Leaving readers to conclude that John Edwards and The National Enquirer are engaged in a high-stakes game of "chicken".

Sounds like the Enquirer isn't going to blink first. Does the Enquirer believe Edwards "came clean", as some reports claim? Their closing sentence holds a hint.

The JOHN EDWARDS "CONFESSION" AIRS TONIGHT 11:30 PM ON NIGHTLINE (ABC).


The country may very well prove to be the Two Americas that John Edwards' referred to in his aborted presidential campaign--but in a very different way than he meant.

One America that believes the "tabloid trash" of The National Enquirer and another that believes John Edwards, The "99% Honest" Man.

A man who, it may be argued, has yet to take that first step to any hope of a political recovery.

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer

Larry Sinclair's Obama Allegations: MSM Has Plenty of Practice Ignoring Certain Stories

YouTube Suppressing the Popularity of the Sinclair Video?

After a hard day of non-reporting, the watchdog reporters of the Mainstream Media
like to gather to compare the notes they didn't take.

Larry Sinclair Files Federal Suit against Obama

Robert Novak Hinted at Sinclair's Allegations in October

Larry Sinclair has filed a federal suit against Barack Obama and others for harassment since the gay man released his video on YouTube alleging that the Senator from Illinois and Sinclair shared gay sex and cocaine in the back of a limo in Gurnee, IL in 1999.

Larry Sinclair's federal lawsuit against Obama
[Click on images to enlarge.]

But don't expect to see anything in the MSM.

That would mean that they would have to explain why the suit was filed. That would mean that they would have to lift their "black out" of the Sinclair story.

The Larry Sinclair story about Barack Obama continues to get the silent treatment from the MSM.

To us, that is the real story of the affair.

We watched as the MSM judiciously ignored hard cold facts collected in the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child story by the National Enquirer. It appears that Obama will get the same courtesy.

Now this morning, Big Head DC claims that YouTube, which is owned by Google, has attempted to suppress the popularity of Larry Sinclair's video allegations about Obama.

As reported in DBKP's "Obama: Larry Sinclair Claims Gay Sex, Drugs in 1999 with Barack", Sinclair says in the videos that he used cocaine with Sen. Barack Obama and performed a sex act on him in 1999.

Big Head DC:

Suppressing the videos’ prominence would dramatically affect the number of YouTubers who actually see them. The view count of Sinclair’s main video has increased by over 100,000 in the last week, but the video is not listed in the YouTube “Most Viewed List” for this week. Also, the “Daily,” “Weekly” and “Monthly Honors” for “Most Discussed” videos on the site have not been updated in recent days. The Sinclair video has substantially more comments and views (about 350,000 as of this writing) than many other popular news and politics videos.

BHDC says that Google hasn't responded to the website's request for comment.

BHDC also notes that the founders of Google, the parent company of YouTube, have stated publicly that they are Obama supporters.

At least Google's owners are honest about it.

That's easier to take than the repeated bleatings from a Mainstream press that maintains--in the face of all evidence, studies, common sense and 40 years of history--that it is an impartial conduit of the news.

Instead of the Liberal-Left mouthpieces that they are.

The only thing that saves the MSM from being complete tools is that every once in awhile, a bright, ambitious reporter bucks the MSM herd instinct and reports on a story the rest have "blacked out".

In the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter story, the MSM not only ignored the facts, but refused to even pose one, single question about any of the facts collected by others who did some digging on the story.

A highly-trained MSM watchdog reporter
takes up the challenge of the Obama story.

Rielle Hunter still continues to be a popular item in stories on DBKP--three months after the Enquirer unearthed the former Edwards' campaign worker's pregnancy and the subsequent moving of her into a gated community five miles from Edwards campaign headquarters--in a house owned by an Edwards backer.

Driving a car owned by Edwards former finance director.

The only words written about these surprising revelations were to attack anyone who did find the information surprising.

In effect, the vaunted MSM--the "watchdogs of the press"--served as Edwards' attack poodles.

At least they have some practice for a reprise of the role on the Larry Sinclair story.

Admittedly, there is much less to go on in the Obama affair than there was in the Edwards Love Child story. But, the fact is: the MSM were all over Fred Thompson using an airplane from a buddy who had a decades-old drug conviction last fall.

Now, that was a scandal!

At this moment, no one outside of Obama and Sinclair know whether this occurred or not. But when the Mainstream press is curiously un-curious about a scandal, it always means that there's a Democrat involved.

But do expect a modicum of coverage in the coming days.

That will be when the MSM blogs attack the very idea of anyone giving credence to the story. They will have no more proof than anyone outside of Sinclair and Obama, but they'll deliver their verdicts on bloggers who attempt to report on the matter.

Sinclair filed a federal suit against Obama and others for harassment after the video was released.



Back in October, Robert Novak reported:

“Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.”

At the time, it was speculated that this was the story the LA Times supposedly had done major work on and was squashing.



Hard news consists of facts. Some here are a few facts for MSM "reporters".

1 Larry Sinclair has filed a federal lawsuit against a major Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama.

2 Larry Sinclair is going to submit to a polygraph on the matter. He called on Obama to do the same.

3 The MSM has zealously refused to let any mention of Larry Sinclair grace a front page or newscast.

The Mainstream press gives more coverage to UFO conspiracy theories than it does to a federal lawsuit being filed against a Democrat presidential candidate.

There is more coverage to "man-made climate change" theories in a day--during one of the coldest winters in decades--than there has been coverage of Rielle Hunter and Larry Sinclair combined, in weeks.

So: people with computers will continue to search on their own for the news the MSM refuses to provide. That includes any mention of Rielle Hunter, and now, Larry Sinclair.

MSM stocks continue to go down, MSM advertising continues to fall, MSM ratings and circulation continue their spiral downward and MSM news bureaus continue to close.

And MSM staffs continue to be cut. Excuses are made for all the MSM cutbacks and various reasons and theories are posited for their happening. But the MSM staff cuts are particularly easy to understand.

After all, why would anyone pay reporters not to report?

DBKP John Edwards Love Child Library Over 25 stories on the story the MSM continues to not report, the curious goings-on between John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a former producer hired by Edwards to produce a campaign video--which disappeared after Hunter became pregnant.

by Mondoreb
images:
* smokinggun
* doganswers
Sources:
* DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library
* YouTube Suppressing Larry Sinclair Obama Video?
* LA Times Sitting on an Explosive Prez Candidate Story?
* Obama: Larry Sinclair Claims Gay Sex, Drugs in 1999 with Barack



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.