Anti-Strib, SayAnything, and others are linking to an Enquirer article that claims that the National Enquirer caught John "Silky Pony" Edwards in an LA hotel at 2 am with a paramour and their love child. Now ordinarily, I wouldn't see fit to line a bird cage with the Enquirer, but this one I tend to believe, at least in part.
Why? Because John Edwards is one of the nation's premier litigators, and the Enquirer would have to be flat out insane to risk a libel suit from him if they don't have proof that he was, in fact, in that hotel with the woman noted.
Benster and D Pick Your Games-----Phil Longo Is Finally Gone Edition
-
I am so glad that the Badgers fired Longo. He is one of the worst
assistant coaches I have ever seen one of my teams hire, and I hope that
the Badgers c...
1 hour ago
8 comments:
Re: Because John Edwards is one of the nation's premier litigators, and the Enquirer would have to be flat out insane to risk a libel suit from him if they don't have proof
Excellent point.
By the way ... I wish I had hair! (Like Edwards or anybody else!) :)
Counter-balance -- if the story about the pregnancy was reported by the Enquirer back in December, and hasn't gotten legs before now even among bloggers and partisan operatives, it's hard to believe that it has even a shred of credibility.
Your point about Edwards being a litigator is a good one, but to me, the above weighs pretty heavily against it. Besides, if there's little credibility to the report, suing over it brings it to the surface.
Then there's the idea that a woman outside of an institution would believe that "being tired of living a lie" would work as a motivation for John Edwards. (snark)
Good points--though Edwards has been more or less out of the race since that time for lack of interest in his ideas.
Especially good is the "why bring it up in a suit if it's not credible?" point. I'm just not convinced that any sane legal department would trust that for protection when the target of the article is one of the best lawyers in the country. You gamble wrong, you lose BIG in that case for an article not that many people are interested in.
Of course, maybe those NE lawyers are in the same institution as the alleged paramour most of the time? ;^)
He's been out of the race, which certainly diminishes his size as a target, but it's still hard to imagine the really fervid gossip-mongers of right passing it up entirely if it were well-founded -- especially since he keeps trying to rear his somewhat less-ugly head in the political world.
If nothing else, Drudge hasn't even MENTIONED it until now? That tells me something right there.
Having said all that, I don't have any difficulty believing that the substance of the report could be true. I just think there are reasons to question its credibility before committing myself.
Okay, I'm beginning to come around. Here's what tipped me:
Edwards was asked about this by a reporter today. His response?
"I would never do that to my wife."
Nope.
"There is absolutely no truth to that report."
Uh, no.
"I'm here to help people."
BINGO!
When a politician answers a personal question with a deflection to his "message," you really start to worry. OTOH, after all these years of lawyering and politicking, that kind of answer might be Edwards' natural response even where he's clean. But you do have to wonder.
the story was out in dec, true, but i think the press didnt have the proof it needed.
either that, or 'she' was paid off big time by silky john to stay quiet.
as for me: i belived it then. and do now.
Pentamom, I was hoping YOU would persuade ME of your original point of view! Darnit! :^)
I still hope that I'm wrong; nobody should go through this kind of thing. That noted, evidence is evidence.....
Edwards....thank God we're saved from him.
Post a Comment