Just how do you explain Kucinich?

Perhaps some of us remember gravely breaking up with a girlfriend on Thursday then calling her on Saturday for a date. So did I break up with her?

A lawyer once wrote (I think it was Robert Shapiro) that the trick to lying under oath is to conceive of a reasonable lie, one that the liar can accept as true, and then say it over and over until the lie takes on the character of truth. At that point, is the liar still lying?

I think it’s interesting that Edwards seems to have taken this approach. He denounced the Enquirer’s articles complete lies because they contained some perceived inaccuracies. I imagine that if he can recall some moment in time when he merely regretted some aspect of his affair with Hunter, or if he ever left her doorstep without a firm date for their next assignation, or if he ever said the words “We better cool it, Baby,” he can bring himself to honestly argue in his timeline that he did stop the affair long before Hunter was aware of it.

The only reason I bring this up is because if there is ever a chance that he could be appointed Attorney General, this is the kind of law and professional integrity that he will bring to the position. And that’s especially chilling.

Pelosi’s Politburo

Orson Buggeigh on August 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Pelotburo! Nice!

First, let’s tackle the general question of infidelity and political office. We can assume that politicians as a class commit infidelities at least at the same general rate as the rest of the population, and perhaps even greater than that, given the expanded opportunities afforded them. Obviously, this becomes more of a risk at higher levels of politics, but the truth is that we elect human beings to office, and not saints — as Congress reminds us in so many ways. Is it really any of our business what they do outside of working hours?

True, we elect other humans to office, not saints. But the Edwards scandal is just another example of why I don’t think it’s too much to expect our politicians to stay faithful to their spouses. It’s a mess. Now, not only did he cheat on his wife, but he may be indicted for misuse of campaign funds. Not only can no one trust him again, but it shows a weakness of character that he can be blackmailed, exploited, or manipulated. Why is it too much to expect our politicians to have some morals, some immunity to this garbage?

For the National Enquirer, this is not over. Edwards still denies paternity-even offering to take a test to determine if he is or is not the father of the child. Of course, he knows that the decision to allow the baby to be tested rests with Rielle Hunter-the same woman who is reportedly being paid $15,000 a month according to the Enquirer. She has now come out and stated that there will be no test, hardly a surprise.

But whether John Edwards fathered a love child with Rielle Hunter is not the main issue here. The real issue is the money that (according to the Enquirer) has been paid to Ms Hunter. That would involve money used to relocate her to Chapel Hill, North Carolina and subsequently to Santa Barbara, California. That would include the purported $15,000 a month. What about any funds paid to Andrew Young, the former Edwards aide, who claimed paternity and kept Hunter living nearby in the same gated community in Chapel Hill? Where has all that alleged money come from? We know that Fred Baron, former finance director of Edwards’ presidential campaign, has admitted paying for Hunter’s move to Santa Barbara to get her away from the prying eyes of reporters. According to Baron, the money was his own and paid without Edwards’ knowledge. Have funds been disguised to hide their true source?

All of which may or may not be true, but it appears that someone has some very deep pockets. If the Enquirer allegation about the money is true (and Baron has corroborated part of it), there may be criminal violations. What criminal violations you ask?

If it comes out that campaign money/contributions were used to funnel to Ms Hunter, then there would surely be a violation of federal election law and/or McCain-Feingold. Let’s say you sent money to Edwards’ campaign. How would you feel if that money were used to provide support to Rielle Hunter and her child? Or to relocate her to North Carolina and later to California?

It is now a case of follow the money. Hopefully, the FBI and/or the Federal Election Commission will launch an investigation. Hopefully, they will interview the persons involved, subpoena bank records, bring folks into the grand jury, put them under oath and all that other good stuff.

Who knows? Maybe the MSM will assign their ace investigative reporters to get to the bottom of it. Or maybe, they will just roll over, go back to sleep, and let the Enquirer show them up again.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Leo Robin and Albert Von Tilzer

To politics? No way.

To the Fluzie? Sounds like she’s waiting for him.

To Mrs. Edwards? Now that girl needs a good divorce lawyer. In the time she has left, she can make sure that her kids get half of Silky’s estate regardless of what happens with the fluzie.

Read Ann’s column, with clarity on the liberal hypocrisy that can’t be denied.

I think the thing which could end his career is if he is shown to have been using campaign funds to pay Miss Hunter’s living expenses, and possibly the whole question of her contract can be exposed as a pay-off to avoid blackmail. I suspect the MSM isn’t going to work overtime to investigate either of those issues, any more than they will examine and accurately report on why they ignored l’affaire Edwards to begin with. And anyone who thinks the Democratic Party, the so-called party of good government, will be holding congressional hearings on Edwards’ use of campaign funds in Pelosi’s Politburo is delusional. Yes There SHOULD be a congressional investigation. But you know the probability of that is slim to none.

If the guys with the most chips want you back you are rehabilitated. Like Clinton.

The question I have been working on is why Edwards was outed now, before the convention. It was the Enquirer, a Clinton weapon, but someone set it up for them.

There is the Brian Ross/Jake Tapper item about the Clintonista anger at Edwards for sucking up primary votes that would have let her win instead of Obbie.

Similar to the game played in the GOP to put McCain on top

The Clintons could have just killed him for the heck of it

Or, was Edwards massaged like Huckabee to think he was running on his own? Let him out of his pen in the primaries to suck votes and feed him to the Clintons later before he sticks on the ticket

Or, Edwards could be the chump who thought he was running the show. Give me the VP and I will give you the Presidency. OK sucker we are shaking in our boots

The one thing you can guarantee is Edwards was not working for Hillary

That means whoever pulled the trap door under his feet was not a Clintonista. They just finished him off.

It could be Obama but my opinion of Obama as a player is very very low. Obama, like Edwards, fits the useful idiot category

The Clintons are players, but who are they really playing against?

Can John Edwards come back?

Shame! Come back, shame!

Can John Edwards come back?

.
Come back to what? Was he ever anywhere to begin with?

Under normal circumstances, should infidelity be a disqualifier?

It as far as I’m concerned. It’s up to the individual voter to decide. I have real problems with men who cheat on their wives for whatever reason. It shows a distinct lack of loyalty and fidelity. Edwards, Clinton, et al, stood before God and man and swore fidelity to their wives for the rest of their lives. At the first oppurtunity they broke that vow. If a politician cant keep his word to his wife, then how can I expect him to keep his vow to uphold and defend the Constitution? How can he credibly keep his word to the people that voted for him?
I also believe in redemption. If he and his wife patch things up and get on with their lives, if he “goes and sins no more” then I’m fine with that and I’d give him another chance and vote for him. But as a voter I’d like to see some convincing repentance.

(1) Edwards is not the father, and Rielle Hunter knows it. A paternity test (assumed to be administered by a reliable, independent company) would prove that fact and end all this speculation. She, and Edwards, would have the test taken ASAP, just to be done with it all.

(2) Edwards may be the father, and Rielle Hunter doesn’t want the true paternity discovered, for some reason (future blackmail? “just leave us alone” mentality?)

(3) Edwards is the father, and Rielle Hunter knows it and has been paid off. It’s possible that she’s nuts and wants this hanging over her and her daughter’s heads for the rest of her life, but a caring mother wouldn’t want that for her child. Neither would a caring father.

(4) Edwards is the father, and Rielle Hunter is just denying it to spite him. Can some legal mind tell us whether or or not a suspected father can demand a court ordered paternity test to prove or disprove his paternity?