Posted on 08/13/2008 3:51:47 PM PDT by goldstategop
The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby.
The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.
Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.
Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.
I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."
As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."
With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.
Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!
For example, when the cops found DNA on the murdered body of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Conn., the Kennedy suspect, Michael Skakel, suddenly remembered he had been up in a tree that night masturbating! (Talk about a tree-hugger.) You can see how something like that could slip your mind.
After Teddy Kennedy plunged his car off the Chappaquiddick Bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and then failed to report the accident for nine hours, Kennedy admitted he had driven off the bridge -- but said he was in a state of shock for the next nine hours, preventing him from reporting the submerged car with a woman trapped in it.
Indeed, Kennedy was so disoriented he was barely able to dream up a highly unlikely alibi.
The historical parallel to Edwards' pincer move with Rielle Hunter is that Kennedy ostentatiously demanded a full investigation –- while the Kopechne family stoutly objected to an autopsy of their daughter.
According to Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore, the evidence suggested that Kopechne died gasping for breath in the car while Teddy Kennedy was busy trying to convince various people to say that they were driving his car.
There were lots of houses nearby with lights on, but Kennedy avoided them after he escaped from the car, so he could sneak back to his hotel undetected and begin establishing an alibi. Evidently, Kennedy is better than Edwards at sneaking into and out of hotels.
If Mary Jo had suffocated, then she had been alive for hours after the car plunged into the water. But an autopsy was required to determine whether Kopechne had drowned or suffocated.
Both the coroner and the diver who retrieved Mary Jo's body from the car believed Mary Jo had suffocated, not drowned. The diver found her body contorted in the back of the submerged car as if she had been trying to press her face into the last air pocket in the car. The coroner concluded there wasn't enough water in Mary Jo's body to indicate a drowning.
But for the first time in Massachusetts history, no autopsy was performed in a possible manslaughter case. Mary Jo was buried within about an hour of her body being pulled out of the channel under the Chappaquiddick Bridge.
Naturally, Kennedy wanted a thorough investigation -- to clear his name! -- but the Kopechnes absolutely refused to consent to an autopsy of their daughter. What more could he do? The Kopechnes' lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, refused to say who was paying him to fight the autopsy.
Similarly, Edwards aggressively offered to take a paternity test, knowing that the New Age hippie chick who still thinks she's going to marry him would not hurt him by allowing a paternity test. Edwards certainly is adept at reading stupid women, or as his campaign called them, "the base."
Democrats are always claiming to have the Kennedy magic, but, once again, another Kennedy-wannabe falls short. To be a real Kennedy, John, you have to kill her.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“stupid women” = Edward’s base!
LOL!
I was wondering when we were going to hear from Ann. :-). Knew it would be good.
Just another Monica Lewinski. She threw herself at him and there was just nothing he could do to resist. The pull of her was just much stronger than him wanting to be President. I think the character of the man is pretty clear.
The funny part about the DNA thing is that any snoopy reporter can just find a sippy cup used by the child, then compare it with Edwards DNA, left behind on one of his sippy cups.
Even funnier, they can *say* they did it, without having actually done it.
The only way to prove that the child *isn’t* Edwards’, is a DNA test.
Haw haw.
They do that stuff on CSI all the time!
While admitting the affair, Edwards denied he fathered the woman’s child. “We only had ‘unconventional’ sex, so there’s no way I could be the father of that baby,” he insisted.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Ping to read later
I do not believe Ann Coulter likes John Edwards very much.
In no small part because Edwards, who claims to represent the enlightened branch of the Democrat party harking back to the days of Camelot, does not have the moxey of a Kennedy, who would have had the woman killed.
Not just a sleazebag, but a wuss as well.
If it’s wendesday night it must be time for an Ann Coulter column.
And he calls himself a rat? Where was he the day that Clinton covered this in class.
It wasn't sex!
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
Zing!
Edwards is the perfect example of “white trash”.
Ann’s just mad that it was a woman.
Apparently, the aura of his chakras clued her in he was the Second Coming of Gandhi. In other words, he had a mystical boner in the bar when they met, the karmic sign of "old souls" destined for "transformative" leadership in the Age of Aquarius. Only problem, he'll have to wait until the next Age of Aquarius. Roughly, 26,000 years.
.jpg)
Meanwhile, they will have to forward the channelled messages and advice from the Great Gazoo to Obama.
It is becoming a strange part of police procedure, since there is little case law so far.
For example, a recent case was of police trolling a cafe, taking pictures of a suspect with a plastic drinking cup, then collecting the cup to get his DNA. They found DNA that matched “wanted” DNA, and had a photo of the suspect using the cup. So they arrested him.
This was done because when the police had pulled in that suspect, his lawyer told him to not drink or eat anything the police gave him, so they could not obtain DNA from any implement he used. So they began to track the suspects activities, hoping to get a sample from discarded garbage.
Police have long been able to root through your trash, once you put it out on the curb. And though this can’t be used to associate DNA with you in particular, it is again probable cause to search your premises and you.
There is such an absence of law that even private companies are now providing similar services. For example, if a man suspects that a woman’s child might be his, they can obtain a sample of the child’s DNA from trash, and discreetly let him know. This is if he is concerned that he might be accused of being the child’s father. Only he will know for sure. If he is, he might just decide to pick up and move somewhere else without warning. It’s hard to make paternity stick without getting some of his DNA, several States away.
But the real zinger is that the data points used for DNA might be unacceptably flawed. Typically in court, the number is bandied about that a false DNA match has odds “13 Billion to one against”.
However, a recent survey of just the Arizona prison system started by finding a DNA match in two unrelated prisoners, one white and the other black. Subsequent tests showed over a dozen DNA matches just in that prison system alone.
This means that DNA identification may be useless. Importantly, this could ruin tens of thousands of criminal cases in the US alone.
Dang. I love Ann.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.