Posted on 08/10/2008 2:39:43 PM PDT by pissant
The confession of John Edwards was, to me, worthy of attention for a few reasons, but not worthy of endless analysis. The guy's chances at being Obama's running mate or attorney general are shot to hell.
Having said that... there are at least two glaring questions that suggest Edwards' explanation consists of additional lies. (Besides his claim that the affair started after she was hired by his PAC, and not before, which appears to be contradicted by the PAC billing records.)
If the affair ended in 2006, why were Edwards and Hunter meeting in the Beverly Hills Hilton from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. last month? Beyond that... if the child is not his, why did she bring the baby to their late-night meeting?
The official Edwards explanation is that he met, without telling Elizabeth, for a secret meeting at a luxury hotel room from 9:45 p.m to 2:40 p.m., in order to not have sex, while a friend took care of the child in a room several doors down (according to the Enquirer's account), and that after they had spent time together in the room not having sex, he told her, "hey, let's bring in your infant that I am not the father of, I would be happy to caress the adorable little child that I did not sire." Because philanderers are legendarily concerned about the offspring of their ex-mistresses.
Edwards, helpfully, says he has no idea if the Enquirer's picture of him holding the child is real or not:
Last week, the Enquirer published a blurry photo of a man who looks like Edwards holding a baby. The tabloid said the photo was taken at the hotel.
"I don't know if that picture is me," Edwards said. "It could well be. It looks like me. I don't know who that baby is. I have no idea what the picture is."
When pressed by Woodruff, Edwards continued: "I mean, do you know how many pictures have been taken of me holding children in the last three years? I mean, it happens all the time."
This man thinks we're stupid. And some people are indeed buying this.
Their are two American housholds...one visited in a hotel late at night.
If Edwards is speaking, he is lying.
If Pelosi is speaking she is lying.
If Clinton is speaking, he/she is lying.
If Obama is speaking, he is lying.
Most Americans get it.
Democrats = Liars.
(very well stated and worth repeating!)
Edwards - “It was me......before it wasn’t me.....”
I believe the NE pointed out that the curtains in the background of the father and child photo are the exact same fabric as curtains in other rooms at that hotel and this is their proof that it wasn’t just some campaign stop photo being recycled.
We’ll, he thinks Demwits are stupid anyway. And rightly so.
What a crock; too bad Wooduff did not laugh in his face, slap his knee; roaring 'you have got to be kidding'. . .because, otherwise, for the most part; he is escaping, for now, the silver bulllet. . .which is all he needs to do for the time being.
"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
I thot the tackiest of all his tacky statements on this was, “But I didn’t love her.” Ahhh, to libs that makes all the difference? NO, that just makes him infinitely tackier.
From NRO....
One of Edwards’ earlier moves [Mona Charen]
This is from The Charlotte Observer explaining why even John Kerry had to hold his nose around John Edwards:
Shrum, then a Kerry advisor, said in a 2007 book that Kerry had qualms. Edwards, he wrote, told Kerry he was going to confide something he’d never told a soul: that after his son Wade had died, “he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service …
“Kerry was stunned, not moved,” Shrum wrote. “As he told me later, Edwards had recounted the exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before – and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else.”
What do you want to bet that every word and every dirty deed
that was said or done in that Hilton Hotel Room was recorded and video taped that night by or for THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER and S**tforBrains Edwards hasn’t figured that out yet!! Bet also that THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER has the results of the Paternity Test proving the babie’s father is Edwards.
Edwards makes a Rock look Intelligent by Comparison! Says alot about Our Justice and Jury Systems that they were conned by Edwards, the Snakeoil Salesman.
There is absolutely NO Sympathy for Elizabeth regarding her sleezeball husband, she earned and deserves him including his lifetime supply of BRECK Girlieboy Shampoo!!!
Probably when the Truth comes out about Obama Osama HUSSEIN, Edwards will look like a Saint in comparison to Obie!!
:-)
If the affair ended in 2006, why were Edwards and Hunter meeting in the Beverly Hills Hilton from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. last month? Beyond that... if the child is not his, why did she bring the baby to their late-night meeting?
____________________
Let’s see now. He left his wallet with her in 2006 and just discovered it missing while in Beverly Hills meeting with former campaign workers. Remembering that she probably had the wallet he called her and asked if she’d bring it to the hotel. Knowing it was late he offered suggested she stay there so she wouldn’t be inconvenienced with a late night round trip. um, um there is more but I can’t recall the exact details now.
I don't know, a 3 million dollar house and that $100,000 documentary payment sure sounds like a payment to me. More than most kids get anyhoo.
Its reported Rielle complained that Edwards liked to brag about how big he was, but all she ever saw was roughly 5 and 3/4ths, Oh Well????
“Edwards was lying through his lip glossed lips. “
That would be his glossed, lover lips...
I'm curious if there has been any statement by the National Enquirer or even speculation vis a vis the method used to shoot the photo. It had to be done without Edward's knowledge unless he is a complete idiot.
Any ideas anyone?
Blurryness in an image can result from more than one cause. Here are some:
It's possible that the picture in question was taken by someone in a hurry or someone who didn't know how to operate the camera. That someone might not have had enough time to focus the camera. On the other hand, most cameras these days are auto-focus; even cheapie digital cameras do a very nice job of acquiring focus automatically in just a split second, even under low-light conditions.
As to the second reason, camera or subject motion, that's easy to eliminate because motion blurring has a characteristic appearance; that was certainly not the case in the image I saw.
The third possibility is intriguing. One reason there could have been "insufficient resolving power" might be that the person who operated the camera was at great distance, and that the image was "blown up" from a tiny region of the actual, or "native," image data.
But if this were the case, you would expect that the image would have been taken from outdoors, through a window, for example. Any normal camera and optical setup would generate plenty of resolution if camera and subject were both in the same room.
And this leads us to the interesting possiblility.
Lack of "sufficient resolving power" can also result from the utilization of a very, very small optical system. I have personally seen imaging equipment in which the objective, or front, lens was on the order of one millimeter in diameter. There may be equipment even smaller than that (the device I saw -- I wouldn't describe it as a camera, exactly -- cost about $50K).
The device I saw could have been used to image a room through a tiny, tiny hole in a wall or fixture. The hole would have been so small that one would literally have had to examine every wall and object in the room with a magnifying glass to find it; from a distance, it would look like a dark speck if it were visible at all.
FWIW, I've heard rumors about devices that are the diameter of a hypodermic needle, but I haven't eyeballed any such instrument.
The reason I agree with that statement is because the 2 reporters, Butterfield and Hitchens, when asked where the photos were taken of Mr.Edwards holding up the baby, (the one with the sweaty blue shirt), they immediately reponded...in the Hotel room. Well there were only a couple of people in that room, from which those phots could have been snapped. It wasn't Mr. Bob McGovern. It was not Mr.Edwards. It was not the baby, Francis Quinn. That only leaves Ms.Hunter or an Esquire placed bug.
If the affair ended in 2006, why were Edwards and Hunter meeting in the Beverly Hills Hilton from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. last month?
John wanted to see how his child was doing. So he needed to discuss this with his mistress during sex
What Funeral Home would allow someone to jump up on a slab to hug and talk to a dead body, especially one that had been torn apart in a horrible fatal car accident? How long after death was this supposid seance held! This Jerk is mentally sick and deranged and HE IS ONE OF THE BEST THE RATS HAVE???????? Sure dont want to see the worst! !Kucinich? Gurbin? Dodd? Kennedy? Pelosi? Gosh Awful Nightmare!!
Of course he thinks we’re stupid. He’s a Democrat.
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.