Graham, what does whether Nixon was set up or not have to do with any of this?

And your stuff about "symmetry" and the connection you make is of course totally unsupported.

BTW, that was the point that I skipped, not the other stuff you seem to be suggesting. I addressed those things.

the story that doesn't die...and the key question still is is Hillary part of this ...

all these stories show, I am not the only one to question and see the importance of this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/13/11.../241/230/567258

The Edwards Disaster Is Not Going Away.
by Poobah
Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:25:27 AM PDT
It’s getting worse, and it can cast a pall over the Democratic convention and our nominee.

If there’s one thing we learned about John Edwards watching Rielle Hunter’s video of the candidate reveling in his belief in himself as bullshitter-par-excellence, it’s that this man has no problem lying - even when he’s "leveling."

Poobah's diary :: ::
In Edwards’ bizarre ABC interview intended to damage-control the fiasco, his cavalier and downright creepy lying only opened up the door for further investigation, and his story stinks to high heavens. Most disturbing of all (and dangerous to the rest of our party) are the obvious questions of where Edwards got all the money to bankroll his affair with Hunter.

Now the publication that broke and followed this story, that Edwards called "completely untrue" and "tabloid trash" while running for President and afterwards, has even MORE revelations on this revolting candidate.

The National Enquirer reports that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national television.

Where is this money coming from? Campaign finances? You can be damn sure Edwards and his campaign, and perhaps the DNC, will be investigated because of this. THIS will be the big convention story.

The Enquirer also reports that:

"After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant."

"Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle."

"Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds."

I know, I know. It’s the National Enquirer – a big "expletive deleted"ing joke. Let’s all smirk and pretend this isn’t true - the same way so many here on Daily Kos and in the mainstream media pretended that Edwards’ extramarital affair was "tabloid trash" until it was confirmed by Edwards.

John Edwards is destroying what should be a time to focus on Barack Obama and the Denver convention. You can bet the Edwards disaster, and his continued lying – pouring lies upon lies – will cast a black cloud over Denver and all Democrats. And that’s assuming there aren't campaign finance violations involved, which seems VERY unlikely given the payoff amounts and durations involved.

Will Elizabeth be putting up another insulting post here on DKos pissily admonishing us to turn a blind eye and put our heads in the sand as John Edwards sullies our party and its nominee?

Graham, your entry here says nothing about Hillary.

Actually I would expect at least one or two people in cyberland besides you would also connect this to Hillary, but I'm seriously thinking that you haven't found anyone yet.

Anyway, the connection is logically unlikely in the extreme, even if people make it because of obsessive Clinton hatred. And that is the real point.

Hillary is not the main point though

a major crime has possibly been committed, which is why this story needs to be investigated and followed
through

and see who put the info out

because we are dealing with lots of liars here, and these people are still lying

And if it tears down both Edwards, well, the truth can set them free, but more lies can't

You could possibly sneak into pet stores and rape puppies, it needs to be investigated!

Either that's fair and your name and address needs to be publicized with the story on a daily basis or you know what a crock your blathering is.

When there is what looks to be major money being paid to silence two people, and now witnesses say Edwards knows about the hush money,
those are crimes

If the money came from campaign money, it is a federal crime

blackmail is a federal crime

and the people who donated to Edwards should file a class action law suit and demand their money back... it was gotten under false pretenses

It was all a fraud.

Tom, I believe that you make a fair point here.

Do you deny thinking puppies are cute?


Do you deny having a libido?

Raping puppies is a crime!

I don't think you are right. Can you prove me wrong? Who can show it one way or the other (based on information that we know).



Ah, now you add "if" which significantly changes what you are saying! You would be right of course, but we haven't heard anything to that effect.



What makes you think Hunter is blackmailing Edwards? And don't you think she is some kind of angel?



And do you really think that you have made a persuasive case to them?



Is this a confession concerning a lot of what you have been saying here?

Which would be worse, spending campaign funds to support these activities or to learn that his
wife agreed to take it out of the family budget?

Investigate the Bush's
Investigate the Clinton's
Investicage the Edwards



Put em all in separate rooms, make them all give their stories at the exact same time under oath, then let's see the diffferent versions

and then arrest,jail,sentence, try and give punishment after they are found guilty

How is it blackmail? Isn't that when someone says they will do or say something unless they are paid off in some way? How could Edwards be accused of blackmailing anyone?

Worse to whom?

Concerning the public it would be the first. Isn't that clear?

That is my perception too. Does anyone seriously challenge this?

What would be the story, "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"? (My son likes that one.)

You're correct about blackmail (although if the claim isn't true it can be classified as extortion).

Don't expect an answer, he won't even admit he thinks puppies are cute.

If there is any black mailing, I would guess Edwards is the blackmailee.

Of course. But for Graham to acknowledge that would cause problems for his argument, unless he wants to revise it. And there is nothing wrong with making revisions to a bad argument.

he is demanding silence
from the stories it say he busted into her hotel room to make sure she did not talk
then someone gave her money to leave town? (and she was given a mega rich house to live in, and $15 grand a month

ever watch detective shows???

BTW- a Hillary and Bill pal in Arkansas, person has just been shot and in serious condition in Arkansas...there is a comment on the article I read said that the chickens are coming home to roost...
alot of strange suicides and shootings and attempts the last few weeks in many areas...strange things happening

No, I don't think the lady is the one doing anything, especially as reports say she eventually wants to marry Edwards and raise their child together...

He busted into her hotel room ......why do you make stuff up?

I saw on TV where the head of the Ar Dem party was shot and close to the same time frame another person was waving a firearm around at the Baptist Headquarters. He ran before he shot anyone and the police chased him down and shot him. I'm waiting for further details.

from reading comments, it appears the shooter was known to the different factions there.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...ts-shootin.html

Ark. Democratic Party chairman shot at Little Rock headquarters
Buzz up!Like this story? Share it with Yahoo! Buzz
The head of the Arkansas Democratic Party was hospitalized after a shooting today at his office in Little Rock, according to the Associated Press.

CNN says local police are hunting for a gunman who entered the building and fired three shots.

"There has been an incident at the party and chairman [Bill] Gwatney has been taken to the hospital," Bruce Sinclair, director of the state Democratic Party, tells AP.

Update at 1:43 p.m. ET: AP now reports that Little Rock police "shot and apprehended" the suspect.

Update at 1:47 p.m. ET: Back at the HQs, KTHV-TV reports that "[w]itnesses said one person was apparently seriously wounded and taken from the scene by ambulance." (KTHV-TV is a fellow Gannett property.)

Update at 1:48 p.m. ET: The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette says party chief Bill Gwatney was shot.

Update at 1:53 p.m. ET: A police spokesman tells CNN that the person who was shot inside the office is in critical condition. He wouldn't identify the victim.Arkansas Times has witness accounts in its blog.

Update at 2:47 p.m. ET: Police say the suspect fired three shots inside the chairman's office.

"He came in and went into this office and started shooting," police Lt. Terry Hastings tells reporters, according to AP.

Before the shooting, multiple news organizations are reporting, someone who matched the gunman's description threatened an employee of the Arkansas State Baptist Convention.

Graham, I for one need specific quotes and links before I agree with you what the stories say.

"Demanding" silence? We know that was being paid for silence. What more do we know?



This sounds like a question.



Are you going to cite episodes of "Monk" as evidence?



Strange things happen all of the time, don't they?



No, she is an angel. Wanting to marry him shows that her heart is entirely pure. Edwards probably threatened her, saying "I'd better give you $15,000 a month or you will go to the press about our affair!"

you have your views and opinions, I am free to have mine.
All the articles are posted, in this very thread...and there are others out there.
2 in NY papers from the last few days are wondering the same exact thing

Let's investigate and see if its innuendo or actually said word for word...

Just like with 9-11 official story being a sham, we need complete investigations on this

This appears to me to be one of the biggest dirtiest tricks of all time, and again, in the primaries, Hillary said something big was out there and then
Edwards quit the race
Apply logic shows she meant this story, so she knew and furthered it back then

Who else is this story helping?
you can list the people it's hurting, but only the Clinton's come to mind that it is helping. (Just ask Howard Wolfson).

This is like the rpublican bloggers knwing exactly what to look for in the CBS memo story. A complete set up.

in an odd timing- Jeff Wells has written his first blog in months
http://www.rigint.blogspot.com/
Attention Deficit World Order (Part One)

"Possibly Gilman ought not to have studied so hard. Non-Euclidean calculus and quantum physics are enough to stretch any brain; and when one mixes them with folklore and tries to trace a strange background of multi-dimensional reality behind the ghoulish hints of the Gothic tales and the wild whispers of the chimney-corner, one can hardly expect to be wholly free from mental tension."

- HP Lovecraft, The Dreams in the Witch House
The more things strange, the more I want to stay the same.

Suddenly, just when it seems UFOs are everywhere, I'd rather be nowhere. America's late-term, lame-duck housecleaning of suspicious suicides and self-inflicted gunshot wounds is in full swing, and I'd just as soon clean the porch. And I've never wanted to clean the porch. Now a new, "optimistic" estimate gives the world 100-months to forestall the tipping point of a runaway greenhouse effect, but I prefer to focus on the short term, and speculate idly upon how much ass next year's Watchmen adaptation will or will not kick.

I've been struggling for a year and a half with writing an introduction to my book. A year and a freaking half. I haven't been able to account for the missing time to my publisher, though I don't need a hypnotist to tell me where it's all gone. I have been good at stammering apologies and repeating vain promises, and revisiting false starts and bad ideas. (And naturally the blog suffered, because how could I justify spitting out posts like watermelon seeds while using the book for a spittoon?)

Maybe, in another year and a half, I'd have something to say. Maybe if I kept looking I'd eventually find a place to start. But I think it's more sensible to say I can't do it, and instead write my conclusions and stick them at the front. (And maybe even squeeze a blog post out of it at the same time.)

So here it is: they've won. Or let me rephrase that, since there will never be universal agreement as to who "they" are: we've lost.

Because life is short, even if I get another turn after this one, I'd rather not waste half of it relearning all the secret wrongs done to the world that I can't undo. So I need to know what, if anything, we get out of knowing what they get away with. And if it's so we may better "organize," then good luck and God bless us playing catch-up, since the priesthoods and kingly classes have had a 10,000 year head start.

I suppose it counts for something, that so many have been able to recognize the holes in the FBI's posthumous stitch-up of Bruce Ivins for the anthrax attacks. That we haven't jumped when they say jump to the conclusions of guilt and case closed may be some comfort to his family and colleagues, who watched Ivins break under the relentless There can be only one ethos of America's Lone Gunman. But all our reservation of judgment amounts to nothing but a sympathy card - an e-card at that - against the prosecution of a dead man who can be tried and convicted now only because he is dead and undefended.

Stalin's show trials, what was it do you think that they showed? Not that Zinoviev and Kamenev and the other Old Bolsheviks were "terrorists" and "sexual deviants" (though it is instructive how often the prosecuting state conjoins the two). Rather, they demonstrated Stalin's rule by absolute whim. That loyalty and service, innocence or guilt, afforded no protection. It was irrelevant if Soviet citizens were convinced that justice was served by their state. They just needed to note that if they demurred, there was nothing they could do about it.

Senator Patrick Leahy has a speaking part in The Dark Knight. It looks like his mouth talking, but it sounds like his ass. "We're not intimidated by you thugs," Leahy stares down the knife-wielding Joker who's crashed a political fundraiser. It was The Dark Knight's only moment for which I could not suspend disbelief, since two hundred billion particles of finely-milled anthrax were enough to erase the Senator's initial qualms concerning the Patriot Act. But I won't judge him, except as a character in a superhero movie, because I wasn't there and it wasn't me. Most of the time we don't make ourselves targets by our objections to their plans, because there's not much we could do to impede them. And besides, as the Joker later says, "Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying."

I don't have a reasonable doubt that Edgar Mitchell is telling the truth about his being briefed by government officials on Roswell and alien visitation to Earth. I have considerable doubt they were telling him the truth. Because I don't think it's part of the plan to tell the truth, of which, almost certainly, even the highest and darkest government officials would have only partial knowledge. If "disclosure" ever comes, its purpose may not be to persuade us of a lie, but rather to tell a terrifying joke.
posted by Jeff at 8/10/2008 10:22:00 PM 61 comments

Apply logic?

BOTTOM LINE-

If democrats who like Obama want change

WE must clean up our side first

We cannot demand change and clean up their side, while stuff on our side stinks to high heaven

That is the reason there is never change
People let Clinton slide, the way he let Bush41 slide and it all goes on

Investigate everything in DC
If you gotta toss everyone out, do so.

The world is more important than one senator or ex-senator, or their wife.

Investigate everything in DC?

Well Graham, it looks like you do want to investigate the guy who works next to me, to see what crimes he could have committed he actually did commit.

It keeps people from talking about puppies.

I love puppies and all animals .........I understand animal behavior much better than I do human behavior.....Graham's reasoning gives me headaches...McCain, GW, Lieberman...all give me headaches...too hard to figure.

My children love puppies. And they like Obama too! (My daughter easily switched from Hillary.)

Good choice...sound reasoning....Obama would be kind to puppies...if MCain's in one of his foul moods, who knows how he would treat a puppy that peed on his new carpet...might not be pretty....

I think Tom is right. We should investigate anyone who even just might be a threat to puppies!

Territorial conflicts never are.

I nominate Graham and Monk to head up these investigations, exposing all who might commit a crime. Nothing like nipping things in the bud before there are problems....

This is true and it is a truth that a lot of people don't want to admit. Not even Obama and his supporter, Nancy Pelosi.

Did you see the movie "Minority Report"? You had Tom Cruise working for the "Pre-crime Unit" arresting people who psychics said were about to murder someone. And they worked in Washington, DC!

No, I haven't seen the movie. Great, leave it to Hollywood to give our government ideas for stripping away more of our civil liberties....

To be fair Hollywood got the idea from a science fiction novel, I forget the author but he was one of the big ones.

Did you enjoy the movie? My husband and son are the movie buffs....if you recommend it they can order it from netflix..

If you like science fiction I would recommend it as a good, but not great movie.

Yes, and what you added is the truth.
Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY one who wanted to look into things seriously.

Edwards has handled this all about as badly as one could. First of all, any idiot would know that the tabloid media, like the National Enquirer, never publish the whole story. They string it out like the old-time movie serials. In other words they have a whole lot more yet to come...things like pictures, other clandestine meetings, lurid details, etc.


At this point the biggest problem for Edwards is not his infidelity, the floozy, or the innocent child.....His biggest problems are his cowardice and his stupidity. And its no great leap to say these two character flaws have not developed since he was democratic candidate for Vice President.

Graham, how does this picture make you feel?

they are cute (but then again so am I).
I must be missing something, because I don't get what you are saying

We need a full investigation with his name and address published in every story about it and the press needs to keep it on the front page every day.

Do it for those poor, innocent puppies!

It's okay. I'm just giving you a hard time. Yes, they are cute (and I'm sure you are, too).

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/08...atic-party.html

John Edwards: A Dud of the Democratic Party
August 12, 2008 02:40 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link


I haven't weighed in on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter/love child story, on which the heavy lifting has been done by Mickey Kaus and the heavy reporting has been done by the National Enquirer, whose first story appeared back in December 2007. Anyone who hasn't already done so can follow the links on Mickey's blog to follow the discussion on how mainstream media mostly flinched from covering this story; I've been doing so with great interest. I'm sympathetic to the argument that MSM tended to avoid the story out of sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that MSM are more hesitant in following scandal stories about Democrats than those about Republicans.

I want to make another point. One of the arguments against covering the story last month was that Edwards isn't a presidential candidate anymore. It's a weak argument: He was arguably a vice presidential possibility and was mentioned as a possible attorney general in an Obama administration. But this argument had no validity at all in December 2007, when Edwards was very much a presidential candidate with a nontrivial chance to win the Democratic nomination.

Most of the press seems to have forgotten that, and Edwards's candidacy did in fact collapse before the end of January 2008. But let's look back and see how he did in the caucuses in Iowa, where he campaigned strenuously for two years or so. The big headline out of Iowa, rightfully, was Barack Obama's victory. The second headline was Hillary Clinton's embarrassing third-place finish. Lost in the shuffle was the fact that Edwards finished second. And a fairly close second. Counting state convention delegate equivalents as the Iowa Democratic Party does, Obama had 37.58 percent of the vote, Edwards had 29.75 percent, and Clinton 29.47 percent. In fact, Clinton probably had more actual people (and Obama quite a few more actual people) attending the caucuses than Edwards did; the Iowa Democrats' representation formula favors rural counties where Edwards ran well (the link includes a map) and disfavors Polk County (Des Moines) and the university-dominated Story County (Ames) and Johnson County (Iowa City), where Obama ran very well.

Still, if not too many more thousands of Iowans had turned out for caucus night for Edwards, the headline story would have been Edwards wins Iowa caucus. And if the Rielle Hunter story had received the publicity that mainstream media, with the benefit of hindsight, now think it should have gotten, Edwards's candidacy would have cratered and Hillary Clinton might have won in Iowa. Clinton press spokesman Howard Wolfson (hat tip to Jim Geraghty, National Review Online) argues that she would have; others have argued that polls showing Iowa caucusgoers' second choices indicated that a plurality of erstwhile Edwards voters would have gone to Obama. We can't be sure of what would have happened in this counterfactual. But it seems pretty clear that a Clinton win in Iowa, followed five days later by a Clinton win in New Hampshire, probably would have sewn up the Democratic nomination for her. An Edwards win would probably have given his candidacy something of a bounce, though maybe not in New Hampshire (where in 2004 he finished a weak fourth after finishing a close second in Iowa), but quite possibly in South Carolina, where he was born, which he carried in 2004 45 percent to 30 percent over John Kerry but where he finished third with just 18 percent of the vote. Had Edwards rather than Obama have won in Iowa, black voters might not have switched from being equally divided between Obama and Edwards to being overwhelmingly for Obama. That might have helped Edwards or, more plausibly, Clinton in South Carolina and other states in the South.

The argument for allowing Iowa and New Hampshire always to host the first caucuses and the first primaries is that it forces the candidates to prove themselves in retail politics and it allows voters to assess their character and qualifications in a way that's impossible in larger (and smaller) states that vote later. I have watched Iowa audiences, good stolid folk, listen to John Edwards's identical-down-to-the-same-word stump speeches.

Edwards has long struck me as a phony through and through (more than any other presidential candidate this cycle), and I have found his riff on poverty profoundly unimpressive. His command of issues and his knowledge of history and our society have seemed exceedingly thin; say what you want about Bill Clinton's character, he has a strong intellect and wide-ranging knowledge, fine political judgment, and the capacity to learn from his mistakes. Edwards has demonstrated none of these things. Yet he came close to winning the Iowa caucuses, not once but twice. I hope his near successes there lend strength to the arguments of those, notably Michigan Sen. Carl Levin and Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell, who have urged that we not subcontract so much of our presidential decision making to Iowa caucusgoers. They nearly foisted a dud on the Democratic Party and on all of us in 2004 and 2008.

Edwards plays havoc with HOFSTRA U. SEMINAR SERIES ON POLITICS- WILL JOHN AND LIZ SHOW STILL SHOW UP?
Unlike some other appearances they have cancelled THE EDWARDS ARE BEING PAID A WHOPPING SUM TO SHOW UP...Is money more important than their privacy??? Enquiring minds
wanna know

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/l...0,6644589.story
Hofstra still expects Edwards, wife to speak on campus
BY KARLA SCHUSTER | karla.schuster@newsday.com
August 14, 2008
Hofstra University officials expect former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to keep their date to speak on campus early next month despite the couple's retreat from the public eye after Edwards admitted last week that he had an extramarital affair with a campaign videographer and lied about it.

The Edwardses, scheduled to speak on Sept. 8, are considered the headliners in a series of campus lectures, conferences and speeches leading up to Hofstra's hosting of the third and final presidential debate on Oct. 15.

But Edwards, a two-time presidential candidate and the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has seen his stock plummet since he confirmed the affair, costing him a chance to speak at the Democratic National Convention later this month and prompting him to cancel at least one other upcoming speaking engagement.

On Monday, Edwards sent word to the Harris County Democratic Party in Texas that he was withdrawing as keynote speaker for a Sept. 20 fundraiser, telling organizers that "his family and he need some time in private," according to the party's Web site.

See what's going on in and around your area >> Phone and e-mail inquiries to The Harry Walker Agency, which represents the Edwardses and booked them to appear at Hofstra, were not immediately returned yesterday. But Hofstra officials said the agency confirmed to them on Tuesday that the couple still plans to appear.

The couple's appearance fee, which the university refused to disclose, was paid for with private donations raised to underwrite the entire "Educate '08" program, which also includes appearances by Edward Rollins, the national campaign manager for former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee; former White House press secretaries Dee Dee Myers and Ari Fleischer, and former Gov. Mario Cuomo.

After denying it for months, Edwards last Friday admitted a 2006 affair with videographer Rielle Hunter. He has denied he is the father of Hunter's 5-month-old daughter, although there are questions about the paternity of the little girl and whether Edwards knew of payments to Hunter by his former campaign finance director.

He told ABC News the affair happened while his wife's cancer was in remission.

Although the event is open to the public, advance registration is required and the venue - the school's John Cranford Adams Playhouse - seats just 1,100. Those interested in attending the event must register after Aug. 25 at www.hofstra.edu/academics/ educ8/