How Evil is he?
[youtube kZ_YhM4OGkU]
The first two comments from the KOS Kids?
embarrasment
behavior that we’ve come to expect from him
he makes me sick! Bastard!
For looking at his watch? I’m Speechless…
Politics / Law Stuff | Sonicfrog August 9, 2008 | 
Comments (0)
I just read the Bob Woodruff interview with Edwards (hey, it’s Saturday, what else am I going to do) and I have some questions and comments.
Here is the first exchange in the transcript:
 BOB WOODRUFF: Senator, before we start this I just want to make it clear to our audience that you asked me to come here, and asked me to come here to talk about the reports about your personal life. Let me ask you the question, did you have an affair with Ms. Hunter?
JOHN EDWARDS: In 2006 2 years ago, I made a very serious mistake. A mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006 I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time. All of my family knows about this and just to be absolutely clear, none of them are responsible for it. I am responsible for it. I alone am responsible for it. And it led to this most recent incident at the Beverly Hilton. I was at the Beverly Hilton. I was there for a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public.
BOB WOODRUFF: Is this affair completely over?
OK. Edwards admits to being at the hotel. But there is a HUGE opening for the next question that should have been asked, something like – “Why did you have to meet Mrs. Hunter personally in a clandestine meeting? Why couldn’t you have just handled it over the phone?” This is a BIG hole in Edwards story, and you would think he, being an experienced trial lawyer, would have a better explanation than this. You would also think a reporter would dig a bit further for clarification. Instead Woodruff asks “Is the affair completely over?”
LAME! As if Edwards would admit that it was still going on. And he evades the first attempt to clarify just when the affair ended.
WOODRUFF:& How long did it last and when exactly did it end?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, here’s the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They’ve been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything. I think beyond the basics, the fact that I made this mistake and I’m responsible for it and no one else. I think that’s where it stops in terms of the public because I think everything else is within my family and those privacy boundaries ought to be respected.
Yet here you are on TV talking about the subject. That isn’t very private, is it? But lets get back to the Beverly Hills Hotel meeting. Mrs. Hunter has a child, and the suspicion is that Edwards is the father.
WOODRUFF: Have you taken a paternity test?
EDWARDS: I have not, I would welcome participating in a paternity test. Be happy to participate in one. I know that it’s not possible that this child could be mine because of the timing of events, so I know it’s not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen.
WOODRUFF: Are you going to do that soon?
EDWARDS: I’m only one side — I’m only one side of the test, but I’m happy to participate in one.
WOODRUFF: Has Miss Hunter said, she does not want to do this DNA test?
EDWARDS: I don’t know what she has said.
WOODRUFF: People say they are in contact with her, have told us that you have met her out in California several times. True?
EDWARDS: I met her this last time when I was in California for the very purpose that you and I just spoke about.
Timing of events = Edwards says the affair ended at the end of 2006, and the baby was born in Feb. 2008.
WOODRUFF: And Andrew Young has declared publicly that he is the father of the baby, of Miss Hunter.
EDWARDS: I’m aware of that.
WOODRUFF: Do you think that’s true?
EDWARDS: I don’t know.
First, notice how he slides around answering the question of the amount of times they had met in California. And let me get this straight. You met with her in the hotel for two-plus hours for the purpose of discussing the baby’s paternity, yet you don’t know if Mrs. Hunter is willing to partake in a DNA test? And you don’t know if you think it’s true that Mr. Young is the father? TWO PLUS HOURS!!! – you, a lawyer having a meeting with your mistress, who has a child, and these questions remain unanswered? How does this happen?
Later he says this about the meeting:
WOODRUFF: Did you want to control [Ms. Hunter] to some degree? In the sense that you didn’t want her to reveal this relationship?
EDWARDS: I wanted her not to tell the public what had happened. Very simple. That’s the reason I went.
So did you go to the hotel to talk about paternity (and forget to ask about her willingness to participate in DNA testing) or did you go to make sure she would keep quiet? Which is it.
And just how far would Edwards go to keep this under wraps?
WOODRUFF: There are reports that you have tried to cover up. They call it alleged hush money. That there was money paid to try, to cover up this affair. Was there?
EDWARDS: Uh, this is what I can tell you. I’ve never paid a dime of money to any of the people that are involved. I’ve never asked anybody to pay a dime of money, never been told that any money’s been paid. Nothing has been done at my request. So if the allegation is that somehow I participated in the payment of money — that is a lie. An absolute lie, which is typical of these types of publications.
WOODRUFF: I do need to tell you though through ABC investigation there has been evidence, or we’ve been told that there, [Woody baby, you work for ABC, shouldn’t you be a little more certain about the investigation?] about $15,000 a month has been paid to Miss Hunter, so that she could actually live out in California. In fact that money was from Fred Baron, who was your national finance chair. Is that correct?
EDWARDS: I don’t know. I told you just a moment ago, I know absolutely nothing about this.
WOODRUFF: You never even heard about that before?
EDWARDS: I’ve heard about it from reporters like you just in the last few days. It’s the first I hear anything about it.
Throughout the interview, Edwards shifts the onus of proof from himself to the tabloids. Problem is that the tabloids, in this case, seem to be more truthful than Edwards himself. Before this is over, Edwards is probably going to have to work hard to disprove this allegation. Here is more on the topic:
WOODRUFF: So when you see this now and you see the reporting about it and you see the information about it, are you going to try to look into this? That this is somebody doing this to cover up what happened with your affair?
EDWARDS: If you’re talking about Fred Baron, I do know Fred Baron. I also know that Fred Baron knows both of these people who are involved [Baron and Young] and has worked with them for years. So he has the relationship with them independent of me. So what he chose to do or not do, I can’t explain, he’ll have to explain. I don’t know what he did or why he did it. And what his reasons for, were, for doing it. Is it possible that he wanted to help them because they were in a difficult time? Of course. Is it possible that he was worried that in fact something had happened with me, and he wanted to help? Of course that’s possible. I think all these things are possible.
“has worked with them for years. So he has the relationship with them independent of me.”
This is more misdirection from Edwards. He makes it sound like Mrs. Hunter new both Baron and Young (the supposed father of the baby) for years before Edwards became “acquainted” with her. This is not the case. She was not introduced to Edwards by either of the two, he met her in a bar. He brought her to them. But if we take Edwards at face value here, then he has even LESS of a reason to actually meet with her. All this should now fall on the shoulders of her current “sugar daddies”, not the former one.
Edwards said that Elizabeth knows everything, absolutely everything….
WOODRUFF:& How long did it last and when exactly did it end?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, here’s the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They’ve been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything….
and
WOODRUFF: In terms of the Beverly Hilton, did Elizabeth, your wife, know you were visiting the Beverly Hilton?
EDWARDS: No.
WOODRUFF: That was a secret?
EDWARDS: You mean did I tell her before I went?
WOODRUFF: Yeah.
EDWARDS: I did not.
WOODRUFF: Did she find out after the recourse?
EDWARDS: She found out the next morning; I called her and told her. ***
Waite, I thought she knew “Absolutely Everything”. No, she didn’t. Notice he wouldn’t confirm that it was a secret, but it was a secret kept from his wife. Always the lawyer this one. He only told her because he knew he’d been caught and the info was already on its way to the net. You would think Edwards would have told his wife he was having a meeting with the former mistress to work out details of keeping the story private, or discuss paternity issues, or whatever, just to cover his own ass in case word got out about the secret meeting. What else is he hiding from Elizabeth?
WOODRUFF: Do you think your political career is completely over?
EDWARDS: I’m not sure I had a political career for the future anyway. I’m not sure that politics was what I wanted to spend my life doing.
Then why the elaborate effort to continue to hide something that your wife and family already knew about?
Again I have to ask, why did they have this secret meeting; why couldn’t this have been taken care of over the phone? Here are my two theories.
Theory # 1. Â Mrs. Hunter is sick of hiding in the shadows. She’s getting paid by Baron, but not enough for this lifestyle. She threatens to go public, maybe in the hopes of getting more money, maybe because she’s just sick of living in the shadows. So she threatens to go public, which what the heated conversation was all about that night. But why can’t Edwards come up with a straight answer to the question of “Why were you there?”.
Theory # 2. Edwards was continuing the affair. He’s a liar and is now trying to lawyer his way out from under the truth.
I’ll take Theory #2.
BTW, Money man Baron has been involve with a little controversy of his own. No wonder he and the tort abusing Edwards got along so well.
Not really. But I do have a few thoughts on the John Edwards affair.
This ain’t over. Edwards hasn’t given the whole story. AFAIK, the late night trip to the hotel of the “former†mistress, which led to the Enquirers scoop, has yet to be explained. Was he surveying the fire exits, or was he just “helping†an old friend?
The left-wing blogs are having a tizzy because the “right-wing†media, which is all the media as far as they’re concerned, is not covering John McCain’s affair with Cindy Hensley. Of course, the reason it’s not news just might be any one of the following:
He got a divorce and married her, so unlike the Edwards thing, this isn’t just a fling.
It happened, oh, twenty-eight years ago, and has been common knowledge for about that long.
And last but not least, He wasn’t running for President of the United States at the time!!!
There are rumors of a more current affair invoving John McCain, and this guy is tick because the press isn’t following up on it. But he seems to have no problem that the press sat on their hands for Edwards during the last three plus weeks.