John Edwards: Who Needs A Super Injunction When The Media Supports The Lie?
JOHN Edwards – the two-faced shagger who while a Democratic Vice-President nominee had sex and a child with a campaign staffer named Rielle Hunter (his wife was suffering from teminal cancer at the time) – has been formally charged with six counts over the cover-up.
You might have spotted Hunter in the hideous photshoot she did for GQ – the one in which she showed a lot of leg and and cradled Edwards’ love child, one Frances Quinn.
You might have spotted those private photos of Edwards and his wife renewing their vows – photos that just happened to have been obtained by the medi\ at the same time he was heading to power and shagging Hunter.
You might recall his campaign platform book vowing that VeePee Edwards would “require fathers to support their children, increase child support collection, and help fathers find work”.
You might recall that when the National Enquirer reporter confronted Hunter she reportedly respsonded: “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
You might recall how Edwards traded on his wife’s illness:
You might recall his $400 haircuts:
You might recall his mea culpa-ish:
“Two 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.”…
In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs.”He also said, “In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself.”
And:
He denied fathering a daughter, born to the woman with whom he had the affair, and offered to be tested to prove it. A former Edwards campaign staff member professes to be the father.
You might recall how the old media – like the LA Times – ignored the story. Who needs super-injunctions?
The story has everything a cable-news producer or magazine editor or soap-opera writer could ask for: adultery, political power, a monstrous mansion, betrayal, cash transfers, terrible lies, vanishing evidence, a fall guy, a saintly wife dying of cancer, a late-night hotel rendezvous in Beverly Hills, even a “love child.” And it’s perfect for the middle of summer, when there’s very little real news because the newsmakers are all on vacation.
You might recall how the old media overlooked the National Enquirer for a Pulitzer Prize – it broke the story.
You might recall Hunter’s website- the one in which she advocated the joys of telling the truth?
You might recall Edwards saying:
“I’ve come to the personal conclusion that I actually want the country to see who I am. Who I really am. But I don’t know what the result of that will be. But for me personally, I’d rather be successful, or unsuccessful, based on who I really am.”
You might recall Edwards saying:
Edwards said, “I’ve responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don’t respond to these lies.”
Of course, such a cover up could nto happen in the UK – could it..?
Posted: 3rd, June 2011 | In: Politicians Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
