On Wednesday, after his speech to the AARP, John Edwards ducked out a side entrance in order to avoid reporter's questions.
That's a fact. It's well sourced -- a dozen reporters were there. Nobody is disputing it. And to anyone covering the story, it's hugely significant for two reasons; it's damning on it's own and it shows a pattern of behavior that gives credence to the National Enquirers reporting.
First point - Edwards is acting how people act when they are hiding something.
Think like a journalist, not a John Edwards supporter. Why do politicians avoid reporters, not issue statements, and duck an issue that multiple news outlets are running down? The answer is - always, in every case - because they have something to hide.
There is a reasonable limit to the amount of times someone should be forced to deal with any issue. However, this isn't a story that's been beaten into the ground. It's fresh and there are new developments since Edward's last real statement in 2007. The NE claims to have caught Edwards at a hotel ten days ago and since then Edwards has yet to give one single statement denying he was there.
What some of my fellow Kossacks apparently want the press to do is to think this way "John Edwards just snuck out a side entrance to avoid my questions - but you know....maybe he's tired and Elizabeth is sick and he's a private citizen...sure he just gave a political speech but I can see why he wouldn't want to answer questions especially since there's nothing to those trashy tabloid rumors."
Edwards could easily issue a terse denial. If the story is true in any way, he could explain. If there's a personal matter with his wife, say so. Mainstream, responsible journalists covering this story want him to go on the record again, after the latest claims by the NE. And that's exactly what they should want.
More importantly, that's exactly what YOU should want and ESPECIALLY if he's innocent. A simple straightforward statement. If there's an explanation, give it - because avoiding reporters only prolongs the story, creates embarrassing headlines and adds to the appearance of guilt.
Second point and just as obvious - by ducking reporters the way he did, Edwards is acting the same way the NE claims he did at the hotel. He sees a reporter and high tails it. He just gave the NE's claims more validity.
You can make excuses for this all day but no journalist can, will, or should. No Kossack should either. To fail to demand even the most basic accountability from Edwards - answer a couple of questions - does everyone a disservice. Even our favorite politicians can't be placed on a pedestal of unaccountability.
Here's berryberry's Evidence Comment - all proof copyright 2008, berryberry
Of course there is evidence, most of which is circumstantial. To put my lawyer hat on for a moment, that does not make it inadmissible. In a court context, all of the following would be admitted into evidence.
1. Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter know each other and have shared proximity. Thus, they've had opportunity for conversation.
2. There are eyewitnesses to JRE's visit to Ms Hunter and the child at the Beverly Hilton.
3. A corroborating, disinterested witness places Mr Edwards at the Beverly Hilton, hiding in a restroom and avoiding the NE reporters.
4. The act of visiting alone tends to prove (not disprove) some relationship. (The recklessness of the act (in the absence of a relationship) is more a commentary upon the quality of the evidence.)
5. The witnesses attest (sort of...this is the NE) that they attempted to question JRE. His response was to run and hid in the toilet. This is "guilty conscience" evidence.
6. Aware that this matter is swirling around him, Mr. Edwards was sought by members of the MSM yesterday (at another hotel, ironically) for comment about the NE report. Mr. Edwards evaded the MSM and sought an alternative exit where he would not be seen. Again, any trial attorney would point to this conduct as admissible on the basis that it demonstrates "consciousness of guilt." When asked, Mr Edwards proffered an excuse that he lacked time to respond.
7. There is a child. She has DNA.
It is wishful thinking for those in this forum to ignore this with the an unexamined mantra that there is" no evidence. "
And of course let us not forget the inevitability of a DNA test, an admission by Ms Hunter and an admission by Mr. Edwards. Can there be any doubt that these are on the way?
|
Bumper Stickers & MORE
