Former presidential candidate John Edwards, the sleazy ambulance chaser turned politician who many on the left described as a real man of the people, is hiding from the prying eyes of the media at his modest man-of-the-people 100-acre estate. The Raleigh, North Carolina Grand Jury is calling witnesses regarding Edward’s alleged illegal use of campaign funds to hide his extramarital affair with Ms. Rielle Hunter. The New York Times reports that Edwards may soon admit to fathering Hunters 19-month-old daughter.
The main issue before the Grand Jury is whether cash payoffs to secure Ms. Hunter silence during Edward’s candidacy constituted a reportable political contribution. No, really. Democratic consultant Joe Sinsheimer told the Times that Edward shouldn’t worry, “the law probably doesn’t anticipate payments to a mistress during a campaign.”
According to onetime aid Andrew Young, Edwards calmed an agitated Ms. Hunter by promising to make an honest woman of her once his current wife, Elizabeth Edwards (who is suffering from cancer), died. He is reported to have promised his mistress a rooftop wedding in New York City to the live strains of the Dave Matthews Band – no doubt playing their song “Squirm.”
At Sen. Edward Kennedy’s recent Boston funeral, the assembled mourners looked on Edwards as something of a pariah. For most Democrats, leaving a woman in a submerged car to die a watery death is forgivable. Promising to leave a woman once dead to take responsibility for a child you fathered is contemptible.
The morally confused New York Times offers the secluded Edwards some comfort in his time of trouble:
Any acknowledgment of paternity would have ramifications for Mr. Edwards, who could suffer a further blow to his credibility but could also be praised for belatedly accepting responsibility.
Praised for belatedly accepting responsibility? I know John Edwards is a high-priced injury lawyer – the lowest invertebrate life form on Earth – but since when do people deserve praise for admitting the truth only after being caught in a lie – not by the Times but the National Enquirer, no less?
0 comments on "He Puts the Sleazy in Sleazy Lawyer"