The Enquirer hardly qualifies as a paper. I need more. I voted for him in the Michigan primary.
Never mind. Mistaken assumption.
You might need more, but unfortunately a lot of people don’t. The Enquirer still has a circulation of well over a million (down from it’s peak of several times that a few years ago) and is probably a lot more influential than many people realize. Also, after a few expensive lawsuits they stopped making things up out of whole cloth about celebrities (except maybe some blip gossip) and their cover stories now usually have- if not truth- at least the appearance of “it could be true” (not to say they don’t still wildly exaggerate, but if they say that Omar Sharif and Lindsey Lohan are dating then they’ve at least got pictures of them having dinner together, which is probably what they have with Edwards- some kind of verisimilitudinous circumstantial “looks bad” piece of “evidence” that whether true or not is going to sell a lot of papers and be difficult to disprove (though a DNA test would do that).
Probably? And you do not need more?
The Inquirer has him pinned. These charges are too dangerous legally for them to be pulling them out their asses, and their rep for accuracy is actually pretty good for the bigger stuff they have broken like Limbaugh’s drug use.
Edwards is done.
All the Enquirer is really claiming outright is that Edwards met her at a hotel. Everything else is extropolation.
Elizabeth Edwards is very intelligent, lively and a good speaker, and might help dispell the stigma some morons attach to “cancer victims”.
Not sure what a “mistriss” or a “bastard chld” are.
It is really hard for a public figure to sue for libel or slander. The burden is overwhelimingly in the favor of the publisher of the story.
That the statements are false is not enough. The statements must have been made maliciously, with the publisher having KNOWN they were false (this is a broad description of the standard.)
But for the sake of argument, let’s say Edwards can prove the NE’s conduct meets the standard of public figure libel. He’s still a fool to sue. As the attorney for NE, here would be my first five substanative questions (of course, there would be follow ups to each based on how evasive Edwards is in his answers. I’m betting he would be dangerous).
-
Have you ever in your (x) years of marriage has any form of sexual or intimate relations with a person not your wife Elizabeth, including intercourse, oral sex, contact with breasts or sexual organs, or kissing on the mouth?
-
Have you ever in your life engaged in any form of homosexual or intimate relations with a man, including intercourse, oral sex, contact with his penis or anus, his contact with your pensi or anus, or kissing him on the mouth?
-
Do you have any financial accounts on which your wife is not a signatory? (If so, detail them.)
-
What is your exact net worth?
-
How much did you make for (venture capital firm)?
I couldn’t include it in my five because it is heartless, but if you really wanted to rattle him (an angry deponent is a careless deponent), your first question could be “Did you father a child with (slut) because you felt some guilt over the death of your son?”
I couldn’t ask that question, but I imagine the lawyer hired by the NE could summon the courage (or lacks the decency).
My point is, you can ask just about pretty much anything in a deposition. There is no judge there. Lawyers (in Texas at least) can pretty much only object to form of the question and privileged information. Even then, these objections are generally noted for the record the the deponent must typically answer the question.
That is why celebs talk a good game about suing and then do not.
Or they sue in England where the libel laws are not as strict and the depositions apparently not as brutal.
O K. You care to explain that one.
Edwards is going to make a great Attorney General.
He might find himself standing in front of an Attorney General as a witness.
To what?
Jehovah?
[Throwing rock]
He said Jehovah.
Well, this story seems to have not progressed beyond the National Enquirer stage. Is it forked yet?
Voters.
Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters
So it’s even worse than reported: he was in a men’s room tugging on something til he was shaking and ashen faced.
So it’s gone from Enquirer to blogs to Fox. Looks like it’s sinking then.
There’s a “wide stance” joke in there somewhere.
Regards,
Shodan
To whatever happened at the hotel for which the National Enquirer is sueing them over.
Who is the National Enquirer sueing (sic)?