Oh…and who gives a shit about John Edwards’ sex life anyway?
Don Fowler, former Democratic National Committee chair.
If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.
“If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ‘no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.
Proving reckless disregard for the truth was not hard for Carol Burnett. Given how subjective “drunkenness” would be to prove I don’t see the problem with something as concrete as an illegitimate child.
As for Dubbwa, you’ll have to ask him yourself.
He’s right: it’s very hard to prove reckless disregard or actual malice. And the Enquirer couldn’t get away with its style of reporting, or creating, or whatever you want to call it, if it didn’t have the best lawyers.
According to Wiki Edwards was known as the top plaintiffs’ attorney in North Carolina. He is the best of the best. Given that he doesn’t have to charge himself for attorney fees his expense is a ream of paper and some ink. On the flip side, the National Enquirer has a group of lawyers to defend themselves from all the other lawsuits you predict because of their style of reporting.
So lets review: best lawyer in North Carolina who is working for free versus an expensive cadre of attorneys who have other lawsuits to deal with. The attorney who is working for free is dealing with an object that is real. It is not conjecture that he cheated with his wife based on observation of them in close proximity. The newspaper is claiming he fathered a child and produced a picture of him holding the child.
It is easy to argue opinion of a relationship based on observed behavior. the National Enquirer can state that in their opinion Edwards and his love muffin touched and kissed each other in a way that suggests an affair. The newspaper has an easy case because they are arguing opinion. A child is not an opinion, it is flesh and blood reality. A DNA test proves them wrong.
And while Edwards may have the status of fame, the mother and child do not. There are 3 lawsuits that can be aimed at the newspaper.
Why isn’t Bush suing the Enquirer?
By the way, why are you so obsessed with John Edwards’ penis?
I am not questioning his lawyering skills, although I don’t know how much he know about this particular area of the law.
That’s not what I said. I said, by reputation, the Enquirer is supposed to have excellent lawyers, and that the paper supposedly runs everything past them before printing it to determine if they could be sued for it. The paper has trafficked in gossip for a very long time and knows exactly where the lines are.
But it does not prove they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or malice toward Edwards. Being reckless is not the same as being in error, and he would have to prove the writer or editors or publishers did not care if the story was false when they printed it, perhaps citing conversations in the newsroom or notes or emails. (Or, to prove malice, he’d have to show they wanted to hurt him.) This is not easily done, and the paper has not often been sued successfully. He would also have to prove that his reputation was harmed, which sounds easy but considering the things people say about politicians every day, might not be simple.
Let me restate my point to make it a little clearer. A child is a real thing. As such, it’s existence is a yes or no question. The “fact” of the child is something that can be verified by the newspaper. Edwards does not have to show malice, he has to show that they were reckless in their ability to verify a simple fact. There is no gray area of opinion regarding this.
And as I said before, there are 3 lawsuits that can be brought against the newspaper. Actually 4 because one of Edwards aides (Andrew Young) claims to be the father of the child.
Unless I’ve missed something, the question is not “is there a child,” which is easily answered. It’s “who is the father,” which is not as readily apparent.
I understand what you’re saying but the paternaty of the child is something that can be verified and 4 people can sue the paper based on that.
What piece of information is the Newspaper holding that it relieves them of the charge of reckless disregard for the truth? A man has pubicly declared the child is his. The newspaper says otherwise.
update as I’m typing this. Edwards just admitted his affair (but not the child).
So his political career is toast. Screwing a bimbo (he admits he didn’t love her) while his wife fights cancer is not a vote getter. When you consider that he gave up valuable time with her to run for President he’s less than toast.
Why is he any more toast than McCain? McCain cheated on his wife after she was crippled in a car accident, dumped her for a beer heiress and he’s doing just fine politically. Oh wait, I forgot. It’s ok if you’re a Republican.
Paternity can be easily verified, yes - although it can’t be easily verified by the Enquirer, so they wouldn’t be expected to verify it. They do not need to prove that Edwards is the father, though. Again - even if several other people were involved with this woman and the paper is wrong about Edwards being the father, that doesn’t necessarily mean they were reckless.
That doesn’t prove his declaration is true, and Edwards has apparently not taken a paternity test, so he can’t even say for sure that what the paper reported is false.
Even he hadn’t just copped to this, the newspaper doesn’t need to hold any proof that Edwards is the father. It’s not reckless to say he’s the father if it’s possible he could be the father. They do not need to prove they were telling the truth. If he sues them, he is the plaintiff and he needs to prove they disregarded the truth and harmed his reputation- and incidentally his reputation is going to be lower than whale shit in about half an hour, not that that matters now.
Basically, if the paper can show it had a good reason to believe Edwards is the father, they are in the clear. And since he’s just admitted to sleeping with the mother, they’re all set.
No, and even though it’s not my business I’d say it makes him a world-class asshole.
Cite that McCain had an affair because I can cite that Edwards did and was actively doing it while campaigning.
You mean the article you posted where he was separated from his wife?
And which says he adimts to multiple extramarital affairs.
No, he admits to having multiple affairs before he was separated.