John Boy Phone Home: Criminal Complaint Filed in John Edwards Rendezvous Case

That's sad, you guys are now scraping filth from the National Enquirer?

Let's have an investigation into batboy while we're at it.

From what I've seen the basic rule is that people of power get used to getting what they want, be it more power, money or more n**kie. And the thing that bothers me most about it is when they fail to "man up" and admit it. Assuming Edwards did it he should say "I did it" and then move on from there.

I'll get really ill if I hear anymore "definition of is, is" nonsense. And they should stop slinking away and hiding behind their mates for support, whether they did an intern, opposite or same sex partner.

Keep writing about this.  I predict that this story will break in the MSM if bloggers keep writing about it.  It's too juicy for the press to ignore for long even if he is slotted to be a VP nominee.

Thanks for the flags, ya'll. You are appreciated!

I discovered that I'm really angry about this--not just the reputed existence of a mistress and "love child" (poor baby, if it's true), but the hypocrisy. Dammit, cover scandal equally with everyone. The LA Times gagging its bloggers is ...beyond disgusting.

Because I'm an adult, and I understand that adults have issues, and we all make mistakes, I desperately tried to find some rationale for Clinton's behavior (yes, I voted for him). I could handle, to a certain extent, the idea that he's a horn dog who cheats on his wife with anything female that moves, apparently (especially believable if you watch "Primary Colors"). I could try to handle the idea that you can be a good leader even if you make bad personal choices.

And I could even extend all this understanding out to the point where I could say "well, at the very least, he mis-used government equipment in having his affair in OUR property, and a lower grade employee could get fired for that same offense."  I mean, I was trying to be fair and understanding.

But then the piece of scum lied under oath. He commited perjury. He weaseled. He committed not only an ethical crime--lying to Congress (and I'll toss in that the idea of those liars judging other liars is somewhat a combination of low comedy and a Greek tragedy, with media serving as the chorus)--but lying to us and under oath.

As far as I'm concerned, having been all kinds of understanding, and listening to liberals trash good people for far less, I've had it. When lying as a core value, including perjury, is among the key principles of what a party officially raises up to leadership, then we've gotten a big clue.

Ethics: either ya got it or ya don't. And the Democrats espousing of Edwards twice is a clue.

Are you kidding? The National Enquirer? Where's the evidence? This story is totally FISHY!

Follow the disappearing websites, too.

I've just added the "missing" Edwards videos, made by Hunter, that disappeared from the internet when Edwards' campaign for president really took off. Someone named Missing Videos put them on YouTube.

In one, Edwards says he wants to be judged on who he really is, not on being a "plastic Ken doll."

Edwards says that  the Democratic party "leads on the great moral issues."

And, let us not forget that The New York Times put an alleged McCain affair on the front page. Yep. With less evidence. And that affair has never been proven.

But the John Edwards story has been kicking around since 2007. And it's "hands off" for that one. 

Isn't it worth asking why the "rules" are different?

Imagine the outcry if the LA Times, or any newspaper, had censored its staff about any issue dealing with McCain. The liberals would have been screaming about freedom of the press.

Shutting down examination of the Edwards allegation, though, and any related issues, is, apparently, a good thing in the liberal camp. My, oh my.

Something I find amusing: more than 300 views, 9 GS flags, lots of comments--and totally ignored by staff members.  Hmmm.

Sister Toldjah has a great take on this, in her usual acerbic style.