Now that the media are finally talking about the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair — and boy oh boy, are they ever talking about it — here are five questions I’d like to see answered:

1. What happened to Rielle’s website? beingisfree.org was her nutty New Age site, which was created in 2004 and disappeared with no explanation at some point between April 2007, when it was last updated, and the discovery of the deletion that October. It was even blocked at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, whose stated goal is to preserve the Internet’s history. “Universal access to human knowledge” is their motto. Unless it’s knowledge about Rielle Hunter, apparently.
   (Update: Have they changed their minds about this noble knowledge-preserving goal in the last few days? Fortunate Son thinks so.)
   Then, about a week four days after the Enquirer’s first story, another cached copy of Being Is Free was discovered at the IAWM’s Egyptian counterpart, located at the International School of Information Science in Alexandria. But as soon as people started talking about it, that copy was blocked too. This can’t be a coincidence. Was it done by yet another one of John Edwards’ friends, completely without his knowledge? If so, why does this steady stream of rainwater in my ear smell like asparagus?
2. Why is John Edwards hanging out with psychics? He now claims he was at the Beverly Hilton, in the middle of the night, without a reservation, not for a hookup or a family reunion. He was really there to talk to Rielle’s psychic friend Bob McGovern about keeping her quiet. (Re: Edwards’ affair with her, that is, which supposedly ended in 2006.) Okay, let’s assume this is true, even though Edwards said it. Let’s assume it took 5 hours, from 9:45 at night until 2:40 in the morning, to hash things out. Then why did Edwards run when he saw the Enquirer reporters? Was he terrified they’d find out he’d been having his palm read or something?
3. What do Margaret Sweet and Mimi Hockman know about all this? They’re both friends of Rielle’s. Sweet (pictured) is an astrologer who’s apparently been covering for Bob McGovern, and Hockman worked with Rielle on those videos for the Edwards campaign. Has anybody tried to interview them? Why did Sweet remove McGovern’s resume and contact information from her site two days after the story broke? Perhaps more importantly: As an astrologer, why didn’t she do it before the story?
4. If Edwards told his family about the affair back in 2006, why was he still paying Rielle well into 2007? She was quoted in the Dec. 25, 2006 edition of Newsweek about those campaign videos. Her last payment from the Edwards campaign was in April 2007. Maybe Elizabeth said, “Okay, John, you can keep her around. But no more hanky-panky!” Perhaps while shaking a rolling pin at him for effect. Bathrobe, curlers in her hair, the whole bit.
5. Would the American press have been so reluctant to investigate John Edwards’ then-alleged infidelities if he suffered from male pattern baldness? Eliot Spitzer: balding. Larry Craig: Not a lot going on with the ol’ hairline. John McCain: pretty wispy up there. Maybe this isn’t so much a left/right thing as a yum/yuck thing? Just speculating.

Hey, four out of five ain’t bad!

P.S. Anybody know how Nightline did in the ratings last night? I recorded it, but I haven’t watched it. Seems beside the point. But the LA Times, finally free of their “Keep rockin’” edict, has an analysis of the interview. Hey, if you can’t send a reporter to a hotel 15 miles away from your offices, at least you can have her watch ABC a few weeks later…

P.P.S. Rielle’s family is now challenging Edwards to take the paternity test he claims to be eager to take. Wow, how quickly we go from “She and Andrew Young both say he’s the father, so just drop it!” to “If John ain’t the babydaddy, prove it!” And how about this quote from Edwards:

“I would welcome participating in a paternity test. I’m only one side of the test, but I’m happy to participate in one.”

“I’m only one side”? Well, yeah, the side with the sperm. What, is he trying to imply she might not be the mother? (Thanks again for the tip, FS.)

P.P.P.S. DBKP, as always, has much more on this story. And Overlawyered has a few very pointed questions. Also, Paul Mulshine takes the LAT out behind the woodshed. Plus, Sam Stein, whose investigation at the Huffington Post last year helped get this ball rolling, has a complete (if weeks late) overview of the whole thing. And now, if it’s okay with everybody, I’m going to step away from the computer for a few hours and bask in my wholly earned sense of vindication…

Holla back to: UPI and NYDN! Where ya been?

I gets no rest:
Continue reading ‘Five Questions About the Edwards Scandal, Now That It’s No Longer “Alleged”’