Comments on: Rielle Hunter’s Clip Reel Keeps Getting Longer

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:35:34 +0000

And CAry Woods was pals with golden suicide couple, Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake. If only Theresa could have directed Edward’s videos–maybe she’d be alive and a mom.

By: pistachioalmondfudge

pistachioalmondfudge — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:06:55 +0000

Gee, it looks like Stein’s piece on not seeing the videos was published 9/26. The Youtube videos were posted 9/27. The Enquirer article in October. Which is an interesting timeline in itself. I don’t see Nick Chatfield doing it. It seems like a fairly bold and high-profile move… but who it is seems pretty mysterious. If they weren’t the tipster, they were someone watching what was going on with keen interest. It might be noted that while YouTube content is posted by individuals, Webcastr content is not. So it seems that Webcastr has merely archived these newsworthy pieces which were posted by MissingVideos at YouTube. So original credit here (or blame?) goes to MissingVideos. I guess neither site has received a copyright violation notice or a cease-and-desist. Huh.

Krisha Das! Amazing reference, FS. But he might be celibate, despite his groupies’ desires. A lot of spiritual people are. It’s possible, right?

If I were anybody in a position to correct anything, I’d argue that the better Elvis Costello song would be “Brilliant Mistake.” (Google it.) But who am I to say anything? Just guessing like anyone else.

By: Edith Ann

Edith Ann — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:37:57 +0000

I’m interested in his possible affair with a Duke graduate. Wouldn’t it be funny if he was cheating on his mistress?

By: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg

Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:18:26 +0000

“Could John Edwards be so stupid as to visit his mistress in St. Croix last week?”

FS, at this point I’d say John Edwards is capable of anything.

By: Fortunate Son

Fortunate Son — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:34:29 +0000

Kris, your eliminations would point to . Nick Chatfield, , who said “on the first call to my editor that he wished the movies were available because he could use the publicity”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuous_n_66070.html

Many have also pointed out to posts that say Elizabeth Edwards was calling anyone who had worked on the video trying to get Rielle Hunter’s phone number.

I can’t imagine Elizabeth Edwards didn’t know what was up the second she watched the webisodes.

Jonathan Darman did. America did.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/44245

By: Fortunate Son

Fortunate Son — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:26:30 +0000

Could John Edwards be so stupid as to visit his mistress in St. Croix last week?

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/08/john-edwards-scandal-the-curious-august-14-flight-of-n179ax/

By: kris

kris — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:42:16 +0000

Fortunate Son: So far I just have a few questions regarding the New Republic’s article detailing the Enquirer’s investigation process:

Enquirer Reporter Rick Egusquiza says that in September of 2007 “we saw some of the videos. It was clear back then, the flirtation was going on. Edwards was like a blushing kid to her”. Note that Egusqiza says “SOME of the videos”. I thought that by September of 2007, according to Sam Stein:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuous_n_66070.html
“now, however, nearly all traces of the webisodes – as they became known – are gone. Links to them on the Internet no longer work. The Edwards campaign won’t release the videos, and the production company behind the films is citing confidentiality agreements in refusing to talk.”
Later in that same article, Sam states: “I was able to email Mimi Hockman, Rielle Hunter’s partner, to ask if I could screen the tapes. She directed me to a Business Week website where the last remaining webisode link still functioned. But beyond that, I was rebuffed”.
Thus, by September of 2007 when Sam wrote this article, he was ultimately able to find ONE remaining webisode, whereas Egusquiza says that the Enquirer was able to view “SOME of the videos”. Now, of course, after Stein had published that above article on September 26, 2007, it seems the webisodes resurface by October of 2007, according to Stein:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/scrubbed-edwards-filmmake_n_67868.html
“After the Huffington Post wrote about the webisodes, the videos resurfaced, both on YouTube and Webcastr.com, although the anonymous individual who reposted them (user name: “MissingVideos”) has not responded to emails.”

So, maybe the Enquirer actually viewed the Webisodes once they were put back up by that “Missing Videos” poster; but it seems like the Enquirer had access to the Webisodes before that date, when all but one were scrubbed from the Internet. Maybe this means the “tipster” was someone who had access to them/worked on them?

By: kris

kris — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:55:39 +0000

Fortunate Son – your comments regarding the digital scrubbing of references to the “College for Everyone” and questions regarding who were the undisclosed primary donors to Edwards’ “Center for Promise and Opportunity” were very interesting. Here’s a link to a blog that was asking alot of good questions about these issues back in June of 2007:
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1594
Apparently there is a difference between Edwards’ DC-based “Center for Promise and Opportunity” and the North Carolina-based “Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation” which is a separate nonprofit entity that is in charge of awarding the scholarsips for the “College for Everyone”. The DC-based center is the 501C-4 one and many reporters had questions regarding who was donating to it – see the BusinessWeek article by Eamon Javers:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_22/c4036012.htm
“While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity [in North Carolina], donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.”

By: Nobrainer’s Think Tank » Regarding Edwards and the DNC

Nobrainer’s Think Tank » Regarding Edwards and the DNC — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:13:19 +0000

[...] via Deceiver.com [...]

By: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg

Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:07:36 +0000

“Then Hitchen pounced. “Mr. Edwards, Alexander Hitchen, from the National Enquirer. Would you like to say why you were at the hotel this evening to see your mistress Rielle Hunter and your love child?” he asked. Edwards froze and “turned pale…”

Who da daddy, you’re Who da man! THAT is pure comedy gold.