Decision ‘08

Evidence, Convincing and Otherwise

Rumors of extra-marital shenanigans have long dogged John Edwards…and it seemed, of late, as if he had finally been caught. There is still a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that he is, in fact, romantically involved with Rielle Hunter - but I find the latest wrinkle, a blurry photo by the National Enquirer purporting to be Edwards with his ‘love child’, to be wholly unconvincing (before you scoff at the source, remember that the Enquirer, for all of its nauseating sleaziness, still often breaks stories that the national media won’t touch, until they become too big to be ignored). Bottom line: the story may well be true, but this photo certainly proves nothing.

On the other hand, I find the FBI’s case against Bruce Ivins to be quite compelling, though it is also one mostly of circumstance (though not entirely - there’s the little matter of the anthrax that he had custody of that just so happened to have the same genetic footprint as the anthrax found in the fatal letters). Though some profess to still have doubts, this is pretty solid:

The papers say Dr Ivins had possession of anthrax spores with “certain genetic mutations identical” to those used in the sole deadly biological attack on US soil.

The letters were sent to media offices and politicians a few days after 9/11.

Mr Taylor said flask RMR1029 was “created and solely maintained” by Dr Ivins and that no-one could have had access to it without going through him.

Mr Taylor set out a number of other points of evidence against Dr Ivins, including:

He worked inordinate hours at night in the lab at the time of the attacks, could not account for the work and had not done similar overtime before or since

He sent a threatening email to a friend involved in the case and threatened in counselling sessions to kill people

He sent defective anthrax samples when taking part in the investigation into the attacks

He was a frequent writer to the media and often drove to other locations to disguise his identity as the sender of documents

Print defects in envelopes used in the attacks suggest they may have been bought at a post office in 2001 in Frederick, Maryland, where he had an account

After one search, he discarded a DNA coding book under surveillance

Since he took his own life, we’ll never know if a jury would have convicted, and of course, anyone familiar with the O.J. Simpson fiasco knows that juries can ignore evidence that is 100% conclusive, but I say they got the right guy…eventually…

11 Responses to “Evidence, Convincing and Otherwise”

1 too many steves Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 6:18 am
I’m still not convinced of why I should care about John Edwards and his “love child”. Didn’t he lose in his bid for the Dem nomination? A long time ago? And didn’t he simultaneously fade from political and public view? Of course, having a “love child” means there must have been sex at some point, so, I guess that explains the sudden interest…

As for Dr. Ivins, very interesting indeed in a Timothy McVeigh sort of way. What is it with some people?
2 Chris J. Breisch Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 6:37 am
I don’t really care about Edwards’ troubles either except in an “old media bias” sort of way. The wall of silence from old media on this is amazing. I have a difficult time convincing myself that we’d be getting this same silent treatment if the person in question was Newt Gingrich.

But, I could be wrong on that one, and I freely admit it. No one likes “tabloid journalism” and no one likes to be associated with it. Me included. I haven’t commented on this “issue” on my blog either, and I don’t intend to do so.
3 Peter Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 7:06 am
The interesting thing about Ivins is that both extremes find something sinister here. Yesterday both the Wall Street Journal and Keith Olbermann suggested that others besides Ivins were involved, and the investigation is being dropped prematurely.
4 Ryan Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I’m interested in Edwards to the extent that he’s in a decent position to get a Cabinet job. On the merits he’s probably my first choice for attorney general. That said, since I consider the behavior in question a disqualification for office, I’d like to know if it’s true and if so, find someone else to be Obama’s AG.
5 too many steves Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Chris: if Edwards were (was?) espousing a family-values platform, like some conservatives caught in similar situations, then I would be concerned about bias in the (lack of) coverage by the MSM, for no other reason but the hypocrisy angle. That’s not the case with Edwards.

Ryan: Excellent point. This incident, if true, does speak to his judgment, or lack thereof.
6 Chris J. Breisch Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
tms,
Not that I totally disagree with you, but I’d say that he has in fact, done just that. Hasn’t he made quite a big deal about how important his wife is to him, and being devoted to her in her time of need?

peter, I agree with you with respect to Ivins.

ryan, I think he’d make a bad AG in any respect (to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen “Senator, you’re no Bobby Kennedy”), but this incident wouldn’t automatically eliminate him from being acceptable to the job in my eyes. It probably does in Obama’s, but only because of timing, as I doubt he wants to start his administration off with a scandal.
7 Ryan Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Right. Obviously you and I are not on the same page for picking an AG. Presumably, while I am salivating over the prospect of having an AG who is genuinely pro-labor, you are having a different sort of reaction. And I also think the values problem wouldn’t eliminate him for Obama except insofar as it’s a media headache he neither wants nor needs. But this is one of those places where I part ways with the average Democrat, so Obama and I are bound to disagree.
8 Fargus Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
As far as Ivins goes, I know Greenwald is probably a dirty word in a joint like this, but he’s had some really good and detailed posts about the issue lately that are well worth your time. The conclusion? There’s some circumstantial evidence against him that is, on the face of it, strong. He may well be the guy behind this. But given the paucity of information overall released about the case, it certainly merits more scrutiny than the media and government are giving it.

As far as Edwards goes, his commitment to his wife while she’s dying of cancer isn’t the same as a Republican’s crusade to legislate morality for the entire country. That’s what hypocrisy means in this case, and that doesn’t apply to Edwards. If true, is it bad? Absolutely. Morally reprehensible? Sure. I’m not saying I respect it. But it’s not hypocritical in the same way. That may come off as parsing too finely, but I think it makes sense.
9 too many steves Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
On Edwards, no, I think you have it quite right. Crusading to legislate morality makes all the difference. The only person John Edwards has to answer to is his wife - he owes the rest of us nothing in this case. For all we know, John has not reneged on his commitment to his wife…
10 Chris J. Breisch Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Fargus and tms, I’ll buy that. I won’t even accuse you of parsing it finely. If true, he has had an affair while his wife is dealing with incurable cancer. That’s a totally different case than having an affair while espousing “family values”. I’d say that Edwards’ situation (if true–I’m open-minded on this), is not hypocritical, just sleazy, in a “Senator McCain, why did your first marriage end?” kind of way. Anyway, I concede the point.
11 Ginger Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Wow - I guess there really are “two Americas”. The one where it’s okay to cheat on your cancer stricken wife and mother of your children, and the one where it is considered a disgusting moral and ethical lapse. Put me in the second camp please.