Mystery Man Resides in Dallas, TX
The National Enquirer released more than just the photos of John Edwards holding Frances Quinn Hunter yesterday [: it also revealed more clues to the identity of the man who, the Enquirer claims, funneled the hush money to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young.
But, the Enquirer released the details in their print edition only, which hit parts of the country yesterday. One area of the country which doesn't have the new Enquirer yet is our own. But through the efforts of one reader--who wishes remain anonymous and who purchased a copy of the newest Enquirer for us!--that went beyond and above the call of duty, we did obtain some details about the Edwards "hush money man".
We won't spill all the Enquirer's beans here; after all, David Perel, the Enquirer's Editor-in-Chief, has to recoup the investment of a year's worth of reporting on the story.
It ain't cheap chasing around people who don't want to be found.
However, we will report a few of the Enquirer's findings about a man, about whom an earlier Enquirer story would only refer to as, "a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign. This same man is also shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby."
The Enquirer also wrote last week on its website [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS]: “A super-rich pal – who was closely involved with the campaign finances – is helping John. It’s likely this man doesn’t know all the dirty details of John’s extramarital affair, but is acting out of loyalty and is not asking a lot of questions – only writing the checks,” revealed a source very close to the situation."
The newest Enquirer reveals more clues to the man's identity--to entice MSM reporters who have thus far proved resistant to investigating and reporting on the story, perhaps?
A "wealthy Democratic fundraiser" from "Dallas, TX" is part of what the Enquirer reveals.
The story also states that besides the $15,000/month payments to Rielle Hunter and daughter, F.Q. Hunter, that $20,000 is being given to former Edwards' operative, Andrew Young and his family.
The details of the Enquirer's attempt to question the man, when and how much money the wealthy Edwards' backer raised?
Go buy your own copy of the Enquirer.
Any MSM reporter with an Enquirer and an Internet connection ought to be able to run down the identity of the man in a heartbeat.
Doug Ross?
by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer
She says frivolous, he says felonies...
A key case against Bill and Hillary Clinton has been winding its way through the California courts. A businessman, Peter Franklin Paul, has learned the hard way the price some pay to play in "Clinton's World."
California's Supreme Court has been asked to hear a claim Sen. Hillary Clinton wrongly invoked First Amendment protections to remove herself as a defendant from a multi-million-dollar lawsuit in which she and her husband are accused of defrauding the largest donor to her 2000 Senate campaign.The California Supremes upheld a lower-court decision to deny the Clinton's motion to dismiss the case. The well known pattern of the Clinton's strategy in dealing with these types of cases, dragging the lawsuits through the courts, the claimants through the mud, years of litigation, claims of "vast Republican conspiracies." Hillary claimed she should be dismissed as a defendant because she is a "public figure" who by law is immune from "frivolous" lawsuits.
Business mogul Peter Franklin Paul – who claims former President Bill Clinton destroyed his entertainment company to get out of a $17 million agreement – is petitioning the state high court to rehear a recent appeals court ruling upholding a decision to remove the New York Democrat from the case.
In this case the cry of Republican shenanigans does not apply. Paul was the largest donor to Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.
The lawsuit claims that the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination had knowledge of her husband's intent to defraud Paul and that she committed felonies by soliciting illegal campaign funds from him.Bill and Hill allegedly intentionally defrauded Paul, not only a Democrat but Hillary's largest backer in her 2000 Senate race. Someone from the West Coast clique of Clinton sycophants. Talk about biting the hand that fed you.
Makes one wonder if Paul has given thought to switching his party affiliation. Large donations may be a thing of the past for Paul as his lawsuit claims the Clinton's actions destroyed Paul's entertainment company.
He Said, She Said
The California Court of Appeal upheld Sen. Clinton's removal as a defendant in the case based on the state's anti-SLAPP law, which was designed to protect public figures, in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, from frivolous lawsuits. But Paul contends the Democratic senator is abusing the anti-SLAPP law as an alternate way to be removed from the case after the state Supreme Court determined it should proceed.A law, written by public figures designed to protect public figures using the 1st Amendment for protection from "frivolous" lawsuits.
What's even more interesting about this particular law?
As long as one is a politician and to some being a politician is a lifelong calling then one can try to play the "Get Out Of A Lawsuit" Chance Card just like Hillary did. They can claim that any lawsuit is frivolous and thus as a public figure, they are immune from prosecution.
To Hillary, this lawsuit is frivolous, to Paul this lawsuit is his shot at justice and matter of a few felonies alleging Bill and Hill defrauded Paul to the tune of 17 million dollars.
It's not as if Paul is suing the Clintons claiming Lincoln's mattress was too lumpy in the now defunct Clinton White House No-Tell Motel.
Source - hillaryproject.com
Image [Adena.com]
For more on this story check Right Voices: UPDATE:SCANDALS SCANDALS EVERYWHERE……. Will Peter Paul Be Hillary’s Paula Jones?
By LBG
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
