"Trump’s love of tabloid gossip complicates his denial of affair allegations with Stormy Daniels."

What? That's a headline at WaPo (for a column by Callum Borchers). Here's the concept:

The White House has dismissed the alleged encounter between Trump and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels as tabloid trash. But Trump’s denial is complicated by his history of associating with publications such as In Touch and lending credence to their work.

“I’ve always said, ‘Why didn't the National Enquirer get the Pulitzer Prize for Edwards?’” Trump said on the campaign trail in 2016. He was referring to the Enquirer’s revelation that John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and 2008 presidential candidate, had an affair and fathered a child with a campaign aide.

I'll leave it to you to make the In Touch/National Enquirer distinction if you want. I think it's funny to remind us of the monumental Edwards screwup (when a man who was collecting contributions and running in part on empathy for his dying-of-cancer wife was having an affair during his presidential campaign). And I thought we'd all already absorbed the assumption that private citizen Donald Trump had sex with a porn star 12 years ago. But here's WaPo, ever chiseling away at Trump's inexplicable popularity, bonking us over the head with his vouching for the National Enquirer that one time. Sad!

Here's a song to cheer you up:



You were the sunshine, baby, whenever you smiled/but I call you stormy today.... Oh, stormy, oh, stormy, bring back that sunny day....

But here's the headline I was looking for when I got waylaid into WaPo: "Stormy Daniels launches ‘Make America Horny Again Tour.'" Meade read that out loud to me and my reaction was: Great! I won't detail why just now, because it's time for my coffee break.

"On one tape she saw Johnny walking into a room and his reaction to seeing me."

"She apparently told him that he never once looked at her the way he looked at me. So she took that bit and put it on her computer as a screen saver in order to watch it over and over again."

Johnny = John Edwards. She = Elizabeth Edwards. Me = Rielle Hunter, who once met Elizabeth Edwards, who "did not look me in the eye. In fact, she appeared to be frightened."

"Mrs Edwards had screamed: 'You don't see me any more.'"

"Then she took off her shirt and bra, exposing herself to her husband in front of his staff, the court heard. 'He didn't have much of a reaction."

"Nobody cares about what’s happening to John Edwards anymore — he’s old news."

"He’s not relevant to the Democrats in Washington or state capitals. And attacking John Edwards for the Republicans would be like attacking George McGovern."

So says Donnie Fowler, who was a senior adviser to President Obama, so maybe it's time — Romneyites — to care about what’s happening to John Edwards.

Lawyers for the federal government [will attempt to prove] that nearly a million dollars that two wealthy donors gave to Mr. Edwards constitute illegal campaign contributions and were not, as he has claimed, aid from friends trying to help him hide an affair from his wife.

If he is convicted on all six counts, Mr. Edwards, 58, faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

Nobody cares.

It is not clear whether Mr. Edwards will testify or to what extent he will participate in his defense. Mr. Edwards was once considered such a skilled trial lawyer that others in the profession would rush to catch his closing arguments.

And now, nobody cares.

“It’s very hard to look at this in a vacuum,” said Marcellus A. McRae, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice. “Because of all these other optics about John Edwards, the jury may be moved to return a verdict that is a general no-confidence vote against him, as opposed to a narrow, legal-focused interpretation of what the law is.”

Aw, but if nobody cares, why not go ahead and just decide based on the law? Maybe Edwards is better off if nobody cares.

One potential fallout may be damage to the reputation of Elizabeth Edwards....

People familiar with the government’s case say testimony could reveal that she was aware of the affair earlier than many believed and that she helped develop strategies for keeping it hidden from the public so her husband’s presidential campaign could continue.

“This will be problematic for her legacy,” said someone who worked closely with Mr. Edwards during the campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is on the government’s witness list.

Meanwhile, Edwards still lives "in a sprawling house on about 100 acres with two of his children, Emma Claire, 13, and Jack, 11." Their mother is dead. Their dad faces 30 years in prison for letting friends help him hide his adulterous affair from the public.

Nobody cares.

"In a devastating act of ultimate revenge, a dying Elizabeth Ed­wards recorded a bombshell secret videotape for prosecutors..."

"... nailing her cheating husband John as he will stand trial on charges that could land him behind bars for 30 years."

Says the National Enquirer. I don't see how this can this be admissible at trial, given the hearsay rule. It's not within the exception in the Federal Rules for a "Statement under belief of impending death":

In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

Say what you will about John Edwards, he wasn't the cause of Elizabeth's death.

"Who was your Elizabeth Edwards?"

"The goddess of frumpy wives and older mothers? The cancer patient who would not be defined by her disease? The noble, betrayed wife? The political operative whose complicity in covering up her husband’s infidelity could have cost the Democratic Party the presidency?"

Asks Jan Hoffman, in the NYT, on the day of Elizabeth Edwards's funeral.

"Her smash-mouthed assault on His deity, sovereignty and infallibility brought more GodSmacks upon her..."

If you're trying to fathom the twisted reasoning behind picketing Elizabeth Edwards' funeral (by the Westboro Baptist Church), the hateful text is here.

If you're thinking of saying something about Elizabeth Edwards in the comments to the previous post....

... you need to put it here instead.

ADDED: Let me front-page something Clyde said in the comments to yesterday's post noting the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

This is probably an inappropriate question, but if as some have speculated, she knew the end was near and stopped taking the drugs: Did she decide to check out in December before the Death Tax kicks back in in 2011? Dying before January would be very lucrative for heirs, as opposed to hanging on until January 1st and having her estate get slammed with a 55% tax (or I think 35% if the deal Obama made with the Republicans goes through)...

AND: Irene said:

Rich people like Elizabeth Edwards plan for death, and their lawyers draft dispositions that minimize the impact of the estate tax. She knew she was dying, and she probably had a plan that gave a good chunk to charity. She also had plenty of warning since her initial diagnosis, and she could take advantage of making lifetime gifts to her children.

If she didn't plan, then everything passes to John Edwards without any tax implications. They're still married, and there is an unlimited marital deduction for spouses.

I didn't realize they were still married. Did they stay married as a tax-planning scheme?

Elizabeth Edwards, who struggled with cancer, marriage, and the quest for power...

... has died, at the age of 61.

Did you remember that she graduated from law school? She was one of the new sort of political wives, who had independent career aspirations yet choose to move into a man's shadow.

Elizabeth Edwards is dying.

And she says a few words via Facebook:

She did not mention Mr. Edwards in her message on Monday.

“There are certainly times when we aren’t able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It’s called being human,” Mrs. Edwards wrote. “But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful.”

She did not apologize to us for participating in the deceit perpetrated by John Edwards, which skewed the 2008 Democratic primaries.

ADDED: Death don't have no mercy.

"I followed my heart, and I believe it was the right thing to do, which is weird — I get how weird that is..."

"... because I didn’t make a commitment to Elizabeth. I wasn’t the one lying, like, to her, and I was supporting him in his process, and his intentions never wavered. I knew that he wanted — he just had a really unique way of getting there — to live a life of truth."

Rielle Hunter, being weird, on "Oprah."

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade said:

If she would have, like, made a commitment to Elizabeth, then it wouldn't have been weird.

Like, she could have made a commitment to respect Elizabeth's marriage to John? - it would have been, like, a really unique way of getting there? Getting to, you know, that space of living a life of truth?

But it wouldn't have been weird. It would have been just, you know, like a really really real... process.

Oh! It's Everybody Talk Like Rielle Hunter Day!

Does "Game Changer" get to the heart of the question "Just how wacky is Elizabeth?"

Mickey Kaus wants to know.

True, she's depicted as a snob in heavy denial who flies into inappropriate rages. But is that all? If she's wacky enough, remember, Edwards' decision to take up with another woman may be more explicable, if not excusable. ...

"She called her spouse a 'hick' in front of other people and derided his parents as rednecks."

"One time, when a friend asked if John had read a certain book, Elizabeth burst out laughing. 'Oh, he doesn’t read books,' she said. 'I’m the one who reads books.'"

I thought she was dying.

How terribly inconvenient for poor John.

"Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band."

Poor Dave Matthews, getting caught up in that ghoulish slapstick.

IN THE COMMENTS: Ralph L said:

He'll need a big helicopter to lift the Dave Matthews Band bus over that rooftop.

(If you don't get that, read this.)

And William said:

I can sympathize with Edwards. My wife is lying in a coma, and the doctors do not expect a full recovery. The whole experience has been very traumatic, but I have learned a valuable lesson. When I get my license back there will be no more DWI on my part. And that's a promise.... But that's not the immediate problem. My wife has all sorts of hot friends visiting her, and you should see the nurse on the night shift. My problem is how do I approach the touchy question of post mortem dating with these attractive women. I don't want to appear insensitive, but life is for the living... I would welcome the advice of any Edwards' voters on this difficult subject.

Connecting Carrie Prejean, Elizabeth Edwards, and Wanda Sykes — 3 women of the moment.

It's the essayist's challenge. Can Robin Givhan meet it? The common theme she detects is: appearance and expression inconsistent with our stereotype.

Prejean took a conservative stance. And in the cultural field guide, she is not what a conservative woman who puts her Christianity out there for public consumption is supposed to look like.

She was not buttoned up. She did not look like an escapee from "Jesus Camp." Prejean looked like someone who enjoys a good cosmo.

Prejean's words landed like a sucker punch on many who thought they knew what the opponents of same-sex marriage look like.

She was gorgeous and conservative. What a shock!

[Elizabeth Edwards] has been subject to an inordinate amount of tsk-tsking for failing to articulate the perfunctory speech about the baby's innocence and how everyone needs to do what's in the child's best interest...

[T]his woman with the soft Southern accent and the maternal air has essentially said that the baby is not her concern. That is not the expected response from a woman whose figure is devoid of sharp lines and who always seems to be dressed for a parent-teacher conference.

Ha ha. EE is fat. Make no mistake: Givhan called her fat. "Figure devoid of sharp lines" — tee hee — use that on your female enemies. Anyway... so... get it? Pudgy, unglammed women who dare not to be squishy inside — shocking!

But how was Wanda Sykes out of character? Here's where the essayist's challenge kicks into advanced mode:

Sykes, a petite black woman with a sassy mouth, had gotten pointed, political and a tad bit angry. It was as if everyone expected her to leave her opinions with the Secret Service and just dish out jovial, but mush-mouthed, commentary about being beleaguered and put-upon.

Sykes is known for her sharp tongue. She's more Bill Maher than Bill Cosby. But there's an assumption that white male comics will speak their mind and risk being offensive to get the laugh. (When Stephen Colbert performed two years ago, the press knew he'd offend some in the audience, they just didn't realize it would be them.) If Maher had made the same comments, the audience probably would have been thankful that he didn't say anything really appalling. With Sykes, it was more like: Shame on her.

Eh. I'm not seeing how Sykes deviated from what we'd expect from her. Givhan merely observes that she didn't modify herself for the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.

The essayist's task is not achieved. The parallelism is missing. The Sykes story is not about appearance and unexpected expression. Sykes was exactly Sykes, and she didn't rein it in.