Just Sayin'

7/2/2011

When I was 4 days post-partum, my entire life was a red-eye. No one was planning trips for me...

This email is from the first batch. But as a reader pointed out yesterday, there was also talk in an email released in the newer batch about the governor attending a middle school event, or some such thing, four days post- partum.

What strikes me as odd about it (any of it, all of it!) is this: If Palin truly did keep the hoax from even her closest colleagues, and they believed that she gave birth to a baby only 4 days before, were they not curious about how she could humanly pull this off?

As The Leaky Wheel, who tipped me off to the peculiarities of this particular email said, how much milk do you have to pump to pull this off?

How much exhaustion can you shake off, how much effluvia can you emit before your body gives out? Before your husband (fek9wnr@yahoo.com) says "enough."

So, you might say, "Well, she wasn't pregnant. And her staff didn't know she wasn't pregnant."

Then I wonder why there was not the slightest scintilla of doubt in their emails beyond this could be "exhausting." Why there wasn't, "Is she sure she feels up to this? Can she really leave the baby this soon?"

And if she did give birth, what fear was driving her to not slow down for a second. Perhaps it was the "August is just around the corner; McCain is squarely in my camp" fear.

Just sayin'.

121 Comments

Ottoline

7/2/2011 01:36:36

Before anyone goes the ". . . if she DID give birth" route, would you PUHLEEEASE explain how the Mar 14 photo fits into your thinking.

There just can't be a Mar 14 photo and a pregnancy. No one ever explains how it could possibly be.

I apologize for being so tedious on this point, but it's like someone saying "I believe the earth is flat" but never explaining their take on how an airplane can fly a circle around this goodly sphere.

Ivyfree

7/2/2011 01:37:57

If you scroll down on the email, the date on the bottom is October 14, 2009.

Am I missing another date that would put this around the time of Trig's infancy?

Ivyfree

7/2/2011 01:38:59

Well, duh. Aside from the extremely obvious date of April 22, 2008, in the header. :::slinks off in embarrassment:::

Ivyfree

7/2/2011 01:41:08

And I just saw Ottoline's post regarding the march 14 photo. Keep it up, Ottoline! Nobody ever explains that picture, and you're right- it's incompatible with a seven-month pregnancy.

7/2/2011 01:47:27

I agree that scheduling events so soon after giving birth should be a problem (unless it is a faux birth as we have here). But although it's another leaf in the mountain of circumstantial evidence, do we know which Friday and Saturday is being discussed? I don't see it in this email. If it is the coming weekend, yes, travel would be mad, but alas,I don't see it. And there seems to be some evidence that she's contemplating not traveling...

comeonpeople

7/2/2011 01:48:21

I don;t know about other nursing mothers, but my milk didn't come in until exactly to the hour 72 hours after giving birth. And the baby was on the breast every 2-3 hours getting colostrum and sucking to help milk come in. And every time I sneezed, laughed or moved quickly i peed myself. I wasn't fit for prime time for at least two weeks and pretty much holed up in my house with help from my husband and MIL.
Palin birthed nothing on 4/18/08 other than a giant lie.
Sorry if this is TMI, but any woman who gave birth gets it.

comeonpeople

7/2/2011 01:50:47

Should add to the ABOVE, by prime time I mean go to the store or out in public.

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 01:53:52

Ottoline: I am working on getting some quotes for you on that photo. But believe it or not, it's not easy, for reasons I can explain another time.

lilly lily

7/2/2011 03:02:02

The only heroic person in the Heath-Palin menage or circle is Heather.

Quite a woman. And a good woman.

Read Bristols book quickly yesterday, and will go back and zero in on the interesting bits. I wanted to get a feel for the girl behind these multiple births, see if there is anything she slips up on or if she is the mother to Ruffles or Trig.

Bristol hates Mercede. Really hates her.

She only mentions Lanesia, Levis old girlfriend 2 times. Once when Lanesia and Mercede want to beat her up, though Bristol was with 3 other girls. They hid in a truck that wasn't locked. Then she mentions Lanesia, who I read was a good friend when they were growing up when Levi mentions he may of gotten another girl pregnant. Not so. Lanesia had a steady boyfriend who has accepted the baby as his.

If Mercede is what Bristol says I can see why.

Three examples. Mercede may have taken the first photo of Tripp and sold it to the Star for $5,000 when Bristol could have gotten much, much more. Mercede has no right to do this. I can understand Bristol being angry.

Mercede encouraged Levi to stray. Helped in fact. Again a reason for her to dislke the girl.

Mercede was bitching that Tripp might be born on HER birthday, and thus steal her day. HUH? Mercede sounds very immature. Bristol was livid.

In light of these facts as Bristol perceives them? I can see why she won't allow Mercede to babysit or see Tripp. These two are not frenememies, they are truly enemies.

Mercede will spill the beans if she knows something. And do it for the money.

6 Copies of her book are on sale. I looked through one copy. No one seemed at all interested. I'll look through a copy again since it is a quiet holiday weekend.

Jeanette

7/2/2011 03:08:00

Ottoline

I think it would help if every time you reminded people to look at the March 14 picture, you posted a link to it. I don't remember which one it was but can think of a lot of pictures where she clearly is not pregnant.

MrsGunka

7/2/2011 03:24:39

Laura, I just love "new eyes" looking at this. We have been hashing this for over three years and just ran out of steam, but knew that new info would have to be coming out some day.

Your enthusiasm is wonderful and with the emails to do some fact-checking it opens up new avenues to her hoax.

See you getting over the shock and awe now and can put more clarity to the story and able to bring in more people who know the inside information on the pregnancy itself.

Appreciate the doctors and nurse info. Sharlotte is opening his male blindfold to women's issues and getting it out to more people. Your journalistic inquisitiveness is a help to asking the right question and being the mother of a preemie sure helps you understand that she is telling a big lie!!

I'm an "old" nurse from the stethescope and finger age of delivering babies, but some things just don't change. Mother nature has a way of doing things and even some modern eqipment just doesn't change facts when it comes to having babies!!

Red eye indeed! Wonder Women was a fictional character, but even she could not have done what Wonder Sarah did and get away with it. Heck they would have even drawn in the mother cradling her baby after the miraculous birth laying in bed with her hair disheveled! It was clever how they had to make her look almost human so they had a market for the next month's issue!! Superman had to go into the phone booth before he saved the world!

Pause before and after giving birth Sarah so we can believe you!

ginny11

7/2/2011 03:26:29

ginny11

7/2/2011 03:28:42

lily lily do you have some reason to believe or trust anything Bristol says?

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 03:41:26

It's okay, Who Knows. You edited just fine. If you have already hit send, just type out a new one, just like you did.

Thank you for that info. Intriguing. No wonder no one wanted to rock a boat in that family!!

ginny11

7/2/2011 03:52:10

Also, lily lily, what makes you say that about Heather? Something in Bristol's book? I'm confused, as you did not follow up on that with details.

lilly lily

7/2/2011 03:52:54

I think her take on Mercede is correct.

I have come back from IM, and reading the comments is strange.

Did Bsistol actually say "A mother has fears, especially if she had a previous child who DIDN'T make it." I listened to the tape at 3.47 and I didn't hear this. Hate to keep watching any of these peoples tape. Two commentors write this as her statement in the conversation at the 400 club?. If she actually said this, Bristol has slipped in talking extemporaniously and Ruffles is dead.

I find the Lowell, Bud Paxson connection interesting and her talking to MCain for 20 minutes on Feb 23 a possible link.

I've always thought her security chief, Gary Wheelers comments on her wearing jeans and not looking pregnant on that day also a red flag.

lilly lily

7/2/2011 04:04:43

Heather seems the work horse for both Sarah and Bristol. They seem to dump on Heather.

My mother used to say, it is the willing horse on a team that gets the whip.

I hope Heather is rewarded for whatever she did in babysitting for Tripp and taking care of Bristol. Of all the Heaths she has struck me as the most decent.

Only my perception. We all have a six sense to one degree or another. Mine seems to be pre-cognition. Second sight. It hasn't helped me in figuring out this mess, but I often use my intuition, which is really pre-cognitive abilites in my own life.

I trust my own insights. My husband valued them.

I'm sure many here trust their gut instincts on this and other matters.

A lot of people here are using their insights and intuition that something is very amiss with this woman and her backing. We have known it from the very beginning when they foisted her on us as a V.P. candidate.

lilly lily

7/2/2011 04:19:37

The tape of Bristol talking about her not having a problem with abstinence is an interview with the 700 club. (Pat Robertsons club?)

Bristol will be living with two African American males and Tripp while working for a charity. Perhaps this is meant to reassure her christian faith following that she is a virtuous matron.

Her hair is cut short in this tape. People often cut their hair when they are in a period of personal change in their lives.

It is better than those long extentions like snakes that she has used.

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 04:21:20

We all know that the "wild ride" did NOT happen. The only thing wild about that ride was the size of the lie and how many times it's been repeated.

It sure would be great if Wholy Mary or Anon 4:32 could comment on the blog in order to get us back on track. It seems as though we were getting closer to the truth when we were researching ArcXIX.

What do all of the following statements have in common with Down Syndrome? GENETICS (Even "Arc19" has a connection to genetics.)

Anon 4:32
For the people who asked "who are the parents"...due to my job, there are certain medical specificities which I don't feel comfortable speaking about. What I feel VERY free to speak of: anyone who is NOT the parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity#Medical_example

Wholy Mary
Why in hell would the Palins and Johnstones need a geneticist?

Perplexed
Anonymous 4:32 seems to hint at the same sort of scenario when she mentions a rumored skirmish over whose name(s) will appear on the birth certificate, refers vaguely to "medical specificities," and says that she can say in good conscience who did not "give birth," but not who did.

lilly lily

7/2/2011 04:26:41

to me.

LOL

Why are YOU here?

The conclusion was reached immediatly.

Go out and watch the fireworks. I watched them last nite, sounded like the third world war.

Tomorrow a concert. On the 4th a picnic.

Who says you can't have a life and follow this story?

lilly lily

7/2/2011 04:32:04

Just thinking.

Some people spend hours playing bridge or mah jong.

Some spend days gambling on slot machines.

Some garden. Some knit. Some spend hours power walking.

And some try to decipher the Trig mystery.

Exp:Nov.05/08

7/2/2011 04:41:10

Nobody worried about her flying or making appearances post-partum, because she wasn't post-partum. I'd think Perry and Mason (haha) - would have some intuitive curiousity kick in, just based on their names, unless they were accomplices to a degree.
I wonder how many details they'd know, other than that she wasn't actually pregnant. But, even just that's enough to render them complicit.

She wasn't pregnant in that March 14th photo, Ottoline. That's the only explanation for it. She cannot have given birth to a 6 lb. baby five weeks later. This should be all the proof anyone ever needed. But, keep asking the question!

And SP did not look post-partum 3 days after Trig's supposed birth, or in the Johnston kitchen 2 weeks later, with 'her' baby in her daughter's boyfriend's sister's arms.
All other photos of SP and BP with a newborn Trig are nowhere to be seen - I think it's because they have all been destroyed. They'd show exactly how un-post-partum Sarah looked, and would give us a glance at Bristol, who should have been looking at least a little bit pregnant with Tripp around the same time. I think that's precisely what the scrubbers went up to AK to erase - any written or photographic evidence of who really was and wasn't pregnant in the Palin clan around those late 2007/early 2008 timelines.

ginny11

7/2/2011 04:41:53

@lily lily: Okay, I was hoping maybe you had details or new info that led you to feeling that Bristo's remarks about Mercede are true. My own feeling is that Bristols was very jealous and has no qualms with lying or twisting facts to suit her purpose. So while I'm sure Mercede is no angel, I also take anything Bristol says about her with a deer-lick size block of salt. I don't know anything about Heather at all. She's the one with an autistic son, right?
I may have to head over to B&N and scan through Bristol's book.
Can't wait for Joe's book!!! I really think he has something dynamite in there, and I am really looking forward to it!

TexasGal2009

7/2/2011 05:03:37

Lilly Lilly - great catch about Bristol revealing something very tragic about another child. Somewhere there is a video of Sarah in which she talks about Bristol showing courage. I think in the same speech she praised the courage of mothers who give up their babies to adopting parents. This was before Bristol showed " courage" on DWTS. I thought it was revealing. Does anyone else remember that?

Bob

7/2/2011 05:19:44

re 2009 date at bottom of email--i believe that's a printer stamp for when the email was printed.

re: the cache of emails in general--wow --we've all read the general consensus that the emails weren't all that revealing, yet with awareness of other events in the timeline, the emails --as scrubbed as they were---are indeed revealing. No way do i believe that a woman who gave birth four days before was planning a long transcontinental trip away from her newborn, in any time frame where her staff was trying to nail down the travel arrangements--without so much as a mention of her likely exhausted situation.

JayC

7/2/2011 05:24:28

I remember Sarah talking about Bristol's decision to go on DWTS and she said that Bristol was "in mourning" and that Sarah thought she should do it to have some fun. I don't remember the speech where she said it but it was after Bristol broke up with Levi after their brief engagement last summer.

mumimor

7/2/2011 05:25:30

Lots of interesting news here the last few days. Laura, I think who are getting closer, with the help of your "hive".
Now, I googled "looking great at 6 months pregnant":
http://www.google.dk/search?hl=da&rlz=&q=looking+great+at+6+months+pregnant&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1039&bih=661
Most women big and small look like normal women, but there are exceptions. Some model, Karolina Korkova, a Yoga lady, Naomi Watts, Meryl Streep. In my view, SP's missing bump is strange, but not impossible. (I had a friend who's mother didn't realize she was pregnant till she arrived, and that mom was not big).
It's the combination with the wild ride that triggers me. I just can't see how a mother of four, who knows she is expecting a special needs child would or could do something like that. This is for me either an indication that SP is crazy, uneducated or lying. Or all three.
The "Heaths at the hospital" picture, with a not at all newborn baby strengthens my sense that something is amiss. As does the later treatment of Trig, where Bristol and Levi seem more like parents than Sarah and whatshisname. But my core issue is with that trip across America "leaking amniotic fluid". No way.

Molly

7/2/2011 05:31:57

Sherri Johnston also made an odd comment once about the awful time they had gone through. At the time, I thought she was referring to her divorce. I am fairly certain the time frame she referenced was the summer of '08.

And yes Laura, you made an excellent observation about her post partum travelling. No woman would get on a long haul flight the week after giving birth.

Think clots, engorged breasts, constipation and most importantly, who was going to breast feed Trig?

Sarah talked about being up late at night with her blackberries and her breast pump. I for one don't believe a word of it. Maybe it is something like Gaydar, but I have Breastdar....I know when someone is claiming to have breast fed when in fact they have not.

I also don't think Bristol breast fed either. Both women are too selfish to have done this.

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 05:34:01

Mumimor, Thanks! That is THE thing about this entire story. Just as one could excuse or explain a facet of this story, another incredible part of it pops up in your face. It's the strange factors/incidents, one after the other that compound the suspicions.

Bob: I agree with you. Having combed the emails, I see some interesting patterns that I'd like to blog about in a separate post. Themes emerge that if nothing else, do NOT confirm, to my mind, that she gave birth. So, thanks for commenting.

7/2/2011 05:55:42

I have asked this before but no one answered. Do we even know that Sarah was actually in the hospital? It seems to me that to fake the birth she had to make sure she disappeared from sight for the weekend - and then she could have sent some relatives with a baby early in the morning to MatSu for a photo op.

Molly

7/2/2011 06:00:53

Wasn't there a photo of them leaving the hospital?

http://www.morethings.com/images/sarah_palin/sarah_palin-photo_gallery040.htm

I know...there is no real proof of this!

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 06:06:21

Molly, that was them 3 days later, in the red jacket. V is right: there are no photos of the "parents" at MatSu that weekend. None. Unless someone can disabuse me of that fact.

Jeanteet

7/2/2011 06:16:32

Bristol did not make a comment about having lost a child. An anonymous commenter "troll" on IM talked about Bristol only wanting to make sure she kept Tripp safe. Here is part of it:

"I don't speak from hate. I speak as a young mother myself and someone who had to make the painful decision of ditching Mr Party animal. A mother has fears, especially is she had a previous child who didn't make it. Besides, would you want youe child around people who befriend lonely bloggers who, in the past, has hired stalkers to drive by your home or follow you?"

So the poster may or may not have been talking about Bristol loosing a child, but it does sound like it to me.

Three anonymous comments in support of Bristol, including this one, were posted within minutes of each other so it is likely one commenter, maybe Sarah, Willow, or Bristol.

Jeanette

7/2/2011 06:18:04

Sorry the reply was from me not Jeanteet

Ottoline

7/2/2011 06:19:44

Hey Ivyfree and Laura -- Thank you! I am a broken record. Hard to get comments about the Mar 14 photo? Quelle surprise! Remember that anonymous comments of 5 Ob/Gyns would be fine (with only Laura confirming that they are legit) for a start. A next step.

Jeanette: You are right, I should repeat this link each time we mention that photo, esp for newbies who would be as aghast and dismissive at the idea of a hoax as we all were at one time.

Here is the link again:

http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/?action=view¤t=5weekstobaby.jpg

Again, for any newbies, there are OTHER photos that tell us the same thing, quite a few of them (Lidia17's great videos -- I don't understand why they didn't get traction), but to me this Mar 14 photo is the very clearest visually, plus one can see the reality at a glance (which is the most time most normal people have for Palin!). The Apr 13 Gusty photo just adds to the proof when taken together with the Mar 14 photo. And when one sees the Apr 17 Texas conference photos:

http://tinypic.com/r/358qhys/7

one sees that she looks smaller, flatter in Texas than on the Apr 13 Gusty photo.

But fuzzy photos, relative sizes, can't sit all hunched over (legs crossed) like that when pregnant -- all that can be dismissed by people who want to deny the hoax. But the Mar 14 can't be denied. That's why it's never discussed.

Not even RN Allie commented on it, after I asked her. Twice. Why didn't she answer, I wanted to know? I wanted to know THAT as much as I wanted to know her actual answer. For a person who is trying to understand it (which I do think she is, completely), why not look at the Mar 14 photo and draw a conclusion?

I try to imagine what a hoax-denying person would say:
--low-amniotic-fluid day? (someone actually said that, way back on Audrey's blog -- hilarious!)?
--rare illness?
--miracle?
--my sister never showed either?
--Or, as Joe McGinnis put it (I am paraphrasing): "I'm with you but don't want to say so yet." Now that I understand. That makes strategic sense. Not what I wanted to hear, but it's honest. Makes me have great hope re his book and his interviews for book launch.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/2/2011 06:32:08

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we really don't see a lot of infant (3-9months) photos of either one of these babies? There are a few pictures of them from hospital, and then suddenly the boys are one year old. Both of them. This just seems really odd to me. I would think that the scrubbers had lots of work to do in a very short time, and they obviously missed a few, but I think there must be more photos out there that we have not seen.

And Laura, I have an off topic question for you. You may have addressed it somewhere but I missed it. The artwork on your page is really cool. Would you mind providing a little backgroud?

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 07:04:33

Anonymous said...
Don't worry about it Mercede, we know what's going on and we'll do the job for you if Sarah decides to get serious. Sorry that your daddy may have to come down with her.

Wholy Mary
June 27, 2011 11:48 AM

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-dealing-with-certain-people.html

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 07:08:22

Otto, I don't think she wasn't answering on purpose. I will try to ask her to address it. Sometimes things move so fast and there is so much coming in, I, also too, don't address everything people ask me. And it's not for lack of wanting to. Sometimes things just fly by us.

Cracklin' Charlie, thank you! I pulled from Weebly's free images, and chose this graffiti, and cropped and shaped it - because all I have to offer is words. These are words, only indistinguishable from real words. They can mean whatever anyone wants. And the graffiti and the colors represent Berkeley: hip and hippy.

My novel cover is in the process of being designed. I am planning to put part of it up there to replace the graffiti. But in the meantime, thank you again. I love the colors in it. But I can change the entire template of my whole site with one key stroke to the dozens more they have. That's why I like Weebly so much, among other reasons.

:-) L.

JayC

7/2/2011 07:12:24

I don't know if anyone has seen this email yet but it appears that Erika is going to buy baby formula and champagne for the nursing mother Sarah.

from: Fagerstrom, Erika (GOV)
to: Gov. Sarah Palin

I'm headed to the store to p.u. A couple of things for the House. Do you need anything?
I have formula (orange container\sensitive) and mocha stuff on my list.

Thanks,

E
Re: Shopping6:39 PM 29 Jul 2008 [ View original ] from: Gov. Sarah Palin
to: Fagerstrom, Erika (GOV)

Small bottles champagne , low carb foods . Thanks!

http://rawdata.sarahsinbox.com/19984.pdf

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 07:28:13

Bristol's appearance on GMA might have prompted Wholy Mary to post on Mercede's blog on the morning of Monday, June 27th.
On the subject of her mother's presidential potential, Bristol had this to say: "I think she's awesome. I think she's smart. I think she would be awesome for our country." She didn't offer any new information on whether her mother is actually running, saying that there were some things discussed at the kitchen table "that stay at the kitchen table."

http://www.aoltv.com/2011/06/27/bristol-palin-talks-virginity-chin-surgery-moms-presidential/

NSG

7/2/2011 07:45:42

Ottoline & all. I had trouble with the Photobucket link to the Mar 14 pic, so I googled it.

Here's Litbrit's analysis, including the original ADN screenshot with the photo, plus a lightened version that removes some of the shadow.

http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/photo-forensics-and-sarah-palins.html

HTH...

curiouser

7/2/2011 07:46:18

ottoline - Thanks you for being a broken record that keeps playing the Mar. 14 photo. I'm in total agreement with you on that one. I was bringing it up constantly, also too, but saw that you had it handled...so, thanks for giving me a break. The Mar 14 and Mar 26 photos are the only ones that do it for me, with the Mar 14 easier to prove since it comes from the ADN.

FEDUP!!!

7/2/2011 08:19:28

LOL! Yup! When *I* was 4 days post-partum, I was a total zombie - I was hanging around our apartment, trying to nap when our daughter was napping (which was not often at that time - she was crying incessantly, because it turned out she was hungry - my milk had not come in yet. Finally, totally exasperated, I called the hospital hotline and cried to them, and they asked me why I didn't give her the formula that they had supplied... I felt like a total failure, because I desperately wanted to breast-feed her, but they assured me that my milk would come in very soon...

Jeanette

7/2/2011 08:19:39

"Anonymous said...
Don't worry about it Mercede, we know what's going on and we'll do the job for you if Sarah decides to get serious. Sorry that your daddy may have to come down with her.

Wholy Mary
June 27, 2011 11:48 AM"

I went to Mercede's blog and get it now. Anonymous seems to be saying that Mercede's father will come down with Sarah if she gets brought down. That may be sympathy or it may be a threat.

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 08:22:01

@ Ottoline & curiouser

The following video was taken at Alaska's Republican Convention March 14, 2008. See the 2:40 mark for a good shot of a "seven months pregnant" Palin. Also watch Sarah practically run down the stairs to get off the stage at about the 3:30 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQe3JFWPbEo&feature=player_embedded

This article (with Palin picture) was written March 15, 2008 and ties in with the above video: http://alaskareport.com/news31/z49194_republican_convention.htm

It looks like the same outfit to me... but the picture that was taken with Parnell and his wife happens to be at a REALLY bad angle for "seven months pregnant" Palin compared to the others from that same day. Just more proof for us!

peggy

7/2/2011 08:32:23

Anonymous said...
"Don't worry about it Mercede, we know what's going on and we'll do the job for you if Sarah decides to get serious. Sorry that your daddy may have to come down with her." Wholy Mary
June 27, 2011 11:48 AM
http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-dealing-with-certain-people.html

Seems time to theorize about Keith Johnston, father of Mercede/Levi and ex-husband of Sherry.

Facts:

1. Keith disappears (moves to AZ) leaving his disabled wife and minor child behind, to fend for themselves.

2. Mercede refers to Trig as her "baby brother."

3. Keith is silenced (we never hear a peep).

4. Levi is silenced (perhaps "bought off" to play fiance' to Bristol and baby Tripp's daddy.

5. Sherry is silenced - set up in sting operation for selling some of her prescription ocycontin pills. She is off to jail and now on house arrest.

6. Teen Mercede is fending for herself. She sees what has happened to her dad, brother and mother. Afraid to tell all? I suspect so.

My theory is that there was a lot of partying at the Johnston home. Keith + Bristol = Trig. Keith flees to safety, abandoning his family. Sarah takes Trig and silences all of the Johnstons - Mercede is upset/angry, but if she exposes the whole truth, her parents are at risk.

Jeanette

7/2/2011 08:39:37

Thanks Ottoline for the link. I think we all have our gotcha picture and there are several different ones. I think the picture you are referencing certainly shows a non pregnant Sarah but I think it can be dismissed as easily as the other by those that don't want to see the truth. If I were wanting to do so, I would say the baby doesn't show because it is taken from the front and the angle is off. I don't believe that but that is what one might say if they don't want to dismiss it.

In that view 44 I think it would be hard for any woman who has had a baby to dismiss the picture taken April 9th bending over. Sarah could bend over like that with that spongebob pad she has on in the photo to the left but she wouldn't be able to bend over even with the empathy belly she seems to have on in the picture to the right. Not 9 days before she is going to deliver.

The same is true of the picture of her in California which is also in that series. And there is the one of her in her infamous pink coat where she bends down to pet the Target Dog. I believe this on also was in the newspapers but it also at this site which has some interesting comparisons and discussion it: http://tiny.cc/mrxy2.

Bob

7/2/2011 08:39:52

Looking at the March 14 picture again. Yes, i agree it's impossible to look at that picture and see a pregnant woman.

The argument people frequently make when dismissing this as a hoax is that pregnant women "show" differently. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, and saying, okay, that's a pregnant woman who doesn't show much at 7 months...then how do i explain the April 13 "Gusty" photo. How does one go from one to the other?

i also think what gives people difficulty with this as a hoax, is that they don't understand how well documented the dates of these various photos are---unlike most of us, a governor makes news, and it's possible to precisely date her public appearances related to the news of the day.

I confess that what's surprised me most about all the photos is that jacket--how it appear in nearly every photo, how unflattering it is, how it loses a button and keeps being worn without the button fixed. It's just so weird to me. I know of no other professional woman who would appear that way, especially in maternity clothes.

This brings me to---is it possible that there are MSM journalists who see what we're seeing, and although they won't cover it for career reasons, absolutely understand how ridiculous it is to repeat the story of this baby's birth, as told by S. Palin? Does any journalist give the sense that they SEE it but are declining to cover it?

Jeanette

7/2/2011 08:43:48

Peggy

Has Keith moved to Arizona? When did that happen?

litbrit link

7/2/2011 09:03:09

Hello all. Just wanted to address the comment of Mrs. Palin's (about someone losing a child being brave) that someone asked about upthread; it was in the Esquire interview of 2009. She said:

"A courageous person is anyone who loses a child and can still get out of bed in the morning."

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/sarah-palin-interview-0309#ixzz1QzXwP6C0

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 09:04:38

From Trailblazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin (page 187)

After her commercial flight touched down in Anchorage, Todd drove her to the regional hospital in Mat-Su Valley, where her family was waiting.*
On Friday morning--eight hours after touchdown--Sarah gave birth to a 6-pound, 2-ounce baby boy.

*Strange detail that doesn't make sense to me... WHY would her family be waiting at the hospital if she had not even been checked out by a doctor yet? Later it was said that Sarah had to be "induced" but for some reason her family was at the hospital before she arrived there herself.

Laura Novak link

7/2/2011 09:11:02

Litbrit! I just drafted a short post to put up tomorrow linking to your fabulous post a year ago. It's just so that everyone can see the lightening of those photos...and not miss mention of it in this thread.

Hope that's okay. What a coincidence. I literally just finished drafting it!

curiouser

7/2/2011 09:34:56

Peggy -

Keith didn't move to AZ or disappear. *He stayed on the Alaska PFD records for 2008 and 2009. (I haven't checked after that date.)

*He was still working on the North Slope in early 2009.

*A photo of him in the Palin home, holding infant Tripp, was included in a national publication.

I don't see how pursuing the theory that he is the reason for the hoax has any benefit. I do think it gives the media another reason to discredit critics of Palin's birth story and it changes the blog conversation away from matters that could make a difference.

Who Knows?

7/2/2011 09:59:12

Levi and Keith Johnston photo from Star (Issue March 23, 2009).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d4ad6QlLNEE/ScciXVUm6qI/AAAAAAAAAJk/kv8IfY2Mz3c/s400/img015.jpg

Jeanette

7/2/2011 10:40:25

It looks to me as though Keith E. Johnston is still living in Alaska and I couldn't find one the same age in Arizona. He also supposedly has had a business for 5 years with only 1 employee.

I have seen that picture supposedly of Levi, Keith and Tripp. It was from Sadie's scrapbook and I think taken in the Palin's home. Things weren't going to well after Tripp's birth and I doubt the Palins would have let the family in to take the picture. Plus Levi looks very young in that picture, more the same age as the green t-shirt pictures but without the blond tips.

I realize there is a McCain/Palin logo on Levi's t-shirt but it really looks as though it was either an iron on transfer, or more likely a photshop to date the picture as after August 08.

I don't think there is anything that we can leave alone because we won't know what was/were the important piece(s) until the mystery is solved. What people have looked at won't matter when the case has finally been made that Sarah did not birth Trig Palin on April 18th. All that will matter is how airtight the case is.

Questions asked and later answered or not presented because they are not relevant will no longer matter.

curiouser

7/2/2011 10:45:56

I got sidetracked and didn't focus on Laura's insightful questions about how Sarah's staff didn't seem to question her postpartum activities.

I wonder if the yahoo emails -- yahoo account to yahoo account -- that were withheld would tell a different story. It seems that her staff was either blinded/silenced by devotion or were afraid to ask questions because of the the Bristol rumors. I do think Sarah purposefully used the rumors about Bristol and, perhaps, even started them.

Perhaps her Chief of Staff, Mike Tibbles, who 'resigned' on May 1, 2008, has some insights...that we'll probably never hear.

7/2/2011 11:09:40

I found the comments defending Bristol at IM very interesting (they are at 3:47 & 3:51 on the Christian Broadcasting Network post from Saturday morning).
I have read Palin family defender posts on all of the blogs - they're great, happy, together, laughing, strong - this was totally different and the grammar was horrible. I would bet $1 that it was Bristol, or possibly Willow, speaking of a "friend" who was a "young mother". Bristol had a pretty eye-opening week with lots of rejection and I could see that frustration and hurt morphing into an effort to change peoples minds about her. Imagine the expectations Sarah put on her about the book signing that turned out to be a dud, and then the piling on from comedians and pundits. Bristol knows where the "haters" post comments - why not spontaneously try and change some opinions with an empathetic voice? She can't come out in her own words & say "you have no idea what I have been through - give me a break or some support!" because she can't share all that has happened. Unfortunately she will never understand that for many of us who have followed this train wreck - it's pity and sadness that is felt for Bristol, not hate.
I don't know - the comments just struck me as strange yet believable.

curiouser

7/2/2011 11:21:10

Bailey's book chronicles how Mike Tibbles seemed to be losing favor. Sarah excluded him from the inner circle receiving her March 4 email about the pregnancy. It's hard for me to imagine that Sarah would make that big a staff change within two weeks of giving birth and it apparently wasn't done on good terms since Tibbles was out of work for over two months after leaving the governor's office.

"Tibbles abruptly left his position as Palin’s Chief of Staff on May 1 ’08. On July 7 ’08 he was appointed Sen. Ted Stevens re-election campaign." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/mike-tibbles-at-the-cente_b_123037.html

He’s currently a consultant to the Alaska Cruise Association.
http://juneauempire.com/stories/022210/loc_566155051.shtml

Jeanette

7/2/2011 11:44:47

Laura, I think in Palin's circle one learned quickly not to questions any of Palin's activities. Before "delivery" Palin made some lame attempts to show a baby bump but her vanity didn't allow her to don the whole pregnancy attire other than the one picture for Gutsy and that was on at a time when no one would be around to question her sudden change in appearance.

What she didn't change before and after delivery was her overall appearance, posture and way of movement. She never walked like a pregnant or post partum woman or had any other of the characteristics of one.

This could be due to vanity, her absolute belief that she could fool anyone at any time, or her overriding desire to show that a pregnant and postpartum woman could perform as well as anyone else. Maybe she felt that was a weakness that she could not show to the McCain campaign.

However, in doing this she attracted the attention, first of women, later of others, who knew that her story was not true.

FrostyAK

7/2/2011 11:53:52

We need to take comments on blogs (all blogs, any blogs) made by those who tease and/or threaten and then leave, with a pound of salt. I'm sure we all realize that $palin sycophants will appear on blogs when we get too close to the truth.

Speculation is great, as long as we are not being led around by our noses. Just a cautionary note.

Ottoline

7/2/2011 12:01:10

Hi "Who Knows?" -- Thanks for the link to the Mar14 video. I had lost that link, and I remembered looking just where you said, at 2:40, and I remembered seeing her too-flat profile in those few seconds. I made a screen grab right there -- that bit of orange below her waist is not her scarf, it is the wall showing through from behind. She is a little padded, yes, but not 6 mo along!

http://i52.tinypic.com/oivpqu.jpg

Here's your Mar 14 video link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQe3JFWPbEo&feature=player_embedded

7/2/2011 12:09:37

curiouser, I also took note of what Bailey had to say about Tibbles. Bailey's take was that Tibbles was being pushed out of the inner circle leading up to 3/2008. By his account, Tibbles "eyebrows fell off his face" when he was told about the pregnancy, which Bailey read as Tibbles' realization that he had indeed been banished from the inner sanctum. What I wondered is, did Bailey misinterpret Tibbles' reaction? Could Tibbles have known something at that point, and recognized the hoax for what it was? Bailey goes on to say something like, by early May he was gone. Interesting timing indeed.

Banyan

7/2/2011 12:14:43

@JR who wrote:

"found the comments defending Bristol at IM very interesting (they are at 3:47 & 3:51 on the Christian Broadcasting Network post from Saturday morning)."

Yes, Pat Robertson's network, which is often confused with Christian Network, inc. founded by Lowell "Bud" Paxson.

I'm continuing my Google search on "Bud" Paxson and it seems like he and his people have a long history of dirty tricks and unsavory secret missions on behalf of the GOP and maybe even the Saudis.

7/2/2011 12:18:42

i have said so on this blog before, but the post-partum activity is proof of hoaxto me.

I had a 35-week preemie. She was very healthy, but even so during the first week of her life I spent 90 min of every 2 hours round the clock waking the baby to eat or feeding her. It took 45 minutes of me tapping on her cheek or sole to wake her up, and 45 minutes for her to drink 1/2 oz of milk. And this is a child who was strong enough to be discharged home at 2 days of age. I had to spend the other 30 min of my 2-hour blocks sleeping myself. I couldn't get dressed and go to work, even if I hadn't been breastfeeding.

Phyllis

7/2/2011 12:34:03

From : Perry, Kristina Y (GOV) [kris.perry@alaska.gov]
Sent : Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:20 PM
To: ExternalEmailgsp
Cc: 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'; Mason; Janice L (GOV)
Subject : DC Flights
Currently you are scheduled to depart for DC Friday morning and return late Sunday evening. If you are
still planning to go, I looked at some other flight possibilities to shorten the duration of both the travel time
and the stay. The event begins at 6pm on Saturday. I could not find any evening flights returning to
Alaska after the event.
Depart Anchorage Friday night/ Saturday morning on red eye: 12:55 a.m. / arrive D.C. at 2:49 p.m. Delta
Airlines (partner thru Alaska Airlines).
Depart DC Sunday morning: 8 a.m. I arrive ANC at 2:26 p.m.

8:51 AM 23 Apr 2008 [ View original ]
from: Gov. Sarah Palin
to: Janice L Mason , Kris Perry
cc: Rosanne Hughes , Sharon Leighow
Looks like it's working for me to do the Motorcycle Blessing on Saturday before heading to
Slush cup at Alyeska... be I won't be going to the Washington Press Dinner . Any other
Anchorage invites before I go to Alyeska that afternoon ? Pis let them know I am planning
on attending . Thanks

This was theWashington Correspondents Dinner that was held on April 26 2008.

She sure had a active day on April 26, 2008.
1. Traveled from Wasilla to Anchorage.
2. signed 2 bills, did the motorcycle blessing, all done in different locations.
3. traveled 40 miles to Alyeska.

If they went back home that evening that would be about 85 miles to Wasilla.
Mighty long day for a 11 day old pre-term baby, not to mention his mother.

Banyan

7/2/2011 13:04:10

OMG!

FELLOW SLEUTHS, CHECK THIS OUT:

http://files.meetup.com/388713/McCain's%20Sweet%20Ride.pdf

Ottoline

7/2/2011 13:39:23

NSG -- I had forgotten how well LitBrit tells the story of the Mar 14 photo -- here's your link to her again:

http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2010/07/photo-forensics-and-sarah-palins.html

Exp:Nov.05/08 -- Your comment made me remember that at one time there was a video of the day Palin showed off the new baby at work. This long-ago version starts taping a little earlier than the ones I have seen lately: i.e., it shows Palin come bounding through a door with all the energy of a hyper rat terrier. I remembered my sore muscles and nether regions as well as my big post-partum bulge at a few days after, and I had brand-new elephant-sized ankles from water retention gone bad. How could Palin be so bouncy-fresh and thin?

She hadn't been pregnant, of course!!!

Still, once again, no matter how clear a red flag that bouncy walk is, it's not real proof, so I have lost interest in it. I can't find that video anymore, but I bet it's out there.

Ottoline

7/2/2011 13:55:11

So I read your link, Banyan. I hope you'll explain what it means. Shady ethics and association among fat cats from the various sectors (Dominionist, political, crime, etc.)? Ho hum. A more direct link to Palin -- the basis for some blackmail of McCain? I don't understand.

Phyllis

7/2/2011 13:56:36

Found what Trig's birth weight and length was on his birth announcement.

-----original Message-----
From: Perry, Kristina Y (GOV)
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:46 PM
To: Mills, Andy J (GOV); ExternalEmailgsp; Bailey, Frank T (GOV); 'Todd'
Cc: Bluhm, Jason R (GOV); Leschper, Beth (GOV); Hughes, Rosanne D (GOV)
Subject: RE: Trig - Kris's Arms.jpg
Andy,
The Governor loved Trig's announcement and the design. Some minor verbiage
changes/additions:
Under his picture, add appropriate language from verse , citing Proverbs 3:5-6.
On the inside , replace Sandburg quote with: The night breeze hums a lullaby - sweet baby,
you're the reason why.
Weight should be changed to 6.3lbs and add 18 inches on the length.
Thanks! Great work.
Kris

-----Original Message-----
From: Mills, Andy J (GOV)
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:47 PM
To: ExternalEmailgsp; Bailey, Frank T (GOV); Perry, Kristina Y (GOV); 'Todd'
Cc: Bluhm, Jason R (GOV); Leschper, Beth (GOV); Hughes, Rosanne D (GOV)
Subject: RE: Trig - Kris's Arms.jpg
Attached is the draft announcement ( JPEGS also attached if the PDF doesn't open ). There's
a blank line inside the card for Trig ' s length ( if that's something you'd like).
This was designed to be a card of quarter page in size ( 4.25 by 5 . 5 when folded ) and would
look great on a shiny - ish card stock paper.
Let me know if there is anything we can change.
-Andy ( and team)

Banyan

7/2/2011 14:08:04

@ Ottoline

I explained this on Laura's last blog post "Texas Two Step"

But, once more...

Take out your book "The Lies of Sarah Palin" by Geoffrey Dunn, and turn to Chapter Three, "Hail Mary" (Think about that chapter title for a few minutes).

Then, turn to pages 157 -161. Take out your most fluorescent highlighter and highlight every mention of the names "Paxson," "Iseman," "McCain," "New York Times," and "Palin."

Now, turn to page 142, and highlight anything to do with "Gary Wheeler" and "Palin."
[Wheeler, BTW, is a "Good Guy" -- part of Palin's security detail who saw her in jeans during this trip to DC to confer with McCain. Wheeler says she showed no signs of pregnancy, but just a few days later on March 5...

So, to connect the dots, again...

When Palin went to DC and met with McCain on Feb. 23, 2008, McCain was involved in a very dangerous game of chicken with Right Wing [Fundie, head of Christian Network, Inc, aka PAX,Inc, aka ION, Inc) "friend,"Lowell "Bud" Paxson who was essentially blackmailing McCain over the relationship McCain had allegedly had with Paxson's "employee," Vicki Iseman.

[Allegedly, some of this relationship happened on the same plane that was used by Paxson's company to transport Saudi royals out of Las Vegan right after 9/11]

The first installment of the potentially lethal expose about McCain and Iseman had just been printed in the NY Times, and more was on the way.

McCain gave in and decided to "play ball" with Paxson and his fellow Fundies who were threatening to destroy McCain's presidential hopes, life, and career.

McCain, at that point, secretly agreed to take on Palin as VP.

And the New York Times stories mysteriously and very weirdly halted, because the previous informants had shut down on them.

Palin then announced her "pregnancy" on March 5th, the day after it became conclusive that McCain won the nomination.

Now, go to Google.... enter the names "Paxson," "iseman," "New York Times," and "McCain." And see what you can find.

curiouser

7/2/2011 14:13:19

jk - Your comment added clarity to Tibbles situation. I think Bailey could easily have misread Tibbles reaction. I love Bailey's book but he viewed things through a small lens.

We've heard that the rumors about Bristol started in Dec. '07 and Tibbles had apparently been a confident for a time while Bailey was on the outside. I don't recall if Bailey mentioned when he became aware of them. There are quite a few other things that could have caused a rift between Palin and Tibbles during that legislative session but I prefer to dream that the tension was due to Palin's hoax and that Tibbles will speak up.

Punkinbugg

7/2/2011 14:27:59

@Ottoline:

I remember that video from 4/21, too. She was STRIDING into that presser, in high heeled boots, all smiles and damngladtaseeya... not at all like a woman with pelvic issues, or fluid on her face or IV marks.

It must be archived with KTVA or KTUU, because I can't find it now.

I emailed K&P about it once, and they don't remember it. Thought I was going crazy!

litbrit link

7/2/2011 14:35:29

Hi Laura! Absolutely--please feel free to use anything Babygate-related. That one composite photo made for me by a reader (same month, if memory serves) is especially good, as it shows the original ADN "flat-tummy" photo, a lightened version, and Mrs. Palin during a previous pregnancy (as in, a *real* one, ha!)

Off to read the other comments now. Ah, peace at last--my not-so-little sons are busily amusing themselves with their video games and movies, and Mr. Litbrit has already turned in. Having babies can turn one into a serious night owl, if for no other reason than the solitude and quiet bliss--so necessary for reading and writing--one can seemingly only find after-hours.

tanya phillips

7/2/2011 14:37:17

While you are discussing Sarah traveling 4 days after delivering a premature baby who has to drink milk every couple of hours, there's more to worry about besides constantly pumping.

Sarah was induced, which makes me think that any thoughts of a natural child birth went out the window. If they was some reason (fetal distress?) to hurry the delivery, then the doctor would be likely to perform an episiotomy to avoid unnecessary tearing of delicate tissue. That means stitches, and a couple of week of being tender, sore and requiring a follow up visit to the doctor.

Even if she didn't have the procedure, then she would have stretched herself silly and needed to recover instead of bounding into work a day or two later. For anyone who has given birth, please try to remember the heavy flow, especially since nursing produces uterine contractions to expel all of that stuff that built up. None of these are conditions that would be compatible with travel, let alone airplane travel and a full time work schedule. That's the reason that even the meanest health care providers give 4 to 6 weeks minimum for childbirth and recovery. Sarah was so intent on portraying herself as Super Woman that she forgot some of the little details.

curiouser

7/2/2011 14:41:39

UP - I feel your exhaustion.

Phyllis - You're on a roll. She sure got her staff involved in her personal life. Sarah had no time to take care of birth announcements herself when she was so busy keeping on top of rumors and media criticism. No boundaries at all.

Banyan - Yikers! I'm intrigued and suspicious. How convenient for Sarah that there is an Alaskan town called Paxson.

BfromC

7/2/2011 15:28:49

To take this a little deeper --

When was the flight to DC for the Correspondent's Dinner booked? Before Trig's surprise birth on April 18? If so, why would Sarah be planning another long flight even closer to her actual due date? Why would her staff help her do something so risky?

If the flight to DC was booked after the 18th and Trig's birth, then WTF? For all the postpartum reasons stated above, that kind of travel would been nearly impossible to pull off, physically. What about the baby? Why would she leave a newborn preemie special needs baby that she so "cherishes"? Why would her staff not be chatting up all the issues involved, besides just trying to make the trip less "exhausting".

Maybe it is a miracle -- if you don't show while pregnant (until the very end), and you can make a long distance trip by plane after your water breaks and contractions start, then apparently you won't have any postpartum issues to concern yourself with whatsoever. And those maternal instincts to not leave your new baby any farther than the next room for the first couple of weeks isn't present, either.

Pregnancy Palin-style.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/2/2011 16:01:58

Dayum Banyon!

Love, love, love, your comment. I had always assumed that someone (Fundie Christian) had bought Palin's way onto the McCain ticket. I had figured that McCain needed money so badly, that he had to take her. Your scenario makes much more sense, and the article you linked seems to suggest that McCain was blackmailed to select Palin. Was Iseman an accomplice? Could she have been persuaded to seduce him, thus setting him up for the blackmail scheme? Very interesting.

If this is the way it went down, Johnny boy knew Sarah wasn't pregnant when he met her. He must have been shocked when she made her announcement. He had to have known she was bad news for a long time. John McCain's experience here would be a perfect way to illustrate why people who do corrupt or stupid things should not be in Congress. Anything dirty in their past makes them vulnerable to blackmail.

Sarah must have been so excited in the spring of 2008, at the chance to get out of Alaska, and onto the national stage. She thought she was "in like flynn" and she was not going to let anybody or anything stop her.

I have a feeling there is much more to learn here than we ever imagined.

curiouser

7/2/2011 16:45:39

BfromC - It does sound like the flight was booked before April 18 which gives new meaning to Cathy Baldwin-Johnson's statement about the Texas trip,

"This was going to be Palin's last flight anyway, her doctor said."
http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html

litbrit link

7/2/2011 17:05:45

Paxson wouldn't have even needed for Vicki Iseman to be involved with McCain (although he may well have been, given his reputation for skirt-chasing). Why? Because Paxson had something else on McCain, namely, that the senator had, at Paxson's request, written two letters to the FCC on his behalf and worked to quickly push through a big (Pittsburgh) TV station acquisition, back in 1999. In Feb. 08, the Washington Post wrote about this, because Paxson's account contradicted McCain's 2002 deposition before the FCC:

'But Paxson said yesterday, "I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter." '

(WaPo article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022203188

Link to pdf of McCain's deposition here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022203188 )

So, then, Paxson's chattiness about meeting with McCain, flying him on the jet, the very effective letters McCain obviously wrote, etc. got him into trouble with the FCC in 2002, AND the whole thing--his coziness with lobbyists and big campaign donors--was being dredged up again now that he was running for president in 2008, and everyone was complaining about all the corruption and slime in DC (look at the kind of stories Memeorandum had going, many of which included the sexier narrative of a possible affair with Iseman: http://www.memeorandum.com/080221/p100#a080221p100 )

Then suddenly...nothing. The media dropped the Iseman story and stopped reporting on the more serious possibility that McCain had abused his powerful position as chairman of the Commerce Committee, not to mention lied about it, and lied about how many times he'd received the gift of private jet use, who flew with him, what was discussed, etc. All that stuff suddenly evaporated from the headlines, and I remember it well--a blogger friend even created a hilarious photoshop of a milk carton with Vicki Iseman's face on it, beneath the legend "Have you seen me?" And McCain not only stuck around, but since losing the 2008 election has actively fought Net Neutrality. One needn't think on that too long in order to figure it out.

Paxson is a jaw-droppingly wealthy man. A media mogul. It would've been fairly simple, in today's corporate-owned media environment, for him to have the resurgent McCain FCC stories, and the new McCain affair rumors/stories, completely spiked in exchange for a favor or two or Trig.

litbrit link

7/2/2011 17:29:21

And this is the last negative NYT article (about McCain's corrupt behavior in re: the FCC) published 2/23/2008; thereafter, the matter seemed to evaporate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?pagewanted=print

That December (2008), Iseman filed a $27 million libel suit against the newspaper; they settled out of court.

Allie

7/2/2011 17:42:31

@ Cracklin' Charlie

A few days ago, you posted an intriguing Trig theory which I cannot find on the thread anymore. I've checked and checked but I can't find it. I don't want you to reconstruct it, but if you know where it is, would you mind please posting it again so I can study it some more?

Thanks

Allie

7/2/2011 17:58:41

Great info @ litbrit. McCain is corrupt to the core IMO and I have realized that since I watched the Keating Five hearings. I'm looking forward to Laura's post. Those pictures of it were illuminating!

Allie

7/2/2011 19:40:07

@ Ottoline

Forgive me, buddy; I didn't realize your question was a test! I had you on my list of comments to respond to, but I wanted to take another look at the March 14 photo first. As you know by now, the link you posted was not hot and inaccurate and I couldn't crack it. That meant I had to track it down myself, so I put it off. I did find the video of the conference from the same day. I've been under the weather the last few days so I was delayed even further. Then, boo hoo, I spent 45 minutes looking for it in the back pages of this blog. After I finally found it and studied it, I decided to read this newest post before writing and, BOOM!, it's the topic of discussion and there are a million working hot links to it. My nerves.

A gentle reminder, Ottoline. I questioned Sarah Palin's actual fertility and whether she was even capable of conceiving. Does that sound like someone who thinks the March 14 photo supports her claim of pregnancy?

The photos on litbrit's site are the most revealing, particularly the one on the bottom. It clearly shows a flat abdomen below the belt line. The scarf covers the area above the waist which would show a protruding belly. Nothing is visible. But an actual protruding belly starts at the pubic bone as the uterus rises out of the pelvis. The photograph from the conference is a profile shot and she does look a little bulky in the middle. But, here's the thing about skirts and pregnant women at 32 weeks. In order to have the waistband of a regular, non-maternity skirt be large enough to accommodate the girth of the pregnancy, the rest of the skirt would have so much bulk to it that it would not hang so close to the legs as it does in this photograph. It is obviously not a maternity skirt because we would see the stretchy panel.

Why isn't that photograph the end of the story? The short answer is because we can't clearly see her midriff area. In a skeptic or someone who doesn't follow politics that's enough to plant doubt. If you handed a copy of the original photo from the newspaper to someone unaware of the hoax details, it would not be convincing. Then if you handed over copies of the subsequent lightened pictures, some of the doubt would dissipate and you would convince some. Enough for Brian Williams to put on the nightly news? Probably not.

The opposite is true with the Gusty photo. If you handed that photo over to another person and asked, "Does this woman look pregnant?" you would get a universal yes. Then if you handed over Brad's superimposed photo with the fake belly, first you would get shock and then I can imagine that some doubt would creep in in some people.

We gotta keep digging.

Heidi3

7/2/2011 22:22:51

Allie, thank you for your fabulous input, and I hope you're feeling better.

Notwithstanding the fact that (to us) it's a given that Sarah faked the pregnancy, we must always go back to the incomparable research done by Audrey of "Palin's Deception" fame.

Here, Audrey presents photos of the Spouse's Luncheon on 3-29-08 (Sarah wears the infamous trenchcoat indoors), and the photo of Sarah at the High School Girl's Basketball Tournament on or about 3-22-08.

http://palindeception.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-new-photos-to-discuss-part-two.html

The wheel has already been invented during these past 3 years by tenacious bloggers and commenters, but Audrey's photos should provide more grist for the current mill. I think that if they were incorporated into a photo montage of maybe 20 pics starting from "early scarf" to "show off Trig in Gov's office 3 days after birth" it would be very effective.

I'm fully convinced the MSM has every piece of evidence they need. They just won't break the story. I have computer folders filled with my emails to Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post, Rachel, Keith O., you name it. And the contacts include Alan Butterfield and John South at the National Enquirer. If I send one more link-filled email to John McCain, the 'Feds' might be at my doorstep... I've never once received a reply or acknowledgement, yet they have been bombarded by many of us.

I'm with Ottoline and the others: we MUST get the fake pregnancy concept to be accepted first, and then have our mountain of detailed evidence at the ready to back up the unconscionable story.

Thank you Laura for presenting this great forum - this is the most dogged investigative research I've seen on the topic in one place in many, many months.

Allie

7/2/2011 23:16:57

Thank you, Heidi3, for your concern. Yes, I am feeling better.

My thoughts are that the slow and steady drip, drip, drip of laying one fact down after the other is what is going to bring this story into focus. Collating all the information together would be fantastic, but I don't have the first clue how to do that. It may take books and the written word rather than the news media; after all, what do they do except report what others have done?

Besides the blogs, there have been some quality magazine articles. Now there are the Dunn and Bailey books. McGinniss' book will be out in September (although I don't think there will much news on the hoax front from that corner.) There are others in the pipeline.

Right now it feels like the number of puzzle pieces is growing instead of the existing ones coming together and showing the picture. I like to think of it as giving us choices as to what pieces really do fit the puzzle. I, myself am focusing on the physiology of all these babies being birthed because birthin' babies IS something I know something about. This may be subtle, but I am concentrating on solving the mystery rather than exposing the hoax. When the mysteries are solved, the hoax will be exposed. JMHO

viola-alex

7/2/2011 23:22:35

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I've always known that covering for Bristol simply wasn't enough motive for Sarah to risk this. But the McCain-Iseman-Paxson deal has some weight! Now that's an intrigue a narcissist might cook up!

I'm reading Family of Secrets, the Bush family expose, recommended by a commenter on one of the Palin blogs. It's really quite astounding-- and has given new meaning to political intrigue for me, especially considering the shenanigans of that "quiet" Geo H W Bush. He was a master of cloudy trails and false information (during the JFK assassination.) It's given me a whole new perspective on republican skullduggery pre-Rove.

(((I must say, having litbrit back at the party is grand! Girl, I've missed your smarts!)))

Jeff

7/2/2011 23:26:48

@BfromC,

The travel for the DC Correspondent Dinner was booked before the wild ride. Given that fact, CBJ's comments were untrue that the trip to the RGA was Palin's last travel scheduled before her due date.

viola-alex

7/2/2011 23:59:20

Reading about the two G. Bush men's lies has made me think this about Palin:

If you tell lies, it's to take the focus off the truth. So if we focus on the lies, we're not looking for/at the truth. Perhaps, solving the mystery as Allie says, is looking in between the Stories of Record, at what was really happening at the time. Or at facts of birth that can't be satisfied by the lies. . .

That's also what you've done here, Laura and others, by focusing on Palin's meeting with McCain in February and with her travel schedule after April 14. Rehashing the Mat-Su story or even the wild ride (the lies) will not lead to the truth. It's the smoke cloud.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/3/2011 00:13:24

Alie,
I will have to look for that post later, I have to go on a mission to find home grown tomatoes.
My theory is quite simple really: I think that Bristol had delivered two babies before the RNC. Your knowledge of the matter will probably help you fill in the blanks. I will look for the earlier comment when I get back from the market.

Allie

7/3/2011 01:27:10

@ viola-alex

I'll speak for myself as far as your comment about rehashing Palin's story. Unfortunately, the story survives. It still needs to be further debunked, quashed and deflated until it has so many holes in it that it won't hold any water.

Her behavior in the days and weeks after 4/18 which is being documented further deflate her story. Working on the 2/23 side, her meeting with McCain, has potential to poke some more holes in her explanation. The evidence will accumulate until no one on God's green earth will believe the wild ride story.

Allie

7/3/2011 01:28:41

Thanks, Cracklin' Charlie and hope YOUR mission is accomplished. :)

molly malone

7/3/2011 01:38:45

Palin's faux pregnancy is a given. And we know her account of the wild ride cannot possibly be true. What mires me down in the lack of a concrete timeline of what happened when--a solid framework we can plug information into.

For example: When did Palin ask Bailey what he thought public reaction would be to a pregnant governor? (She had to have a reason for asking.) When did Bristol withdraw from school? When did Franklin Graham first visit Palin? (I'm thinking of the religious angle here.) When were the Dar Miller and church fires? (What else was happening at that time?)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm having a terrible time keeping everything straight.

Andrea

7/3/2011 01:53:11

An e-mail like this, and many others (but let’s not forget they were purged, scrubbed) show that Palin’s engagements, movements, etc. - particularly her flying all over the place from 2 to 7 plus months along - that she herself, her staff, and other contacts, the ppl she met and so forth, treated her “pregnancy” as a non-issue, a fact having no impact on her trips, activities, schedule.

Just business as usual.

They treated the pregnancy as a triviality, something to be ignored, never mentioned, playing no role in public affairs, having no consequence, impact.

The staff booked her for flights, never asked if she needed rest, never predicted a birth date when she would be ‘gone’ for at least 3 weeks, etc.

That is understandable. Palin was the boss, and she projected her scenario, her script with confidence.

OOh ha, she was pregnant and hid it (to 7 mo), but no problem, now it was public, but could still be ignored, as far as activities and staff etc. were concerned.

She was superwoman, and as boss, what she said, implied, or pretended had to be accepted, could not be contested.

So everyone carried on as if she was *not* pregnant. That was what they were required to do!

Accept, support the lie in public if that ever came up (they would not have known unequivocally it was a lie, who knows, it might be the real nitty gritty..), but act in their jobs as if no pregnancy existed, because SP herself behaved as if it was immaterial, of no importance, just a negligible detail, I’m expecting, so what, forget about it, I can go meet McCain ...fly to Texas, etc.

I bet she got no baby gifts like cute booties, little hats, baby toys, from her staff.

All these minions would feel very weird, stressed, pressed, unhappy, if ever asked for some testimony. Truth is but a social construct... What do they know? They were told she was preggers...but it had no effect on her activities, it was a private matter, she didn’t accept any allusions to it, so hush hush was best.

Banyan

7/3/2011 02:23:26

@ Molly Malone

Here are a few dates that may, or may not, be significant

In January of 2006 Mat-Su Hospital opens.

In "early 2006" (see Bailey's book , p. 209) Palin asks Bailey what people would think about a pregnant governor in the governor's mansion in Juneau.

In June 2006, G.W.Bush hosts a group of so-called "Snowflake" babies and their parents at the White House. The political subtext of this event was that it is better to have these frozen embryos incubated and borne by "pro-life" women than to allow them to be used for stem cell research.

I also noted in Bailey's book an odd metaphor in which Bailey likens trying to sort out Sarah's lies and misdeeds to trying to extract a "snowflake from a blizzard."

lilly lily

7/3/2011 02:38:30

Bristol may have turned to God as she says in the 700 club tape.

One last thought on the quote about lost children.. Sarah said somewhere and I don't recall exactly where, that Bristol was in mourning.

For Ruffles?

Certainly not for Trig. He is there.

Certainly not for Levi. Bristol was fed up and angry.

Contentious, but not in mourning.

So what did happen to Ruffles?

lilly lily

7/3/2011 02:43:57

If the main stream media won't take on the story, we could well stumble over the entire truth of the matter f and it WILL be glossed over as a private matter.

What we can ensure is that she never will be able to put her name out, because the Fibber Magee closet and all its dirty laundry will tumble out.

That is enough for me.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/3/2011 03:20:11

Alie,
My mission was definitely accomplished. I bought tomatoes, cauliflower, green beans, red onions, cabbage, cucumbers, blueberries, and for lunch I'm having just picked Missouri peaches (warm from the tree) and cottage cheese. I will make panzanella and cole slaw for a big party tomorrow. I LOVE summer!
Have you given any thought to my theory "On the Origin of Palin Babies"? I would be interested in your thoughts on just taking my basic information, 2 babies before the RNC, and seeing how that fits into your thinking. I am still looking for my original comment, but as I am computer illiterate, it will take me some time.

lily lily,
If you stumble onto the entire truth, would you make sure to let me know? Pretty please?

banyan,
Nice work! Please keep digging!

litbrit link

7/3/2011 03:47:21

@Viola-Alex--great to "see" you, too! I am just shaking my head, having read Laura's newest post and realizing it has indeed been an entire year since I published that post, and still...crickets.

I really do think there is something to the Paxson/McCain connection. The child's middle name is a dead giveaway: that's not a common first or middle name at all--hell, it's not even *that* common a surname.

Cracklin' Charlie

7/3/2011 03:54:43

Alie,
I found the comment that I think you were asking about. I had commented on Laura's post Babes in Levi's Arms. While looking for it, I found lots of other great comments that I had missed before. Please give the following a test drive:

Folks, I believe we are wrong to assume that the Palins have used lots of babies to pull off this hoax. They had plenty of babies right there in the house on Lake Lucille. To my mind, there are only 2 babies, brothers Trig and Tripp. The married guy holding the babies in the pictures above is, or thinks he is, the father. Good looking teenage guys don't wear anything that would resemble a wedding ring if they are not married, and they do NOT hold and gently cuddle other people's tiny, fragile babies.

Let's try to trace what must have been the motive, or need for, the hoax. Why would Sarah need to adopt or steal a baby belonging to her daughter? Bristol could have a child even as a unmarried teen and Sarah would not get into much trouble with the religious right. It would be tough, but she could explain it. But what if Bristol delivered baby #1 with Down Syndrome, and conceived baby #2, within a month or two of baby #1's birth? Then Sarah has a big problem.

Would a female governor, with 4 children at home, and definite plans and ambitions for national office, not take every precaution available to not become pregnant? Sarah had to have already known and was probably actively pursuing a VP nomination. Suddenly her daughter, a 17 year old mother of one, becomes pregnant for a second time. This would definitely reflect poorly on the Grizzly Momma, whose family may have been thought of as a counterweight to the lovely Obama family (I know, right?).

She had to come up with a plan. McCain won the nomination, and Sarah put her plan into action. She would fake a pregnancy, and adopt the older baby, Baby #1. She presented the newborn baby #2 as her own for a time, because older brother, baby #1, was too big to be presented as a newborn. But she could not call baby #1 by his name, Tripp, for obvious(now)reasons. So she called him Trig. She probably vaguely remembered seeing that on baby #1's chart, and maybe even for the obvious confusion factor. When called to the convention, Sarah presented baby #1 to the world as Trig Palin.

Levi was only present at Trig's birth, per his sister, so obviously green shirt Levi is a picture with baby #1, as the photo seems to have been taken in the hospital, and we seem to have consensus that "green shirt" Levi is younger.

Could the kitchen picture show Levi meeting his second son for the first time at the Palin home a few weeks after his birthday? Alaska is a big state. Was Levi working on the slope or somewhere, missed his second son's unscheduled and premature birth, and his own birthday, and only got to see him when he was able to get home? Does this tender photo reflect his first meeting with his second son? They had a cake because Levi wasn't home on his birthday?

I believe that kitchen baby "Ruffles" is Tripp. He was born prematurely to Bristol around April 18, 2008, while Sarah was in Texas, which began Sarah's wild ride. Creepy Chuck told a whopper about Sarah's water breaking (would a psychologically normal father tell anyone about his daughter's "water"?). Instead of saying he made a mistake, Sarah, as always, chose to lie, or maybe she couldn't refudiate Chuckles.

Sarah adopted or stole the young couple's child and presented him to the world as her own to save her reputation, and to get the chance to present herself as someone somehow qualified to be vice president of the United States, which in reality, may be the real hoax in this sad story.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 03:58:12

Hi Allie -- Glad you are better!

No, it was not "a test" -- sorry if I came off cranky. It's the subject matter, and how slippery it is, how long we have been at it. Here are some parts of your answer that I don't understand:

--"Questioning" Palin's fertility versus saying right out "she was not pregnant" are two different things. I don't understand why you feel unable to put yourself into the latter category, esp with your fabulous professional experience.

--On LitBrit's link, with her excellent lightening and explaining, you say the lightened Mar 14 photo "would not be convincing" to a skeptic ". . . because we can't clearly see her midriff area." My thinking is that if you can see right up to her waist, that's enough. For an ob/gyn opinion.

--But to anticipate that reservation, that's why, on my tired old graphic (link below), the middle photo SHOWS HER MIDRIFF at three weeks before the Gusty photo. Do you see a 32-week baby under the square pad?

--The Gusty photo is not proof Palin was pregnant, only that she looks pregnant. Possible to strap on the fake belly; not possible to take off a pregnancy for a flat-profile photo. So the Brad photo with the fake-belly superimposition is illuminating but not proof. One could superimpose the belly over a real pregnant woman and it would look much the same.

--But the combination of the three photos and their dates is the proof. (Of course, the existence of the mountain of other data -- all pointing in just the one direction, if not actual iron-clad proof -- does not hurt.)

The reason I'm badgering you about this is that you, like many others (the Trignostics) are saying it looks fishy, you have doubts, but you can't go to that final, simple statement: "Palin was not pregnant." McGinniss's reason (after I badgered him, too), if I understood it correctly, was strategic: he doesn't want to be labeled with the tinfoil hat yet because it will hurt the credibility of his important revelations (my words, not exactly his). I can accept that. I support that, even.

But I am sincerely seeking to learn where YOUR area of doubt remains, so we know where to keep digging. I too was a Trignostic once. But now I am convinced. I am so eager to understand what it takes for you, beyond the three photos.

Because it seems to me we are fighting two barriers: one is the one I am discussing right now (an interested, professionally qualified observer sees the data and isn't convinced), and the second is the perhaps impossible-to-address hands-off MSM stance (the same one we see in the NYTimes cutting off all reporting of the Paxton/Iseman/McCain issue).

I hope you will understand that I am not trying to quibble or harrass, nor am I trying to bulldoze you into agreement -- just trying to understand exactly where you see an element of doubt that I do not.

Again, Allie -- thank you for your fine contributions, and for taking the time to work on this sad, sad, mystery.

http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/?action=view¤t=5weekstobaby.jpg

Ottoline

7/3/2011 04:27:27

Cracklin' Charlie: Very interesting.

How do you account for two people (Bailey, ADN reported) seeing Bristol in jeans (looking not postpartum) on Apr 18 at the hospital? You could say Bristol gave birth earlier, in Feb; and Apr 18 was the release date for Tripp? But that puts everything (incl Trig's birth) way into the past too much.

How did the ruffled ear get fixed?

molly malone

7/3/2011 04:58:50

@ Banyon--thanks for the dates.They help.

@ Jeff--Do you recall CBJ's exact wording when she said that the Texas flight was going to be Palin's last one?
How could she know that? A short flight to Juneau would be a piece of cake compared the Texas trip. But it would be Palin's last flight if CBJ knew when Sarah was going to "give birth" prematurely.

@ Allie--thank you so much for helping us on this. With regard to the March 14 photo--if you look at the lightened photo, you'll notice that the shadow cast by the left side of Palin's jacket falls straight down. Not possible with a rounded tummy.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 05:43:09

Jeff -- if you look up where the CBJ "last flight" quote comes from, please notice whether it is direct quote from CBJ or whether it is Palin telling us what CBJ supposedly said. Another variation was the ADN article quoted CBJ but didn't say they interviewed her or phoned her. My suspicion is that each and every CBJ quote, including the medical letter on the eve of the election, was created by Palin.

Do you have an opinion on that?

Lidia17

7/3/2011 06:54:22

@Ottoline, plenty of potentially-ambiguous attributions here. I've always thought that many indirect statements purported to have come from CBJ are really from Sarah. However, the ADN DID have a telephone interview with CBJ, I believe. Pat Dougherty referred to it when dissembling about the follow-up interview with CBJ bringing her lawyer (unconfirmed inside info).

This article sounds like someone taking dictation from Sarah. Why did they write that "Palin never got big with this pregnancy"? CBJ has delivered "lots of babies"? It's not very professionally written, imo.

All direct quotes from Sarah are taken from the audio that Patrick had up, the interview where she's asked about amniotic fluid leaking. The byline here is Lisa Demer, which is why I assume that the female reporter on the audio is Demer.

-------------------------------
Palin was in Texas last week for an energy conference of the Republican Governors Association when she experienced signs of early labor. She wasn't due for another month.

Early Thursday -- she thinks it was around 4 a.m. Texas time -- she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who is based in the Valley and has delivered lots of babies, including Piper, Palin's 7-year-old.

Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.

"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.

Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.

"I am not a glutton for pain and punishment. I would have never wanted to travel had I been fully engaged in labor," Palin said. After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn't in labor.

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

"To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak," Gregg said.

Some airlines have policies against pregnant women onboard during the last four weeks of pregnancy, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against flying after 36 weeks.

This was going to be Palin's last flight anyway, her doctor said.

Alaska Airlines has no such rule and leaves the decision to the woman and her doctor, said spokeswoman Caroline Boren. Palin was very pleasant to the gate agents and flight attendants, as always, Boren said.

"The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress," Boren said.

Palin never got big with this pregnancy. She said she didn't try to hide it but didn't feel a need to alert the airline, either.

They landed in Anchorage around 10:30 p.m. Thursday and an hour later were at the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla.

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.

"It was smooth. It was relatively easy," Palin said. "In fact it was the easiest of all," probably because Trig was small, at 6 pounds, 2 ounces.

Palin said she wanted him born in Alaska but wouldn't have risked anyone's health to make that happen.

"You can't have a fish picker from Texas," said Todd.

Palin said she won't take maternity leave but will go with Trig to doctor's visits, physical therapy, whatever he needs. She's breast feeding and plans to bring Trig to work with her, just as she did with Piper.

"It just feels like he fits perfectly," Palin said. "He is supposed to be here with us."

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2008/04/22/382864/palins-child-diagnosed-with-down.html#ixzz1R4qgG0OG

Lidia17

7/3/2011 06:59:07

…just thinking about the writing here once again: maybe I am being too harsh and what's happening here is that Demer is just allowing Sarah to "let it all hang out" in its absurdity. Demer is most likely suspicious, and I can only imagine that she herself leaked the audio, which sounds odder than do the statements in print.

7/3/2011 07:48:50

Charlie, I can't see how that theory squares with a couple of things: 1) the infant presented as Tripp in early 2009 was clearly not close to a year old, 2) the photo of Levi wearing a hospital bracelet, holding a newborn who to my eye looks like Tripp (as per Mercede also), shows an older looking Levi, and he wouldn't have had a wristband unless the hospital believed he was the father. As I said in another post, Trig has been a shapeshifter, but we've seen a fairly seamless progression of photos of Tripp, looking like himself, starting with his debut in 2/2009.
PS. The "borrowed Tripp" scenario makes some sense to me, but it hit me that the above mentioned photo of Levi makes this problematic -- unless the baby isn't Tripp, which seems unlikely, or Levi is the father but Bristol isn't the mother, which seems even more unlikely. I.e., I could believe Levi had a baby with another woman, but not that another woman was willing to let the baby play the role of Tripp with Bristol playing the role of his mother.

Dang I wish someone out there would just spill the beans on this.

Molly

7/3/2011 08:12:32

@Lydia. That article reads as complete and utter nonsense. I agree with you. Demer was "letting it all hang out." Too bad she has gone into hiding and won't back up her initial suspicions.

Ottoline

7/3/2011 08:14:14

Lidia17: The trouble is it's still hard to separate fact from fiction. What if Pat Dougherty tweaked the facts a little? Someone told him there was a phone call, but there really wasn't. The "Palin never got big with this pregnancy" is contradicted by the Gusty photos. This seems esp germaine because we know know how flexible almost every Palin fact is. Probably something we think is bedrock is actually a lie.

And once one is clear that there was no pregnancy, what's with all the Palin phone talk with CBJ? That's all made up. They would have had nothing to talk about, re Palin's pregnancy, because there was none, and esp not at 3 AM.

Do I see 6# 2oz in that article you quoted? Look way up on this very post, for Phyllis's comment: there is an email that says Trig was "6.3#" -- which could be either 6#3 oz or 6#4.8oz (if you take "16 oz X .3 = 4.8 oz" But NOT 6# 2 oz! Not that his weight matters, but it's just another oddness. So it's like we have to verify every little thing, and the one thing the Mar 14 photo tells me is "NOT PREGNANT!"

Lidia17

7/3/2011 09:01:18

Ottoline, listen to the audio, if you haven't. Most of the article is just Sarah's say-so from that conversation, but there are bits that are more directly attributed to CBJ. I think a phone call did take place between CBJ and Demer.

-----------
Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said.

Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday.
-----------------------------

While the other statements are cagey, and don't reveal anything about Sarah being pregnant or not… the statement about the "induced" aspect is impossible to misinterpret. Having been induced is NOT mentioned by Palin in the audio. [transcript here: http://www.palindeception.com/subpages/transcript.html]

I don't think Demer would have interviewed Sarah a second time to have gotten that extra bit of info, although it's possible. Unless I am mistaken, that leaves CBJ or Demer/ADN to have invented the induction of labor. Why? To what purpose? It doesn't add credibility to the story, on the contrary…

Lidia17

7/3/2011 09:20:06

Could it be an intentional breadcrumb trail left by CBJ?

This is what I was talking about earlier, when I referred to the ADN reporters writing as though they were being held prisoner by a kidnapper who'd be reading the note.

Lots of breadcrumbs: "shocked and awed just about everybody"
"that the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all…"
"The governor… simply doesn't look pregnant"
"people just couldn't believe the news"
"Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting"
"Really? No!"
"She's very well disguised"
"she hasn't been dressing differently to cover her barely perceptible bulge"

That's a LOT of disbelief packed into a seemingly superficial and fawning article.

Lidia17

7/3/2011 09:20:46

forgot the link:
http://www.adn.com/2008/03/06/336402/secrets-out-palin-pregnant-030608.html

Ottoline

7/3/2011 09:26:18

Yeah, I've listened to it ad nauseum. For CBJ to have said that would be to lie, because Palin was not induced, because she was not pregnant. If she had been pregnant, and induced, she would not have been Blackberrying a couple hours after birth and she would have had IV tracks. Palin would not have said it was easy, because pit gives one v jagged contractions.

So maybe this was the first time CBJ was called, and she had to do a quickie lie without thinking about it too much, and then she shut up forevermore. So hard to tell.

But it IS clear that there is rat there somewhere. As with all things Palin.

betsy s

7/3/2011 10:39:17

Peggy 15:32, a stuning new conclusion!! Brilliant!

jeanette 17:40, the baby in the Keith/Levi photo is
Trig (aka Ruffles at this age).

Heidi3

7/3/2011 11:57:37

Betsy S - Again theorizing about a possible Keith Johnston connection, two things:

Here is what Peggy @15:32 above relayed from Mercede's post:

Anonymous said...
"Don't worry about it Mercede, we know what's going on and we'll do the job for you if Sarah decides to get serious. Sorry that your daddy may have to come down with her."
Wholy Mary
June 27, 2011 11:48 AM

http://mercedejohnston.blogspot.com/2011/06/when-dealing-with-certain-people.html
- - - - - - - - -
On that same link noted above, there is this:

June 3, 2011 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...
"Mercede, You know don't you that all these people don't give a damn about you. All they want is to convince you that they love and adore you so you will eventually tell the evil truth about how Palin had to fake Trig as her own in order to cover up for your naughty family.

Well don't tell them. And I don't have to tell you that because you aren't going to tell on your family anyway are you. It's just too sick a story to ever tell.
Love, Me."

Red herrings? Who knows, but I think it's worth it to consider all possibilities. Gryphen at IM has long conjectured that the story is a sad one.

peggy

7/3/2011 15:11:01

I find it odd that everything about Keith Johnston was scrubbed during the 2008 campaign. I've searched, and other than mention of him as Levi and Sadie's dad - nada. WHY? He and Sherry divorced just a couple of months after Trig was born. I am NOT trying to throw out a red herring, I am merely trying to look at all angles/possibilities. Several comments (over the years) on IM indicate the Palin/Johnston families were close - what happened?
I just think it may be more than the two teens (Levi/Bristol) and their on-again, off-again relationship.

comment from IM:
"I was reading some comments about Keith, not long ago. It reminded me of when we were first hearing about the Palin-Johnstons. After teh google for Keith Johnston's name it was obvious that he was very active with young boys and hockey. I don't recall the details and not going to try and look it up now. Keith was the head of an organization at a rink that helped kids play hockey. I think he was like a CEO and treasurer. Good credentials.

The stange part was that soon after seeing Keith's leadership role in hockey for boys, all very positive, the links were shuttered. Sometime after that we learned about McCain wiping out the Johnston computers. No one mentions that there were some good things to say about Keith. They don't seem to want to give out the information on his organization or the rink that he was associated with."

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/01/mercede-is-back-and-has-new-home.html

mmud

7/4/2011 05:25:47

Haven't read comments yet but I think that at least one of Palin's close assistants knew she had not been pregnant. Simple.

mmud

7/4/2011 05:27:16

… started to read comments.
First comment, by Ottoline, = Exactly!

mmud

7/4/2011 06:06:12

… finished reading the comments.
Ottoline, Thank you for posting comments. I think you see this whole thing exactly as I do. Thank you for articulating it well. Thank you for keeping it up.

Ruth

7/4/2011 16:08:43

Another area I'd like investigated is the disappearing photos of SP. As I understand it, photos of her during her 'pregnancy' vanished. Even photos on the official government web site. Who deleted them? Who ordered it? What reason was given? I could see wanting to add pictures once she was the VP candidate, but deleting them? What possible reason could there be besides a cover-up?

Who Knows?

7/5/2011 05:30:43

@ Jeanette & betsy s

The picture in Star of Keith and Levi Johnston always struck me as strange. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d4ad6QlLNEE/ScciXVUm6qI/AAAAAAAAAJk/kv8IfY2Mz3c/s400/img015.jpg

1) What an unusual "campaign" t-shirt. I tried to figure out what the rest of the words are on Levi's shirt. The only thing I came up with is the "ama" could represent Mount or Lake Illiama (in southwest Alaska).

2) It was said that this photo might have been taken in the Palin living room and yet the shelving unit looks like something that would be in a younger girl's bedroom. Notice the heart and jewelry box (?) in the background on the shelf. The picture could be of someone in camouflage or hunting gear.

7/5/2011 21:22:15

it would be interesting to know who was on the governor's staff Feb-May 08, and whether any of them had children. No one who had children (especially the mothers, but also astute fathers) wouldrealize the truth. I'd put money on Tibbles falling into the latter category.

Peggy's theory also is from a movie. Since it is a furrin film (irish) it is unlikely the Wasilla Thrilla has seen it though.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Just Sayin'

Leave a Reply.

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives