Today's news brings the story that one of the prostitutes who said that New Jersey Democrat senator Robert Menedez had paid her for sex has recanted her story. The hooker had given a statement under oath last fall which was mentioned in the articles at the Daily Caller which first broke the Menendez story. In the original affidavit, the prostitute said that she had slept with both Menendez and a major campaign supporter of Menendez, a doctor Melgen. Melgen, you may remember, is the one who flew Menendez to the Dominican Republic on three occassions in his private plane and then hosted the senator for "vacations" in Melgen's seaside villa in Casa de Campo. After the story broke, Menendez "remembered" two of the trips and reimbursed Melgen for their cost. Menendez had also "forgotten" to report these gifts to the Senate Ethics Committee as required by the Senate Rules. Oh, and it was just a "coincidence" that Menendez helped Melgen with problems with both the American and the Dominican governments.
In any event, the allegations about Menendez included that he had frequented underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. The hooker who now says she was previously lying is not one of the child prostitutes. That story remains unchanged. Also, the American hooker who came forward to report that she and others had been paid to sleep with Menendez has not changed her story; it is just this one Dominican.
This new twist gives rise to two questions:
First, why did the hooker suddenly change her story now? Remember, the first affidavit was given last October, some five months ago. In all that time, she stuck to the original story, but now it suddenly changed. I have to wonder if she was paid to change her testimony. After all, she is a hooker, so we know she is prepared to do a lot in exchange for money. In the new story, the hooker says that she was paid by a local lawyer to lie on the original affidavit. Strangely, that "local lawyer" remains unidentified. Further, the entire thing makes no sense. Why pay her to lie last October? Menendez has said that this was part of an effort to defeat his re-election, but that is unlikely. If Menendez' opponent last fall were behind this, one would expect to have seen that opponent try to make something of the allegations. But that never happened. I wonder how much the woman was paid now to change her story.
Second, why has the media handled this story differently from the original story? Last fall when the story was first published on the Daily Caller, none of the other media picked it up. It certainly did not make the papers or radio/tv in the New York city market, which is also the largest media market in New Jersey. This morning, however, the latest twist is in the newspapers and I heard it on the radio. So when the senator is accused of sleeping with underage prostitutes and improperly helping a contributor inexchange for payment, the story hardly gets covered, but when one of the prostitutes changes her story, it is big news. Indeed, for those of you who have been paying attention, you may remember Harry Reid's comment on the Menendez affair, namely that there was no proof at all to back up the allegations. Now the news is blaring that the affidavit of one hooker has been changed. Affidavit? That sounds like proof to me. So Harry Reid's comment is shown to be part of the cover up. Will the press also question him about that now? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
In any event, the allegations about Menendez included that he had frequented underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. The hooker who now says she was previously lying is not one of the child prostitutes. That story remains unchanged. Also, the American hooker who came forward to report that she and others had been paid to sleep with Menendez has not changed her story; it is just this one Dominican.
This new twist gives rise to two questions:
First, why did the hooker suddenly change her story now? Remember, the first affidavit was given last October, some five months ago. In all that time, she stuck to the original story, but now it suddenly changed. I have to wonder if she was paid to change her testimony. After all, she is a hooker, so we know she is prepared to do a lot in exchange for money. In the new story, the hooker says that she was paid by a local lawyer to lie on the original affidavit. Strangely, that "local lawyer" remains unidentified. Further, the entire thing makes no sense. Why pay her to lie last October? Menendez has said that this was part of an effort to defeat his re-election, but that is unlikely. If Menendez' opponent last fall were behind this, one would expect to have seen that opponent try to make something of the allegations. But that never happened. I wonder how much the woman was paid now to change her story.
Second, why has the media handled this story differently from the original story? Last fall when the story was first published on the Daily Caller, none of the other media picked it up. It certainly did not make the papers or radio/tv in the New York city market, which is also the largest media market in New Jersey. This morning, however, the latest twist is in the newspapers and I heard it on the radio. So when the senator is accused of sleeping with underage prostitutes and improperly helping a contributor inexchange for payment, the story hardly gets covered, but when one of the prostitutes changes her story, it is big news. Indeed, for those of you who have been paying attention, you may remember Harry Reid's comment on the Menendez affair, namely that there was no proof at all to back up the allegations. Now the news is blaring that the affidavit of one hooker has been changed. Affidavit? That sounds like proof to me. So Harry Reid's comment is shown to be part of the cover up. Will the press also question him about that now? Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment