Thursday, December 4, 2008

For the Sake of Accuracy...

Just to clarify... for accuracy's sake. A lot has been said about Bristol's whereabouts and I have tried to be accurate on this site. I can't always correct wrong information when it comes up in comments, but I try.

I need to post a clarification... again... about certain facts pertaining to Bristol, and her whereabouts during the time that "someone" was pregnant with Trig Palin.

Bristol was NOT AWOL for "five months" or "eight months" or "all of her mother's pregnancy." The assistant principal of Wasilla High has stated that she attended until mid-year. (I am taking this to be Christmas break, which is the end of the first semester at this high school.) She was seen in the Palin home by a reporter for Alaska magazine in December. (Note: the date of this article is listed as "February 2008" but that's the issue of the magazine in which the story was released. The article was written in December.) She was also seen at a Heart Association lunch on Feb 15th. We have a reliable report that she attended West High in Anchorage, living with her Aunt Heather Bruce in January and at least part of February. She was in a car accident in mid February in Wasilla.

What is true is that I can find no record of her whereabouts at all from late February until the prom photo taken on April 25th with Mercede Johnson.

Also, to correct another thing: I can find NO independent verification of where the "mono" story came from. None. It's been stated that people "said" she had mono for months and this is why it was said she was taken out of school. I can find no source for this whatsoever.


Lady Rose said...

It will be interesting to see when the baby she is having is born - she is due later this month or will it be "late" by a month or two.

Unfortunately any time a girl is out of school for a length of time - the other kids think she is pregnant, so "rumors" are of no use. I have gone through it myself -
40 years ago I was moved to a new school in the middle of 8th grade - about 10 years later I ran into someone from the class and I had my baby sister with me - she said - oh is that the baby you had when you left school.
Last year my best friend's daughter ran away - she was gone for 3 days - fortunately she was found and all was well - but almost all the kids in her school were spreading rumors she left because she was pregnant.

Even if it turns out Bristol is not Trig's mom - I have a feeling it's really Sarah Palin's sister who is. Would be interesting to see if there are photos of her around some where for that time period.

Andrew said...

I just read through pretty much your entire blog, but I'm unconvinced. Here's why.

What I'd like to know is why, assuming that Bristol is Trig's mother, Palin would have faked a pregnancy to cover for her daughter?

So your daughter is pregnant. We live in a tolerant society. Nobody is going to stone Bristol. Why hide it?

Why take the risk to hide it? To protect a political career? First off, having a pregnant teenage daughter obviously doesn't kill the parents' political career in today's society. Just look at Governor Palin right now.

Second, pulling a stunt such as faking a pregnancy would ruin Palin if it was true and revealed. Why would she take that incredible risk?

There is no motive for a conspiracy here. Without a clear motive, this theory has nothing to stand on.

Shinny said...

I am just wondering, if Bristol is really pregnant this time, isn't that baby due soon? Has anyone see her lately?
Love your site, even though she is out of running the country, this women is like crack to me, I can't stop reading about her and it kind of ticks me off. ;)

Anonymous said...

I would also be interested in Bristols' whereabouts NOW - she is supposedly 'due' in a couple of weeks, but she has disappeared from the face of the earth. Wondering whether she will have a 'miscarriage' or a 'stillbirth' to quiet people down from wanting to see the new baby (which i don't believe is coming...)

Anonymous said...

Ok, so if Bristol didn't have mono (or some other reason to be home and out of the public eye), how come she didn't end up attending one or more proms, with Levi or anyone else? That part doesn't make sense in the 'Sarah was really pregnant and Bristol wasn't' parallel universe.

Anonymous said...

Are you in touch with Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic about the March 26photo?

sjk said...


No conspiracy? Ok....
So then you are left with Sarahs version of the events and the leaking amnio fliud, the speech in TX and the LONG plane RIDES back to Wasilla to deliver a special needs baby that she knew could have delivery issues as well as her being 44 years old etc etc etc....

Anonymous said...

Shinny said:

This baby may be Sarah Palin's sister.

Doesn't her sister have an austic child? Isn't her sister married, why would she give up this child? What would she have to hide?

Anonymous said...

Andrew wrote: "There is no motive for a conspiracy here. Without a clear motive, this theory has nothing to stand on."

Andrew, in your comments, you said look at Gov. Palin right now, as if she is a success story. McCain-Palin lost. Part of the reason they lost was because of her strange stories and baffling behavior. Her approval numbers in Alaska have dropped over 20% points in the past two months, and counting. In the past two days, new financial revelations have come out re: her "omissions" in terms of $$ spent on travel/lodging in 2007 and around $30,000 more on campaign clothes this year.

Re: Motive. Various, myriad motives are possible. Her auditioning for the VP slot--which Palin began doing in 2007 in earnest by hiring an east coast publicist and hosting GOP cruise members like Kristol and Barnes in Alaska--is just one possible reason for deception.

You can claim that without motive, there is no conspiracy. But history shows us that evidence leads to understanding of motive. One famous case in point: Watergate.

Just because you can't think of a "rational" motive today for Palin's bizarre behavior doesn't mean there isn't a case for motive. Or that evidence won't lead to our understanding of one. - Mark

Anonymous said...

Andrew asks, "[W]hy, assuming that Bristol is Trig's mother, Palin would have faked a pregnancy to cover for her daughter? . . . There is no motive for a conspiracy here. Without a clear motive, this theory has nothing to stand on."

Among the possibilities:
- She (wrongly?) thought an unwed teen daughter would hurt her political career and VP chances.
- She wanted to protect Bristol from early motherhood and shame, but gave up with the 2nd pregnancy.
- Her health insurance would not cover a grandchild, and a special needs child will be expensive.
- She did not want statutory rape charges filed against the father, assuming it wasn't Levi.
- She felt it would help her political career to choose to have a DS child more than to adopt one.
- She acted impulsively ("whack job?") in deciding to announce her pregnancy and couldn't back out.

She could have other motives for covering for other family members, e.g., her sisters' children do not have the free lifetime health care available through Todd's Native American bloodline.

Knowing the motive would help but it's not true that there's no possible motive. -B.

Anonymous said...

Shinny, one sister has an autistic child but the other has several children and had a messy second divorce. The Heath and Palin families' attempts to protect that sister resulted in Troopergate. -B.

Anonymous said...

What reason could SP have to conceal the Bristol pregnancy: how about incest? Think about all that teen drinking+drugs, and some one of the male relatives taking the opportunity. It could have been consensual (for a hurting, drunken teen like Bristol), but it's still incest.

That's why we will NEVER see the birth certificate for Trig.

Why would SP take such a risk? Why would JFK have taken such huge risks with his philandering? Risks that potentially affected national security! Because he thought he could. Why are there "irregularities" in all the transactions of SP (Troopergate, the building of their house, the campaign clothes, the per diems, the travel, Track's departures from home)? Because she thought she could, and she thought she HAD TO -- to keep all the plates spinning in her own interest. And she's gotten away with it all so far -- and will, until some moment in the future when a couple of key facts will be revealed.

The pieces all fit if you assume SP was not pregnant. The other pieces still have multiple unknowns, and I say we should leave them buried.

Yes, it's possible that Bristol was never pregnant, either time, and actually it's irrelevant -- we should all leave beautiful Bristol alone and wish her well. Her tender care of Trig at the RNC was touching and says so much about her.

Its SP's deception that we are concerned with, because it's chronic, pervasive, skillful, and very harmful (to us!) in a politician.

Let's try to leave the other family members out of it as much as possible -- they have a right to their privacy. But SP has lied to us, big time, and wishes to continue to do so.

Therefore this web site and our interest.


Anonymous said...

To Andrew:

You start from the premise that you can't accept a motive for SP to base faking a pregnancy. You are not alone, but anyone reaching a conclusion based on such cart-before-the-horse reasoning makes the same error.

Either SP faked a pregnancy or she didn't. We speculate on her motives if she did so, but if she did there must have been some motivation. We may be right or wrong about those motives, but Audrey and other posters we presented myriad motives for people to weigh. These include, but are not limited to,

1) SP thought her teenage daughter being pregnant would be a larger scandal.
2) SP is nuts and just wanted extra attention for an adoption she was planning anyway.
3) SP is covering for some other family member for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

We can weigh the relative merits of these and other speculation on motive, but it is not an element of the 'crime' that must be proven. She might just be a liar.

You or others may not believe someone would fake a pregnancy for the same reason SP did (if she did), but each motive or no motive at all is a plausible predicate for the lie.

Nor does the motive need to be rational by anyone's standard, including yours or mine. I know my wife wouldn't fake a pregnancy in a similar situation. But by Andrew's standards nobody would ever fake a pregnancy because the ruse may be foiled. We are well aware of this in SP's case because she was so high profile, which is why most of us are convinced that only the fear of the scandal associated with discovery of her daughter being pregnant would drive her to do such a thing. SP being governor, we reason, might give her extra motivation to avoid the scandal of a child by one of her daughters because she felt she had the resources to pull off the ruse. She may have been wrong about that, but we can't read her mind now or then.

Further, we must try to explain her motivation to ruch from Texas to Alaska, per her own account, deliver Trig from labor that began in Texas, yet she sought no medical care and flew 12 hours. We can't see any rational motive for those actions except that she wasn't pregnant at all and had to rush back to claim Trig as her birth-child. You may argue that she may have had her own rationale for her wild ride to deliver Trig in Alaska, but then you must acknowledge that she may have had just as irrational motives to fake the pregnancy.

Our problem is that the facts do not add up, but they point to the greater likelihood that SP is not Trig's mother because otherwise she is completely reckless and/or irrational. That is the conclusion we've reached based on the evidence. And it is the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, on which we base our conclusions.

The weak point in our conclusion is we don't know for sure who Trig's mother really is because we don't have enough direct evidence. We also don't have enough direct evidence that SP is Trig's mother, which is an astounding conclusion in itself. SP could end it all by releasing medical records -- not a statement from her doctor who may have already lied for her -- the can be verified independently for her pre-natal care and delivery for Trig. But she doesn't. This circumstance, again, supports our theory she isn't Trig's mother because she could disprove it so easily, with a small fraction of the embarassment she faces by the controversy continuing.

So once again I renew my challenge to all the naysayers: Prove SP is Trig's birth mother. I'll bet you can't because she isn't.


hrh said...

Anonymous at 1:02p: I, too, have embraced the possibility of incest. Knowing that AK has an inordinately high rate of incest and rape only makes the possibility stronger. With the mother absent and Bristol's record of drinking, who know's what could happen.

As time passes, this family's saga becomes more and more tragic. All due to SP's narcissism and all-consuming ambition, I venture to say.

Anonymous said...

Right on, Dangerous!

And the MD did not lie -- she said SP has 5 children, and SP has been pregnant 5 times. She did not say SP is the bio-mother of Trig. Lots of ways for all of this to be true.

The MD just does not want to DISCUSS it, understandably. Esp given her speciality, in which protecting her under-age patients is her main role. Plus the MD might be majorly annoyed that SP attributed all that bad medical advice to her -- I am guessing that SP made all that up, and the MD has chosen not to comment on it. I support the MD in her wish to keep some things private.


Anonymous said...

i stumbled upon this blog which is not SP related but she seems to know a lot about women having babies later in life. Maybe she could do some sleuthing

Anonymous said...

I think SP is pretty addicted (or really enjoys) the limelight. She seems more interested in making appearances than in governing. This is showing up in her desire to campaign in Georgia rather than take care of business at home.

She was named as a last minute speaker at the Texas meeting, and may not have intended to attend it until the invitation to speak came through. The birth of Trig may have already occurred or was about to, and she took the chance anyway. Better to go pregnant than post-partum.

So much of birthing seems to be related to centimeters of dilation. Wouldn't the attending physician have wanted to know how much dilation there was before giving any advice? Was she measured before she left Juneau? Probably not in Dallas.

I think that somewhere when she decided to look pregnant she started eating more and gained some weight. This may be showing in her face.

Ultimately her passion for speaking out and being in the center of attention will "do her in." I think the trip to Texas was a big mistake, and she has done everything she can to cover that.

Hopefully in the next couple of years she will say something she shouldn't. Her judgement in the turkey video was already suspect.

sandra in oregon

Floyd M. Orr said...

I would like to add my two cents here. I researched SP's sporadic college career as closely as I could online, and questions will not go away. What happened during that missing semester, the one that no one seems sure if it is before or after her semester at the local Mat-Su school? Did she go there for two semesters? If she went there for financial reasons, why did this change of schools immediately follow the beauty contest prize money she claimed she received? If she went home during this period for wholesome family reasons, she would have tooted her own horn all about it! Where I am going with this is what if she got pregnant at the Idaho school and had a secret abortion or gave up the child? Could this be the real reason we shall never see the medical records?

Anonymous said...

Oh, ooops, the letter from the MD says SP had "one pre-term delivery at 35 weeks in 2008." And the later discussion of Trig in the next para implies (but does not state as specifically as we all would like) that Trig is that one pre-term delivery.

Okay, so the MD lied -- or perhaps she just dissembled: one can read that letter as not specifically saying that it is SP's bio-child. For example, I could see it saying (between the lines) that SP did have a 35-week pregnancy, but Trig was not it, and later SP became the legal mother of Trig, and she looked out for his welfare in utero in the ways specified in the letter. But it might have been in someone else's utero.

Why would the MD lie -- or be unclear? Perhaps to protect the secret that was the original reason for the deception. As we all know, "what a tangled web we weave/ when first we practice to deceive." In other words, the deception might have seemed like a good ethical choice at the outset (before the national attention and scrutiny of SP, before SP's outrageous attribution of nutty medical advice to Dr. CB-J, before it all got to be such a big deal). I could see the good doctor choosing to lie (at great risk to herself) to protect the privacy of her patient Bristol. I bet I might.


Anonymous said...

To Dangerous:

To that was excellent post!! One of the best I have ever seen on this blog! Thank you very much for your excellent analysis. We are doing the work of the MSM here, but I know that they will pick this story up one day, probably sooner than later, because Sarah Palin is NOT the biological mother of Trig, and you can scream this out everywhere in the world and nobody will sue your for libel or anything, because she IS NOT the mother. I know it, Cajun Boy knows it (and is there not at all afraid to call Sarah Palin a "bat-shit crazy, fake baby birthing church lady"), and many others too who are too afraid to talk right now. The truth will come out in the end.


Anonymous said...

Floyd Orr and the following anonymous may have something. Remember she said the medical report would indicate that she had been "pregnant five times."

She may have had someone cover for a teenaged pregnancy in her own life. Her time in Hawaii was apparently cut short "because it rained all the time."

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

To those who keep asking if Todd was along on the 'wild ride', one of yesterdays Anchorage Daily News articles confirms that expenses were filed for Todd and Sarah to attend the Texas Governors conference back in April of 2008.

To be clear I am not referring to the 2 trips that were not reported from 2007. This statement though is from that same article. Here is the excerpt from that article and the link.
“Palin and husband Todd also received travel, food and lodging valued at $4,620.12 to attend a Republican Governors Association event in Texas, in April - gifts that were not reported until August, according to disclosure forms. Palin and the other governors attending the event also received $1,000 Rocky Carroll cowboy boots.”

Anonymous said...

I am thinking now about the very nice post by "Lady Rose" at the top of this section: how right you are that people jump to erroneous conclusions. I certainly have in my life, to my great regret.

All the more reason for us all to leave the rest of the family out of it.

Bristol might well have an actual miscarriage yet (although I wish her all the good in the world), and perhaps she was never pregnant with Trig. It should not matter to us.

In our zeal to confirm or reject our current understanding of SP, we should make sure to leave innocent bystanders out of it. All will be revealed soon enough, it always is.


Anonymous said...

No serious offense intended to those who are posting angrily to defend Palin here...But the problem is you are all four months or more behind. Audrey has already answered almost anything you can think of. Check out the entire blog at

Colleen said...

I have been pregnant 6 times but I have 5 children. That is what my medical records is because I had a miscarriage before my last pregnancy.

Sarah could very well have been pregnant 5 times...4 kids and a miscarriage...or 4 kids and an abortion....or 5 kids,(one before marriage who given up for adoption)...any of these scenarios work.

Sarah's records were carefully crafted to say that she had a preterm delivery when they should say that she had a preterm birth. A "preterm delivery" could be the loophole that lets her doctor off the hook...because she can testify that the delivery was from Bristol's uterus to Sarah's arms, should the truth ever cause her legal problems.

Anonymous said...

This huge collection of comments in the New York Times on this topic is interesting because you can sort it for: the top 25 picked by the editors; the top ones picked by the readers; or all 640!

I just wanted to link that big set of thoughts to THIS blog. For those of us who have insomnia.


Anonymous said...

To Floyd M. Orr:

This is a highly interesting scenarion you have developed there!

But you forgot one thing: Apart from an abortion or a child given up for adoption, SP could have had a miscarriage...

Anonymous said...


I agree, Patrick. Dangerous's post is indeed right on.

I never believed that Sarah Palin is Trig's mother. However, I believe the child's father is a family member.

The first time I watched Sarah Palin speaking, well that was when Senator McCain announced her as his running mate and then at the RNC, I got really bad vibes of her. I didn't believe in anything she said. Well, it didn't take a long time before the world found out she was telling a lot of lies. Any person with an avarage intelligence will know Sarah Palin lies and not telling the truth. Her mind is so busy with telling lies that her conversation is pretty disorganized. I believe that's the reason why she speaks the way she does. For instance:
" My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars." Then, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”

When she had the interview with Blitzer, she brought up the rumors that she is not the mother of Trig. Then she went ahead lifting her hand saying " well I am the mother". What was the point? Every intelligent person knows that you can be the mother of an adopted child without being the biological mother. In my opinion, at that point she actually proved that she is indeed not the biological mother of Trig. It was her body language, her tone, her facial expression, the whole package pointed out the fact that she is not the biological mother.

The photos from March 14 and March 26, 2008 just show that she was not pregnant. I am not sure why some people say it's not conclusive. All I see on one photo(from March 26th) is Sarah Palin wearing a pad or something which is so obvious. However, the person who took the photo should tell whether Sarah Palin looked pregnant or not. She is a thin woman so at 7 months, she should at least have some pregnant belly.

But of course, if she was pregnant and proves her pregnancy by showing her medical records and birth certificate of Trig(all unaltered), she must be a medical sensation.

Anonymous said...

Why would Palin cover up for her daughter? I don't think she was crazy in thinking that having a pregnant daughter would not help her advance in the Republican party. Remember how critical the Right Wing media were of Jamie Lynn Spears? Jamie's pregnancy was announced in Dec. of 2007 about the time that Bristol would have been 4/5 months along herself if she was the one pregnant with Trig.

Think about it, if you were in the public spotlight to a certain extent and had a pregnant teenage daughter around that time. Wouldn't you be worried about the scandel no doubt headed your way? Especially with your career, really taking off around the same time?

GraceR said...

sandra in oregon, I went back and watched the Brian Williams interview. Palin actually said, "the medical records will show I had 5 kids," not five pregnancies.

Amy, the sticking point in all this seems to be the MD's letter. Many people think it was artfully drafted, however, the clear implication is that SP had a pre-term delivery at 35 weeks (which would make her 30 weeks along in that picture, no?) in 2008. The doctor goes on to say in the last paragraph that SP is recovering well from that pregnancy. Why would any doctor, especially one who has a fairly long and presumably successful career, even slighly risk losing their license by becoming involved in this deception? The letter from the doctor was dated November 3rd--it was a pretty foregone conclusion by then that Obama was going to win the election, so it's not like the doctor was lying for one of the most powerful people in the world. It just doesn't make sense that SP would be so compelling to cause a successful doctor to put her career so at risk.

I also can't believe ANYONE would agree to raise a DS child for someone else, even one's own child. SP and TP are 44 years old. They will be taking care of this child for the rest of their lives. When they're 85, they could still be worrying about caring for this child. Balancing career goals with this scenario, I don't see how this wins, especially considering all the cover-up needed in a town where you're well known and in a hospital, where there are so many different workers/people around it's nearly impossible to keep EVERYONE quiet.

OK....I don't know where I'm going with this, but these are the issues that have been bothering me.

Andrew said...

I don't buy the idea that Palin would have covered for her daughter because she was afraid that it would hurt her political career. That's too much of a stretch.

First off, her career was not taking off in the spring of 2008. Sure, she was having a successful term and was getting some praise from the right-wing, but nationally she was unknown. We know that McCain's decision to pick Palin was fairly last-minute, and that he had only spoken to her once before he called her. Palin had signaled that she would be happy to serve if tapped, but there is no evidence that her selection was anything but a surprise to her.

So essentially, the idea that she would hide Bristol's pregnancy because she miraculously new five months ahead of time that she would be VP, when not even McCain new till about three or four days before the rest of us, doesn't hold water.

The second possible motive was simply to spare Bristol the embarrassment of going through a public pregnancy. If that mattered so much to Palin that she would do such a crazy and risky thing as fake a pregnancy, why would she then turn around and take the position of VP, knowing that Bristol's current pregnancy would be quickly revealed? This doesn't make any sense to me either.

Remember, in order for your theory to work, Bristol must have gotten pregnant with Trig, given birth, and then immediately gotten pregnant again right away. How likely is that?

Also, DS babies are far more likely in older women, such as Palin.

Finally, as for the whole RGA speech incident, it is just too incredible to believe that Palin would be lying about her water breaking, giving a speech, and then flying back to Alaska to give bith, simply because that's so unusual. Truth is stranger than fiction - if you were faking a pregnancy, would you really pull off a stunt like that? It's just not consistent!

P.S. Palin's doctor was briefed on the Governor's condition and gave her the AOK to return to Alaska for the birth. She obviously wasn't exploding with fluid during her speech and her flight back, so her condition wasn't as advanced as to keep her from returning.

P.S.S. This should be resolved soon enough by the birth of Bristol's child. If the five-month timeline holds up, will you officially retract this story and issue an apology to the Governor's family? If the timeline doesn't hold up, and Bristol's child is born way out of the timeline, I will be the first to condemn her deceit, trust me. Quid Pro Quo?

Anonymous said...

Andrew, you are conveniently ignoring all the facts about Palin's campaign for VP. FACT #1: Palin actively sought the VP nomination beginning in 2007. She hired a publicist on the east coast AND she hosted Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and other in the summer of 2007 in Alaska, campaigning for the job.

When will you catch up? You can start by checking out the New Yorker's article on her campaign for VP starting in 2007, in the article by Jane Mayer.

She had, by 2007, already invested time and money in the campaign, and had found her allies who campaigned actively on her behalf.... You don't think she had something to protect?

FACT #2: DS babies are not "more likely" in older women from a statistical standpoint.

I would go on, but why don't you read about DS births to women under 30?

In terms of Quid Pro Quo, you can start by reading the research that Audrey's already laid out on her website. We have. If you do, then we could have some Quid Pro Quo, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Andrew, if Bristol meets the timeline it doesn't negate, the stories, the lies and the pictures, the evidence that Sarah was not pregnant. A new bady for Bristol will just be that.

Anonymous said...

i don't understand the people who don't feel that her "wild ride" behavior, if pregnant, is at least as objectionable as publicly lying about a pregnancy, in terms of her character.

people who say "her doctor okayed it, it's fine," must not know much about down syndrome.

even if you just dismiss risks of "broken water" infection and other risks due to her travel plans, children with DS are often born with heart defects, which may not be diagnosable before birth.

"The overall incidence of congenital heart disease in the general population is 0.8 percent. The incidence of congenital heart disease in children with Down syndrome is up to 50 percent."

source: (a hospital, not wikipedia)

many of these defects require treatment (often surgical) within the first year of life, but some require immediate treatment. immediate: as in at birth or the baby DIES.

ANY woman who thought there was even a chance she was entering labor a month early with a known DS child would get herself physically checked out at a hospital asap. a phone call would not be sufficient (not to mention most doctors would never attempt to clear the health and safety of both mother and child without seeing them.)

if she was pregnant, sp took a very real risk that her baby, herself, or both would not survive the travel home.


seriously, she was a "rising star" presenter at that texas conference. therefore, she would have received preferential treatment at any local hospital.

and probably instant media exposure.

do we really think she should be let off the hook for this child-and-self-endangering behavior
just 'cause the first dude believes "you can't have a fish-picker from texas."??

if she comes back on the national scene after being proved conclusively as trig's birth mother the "wild ride" should become a showcase of her decision making ability in and of itself.


Anonymous said...

@ Andrew

I guess you don't know as much as most(if not all) posters on this blog as well as the owner & moderator.

I gotta get some sleep so this is going to be short(I am on the other side of the pond).

Please read the blog @
WHY SARAH PALIN? posted at Monday, February 26, 2007
The owner of the blog(Mr.Adam Brickley) has been mentioned several times in the media and had interviews on CNN(perhaps others too which I don't know). You can google and find more about how Mr. Brickley put Alaska's Governor on the map.

Of course, this is not all.

It's not like Sarah Palin didn't know anything and was surprised in the last minute. I believe McCain was more likely surprised but not Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin is an ambitious woman, which is not wrong. Yet she seems to be capable of doing anything, anything at all to get what she wants.

One more thing: Bristol Palin's pregnancy has nothing to do with Trig Palin's birth story. In other words, I don't think whether Bristol Palin gives birth in a couple of weeks or not, will actually remove the suspicion around Trig Palin's birth.

If Sarah Palin faked this pregnancy, it's not for the sake of Bristol Palin or Willow Palin or any other woman in the family. it's for the sake of Trig Palin's father. This is what I believe. She is protecting the father of Trig Palin. This is my feeling. So, focusing on Bristol Palin(which was very convenient for them) is wrong, IMHO.

I hope my feeling is wrong. I hope Sarah Palin shows her medical records and Trig's original birth certificate and proves she is indeed the biological mother. It's and it was this simple so I don't know why she hasn't done it yet unless there is something big to hide.

Anonymous said...

What was Sarah's motive to cover a daughter's pregnancy? Andrew suggests there was no plausible motive. He is failing to see the world through the eyes of a right-wing religious zealot from Alaska who also happens to be a driven, narcissistic, pathological liar. So let’s try seeing the world through Sarah's strange eyes:

She was being touted by Rush Limbaugh and others as a vice-president possibility as early as February; she knew her support came largely from the moralistic, values-oriented right-wing of the Republican Party. She realized her appeal was based in large part on the image she portrayed of herself as the SuperMom who could run a state with one hand and raise an exemplary family with the other. So when Bristol told her, presumably around February, that she was pregnant, how would Sarah react? Limbaugh's endorsement has her thinking she might actually get the nod to be vice president. Would she see the pregnancy as a possible deal-breaker? That it might ruin her chance to become vice president . . . and then, by God (after the unfortunate but hardly untimely demise of McCain) president . . . and leader of the free world! Clearly, God wants her to fulfill her destiny - why else would He have Limbaugh say those things! What might thwart God's will here? Maybe this pesky pregnancy. Maybe it will sink my chances (she thinks), reveal I am not SuperMom, and that instead of an exemplary family, I have a screwed-up one. How can I make sure His great plans for me will be fulfilled? Why, we can cover up the pregnancy . . . that's the ticket! I'll just have another baby . . . and that will further enhance my status as SuperMom. . . that's what He wants me to do . . . for His greater glory! (Not to mention confirm my status as His chosen vessel to lead the world . . . until The Rapture . . . which is just around the corner!)

Of course, after she had been chosen as the VP candidate, the dynamics changed and outing her daughter's new (alleged) pregnancy became political necessary to prevent exposure of the original hoax.

So you see, Andrew, it's not that hard to come up with a motive for Sarah to cover a first pregnancy, and then (paradoxically) throw her daughter under the bus (as they say) concerning a second pregnancy.

Brad S

Anonymous said...


The naked truth is always chasing a well-dressed lie. Unfortunately, SP's lie is not well-dressed so my thought is that the truth will catch up with this lie sooner rather than later.

I really think that even if Bristol's five-month timeline holds up- there still could be some deception going on. I think SP has gotten herself in too deep and must keep telling lies to cover for the ones already told.

Remember, we still have not seen a birth certificate for Trig and no formal birth announcement from the hospital. So the April 18th delivery date for Trig has not been confirmed. He possibly could have been born earlier but SP had to make that speech in TX therefore having to continue to fake her pregnancy for a little while longer. Her rush back to AK from TX may not have been about the birth of Trig but some medical emergency with Trig (The medical letter did state that Trig went back into the hospital shortly after birth for jaundice.)

As one blogger stated, birth certificates are altered to include the adopting parents but the actual birthdate remains the same. Is this why we haven't seen the birth certificate? Could Trig have been born earlier to make it possible for a 12/18/08 delivery date for Bristol? And will we know if Bristol is induced to deliver a few weeks earlier to keep this lie going? The truth will be revealed and I am hoping it won't take much longer.

Anonymous said...

Andrew - I have to laugh. I'm assuming you are male and haven't fathered a child. This statement is too much!:

"P.S. Palin's doctor was briefed on the Governor's condition and gave her the AOK to return to Alaska for the birth. She obviously wasn't exploding with fluid during her speech and her flight back, so her condition wasn't as advanced as to keep her from returning."

Andrew - child birth is a progression, once it starts, any doctor who says it is OK to get on a flight and take a trip that will last 14 hours is completely negligent. And, if true, Palin was completely negligent and put her baby at great risk.

But just like she reacts with everything else she is caught doing (not claiming trips on her expense report, ethics violations with troopergate, on and on) - she doesn't see that she did anything wrong. She either told a whopper of a tale that reflects badly on her, or she risked her baby's life, which certainly reflects badly on her.

There should be no apologies necessary from anyone who has called this whole story into question.

Anonymous said...

I'm a regular follower of this blog and believe something is amiss wih SP's story.

I was doing some searching on Alaska Daily News website and saw something that stood out for me.

here is the link to SP's pregnancy announcement (march 5th)
in the article she states she knows whether it's a boy or a girl but isn't saying anything yet.

then on april 7th
she announces the baby will be a boy - due may 18th.

I know there have been theories about maybe an earlier birth date for Trig. I struck me as weird to announce it's a boy and not just wait until the birth. The article begins "it's a boy..."

Made me think about the earlier birth theories.

Anonymous said...

I would not put it past this bunch of nutjobs to take Bristol's baby a month early just to stick to "their timeline". SP is desperate and has no consideration for anyone else, whether it be her sister, parents, daughters or grandson and her actions speak clearly to this. How many flights has she had Trig on already?

sjk said...

If Bristol or Sarah isnt the mom of Trig, then Track is the father. Or Sarah's sister is the mother.

Period. I think.

Anonymous said...

So we're still left wondering, why did Bristol live with Heather Bruce earlier this year rather than finish school in Juneau or Wasilla? Mono or no mono, her timeline simply doesn't make sense.

I also keep wondering whether Trig might have been born to Levi's mother. If Sherry Johnston had gotten pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, Sarah might have stepped in to save the child. That would also explain Mercedes' caption about her brother Triggybear and Mommy-in-Law Sarah.

We keep going round and round on this but nothing has seemed clear yet except that Sarah is unlikely to be Trig's biological mother.

Mary G. said...

There have been some great conversations and debates about this issue over the last few days. I would like to point out, however, that some people seem to think that between March 26 and April 18 there are 5 weeks (so maybe she was 30 weeks in the flattened stomach photo). There are 23 days--just over 3 weeks.
(And one must wonder whether Trig was very preterm, given his 6.2 birth weight.)

Other questions (now that the tempest over the date has been tamped down irrefutably), include why the photographer did not more strongly state Palin was 7 months pregnant. Really, if you are being presented to a woman claiming to be pregnant, do you size her up? Few people stare at the bulging tummy THAT long. Having been told Palin was pregnant, and seeing a bulge under a coat, would be quite enough.

If Andrew and other doubters of the deception are going to try to convince us that Palin's republican party, particularly the fundamentalist wing she represents, has suddenly gone all soft and fuzzy on pregnant unwed teenagers (possibly conceiving at 16 years of age... right?), you are forgetting the usual torrents of abuse slung by these folks--until, that is, Palin came on the scene and the repubs decided to turn it into romeo-and-juliet love story (one which actually affirms abstinence training, marriage, the christian family, parental consent, etc., etc.) We are quite used to republican double standards (they've never liked working mothers very much until now), so this latest hypocrisy doesn't surprise me. Mary g.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone call the guy in the accident and see what he had to say?

Lisa said...

Just a thought about the "Mommy InLaw" comment on the photos - could they have been scrubbed because Mercedes meant SP was the LEGAL mother of Trig, and someone else was the birth mother?

Anonymous said...

I have no idea about the truth of this rumor. Maybe it's for real, maybe it isn't, but I have to wonder: Is there any way most of you would ever be convinced Palin gave birth to Trig?

I mean, say a picture of Bristol from late March shows up and she's not pregnant... Well, then obvious answer for you is that SP was covering for someone else.

If more photos show up where Palin has a belly, then it will be assumed that she was wearing padding...

If the birth certificate is released, someone will argue that adoptive parents are often named on the birth certificate.

The same way that Palin fanatics are unwilling to even consider the possibility that she faked a pregnancy, I get the strong feeling that many of the commenters on this blog are the same way, but they would be unwilling to believe that SP actually was pregnant, no matter the evidence that emerges.

I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I feel that those of us that read this blog should not get caught in an echo chamber...

Anonymous said...

GraceR, I, too, was rereading the MD's letter more closely. I have to agree with you. Sorry to flip sides, Audrey.

The letter used the term "deliveries" to mean "children," live births. It uses that term for the 5th pregnancy and for the first 4 children as well.

And yes, no need for the MD to say "she is recovering well from the birth of her last child, Trig" (as she does say in the letter) unless she means it. That part could easily have been left out.

A previous contributor questioned the address on the MD's letter. True, it does not come up as a legit address right away on Google, but with a little more searching, one finds that the Piper Street address is the business office complex for Providence Health & Services, and therefore the PO number is also not suspicious. The phone numbers match Dr CB-J's web site.

So these points support the idea that SP is Trig's mom.

But regarding why the MD would lie: the only reason I can think of is to protect the privacy of the biological parent/parents of Trig, assuming that one or both of them are her patients, or sexually abused minors, or both. That seems like a BIG reason to me, one that an MD might feel demands taking a risk in order to do the right thing, even if that right thing is lying.

But the parts we all have trouble with: a pregnant woman would just NOT horse around after her water broke. Anyone who has been pregnant will tell you that. I think it's hard for a man to understand how vulnerable one feels at that time. I suggest rereadiing "A biology lesson" on this site, especially the part on "birth is not a tidy process." The slight dribble is no guarantee that all hell won't break loose in the next moment. Risking that happening in an airplane seems impossible.

Andrew, there are some holes in your post: INCEST could be the reason for SP's cover-up. The illegitimate pregnancy of her daughter might even be, not because of her career, per se, but because of her family+circle in AK. And while unmarried teen pregnancy is pretty common now, I think incest is still pretty unaccepted, including in those religious groups that SP is part of. SP thinking she could --MUST! -- cover that up in the pre-fame days seems possible to me, esp because the dad in the incest equation would also be a member of her family. I could see her trying to cover that up -- not just for her own sake, but just as much for her daughter's sake and the perp's (the father's) sake. Isn't it true that people USUALLY try to cover up incest by whatever means possible? and sometimes it still comes out. But not always.

Look at the cover-up risk this way: if she says to the VP-picking-people, "we have incest in our family, but it doesn't affect my ability to govern," vs doing the cover-up and being discovered: the outcome of BOTH is that she is finished. So the only option is to hide it and hope for the best. And so far, she is winning her bet!

The age issue re a DS baby has to be clarified: "the likelihood of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome increases with maternal age; nevertheless, 80% of babies with Down syndrome are born to women under 35 years of age, as women in that age group give birth to more babies overall." (NDS web site)

So for our purposes, the DS/age issue tells us nothing. Nor is there any correlation of DS and incest.

Regarding the possibility of an immediate second pregnancy after giving birth to a DS child: a contributor to this site said that this is a known phenomenon -- but I can find nothing on the web about it.

I agree that Bristol's delivery day will tell us little, since we don't know Trig's birth date.


Anonymous said...

But let's take a different tack. Let's say SP IS the bio-Mom of Trig.

Whatever drama led to Bristol's being sent from home might not concern us; the fact that gossip had her pregnant might not be true, as LadyRose suggested (above). Perhaps she missed so much school for other reasons. Perhaps the timing is a coincidence. Probably her glowing tenderness in how she held Trig at the RNC (in contrast to SP's holding him like a stuffed toy) is just because she is a nice person.

Let's say SP found herself pregnant with the child of a man she did not want to name. Let's say she learned at the earliest point (via the routine early screening plus subsequent amnio that is cited in Dr CB-J's letter) that the child had DS.

Several disconcerting facts then make sense: keeping her condition secret, SP maintains her aggressive exercise regime, hoping to abort; she perhaps wears an empathy-pregnancy pillow, but she also wears a tight binder (see March 29 photo) that might make her abort; she deliberately toughs it out once her water has burst, hoping she will abort. But how bad can it be (especially if she is flying first class)? If she starts labor on the plane, she tells the staff, the plane is diverted, emergency vehicles rush about, it gets into all the papers, SP is once again at the center of things.

One thing wrong with Sarah being the Mom: why not just lie on the birth certificate? Who would know or question it? A time-honored tradition. Legally, the husband is the dad no matter what. And he often doesn't know the difference. So easy.

Let's face it: We need one more fact, folks. How's about someone go drinking with Track. I bet he knows.


Anonymous said...

Andrew: only SP says her MD was contacted and offered an opinion that it was okay to fly. The MD herself has never confirmed this.


GraceR said...

Brad, I didn't realize SP was being promoted as a VP candidate going back to the fall of 2007 and talked about by Limbaugh. In thinking about this further, I believe that it would have been more detrimental to SP's chances of being chosen VP if SHE were pregnant rather than Bristol. Teen pregnancy happens everywhere, and SP could've appeared as a good Christian mom by caring for her daughter, encouraging her to have the baby, etc. I would think if the Republican party KNEW SP was pregnant, esp. with a DS baby, back last fall and winter, they would never have vetted her and she would've been crossed off the VP list early on. According to reports, all the VP candidates were vetted beginning last Feb. when it became clear that McCain would be the nominee. Maybe this is why SP hid the pregnancy until March? She had to prove she was tough and able to do her job, get back to work right away and not let a new baby interfer with her job or slow her down to even stay in the running. A 44 year old woman pregnant with a DS baby would be very unlikely to be considered as a VP candidate; on the other hand, if she were the grandmother to the baby, it wouldn't matter. And remember, the behavior and lifestyle of candidates' children has never really been an issue, even to the Christian right---Cheney's daughter, for example.

Also, IF she is Trig's mother, I don't believe the story for one minute that she was leaking amniotic fluid in Texas. She first told the press that "things were beginning to happen" when she was in TX; it was her father who told the press at the hospital that her water had broken, and SP kind of went along with it, saying fluid was "leaking;" telling the media that "no, my water didn't break but I just lost my mucous plug," would not be something any woman would say (I don't think). If Trig is hers, I believe what actually happened was that she lost her mucous plug in TX and decided to get on an earlier flight home in case she went into labor within a day or so. Maybe her water did break on the way to the hospital but I do not believe it was broken in Texas. If she talked to the doctor and told her she lost her mucous plug, I could see the doctor telling her it was ok to travel and to get home within the day; no doctor would've told her that if she was leaking fluid.

Pinky said...

In terms of a motive: I think once the family learned that the baby was going to be born with Down Syndrome, Ted and Sarah made the decision to quietly adopt him and raise him as their own, knowing that Bristol and Levi (or whoever the father is) were not ready for this kind of challenge. I think they felt they were doing this in the best interest of the child and I could see a doctor and perhaps a few other insiders going along with the plan and keeping it confidential for the sake of Trig Palin. Bristol may have gotten pregnant again immediately after the first baby was born and subsequently taken from her to make up for the loss -- or even as a form of rebellion.

It probably never occurred to the Palins that this would become such a public story. In retrospect, they may wish they had been more open about it, as hard as it is to admit publicly that your daughter is a not-too-bright screw-up involved with a immature moron, but once they decided to announce that Sarah was pregnant, they couldn't undo it.

BS said...

It really doesn't matter who the mother of Trig is - we know it's not Sarah. Her motive was to enchant the base of the Republican party. Period. We don't need to know who the mother is (although it would be interesting. We just need to prove the mother is not Sarah.

Silver Salmon said...

If forced to expression an opinion as to who the mother of Trig is, I'll stay with Bristol.

Here is my logic.

First I rule out Sherry Johnston. She has two very visible children at Burchall High. She's visible. Someone would notice if she's expecting. I just don't see how she could hide it.

Bristol's disppearing act doesn't make sense any other way.

A - Bristol withdraws from Wasilla High. Seems unusual.

B - Supposedly, Bristol moves to Anchorage to be with her aunt. Why Anchorage? Sarah is back and forth between Juneau. Bristol went to Juneau for a time. If Bristol were unhappy at Wasilla, why not go to Palmer or Burchall. Levi was a Burchall man and Mercede goes/went there too.

Going to Anchorage instead of somewhere else locally seems to indicate that Sarah and Todd were getting her away from something. I don't think it's peer pressure issues. Her name does not come up in multiple Myspace accounts from Wasilla teens, which leads me to believe she really wasn't part of their group. If it were illegal issues, her name might have been in print (I don't know if the age for that type of thing would be 16 or 18 there) or someone would have heard something.

While it's fairly common for kids to transfer schools down here because of a gripe with school administration, that makes no sense here. They would have sent her to Palmer or Burchall if that were the reason. Burchall is considered an alternative high school, so if it were grades that would be the logical place to move her.

The Palins had to be taking her out of school for something she did. Something major enough that they did not want her to be around her Wasilla classmates.

So, why wouldn't they have tried Juneau again? You know, the governor is supposed to be there as it's the capital. If they could arrange it earlier when Palin was governor, why not now?

Why Anchorage?

gaiaduck said...

I don't believe Sarah gave birth to Trig and I'm pretty sure that Bristol did. But when the Alaska magazine story is mentioned, Audrey, you imply that the interview was done in December 07 for a Feb 08 cover date. In the story, this is the description of the Palin's backyard: "Todd’s floatplane is docked just a hundred yards away, at the edge of the neatly mowed lawn. Three grebes float by, and a duck loiters at the edge of the grass." I don't think you'd see a neatly mown lawn or floating sea birds in December in Alaska. I think the interview was done much earlier than December, so Bristol's pregnancy would've been undetectable by the reporter. Just a small thing, I know, but this messy timeline is my obsession! Oh, and if you read the whole article, crazy Sarah praises Bristol for her purchase of a $15 dress for a gala but disapproves of Bristol's splurge on a $30 leg waxing. I guess she only likes to spend money when it belongs to others!!

PalinBaby Question said...

Here is the only source I know for a "mono" report - it's from the very earliest comment on the internet (Mar. 2008) raising the question of whether Sarah was really pregnant:

This earliest comment says: "Students who have attended class with her report that she has been out of school for months, claiming a prolonged case of mono."

This is plainly not "proof," but it does indicate that the "mono" reference dates back to the earliest report.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Sarah Palin was covering for her daughter. A teen pregnancy, with a boyfriend as father, while not in the plan, would have been accepted and everyone would have moved on.
Unless the boyfriend was not the father.

More likely if she covered, she did so for one of her sisters. Would this explain why her daughter spent months with Heather? Was she helping her with her household and disabled child? Or perhaps Molly,who the family seems to be very protective of and has gone to great lengths for. Maybe Todd Palin's native heritage would have provided lifelong medical care for the baby and Molly or Heather could not.

That's my take on this. It was about money, insurance perhaps.

Anonymous said...

@ Andrew

Parts of Alaska are nowhere near as tolerant as the lower 48. Given their Pentecoastal background, I'd be surprised if the Palins didn't get Bristol an exorcism or some such nonesense.

Also, you are REALLY ignoring her desire for the VP nomination. This woman is ambitious beyond belief. Her skills do not match the task, yet she believes that it is hers for the taking. Don't underestimate that.

Let's say you lived somewhere for 10-20 years where a teenage pregnancy was widely and publicly condemned. Given that the average American sees his/her own culture as the representive (or the ideal) culture of the Western world, its not hard to imagine that she was worried the lower 48 would destroy her over it. Lucky for her, political parties look the other way when it advances their cause.


Jack Bog said...

There is no motive for a conspiracy here. Without a clear motive, this theory has nothing to stand on.

Yeah, except a mound of photographic evidence.

Don't believe your own eyes -- believe what Sarah Palin tells you. No wonder this country is in the toilet.

Anonymous said...

That's why we will NEVER see the birth certificate for Trig.

It won't be conclusive, no matter what it says. It's entirely possible for doctors to lie. It happens.

Jack Bog said...

This should be resolved soon enough by the birth of Bristol's child. If the five-month timeline holds up, will you officially retract this story and issue an apology to the Governor's family?

Of course you shouldn't. Just because Trig isn't Bristol Palin's baby wouldn't mean that he's Sarah Palin's.

Anonymous said...

I'm looking again at the letter by Dr CB-J. Without that, SP's pregnancy is far less credible.

Here's what pops out at me:

--The stationery is not the doctor's; anyone could have picked up a handful of it in any Providence office. I would think such an important letter would be on the MD's personal letterhead.

--So unusual not to have a typed address in the heading, the RNC, or McCain's office or assistant, or whoever she physically gave/sent to letter to. To protect oneself, as well as for the record, the writer would have indicated who was initially to receive this letter.

--The signature looks a little too "perfect-penmanship" detailed, esp at the left side of her signature. Bearing in mind that MDs sign their name MANY times a day, this seems too letter-by-letter a signature; the left side does not match the right side of the signature in this respect.

--The signature and the last two cap letters of the line below are in a lighter grey color. This is true of the pdf of this letter on the ADN site, too. My only idea on why this could be is: if the signature was taken off a xerox, put onto the original of this letter, and then re-colored to be blue (like ink), the graphic artist might have touched the two letters below as well, and perhaps not noticed that they turned blue as well. So they are the same color (greyness, in the case of our pdf) as the signature but different than the rest of that line of text.

--Isn't there a handwriting expert out there?? the signature looks more fake the longer I look at it, or is it just wishful thinking? The cracks in the strokes (enlarge it waaaaay up) look like from a stamp, or an 8th-generation xerox.

--Are we to think that the MD typed this letter out herself? Where are the intials that are usually below the signature, indicating the typist? Where are the alpha-numerics that indicate filing info?

--Were there no courtesy copies issued? To the MD's office file? to an associate MD? to the hospital? Only this one copy to "To Whom It May Concern"? These ccs are usually indicated, again below the signature line.

--I would think on a letter like this the MD would have a title below his/her name.

--"Sincerely" seems an unlikely closing. Something formal and crisp, businesslike, like the dopey-sounding "Very truly yours," would seem more likely.

However, the difficulty with thinking this is a forgery is that Dr CB-J surely knows this letter is out there, and she has not repudiated it. In the ADN story announcing Trig's birth, Dr CB-J is quoted (giving the "okay to fly home" advice). Again, if these quotes were not authentic, wouldn't she have spoken up about it?

As a last rebuttal to my own points, when one looks at Obama's and Palin's MD letters side by side, they do look a lot alike;


Ellie said...

Anonymous said...
"I was doing some searching on Alaska Daily News website and saw something that stood out for me.

here is the link to SP's pregnancy announcement (march 5th)
in the article she states she knows whether it's a boy or a girl but isn't saying anything yet.

then on april 7th
she announces the baby will be a boy - due may 18th.

I know there have been theories about maybe an earlier birth date for Trig. I struck me as weird to announce it's a boy and not just wait until the birth. The article begins "it's a boy..." Made me think about the earlier birth theories."

Good point anon! That would have been 11 days before she supposedly delivered a 6+ lb pre-term DS baby (who are frequently low-birth weight babies even when born at term.) I tend to agree that maybe he was born earlier than the 18th, but given Audrey's experience in this area and all her research the 18th might truly be baby T's bday. But why the inconsistency? Everything about SP is perplexing, and Sarah is nothing if not inconsistent in her remarks. Global warming not caused by man became "I'm not sure all of it is due to man" when interviewed by Charlie Gibson. ;)

I think we have to remember two things guys. ****As Audrey has repeatedly said, Sarah Palin faking a pregnancy and Bristol being Trig's mom are completely different.***** When we discuss this w/skeptics we cannot use Bristol as the evidence, b/c despite the fact most of us believe she is likely Trig's mom she might not be. If it's proven she is not, then there is no way anyone will pursue the truth behind Sarah Palin's fake birth.

Number two, some may have suspicions about whether Trig was conceived by incest (I find it unlikely), but IMHO discussing that on a public blog when it involves *a minor child* (Bristol) seems wildly inappropriate and makes my stomach churn. The wilder our accusations get the easier it is for skeptics, Palin supporters, and reporters to laugh this story off. We discuss incest and risk the truth never being told. The incest comments were referred to here:
This is one of the top links when you search "Palin Deception."
I replied and said I had heard maybe one person make a comment on the blog regarding incest but it was not the view of most, and should not reflect on Audrey or her site.(She didn't post my comment.) But then these posts, by fellow posters I respect came up today. I respect you guys enough that you'll take my opinion into consideration and not be offended. The fact is, most people come to the blog first and some don't visit her site at all. The comments are a big part of what visitors see and our comments reflect on Audrey, whether they are her views or not, so we should keep that in mind at all times. IMHO :)

Anonymous said...

It’s a good theory by Floyd M. Orr.

Quote GraceR: The doctor goes on to say in the last paragraph that SP is recovering well from that pregnancy. Why would any doctor, especially one who has a fairly long and presumably successful career, even slighly risk losing their license by becoming involved in this deception?

Correct; this pregnancy may be of Piper! As for CBJ maybe she didn’t realise what she was getting in for to start with, it has gotten out of hand and now she can’t say anything without ruining her own life?

Quite a lot of what people are saying in this blog about “why hasn’t this been looked at “ or “I can’t believe no one has followed this up” – yes people have its all in the blog/website; read back instead of coming like a bull in a china shop and demanding or arguing points that were “resolved” weeks/months ago.

Quote Anonymous 4th December 6.45pm I really think that even if Bristol's five-month timeline holds up- there still could be some deception going on

As you said in your post; the actual birth date hasn’t been confirmed AND as has been discussed many times on here Trig looks big/filled out for a “premature” baby. He’s either the worlds biggest preemie OR someone lied about the birth date by a week or so; because how does a special needs preemie baby go home from hospital within 24 hours and not stay in an extra night for “precautions”.

Quote Anonymous 4th December 6.53pm. here is the link to SP's pregnancy announcement (march 5th)
in the article she states she knows whether it's a boy or a girl but isn't saying anything yet.

then on april 7th
she announces the baby will be a boy - due may 18th.

I know there have been theories about maybe an earlier birth date for Trig. I struck me as weird to announce it's a boy and not just wait until the birth. The article begins "it's a boy..."

Made me think about the earlier birth theories

As someone way back in the blog said SP and co. don’t have much imagination. Trig was “due” 18th May; he was born on the 18th April and Bristol’s baby is due 18th December. It’s such a coincidence with all of the 18th’s don’t you think. I mean what are the odds of being born on the 18th May, then being born a month early on the exact same numbered date; and then Bristols baby being due to be born on the 18th December…..SUSPICIOUS!


Anonymous said...

Since this broke right after she was announced, I figured she was covering for Bristol, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if she is not covering up a worse situation.

This may also explain why she is always dragging the girls around with her to various events, even when they are not invited or it requires pulling them out of school.

If there was a situation at home with a male family member (whether that is father, brother, cousin, whatever) she may be trying to keep the girls safe and still do her required activities as governor.

I still don't like her and I think that she is quite dangerous, but maybe she actually is looking out for the girls in the only way she can figure out how under the circumstances.

It's not how I would handle it, but I'm not in the public eye where it would be a huge scandal for the entire world to see if something like that came out.

hector said...

off topic ...


NEW YORK TIMES / December 4, 2008

McCain Campaign Spent $110,000 on Palin’s Stylists

Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist was paid $68,400 and her hair stylist received more than $42,000 for roughly two months of work, according to a new campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Ms. Palin’s makeup artist, Amy Strozzi — who was nominated for an Emmy award for her cosmetics work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?” — was paid $32,400 by Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign between Oct. 16 and Nov. 24, the period covered by the most recent reports filed with the commission.

This amount came on top of the $36,000 she had already been paid in previous reports, dating back to September.

In addition, Ms. Palin’s traveling hair stylist, Angela Lew, was paid a total of $42,225, with $23,400 coming during the period covered by the latest reports to the commission, which were due at midnight on Thursday.

Much attention has been paid to the $150,000 the Republican National Committee spent on outfitting Ms. Palin in September at high-end department stores like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, as well as on makeup services.

Republican officials said this week that additional clothing charges would appear on the Republican National Committee’s campaign finance report totaling less than $30,000. But the committee’s report, which was due at midnight on Thursday, was not yet available as of late evening.

Anonymous said...

Let's focus on what we know. Thanks to Audrey & her helpers, we now KNOW that Sarah was not pregnant on March 26th. The photos from that date are unmistakable proof that 1) she was not ~32-33 weeks pregnant and 2) she was using some padding to create the illusion that she was pregnant. So, that issue -- which is the key issue -- is really resolved. We know some other things about Sarah and Bristol, but there are still questions that may or may not be resolved if/when Bristol gives birth. But let's keep our eyes on the prize -- we now KNOW that Sarah was not pregnant in late March. The photos prove it. Sarah is lying about her pregnancy.

Marcy said...

More 'ancient wisdom': consider the source. (That's an old mantra from the engineers) The source of all these baffling statements and actions is a woman whose mind is warped by a religious creed. This creed has convinced her that A. she is truly the "Warrior Princess of God", and B. The Lord Jesus is returning as soon as she and the Army of God begin some carnage.

As the Warrior Princess, whatever she does must be approved by God. Who is the physical mother of Trig? Doesn't matter! She lied about the pregnancy? Doesn't matter! She foisted a deadly letter off on a doctor who might not have been involved at all? Doesn't matter! All that matters is that she forged ahead to grab every possible string of power into her own hands.

The lifelong medical expenses for a Downs Syndrome child can be waved away with one hand: after all, as soon as Sarah has the power to start the big war, then the Rapture will happen.

It's possible that her entire extended family is also mired in this fantasia religion. She claimed that they all conferred on the name for Trig before he was born. And Chuck Heath was the first person, chronologically, to mention the amniotic fluid leakage. There was a lot going on in Alaska wasn't there?

I've had close personal experience with this "chosen of God" delusion. My fundamentalist husband became convinced that he had the power of life or death over me, in the name of God. When he acted out on that, I divorced him. If Sarah Palin had managed to get within one liverspot of the Presidency, we could not have divorced her. We would have been dragged into the nuclear conflagration of her choice. I'm thanking the true God that Barack Obama won. If you have time, read up on Barak the Judge in Judges chapter 4 -- no 'warrior princess' there! grammy

Andrew said...

Just to let you guys know, I was quite familiar with the right-wing blog push to get Palin the nod as VP. I have followed Brickley's blog since April.

I have already read the stories that you cite regarding how Palin hired publicists and such to promote her policies in 2007-2008. How does this prove that she thought she was getting the VP nomination? She hired those people to advance her agenda of ANWR drilling and to raise the national profile of her natural gas line. There is no evidence that she wanted the VP as early as you say - all the news reports confirm that she didn't believe she was a serious candidate, and, although thrilled that McCain picked her, was just as surprised as you or I.

As for those of you who accuse me of not understanding how a Christian conservative thinks, I find that funny, as I am an evangelical and a social conservative myself! I am afriad that it is you folks who are mistaken about us. We don't throw pregnant teenagers out into the cold just because they made a mistake - we encourage them to keep the child and accept their new adult responsiblities. I mean, isn't this obvious? When Bristol's pregnancy became known, social conservatives didn't reject Palin's candidacy - they closed ranks around Palin!

I've seen a few accusations not regarding the pregnancy conspiracy, such as not reporting paid trips. Palin's office has already explained that this was a staffer's error, not anything malicious on Palin's part. What motive would she possibly have to hide these expenses?

Your basic problem is a profound lack of motive for Palin to undertake something as potentially disastrous to her career as a fake pregnancy. That, and the fact that every single person who worked with or knew the Governor during her pregnancy acknowledges that she was clearly pregnant.

Cherie Shirey, a reporter for ADN who saw Palin on a regular basis, said this to the Huffington Post regarding Palin's pregnancy.

“These Internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Gov. Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio, and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”

Anonymous said...

Seems funny to me...SP is a VERY public person who goes to work everyday with hundreds of employees, right? So, how could there be any noone around to definitively end this discussion?

Anyways, I think you all are starting out on the wrong foot by assuming SP made some accurate and true statements, in the first place.

So picking and choosing what she says is true and what she says is false will not work because you cannot and do not know which statements are true and which are false.

We have to assume everything she says is false and work only provable facts forward.

Anonymous said...

Re-reading her submitted medical statement I believe she takes medication of some sort.
''Governor Palin is on no routine prescription medications..." Is this the same as stating Gov. Palin is on medication that is not routine?

Also, the doctor spends a good deal of the letter deliberately telling us about herself, past and current schedule, which to me seems unusual and more than necessary for a letter about someone else.

Also, the letter seems to intend to deal directly with speculation about Trig, which also, seems unusual for what should be a straight forward ''fact based'' report.

She could have just written the last sentence and been done with it.

Anonymous said...

The series of comments on this post clearly outline the arguments on both sides.

The key to finding the truth here is critical reasoning, and the key to that is to recognize that there are multiple, valid ways to interpret the minimal aamount of direct evidence we have. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, which accounts for all the speculation on how those circumstances could make sense.

But there are actual events that generated the circumstances, we just don't know what they are yet. It could be just as SP says it happened. I just watched the Feb 2008 video of her hike from home to office and if you follow her mid-section you might think she's pregnant. Then again, she may have already started faking -- but just didn't announce yet.

And that's the problem with the direct evidence -- photos and contemporaneous eye-witness accounts (including that SP didn't look pregnant when she announced on March 5. It's all conjecture and appearances. It is as much evidence that SP was faking as that she was actually pregnant.

So we get to SP's labor and delivery story, and the unequivocal fact that Trig was born some time around Apriil 18. (This sets aside, for the moment, assertions that Trig was born days or weeks earlier, which assumes SP is not Trig's mother.) If everything SP says about those events is true, she is admitting to what most people would see as reckless behavior resulting from monumentally bad judgment. That, alone, could disqualify her for higher office. She may not have thought that at the time, however.

So for SP defenders, this is your choice: She's reckless and has bad judgment or she faked the pregnancy for reasons that may or may not be rational.

SP could end the whole thing by releasing pre-natal and delivery records. If she is Trig's mother, she could try to spin the delivery story -- but questions would persist. But if she faked the pregnancy, I have to think that her career is finished. You can't spin a faked pregnancy.

So it is really up to Sarah to make the choice, or risk that the truth will come out on its own. She's probably hoping it will go away. I'm patient.


lilybart said...

Just read the Dr.'s letter and I saw something interesting. She states that there were more tests on the fetus that showed no heart problems so she could safely give birth at the local hospital.

That seems oddly specific unless the Dr. was covering for Palin's trip home from Texas. They want to show that she was NOT irresponsible by not having the baby at a better hsopital.

I think there are many lies here, but this odd statement seems like a way to explain away her "wild Ride"

Anonymous said...


Your observational skills are excellent!

I thought about that too. It seems at least they've been consistent with the date(s) *wink*

My question is:
When a woman says" it's a boy", while still pregnant, what do you all understand?

I think when Sarah Palin stated that " it's a boy", Trig Palin was already born.

No matter what, whether Bristol Palin will give birth on or around Dec 18th, says nothing about Trig Palin's birth story.

BTW, Could anyone please let me know where I can find the MD letter? For some strange reasons, that PDF document is not viewable on my computer. I would like to read the MD letter as there have been some comments about it.


Mary g. said...

Thanks to Palinbabyquestion for giving the link to a comment in March that mentions the mono rumors. Although that ADN poster says it came from former classmates of Bristol saying she was out for "months" with a case of mono, Bristol may at that point have been out only from a little after school resumed after dec-jan break--maybe 6-8 weeks--not five months, as many have said. That this absence extended far beyond the time of the comment is another matter... But palinbabyquestion helps to clarify the timeline for the rumor. Mary g.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


Andrew Sullivan has spoken:


Anonymous said...

For Andrew:


Anonymous said...

The more Sarah Palin speaks and traipses around the country, the more I believe that she is not Trig's birthmother. It's apparent from the way she describes Alaska that she believes that the rest of America thinks it's some kind of no-man's land where anything goes--and everything can be explained away. That's what Alaska is for her, and has done for her, and until now her nonsensical explanations have never been seriously scrutinized before. In a large state, with many independent souls and miniscule population widely scattered, it works perfectly for a politician who is all about image over substance. It doesn't work as well in the lower 48, and while I personally believe she got a free pass throughout the campaign, and continues to do so now that the media and RNC want her to be seen as a credible candidate and face of the party, anyone who examines her record or truly listens to her convoluted explanations knows she really isn't qualified to be a mayor of a substantial city, and never could have become a governor in a state of more than a million people. None of her explanations make sense, and she speaks in the moment with total disregard for historical accuracy or future implications. My heart breaks for those children being raised with such a narcissistic mother who puts her own desires so far ahead of their real needs. But Palin's hubris will eventually catch up with her, and the truth will come out. Thank you for continuing where the MSM has shown true cowardice.
art in california

BrianW said...

I'm not convinced either. It's too much work for whatever result they would get - cover up teenage Bristol's pregnancy by pretending it's really Sarah, then proving it was really Sarah by claiming that Bristol is pregnant? So, if the problem in the first place is that Bristol was pregnant, wouldn't it be a little ridiculous to fix the problem by saying that Bristol is pregnant now?

And for Sarah being too active around the time of birth for it to have been real is a long-reaching grasp at straws. I'm sorry, but my wife gained only 23 pounds when she was pregnant with our daughter and never even wore maternity clothes. She worked at her job at the hospital until the Friday before she gave birth, and we were hiking on Mt. Hood the Saturday afternoon before she went into labor that night. Two days after giving birth she was back in her size 4 clothes and back to business as usual, so none of this is proof to me.

Anonymous said...

That's right, Andrew, I'm sure the fact that social conservatives had no other choice BUT to close ranks and support Palin & her daughter's pregnancy at that point has nothing to do with it...

Social conservatives are SO well-known for their support of teen moms from all walks of life, aren't they?

Anonymous said...

>>My question is:
When a woman says" it's a boy", while still pregnant, what do you all understand?<<

Well, it could mean the baby has already been born, but lots of pregnant women nowadays "know" through ultrasound and/or amniocentesis, and announce gender and even names well in advance of birth. An acquaintance of mine had a teensy problem with this when their "girl" was born after a transcription error on the amnio results--oops!

Anonymous said...

Brian W - another right wing blogger who knows of someone who had a miracle pregnancy. you guys have no imagination. Do you have to all tell the exact same story? Granted yours is slightly more embellished so you did try, didn't you?

Photos please of your wife pregnant and walking up MT Hood 2 days before your child's birth. You can put them up in your blog. Any showing her with a baby bump at 32 - 33 weeks similar to Palin's would also be welcome.


Anonymous said...


did the size of your wife's belly fluctuate between flat and huge in a matter of days? That's the discrepancy between pictures. Palin looks like Denali in the early April photos, less than a month after this.

Anonymous said...

Well, I STILL wonder how she could have been leaking amniotic fluid and fly 11 hours w/o the airline attendants noticing she was in labor. As far as I remember, when my waters broke, it was quite a mess, so her chairs should have been completely soaked.
Someone had mentioned the different size of baby Trig - when he was born and being held by Mercede, he was TINY. When you see him with SP the first time, he is already HUGE.
I would say this all points to an earlier birth than April 18. I am no expert, but I also do not think they release a DS baby the next day from a hospital. Usually they are being kept in NICU for a while for obsrevation and tests...

Anonymous said...

Dear Brian W.,
How old is your wife? Was it her fifth pregnancy? Was your wife 44 years old, on her fifth child (a high risk pregnancy to boot), and most importantly, involved in the high stress job of monitoring US National Security/airspace by watching Russia from her window AND the governing of a huge state? - Mark

Anonymous said...

Again, for anyone who is not convinced with all the evidence provided so far, why don't you try to prove to US that SP is Trig's mother. You have no direct evidence and a party that could refute our assertions in control of that evidence, yet she refuses to release it. That's a cover-up in itself.

Andrew Sullivan in his blog 'The Daily Dish' today is right in being dubious of any defense of SP that doesn't clear up the controversy with verifiable evidence. We can match those who call us crazy with sufficient evidence to raise the same doubts as A.S. does. We can match SP defenders interpretation for interpretation, theory for theory.

I, for one, will not be dissuaded from seeking the truth by name-calling or feeble attempts to embarass me. If SP ultimately proves she's Trig's birth mother with the evidence we seek, I will not be embarassed at having thought otherwise because that's where the evidence pointed at the time. I will have helped to bring the truth to light by pressing the issue.

But if those of us who have concluded that SP faked the pregnancy are right, all of her defenders have lots of explaining to do, and you will owe US all an apology for insulting our efforts to find the truth. You SP defenders who attacked us will have helped to perpetuate a lie. That's a position you don't want to be in.


Anonymous said...

@ Andrew

You say you're a social conservative. What you didn't say, was that you were a fundamentalist which Palin IS. I believe there's a huge jump between the two. I mean, she believes the earth is 6,000 years old? Definitely does not have her head screwed on straight.

GraceR said...

For the people arguing over SP's telling the reporter that the baby was a boy. The letter from the doctor states that SP had amniocentesis. That test definitely tells you the sex of the child. I knew my last one was a boy early in my 2nd trimester (and we announced it to family and friends).

Anonymous said...

Andrew cites Shirey of ADN as saying:

“These Internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Gov. Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio, and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”

She did say that. And it is oddly at variance with what Wesley Loy of ADN wrote in the newspaper when reporting on the announcement by Palin that she was pregnant. Loy wrote that she did not look pregnant and that everyone around her was stunned. What do we make of the difference here? I am a journalism professor and former journalist; sad to say, but sometimes journalists form special relationships with politicians, and maybe that is at play here. On the other hand, it is possible that both reporters are being completely honest, but that Shirey saw what Palin wanted her to see -- a belly with a pillow stuffed over it, and clever makeup meant to emphasize the roundness of her face. What is a bit surprising to me is the dearth of statements similar to Shirey's.

Andrew, I wish I could believe that you are writing in good faith. But your rhetorical bent and your clever but seemingly disingenuous arguments - I say this because of how extremely selective you are when it comes to choosing evidence -- make me wonder just what it is that you are doing on this blog. Are you part of an organized effort that aims to infiltrate "the enemy" and neutralize what is happening here?

Brad S

Anonymous said...

No one yet has proved Sarah WAS pregnant with Trig. A Palinite asks, what evidence WOULD I accept to prove she was pregnant w/Trig.


Probably not a birth certificate at this point, since an adoption would have changed it.

Maybe a less ambiguous one-page SWORN statement from a doctor allowed to examine her medical records.

Probably just a few actual pages of her medical records showing prenatal visits, if not the records of the delivery.

I would be satisfied with a neutral OBGYN examining those pages and reporting a conclusion to the public. She wouldn't have to publicize personal, intimate details.

DNA tests for Sarah, Todd, and Trig would work, examined by a neutral expert (Maury Povich can find one) who says these two are the parents of the third. (Even if Trig got DNA from Bristol which matched Sarah and Todd, the DNA of Levi or another father would be different.)

I'd also accept photos of her bare belly, when confirmed as to date and not being altered, but I don't think she would have had any taken.

The limited release of selected records of prenatal care is very do-able. The DNA testing is also do-able.

But Sarah will feel no need to prove her pregnancy until the media questions her pregnancy enough that she begins to lose credibility (i.e., votes) with her base. So we are left with the option of proving she was NOT pregnant.

The wild ride couldn't have happened as she has said it did. She must 'fess up to lying about the wild ride or about Trig. -B.

Craig said...

This nonsense is not unlike the 9/11 truthers who, at the core, can't answer the question of, "How can an administration that has been so consistently inept politically over 8 years, manage to pull off the most incredible cover-up in world history, involving the direct and indirect knowledge of thousands of people at some point, without any credible leaks or exposures?"

How could a person pull off an insane pregnancy switch at the State-level and then purposely up the ante to deceive everyone at the national/international level and put an entire presidential campaign on the edge of destruction, in today's harshly partisan environment, without any credible leaks or exposures?

This circumstancial detail-chasing is irrelevant until someone can answer how this is even remotely possible.