Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Lowest Common Denominator

Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish blogger at Atlantic.com has been very skeptical about Sarah Palin’s birth story for months. He is in fact, the only “main stream media” person who has stayed on the story.

Mr. Sullivan is on vacation this week, and several colleagues are writing his column in his place. One is Patrick Appel, who yesterday made a post entitled “In Defense of Sarah Palin.

He begins by quoting a reader, Will, who states: “After wading through the muck, I’m left wondering why he feels the need to badger the poor woman over the circumstances of her son’s birth.” As answer to this, I’d like to direct readers back to Mr. Sullivan’s single most thoughtful column on this matter.

Here’s my open response to Mr. Appel:

Dear Mr. Appel,

I have been as guilty as anyone of, at times, allowing the dialogue to deteriorate in to trivialities. If that’s “muck,” so be it. While I do feel that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, much of it based on photographic analysis, that Gov. Sarah Palin was never pregnant last spring, focusing on that too much does dilute what I feel is the most central, and single most damning piece of information of all: the choices made by Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign on August 31 – September 1, 2008.

On Friday, August 29th John McCain selected Sarah Palin for his running mate. The next day, August 30th, the first Internet rumors that Palin was Trig’s grandmother… not his mother … began to appear. The outcry only increased over the next day.

On August 31st, or possibly, early on September 1st, someone, I am assuming in the McCain campaign, made the decision that the rumors had to be addressed. No “bloggers” forced the McCain campaign to make this decision, and it’s very fair to point out that numerous other damaging pieces of information regarding Palin and her family that came to light during the campaign were ignored. But not this. They made the decision to address it.

Once the decision was made, by far the most logical option would have been to provide rock-solid medical evidence that Sarah Palin had given birth five months previously. We'll call this "Option A."

And, without a doubt, the easiest way to do that would have been to set up a news conference with Cathy Baldwin Johnson, the family practice physician that Palin has identified as the doctor at her birth, accompanied by Norman Stephens, CEO of Mat-Su Hospital. It would not have had to be elaborate or complicated, or in any way violating of Gov. Palin’s privacy.

Let me tell you what they should have said:

“My name is Norman Stephens I am CEO of Mat-Su Regional Hopsital in Palmer Alaska.” “My name is Catherine Baldwin Johnson. I am a family practice physician affiliated with Providence Matanuska Health Care in Wasilla Alaska. We have been asked to give a statement today regarding the circumstances surrounding the birth of Trig Paxson Van Palin last spring. We wish to read a short statement. We will not take any questions. Here is the statement: Trig Palin was born at this hospital at 6:32 in the morning of April 18th 2008. He weighed six pounds two ounces. Sarah Heath Palin, the governor of Alaska, is Trig Palin’s biological mother. I, Cathy Baldwin Johnson, personally attended Trig’s birth at this hospital. A full copy of the medical files as related to this pregnancy and birth will be made available to the press promptly . Thank you.”

That’s all. That’s it. That’s what I … and others like Andrew Sullivan… have been asking for for three plus months now. If that press conference had happened on September 1, I guarantee I’d be baking Christmas cookies for my family right now instead of writing to you.

But they didn’t do Option A. Not even close.

What they did was Option B. The McCain campaign, around mid-day on September 1, told the entire world that Sarah Palin’s seventeen year old daughter was pregnant. They "proved" that Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin by telling us that Bristol Palin could not have. They offered no verification other than their word. They turned a minor that should be loved and protected through a very tough experience into the most famous and gawked at and discussed pregnant teen in the world. On the political front, they opened Todd and Sarah Palin up for what had to be unwanted scrutiny about their parenting, a hardly desirable result.

Sure, Bristol’s pregnancy (if genuine – and I believe it is) probably would have come out at some point during the campaign, but it could have been handled quietly, sensibly, thoughtfully with the announcement that it was a private family matter. Instead, the poor child's personal information is bellowed from the roof tops by her parents and the McCain campaign.

I’ve asked this question before, Mr. Appel, but I am asking you now. Why in the world would anyone choose “Option B” if “Option A” was available to them?

And the answer is simple: They wouldn’t. If Cathy Baldwin Johnson had been willing to give a statement that Sarah was Trig’s biological mother, they would never have announced that Bristol was pregnant. They wouldn't have needed to. But she wasn’t willing to make that statement. If the medical records were solid and routine and above board, they would have released them. But the records aren't what they should be.

They told the world Bristol was pregnant because it was all they had.

All the blurry photos and mysterious baby bumps and whispered rumors and wild rides and reckless choices fade into nothing compared to this. I’m repeating it: Cathy Baldwin Johnson has never been willing to say (and is still not willing to say) that Trig Palin was born on April 18th at Mat-Su Hospital, that Sarah Palin is his biological mother and that she, Cathy Baldwin Johnson, delivered him.

Why, Mr. Appel, do you think that is? Is she lazy? Forgetful? Busy? Dead?

Or has Dr. Baldwin-Johnson refused to make the statement because it’s not true?




Anonymous said...

Kudos! Thank you for all the work you've done. Oh, and as far as much goes? You're just following the tradition of famous muckrakers like Ida Tarbell.


Mary G. said...

I notice that the name of the attending physician or midwife is listed on birth certificates in some states. If the Palins did a family adoption, that would allow Sarah and Todd's names to appear as Trig's parents while his actual biological parents would only be listed on sealed medical documents. But there would still be the issue of the attending physician's name. That is why I doubt they will release a birth certificate.
But the statement Audrey suggests would satisfy me, too. Although at this point they would need to make a huge apology to Bristol.

Anonymous said...

Dear Audrey,

Great site, no matter what the outcome, its just fun to follow, a great "Whodunnit".

This post is simple and very effective and it gets to a very basic argument, 'why choose option B if Option A is available" This argument, more than anything else is what makes me think that she didn't birth Trig.

Here the one glaring problem in my opinion: Where's the National Enquirer? Why no story from them? It seems hard to be believe that no one in Alaska was willing to spill the beans in exchange for some tabloid money.

This is the one thing that makes me think there is nothing to the conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

That was a great response. You were logical, calm and thoughtful. That's the dialogue we need on this topic. Good for you for sounding like a reasonable person rather than the nut they think we are for smelling something fishy.


Anonymous said...


Please follow this up with a post or more a day highlighting the critical unanswered questions regarding SP and her actions.

And everyone should note that Bristol and Sarah are not the only women CAPABLE of being Trig's biological mother. There are:

1) Willow
2) Some other woman

So Bristol's current pregnancy may ultimately prove that she isn't Trig's mother. But that doesn't end the issue, no matter how much her defenders may want it to. Clearly, that's what they hoped 'Option B' would do. But it still doesn't explain why they chose it over 'Option A'.


wayofpeace said...

interesting post from


It seemed a bit mysterious, why Governor Palin's health records were such a secret, and only released on the eve of the election. She was adamantly determined to keep those personal health records from advanced public scrutiny, a most unusual stance for a candidate for such high office. What on earth was the lady hiding so grimly?

Could it be that, since the date of her first delivery is known and also the date of her marriage, being a public record, is also known . . . that her health records would reveal to all that this first birth was not premature, but full term, and that it strongly indicated the conception occurred before her marriage?

And that is exactly what the medical record showed, that the birth of her first child was full "term," which means 9 months, plus or minus 2 weeks. Yet the lady gave birth only 8 months after her elopement marriage. Such marriages are often rushed, for pregnancy reasons, and that seems to have been the case here.

This certainly would have been damaging in the election for one who professes such fundamentalist views and such personal virtue as the Alaska governor. She, after all, has been an ardent promoter of premarital chastity and abstinence, and an equally ardent opponent of sex education.

Seems to make her a hypocrite, no?

ajesquire said...

"I’ve asked this question before, Mr. Appel, but I am asking you now. Why in the world would anyone choose “Option B” if “Option A” was available to them? "

Another simple answer is that Sarah Palin simply doesn't give a shit about her daughter Bristol.

She already admitted (then subsequently lied about) the fact that she accepted the nomination without consulting her children.

She insisted/allowed Bristol and her "fucking redneck" fiance to be dragged to the GOP Convention and even brought on-stage.

As far as the fact of Bristol's pregnancy tarnishing Sarah and Todd's parenting, as you note the pregnancy surely would've come out eventually and they may have calculated that it's better to get the damaging news out earlier than later.

I absolutely think we need to push this story until we get the kind of confirmation you're asking for. But as an attorney I'm cautious about putting too much weight on any particular fact, detail, implication, picture, etc.

Laurie said...

If they were willing to expose an underage-daughter pregnancy to the entire world mere months later, why would they have had the birth cover up in the first place? Doesn't sound as though the baby is Bristol's, if an unwed, teen pregnant daughter was actually not any real big deal. Why the deception?

palin pregnancy truth said...

The way that Palin announced Bristol's pregnancy makes it seem (if it is true) that they were not planning to announce it until the rumors emerged. Had there been no rumors they wouldn't have said anything, which is fine, but strange.

I would take the stance of a political strategist. What would you do if your candidate had faked a pregnancy? How would you persuade the public that they had indeed been the mother and not the teenage daughter?

Anonymous said...

The rumors began in Alaska before the VP announcement, yes? I think that is important to note because it was not crazy lefty bloggers that made it up or something.

AND, normal release of medical records was not done on a healthy woman. Weird.

And why were photos scrubbed off the internet?

sandy beach said...

Mary G:

When a baby is born in Alaska, a "record of live birth" is issued. That document contains the name of the attending physician. It is not a matter of public record. We will never see that.

A birth certificate is issued later. That document contains the names of adoptive parents only and no attending physician. Even if they released it, it would tell us nothing.

Anonymous said...

thank you Audrey!!!

the long list of completely unanswered questions regarding this woman and her behavior is astonishing.

to even consider that she is somehow, being 'picked upon' is beyond comprehension.

the RNC threw this woman out in front as tho somehow they could 'charm' people into voting....for a person with obvious mental, ethical, financial, verbal, character and behavioral issues.

for anyone to think that now it is just okay to forget about it all
is a fool.

I find this quite treasonous:
trea·son (trzn)
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign...to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.


Anonymous said...

The NYer article (long profile) of Her Nothingness stated clearly that the writer heard the rumor's of B's pregnancy within "ten minutes" of landing in Juneau and Anchorage. That was back in May/June. My feeling is that rumors come from somewhere; there was some reason why this "rumor" started.

If I were SP, and I were reading this daily, I'd be saying to myself, "Phew, at least they still aren't onto Track, at least not at full throttle." My money is still on his role in this. Man they got rid of that kid fast, just in the nick of time and oh so far away. Nothing like the U.S. Army to keep anyone from reaching you for comment. Now, just wonder who the "girl" is in the picture. L.A.

Alex said...

Well-stated, as always. Thank God, you present argument well, Audrey. Very hard to refute your points.

I like Brad's hypothesis (here? or on previous post?) that the "necklace" photos were damage control.

I'm going right now to flickr to ask Patrick and Kathleen if they'll organize their photos by month/year (placing photos in order based on fact-based criteria either when photo first appeared or when it was verifiably taken.)

Because viewing them in a reasonable time frame may make things a bit clearer in the muck.

Anonymous said...

I do think this is asking too much:

"A full copy of the medical files as related to this pregnancy and birth will be made available to the press promptly ."

Instead, maybe something like "Selected other medical files that document beyond doubt the authenticity of this pregnancy and birth . . . "

And I would suggest an Option C: "Sarah Palin is the adoptive mother of Trig. She simulated a pregnancy and his birth because she wanted Trig in his later years to feel as welcomed to, and as integral a part of, her family as possible. While that may now appear to some as an unwise choice, it was undertaken to guard Trig's best interests. It is with enormous regret that we allowed Bristol to play a part in this deception, which we all thought was for the best." There's probably a better way to put Option C. I'm trying to incorporate the view of many, including myself, that this deception might have started with the very best of intentions to benefit Trig -- only Trig and perhaps other innocent bystanders -- and then it took on an unfortunate life of its own, as deceptions often do.

And among the reasons Dr CBJ has not responded, I would leave room for the possibility of some other reason, a good reason, one that we might all support. Because we don't know the whole story, let us leave room for the benefit of the doubt. Even though I may not believe that "reporters saw Palin pregnant," nor all the statements in the Tipton interview, my reading of the last Appel column made me think immediately of some other scenario -- perhaps even a benevolent one -- when he implied that our knowledge of the exact circumstances of Trig's start in life might be too sensitive to go public with, and that those circumstances, if known, would not tell us any more about SP than we already know from other issues and facts. So we may be best served, all of us, to back off and let at least SOME sleeping dogs lie.

Of course, the intense feelings this issue has aroused are not the result of gabby gossips, voyeurs, or nosy busybodies. They are the result of SP's stance on the controversial pro-life/pro-choice issues. The idea that HER choice (especially if she were to become President) should deny others THEIR choice on these enormously difficult issues. Not only her stance, but her use of her family to advertise that stance. Yes, other candidates presented their families in the election period too, but no one to such an excess as SP. The irregular details of Trig's birth were thrust upon us in support of a very threatening SP agenda to deny other women a choice over their own bodies and families; the thought that these details might contain a huge LIE added a heap of insult to the very real injury that SP's views would do to men and women who do not share her values. It is for this reason, a reason of SP's own making, that many of us have pursued this trail to learn the truth.

Craig said...

I'm not sure how displaying to the press the full medical records related to the pregnancy ("related" can be a vague word), isn't treading on Palin's privacy.

Frankly, if someone isn't going to believe a clear statement made by a doctor and the hospital director at such a news conference, they aren't going to believe notes in a medical record either.

Margot said...

Audrey, You say that rumors of Sarah not being the mother were known within twenty four hours of her nomination. Actually, they were known within two hours. I live in the eastern time zone and saw the announcement at about 11:30. I saw the rumors within two hours. Why? Simple curiosity. I wanted to know who Sarah was. When I read the rumors I started looking for pictures in order to make up my mind. I found LOTS OF PICTURES. One was of Sarah in a Playboy Playmate sort of set up. Unfortunately, it was dinner time so I suspended my search. By the next morning the pictures were gone.
I began collecting items I found in a blog called

I agree that the fact the National Enquirer isn't all over this is troubling. They did have a story about Track and his troubles.
I've sent a copy of your url to their Tip Hotline and been very clear that I'm not looking for money - just truth. Keep up the excellent work.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

the so called straight talk express's first victim was Bristol. they threw her right under that bus. I wonder if she even speaks to her mom. it goes to the whole blinking thing. SP cares more about HER career than her family. Just the facts ma'am...

Craig said...

Dangerous, please explain the likely scenario in which "some other woman" would be Trig's actual mother, and yet Sarah would make up a high-risk gamit to fake the birth as her own?

Morgan said...

I kind of doubt Patrick Appel really cares what you or any of the rest of us think, Audrey. He's too busy crowing with glee over his brief mention over on Michelle Malkin's blog. He even linked to it.

I mean, seriously, this guy is proud of the attention he got. From Michelle Malkin.

Kinds of makes you wonder, doesn't it? Poor Andrew Sullivan. With friends like that...

Anonymous said...

Maybe she is just trying to cover for the reckless disregard of the baby she showed by not getting medical help when her water broke in TX.

Maybe she didn't really want a fifth, challenging child and that is why she didn't tell anyone and that is why she took risks like the 12 hour wild ride to Wasilla.

It might be harder to explain the lie about the tough, plucky hocky mom who flew home to give birth.

It is all about her image, no matter what the truth turns out to be. And the fact that she lies about everything. REally, everything.

Craig said...


And now Willow could have been pregnant???? How about Piper? Maybe she is really just a midget. Seriously, how far does the cord of credibilty stretch?

Alex said...

I totally disagree with anyone who says that Palin could have carried out this charade for "benevolent" reasons. Having grown up in a family where lies were commonplace, having lived through the lies perpetuated by our US Presidents-- I know beyond any shadow of doubt that lying is just plain wrong. Lying always hurts others. Ask any adopted child who was lied to about his/her origin and then found out about it at school. That Palin could carry this thing off doesn't surprise me. Bill Clinton was a philanderer for years and was interviewed about it directly many times. Experienced liars entrap everyone around them (Hillary Clinton was always complicit in her husband's lies, in my opinion.) until someone is brave enough to say "No More."

sarah.hoax said...

Audrey this post is some very good analysis. It doesn't make sense how she "gave the proof" by using Bristol. No wonder, so many of us smelled a skunk that became smellier as the timeline and story were uncovered.

Thanks for keeping the story going and we are all awaiting Bristol's delivery date which will be late next week I believe.

But, I disgree with your statement that Dr Baldwin-Johnson did not confirm that Sarah is the mother of Trig. She clearly states, in her election eve letter, that Sarah has a child in 2008 and that child was Trig.

You may infer these words not to be completely clear, But the fact it the State Medical Board of Alaska will plainly read them as a Medical Statement by Dr. Baldwin-Johnson confirming that Sarah gave birth to Trig. They will not take her politicing "lightly" and she will have severe sanctions. The Doctor is essentially "under oath" while writing such a letter. As a physician myself, i see no reason whatsoever why Dr. Cathy would take such a risk, and not tell the truth, on the eve of an obviously lost election for Sarah, plus this letter was not written in haste but she had plenty of time to think it through, and the consequences of such, if it was not true.

Also, why would they release such an early delivery date, Dec 19th I believe, instead of pushing it up to at least Jan 1st if Bristol became pregnant say on May 1st, two weeks after delivering Trig. Wouldn't the due date be about Feb 1st?

Anonymous said...


Fair question (for a change).

A poster above gave a credible scenario for SP faking a pregnancy for an adoption: so that the baby would not know that he/she was adopted when he/she grew up.

That's a reasonable motive, altough since the baby has DS, it's hard to imagine a motive to continue the ruse. It's actually a clever concept I hadn't thought of. There are probably other valid motives nobody has posted.

If SP did this, I would certainly understand the initial motivation, but not the continued cover-up. I think most people would agree.

The most likely scenario for faking a pregnancy would be to cover for a daughter because one might consider that a bigger scandal. Hence the focus on Bristol and, at least to cover all possibilities, Willow. We'd consider Piper, too, but she's of course too young to be capable of having a child.

SP could be Trig's mother -- as I've stated repeatedly -- but then she's very reckless, and a marvel of modern biology. A 6-WEEK PREGNANCY!!


Craig said...

Margot, The Enquirer is well aware of the rumors and has had resources in Alaska since last Fall, digging for dirt. Remember the story they put out about how an unnamed source told them that a former business partner of Todd's had an affair with Sarah? The story died because there was nothing else to substanciate it.

That's why I listed their research as another reason for the Trig's paternity being accurate. If the Kings of Dirt can unlodge contrary sources, who can?

Anonymous said...

Alex @1.09.

I am very sorry but Patrick has a life outside of this blog and a very demanding job. We can only give so much of ourselves and are presently feeling a little burned out and unable to take on requests such as the one you have made. All of the photos on his flickr page are dated and many of them have long descriptions which we feel are adequate for the present time. We may of course revise this at a later date but cannot promise anything.

Here is the link to his photostream -



Anonymous said...

Thank you to anonymous at 12:43 for mentioning the scrubbed photos. Audrey has brought this up in the past as well. You can dismiss all the blurry photos and whispered rumours and improbabilities bordering on impossibilities surrounding Sarah's pregnancy, BUT, related photos were immediately taken off the internet as soon as rumors really gained ground at the end of August--that is simply a fact. You can say Sarah risked her baby's health and even life with her broken water plane ride back to Alaska from TX because she's impulsive and reckless. You can say there are hardly any photos at all of a GOVERNOR that exist showing her to be undeniably pregnant because...she just wasn't in the public scene much last winter/spring. You can say she never looked very pregnant in the pictures that do exist from February/March because...she was not showing much. You can say Palin never released medical records because she is hiding something minor but embarrassing like a facelift. You can say Cathy Baldwin-Johnson refuses confirm that Sarah is Trig's biological mother and that she was present at the birth because...she doesn't feel like it. You can say Bristol just happened to switch schools and then go MIA coincidentally. I can't dream up a reason why the McCain camp pulled that ridiculous sleight of hand "Trig is Sarah's baby because he's not Bristol's" instead of a simple statement that would have put the whole thing to rest. Maybe someone can dream up one. But how on earth do you explain pulling down any and all related photos as soon as the speculation reached a fever pitch? That's not something left-wing bloggers did, or Andrew Sullivan did, or Obama operatives did. That's something the people who had something to hide did. Why?

(Audrey -- you are awesome. Thank you for everything you are doing to make us feel we haven't all just jumped down the rabbit hole.)

Lower 48

Anonymous said...

Wonder if Dr. Cathy is also one of those crazy people who thinks women should have no choice but to bear their rapist's child? Wonder if she is also a creationist who like her patient Sarah believes dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together. Has Dr. Cathy ever been prayed over by a witch doctor? Could explain a lot. Maybe there is something wrong with the water in Alaska. Something stinks.

luna1580 said...

i reject the idea of faking a pregnancy so an adopted child won't know they're adopted as being "benevolent."

actually, i think it's kind of evil. how would you feel if you learned tomorrow that your parents and siblings had lied to you about "where you came from" for your whole life?

i actually knew someone who this happened to, the "brother" of my uncle-by marriage, so not related (even just legally) to me. he learned in late high school that his big "sister" was his biological mom and never forgave the family for the deception.

for comparison, my first cousin on the other side of the family married a man whose "little brother" is his biological nephew. the kid, now 9, lives with his parents (who are his biological grand parents) and his "sister." when he was old enough to understand and care where babies come from, they told him where he came from, and that the reason for who takes care of him is because they love him and wanted him and his mom to be as happy as possible.

he was legally adopted by the grandparents at birth and has always called them mom and dad. that kid seems totally fine.

it's also evil because it implies that adopted kids are lesser people and less loved than biological kids. anyone who believes that obviously shouldn't be adopting!

i don't think it's a part of the SP story line (not that i would put something "weird and evil" past her, of course.....), but anything's possible i guess.


Jen said...

to sarah.hoax who said:

But, I disgree with your statement that Dr Baldwin-Johnson did not confirm that Sarah is the mother of Trig. She clearly states, in her election eve letter, that Sarah has a child in 2008 and that child was Trig.


That is not what Audrey is arguing... Audrey is arguing that Dr. CBJ does not and can not and has NOT said, she delivered Trig or was present at his birth.

All she says, is what she is told to say. Sarah had 3 different children without CBJ being present (supposedly she delivered Piper)... and yet there's the information saying that Sarah had track, bristol, willow -- how does CBJ know? because Sarah told her. Just like she probably told CBJ to say she had Trig.

You are assuming that since CBJ is the only doctor available to us that she must have been the one to deliver Trig and that is just not the case.

Obviously, Ms. Sarah did not have an OBGYN at all and did not have an OBGYN in Juneau where she was living from jan-april for the most part, this is when she would have the most prenatal care appts.

I find it deplorable that a woman that clearly had the means/ability/access to the best kind of prenatal and OBGYN care, according to her, CHOSE to use a sexual abuse expert/family physician to take care of her and her premature DS baby...Sarah obviously was NOT checked out by her doctor or any doctor prior to the Texas trip and it would have/should have been required for her to fly again, so late in the pregnancy.

the whole story stinks to high heaven and the truth will come out.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Powerfully written! Great job, Audrey.


Anonymous said...

What if the CBJ medical letter was not written by CBJ? What if it is a fake? Or perhaps not wholly a fake, but altered in some self-serving, key, essential, important way? It would be soooooooo easy to do. I could do it. Most of us could do it. Only our ethics prevent that.

What if CBJ has not chosen to repudiate the faked letter. What if she feels she wrote an accurate letter, and if someone else altered it to serve their needs untruthfully, tough nuggies. If someone else committed a crime using her accurate document, she is not obliged to act as a policemen. Yes, she would testify about it truthfully under oath, but she is not under oath every moment of the day, and she reserves the right to commit a sin of omission, of refusing to let herself be sucked into this losing whirlpool on a side she does not support.

What if she was a trusted advisor in this episode, at its outset. But as things moved on, getting worse and worse, perhaps her professional and ethical advice was rejected by the other main players, and they parted company. Acrimoniously.

Even so, although reluctantly, she wrote an accurate letter upon request; but then she reads it in the press or on the web and finds it has been altered to tell a lie.

Alex, I absolutely agree that the truth is always best. But literature and history are full of detailed accounts of small (at the outset) well-intended deceptions that mushroom and snowball into something very different that the perp never intended.

Complexity adds another wild card. I see on this blog (and admit to feeling myself) some wish for comeuppance for a person who has deceived me. But is punishing SP worth the toll it might take on innocent bystanders, some of whom might have an unsought role in all of this? I don't know the answer.

Dominick Dunne's "The Two Mrs Grenvilles" addresses this very issue. A mother of two murders her husband, but the grandmother (the husband's Mom, who loved him dearly and hates the wife, and knows she is guilty) testifies that the murdering mother is innocent (and gets her off) because the grandmother does not want her two little grandchildren to grow up with a jailed murderess for a mother. Well it all ends badly anyway, as you might expect, vindicating Alex's position in his post above. But people do attempt such deceptions for initially altruistic reasons. I don't agree that it's right, but I don't want to judge, either.

In my earlier post, I didn't mean to say that being a birth child is an iota better that being an adopted child, or that deceit is good or can be justified, or that deceptive "protection" of a family member is a good thing. I don't believe that. But I do see all around me good people who have
made choices like that. And literature and history is full of examples too.

So let's say that CBJ feels that her silence if her letter is faked has an element of bad ethics to it -- but that this is greatly outweighed by her duty and wish to support someone, perhaps a patient, who CBJ feels needs more time in privacy and anonymity to come to terms with some element of this sad tale.

It is this kind of complexity and conflict of interest -- so common in the real world -- that I am thinking might tar the innocent way more than it would gain for any other purpose, if the truth were laid bare.

Just sayin'.


trish in SW FL said...

I was not even aware of Sarah Palin's existence until she was
announced as the VP choice of McCain. Until then, I honestly had not paid any attention to Alaska politics at all.

The first thing that set off an alarm for me, was the way Bristol's pregnancy was announced. If the pregnant teen daughter was no big deal to Sarah and/or the McCain campaign.....why not, when they paraded all her family out for introduction, why did they not just state right then...."Gov Palin is awaiting the birth of her first grandchild in December"

Instead, that was announced what--2days later? That right there screamed "COVER-UP" to me. And I'm sure many others here in the lower 48 saw it too.

Since that little announcement, I have been curious, and have been following the different blogs that have been investigating it.

The whole thing just smells bad.

Audrey, thank you for all the work you have done, keep on it. Eventually the truth will come out.

~trish in SW FL

sarah.hoax said...

Jen, Dr. Cathy practices in Wasilla where Sarah spent most of her pregnancy and had been her family physician this past last year. She had to have been in medical contact with Sarah and SHE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW whether it is true or false that Sarah delivered the baby. She did not have to state she was in the birthing room. The kind of wordmanship you suggest would be taken as a fraudulent medical statement by the Board, because she HAS TO KNOW what the truth is. I have been a complete skeptic to Sarah's story since the Daily Kos article, but I accept that Dr. Cathy's statement is VERY SUPPORTIVE that Sarah is the birth month, otherwise Dr. Cathy is taking the chance of professional suicide!! She would be looked upon by the Board as OJ was just looked upon for his escapades. The Law does not act lightly when in the public spotlight as the Board would be if the truth come out that Bristol is the birthmother.

jeanie said...

Craig -

In this day and age, and with the importance of knowing ones own health history, I can't imagine going to such extremes as faking a pregnancy to convince your adopted child he's "really" yours!

It may sound like a wonderful, selfless reason for a faux pregnancy, but imagine the depth of anger/hurt when that scheme eventually comes to light!

jeanie said...

p.s. Sorry - that comment about the adoption wasn't to Craig - it was to Anonymous at 1:11- my bad! Between all this scrolling and the various threads, things are getting complicated!

jeanie said...

p.s. Sorry - that comment about the adoption wasn't to Craig - it was to Anonymous at 1:11- my bad! Between all this scrolling and the various threads, things are getting complicated!

Two Blue Jays said...

Lower 48, I agree with your line of reasoning. It is something that I have come back to time and time again when I start to feel myself wondering about how crazy this story is.

It is not speculation or heresay or wishful thinking...it is fact. One of the few things we can all point to and ask WHY? Previously available public images and documentation of SP were REMOVED from the internet or edited within hours post-VP announcement. This wide-ranging purge included AK government website items, Wikipedia entries, MySpace pages, Mat-Su Hospital and numerous other sites that had easily accessed SP information. If there was nothing damning about this information, why remove it? It goes far beyond cleaning up a Wiki page with exaggerated accomplishments or photos of your kids doing stupid things with their friends. You would think that the more the public knew about this maverick gov from Alaska, *if it was all good*, then all the more reason to vote for her and McCain. Why not include 'homespun' 'folksy' images of SP and her family, her activities, her life? Did the RNC and McCain plan to replace all the existing info with made-up shiny happy info of their own? When you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

ella said...


Two Blue Jays said...

Once and for all: the reason Sarah Palin made a mad and reckless dash for Mat-Su hospital was that she was NOT pregnant and any place she might have gone would have blown her cover. It was only at Mat-Su that she had allies who would help her continue the cover-up. What would she have done if someone insisted on driving her to a Dallas hospital? Or a AK Airlines attendant stopped her from getting on the plane? "Uh, Governor Palin, there appears to be a problem here with your belly..."

She HAD to get to Mat-Su so she could establish herself in a Labor&Delivery suite. Who saw her there? A regular laboring mom would have had multiple folks in and out of the room. But no one has ever said a word, HIPAA notwithstanding. Professional ethics in this case would trump HIPAA, I think. Why have HIPAA protecting false PHI (personal health information)? Accurate PHI yes, but not if there was no medical information to protect. A possible legal loophole for any Alaskan medical professional with information who fears repercussions!

She'd said she was in probable early labor, held it in for hours on several flights but then she had to be induced? Because labor wasn't productive and there was a risk to the baby, or because it was expedient for her doc to embellish the story with a few medical details? You know how liars work...add enough semi-credible details for people to focus on and you are more likely to be believed than if you only have one minor detail.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Whether Palin adopted her daughter's child and whether it was for altruistic reasons (Bristol was too young to be a mom) or nefarious reasons ("I can use this DS baby to my advantage"), I can only hope we learn the truth. As Audrey has said, no one is interested in this to ruin Sarah Palin. That's for the general public and her fanbase to do if they see fit. Our issue as I see it is to force the truth into the light of day where it belongs.

Anonymous said...

Here is a story from the N.E. about the partying etc of Bristol and Track. Somehow there is an inconsistency in it re. 'Bristol being banned from the house'... Wasn't that supposedly LAST year, during the time she might have been preggo with Trig?


Anonymous said...

People are asking about the written statement of Dr. J. and saying she would get into trouble with the medical board if she stated something wrong. Well, her statement is vague enough, and maybe she refused to get more specific, because then she would have really perjured herself, and she was not willing to do that, and that's why she got fired/left Ma-Tsu?

mic said...

I'm so proud!

I've been here since you started your blog with the advise of one of your teen children, right? [I had already read your whole website]

I think you are, ...one of the newest pioneers in the newest form of politics, Blogs!

You keep going girl!

Anonymous said...

Today from 23/6:

We here at 23/6 promise the Governor that we will do everything in our power to make this happen, and we will do this in addition to our ongoing commitment to Governor Palin. Could it be... Blago vs Palin in 2016? Oh dear Lord, we are on our knees. (And not because we think it will get us the Illinois senate seat.) Governor, please accept our help in the form of campaign posters.

Go to 236.com and read about Palin and there theory if you have not. Funny. Click on ongoing commitment.

GraceR said...

As to why articles and pictures of Palin disappeared from the internet after she was announced as the VP candidate, I can only give an educated guess borne of past experience. As I said before, I worked for the DNC, and while my opinion of the RNC may seem biased, one thing I know to be true. The RNC are control-freaks. When they have a candidate for national office, they totally want to control that candidate's image and message--to the extreme. They want to make that candidate into what they want that candidate to be. I can see RNC operatives on the net trying to erase any previous evidence of SP that did not fit with what they wanted her image to be or the public to know. Considering the outrageous sums spent on he wardrobe, hair, and make-up, the RNC wanted a completely new and different image for SP.

KaJo said...

RE: the so-called "medical report" letter on PDF at http://www.iht.com/pdfs/america/20081104_medical.pdf

Dr. CB-J said in her letter on the second page that "it is not routine to perform screening tests such as electrocardiograms or liver enzyme panels on young healthy women with no risk factors -- and as such I have not performed those tests on Governor Palin".

I'm not a doctor, but it seems to me that Palin's reported blood pressure of 96/61 "at the time of her last office visit" (when???) isn't all that normal for a meat-eating woman of 44 who doubtless has eaten meat all her life and probably also salts it. ESPECIALLY when said woman just spent a "postpartum" (maybe) summer overweight by 15 pounds or more, forcing her to diet on Dr. Pepper and Slim-Fast in order to look svelte in those RNC clothes.

Although I suppose a diet of Dr. Pepper and Slim-Fast could be the CAUSE of a blood pressure that low, and if that was the case, then the additional blood tests would be imperative, to ensure there was no kidney or liver damage from the diet...

Nah, I think Dr. CB-J is 'way more a child-abuse specialist than a family physician, and may have been in over her head with Sarah Palin calling the shots.

leu2500 said...

Audrey, you nailed it.

Anonymous said...

Another point of confusion: the Alaska legislature was in session from January through mid-April in 2008. It's my understanding that the Governor resides in Juneau when the legislature is in session. This is the basis of the school switches that have been reported for the Palin girls, and "per-diem-gate." But this raises another question. If SP was in Juneau for those three critical months during her alleged pregnancy, where did she get prenatal care? Not from CBJ, who worked in Wasilla, right? So CBJ could not really speak first-hand about that, although she may have been involved prior to January. I just went on-line and there seem to be only 2 obgyn specialists in Juneau, as compared to ~50 in Anchorage. There are no perinatologists that I can find in Juneau, though there are several in Anchorage, as well as 7 neonatologists. Again, I'm not sure what to make of it or if it's important; but if SP was pregnant from January - April, it appears that she would have had to do her pre-natal visits somewhere else than the clinic where CBJ worked.

Marcy said...

In his post at 1:21 pm on 12/9.08, Craig asked "... please explain the likely scenario in which 'some other woman' would be Trig's actual mother,"

Here's one possible scenario. Sarah's younger sister, Molly, finds herself pregnant with her tenth child. She is getting standard medical care, and the Down's syndrome is diagnosed at a reasonable time. All of the extended Heath family gather together, just as they did to take illegal actions against Mike Wooten, and confer about a name for this baby. With or without the connivance of her entire family, Sarah Palin decides to claim this baby as her own. The medical costs demand it. Even if Sarah didn't have government medical insurance, she has remarkable coverage as the wife of a part-native American man. Molly is on her fourth marriage: if she ever had any savings, they've been eaten by divorce lawyers. The entire extended family has followed this 'united front' course of action before, and to hell with the consequences.

The fictional pregnancy was never about Bristol. Sarah Palin has never shown such devotion to any of her children. They're just props. I'd even be willing to ask if she has been keeping Trig on drugs -- it's simply not normal for any child to always be asleep, as every picture shows him. If somnolence is a symptom of Downs syndrome, I've never heard of it before. We're observing a breath-taking level of family disfunction. grammy

Anonymous said...

wondering if you've gone through the adn website - there is a section where readers have posted SP photos. The photo of SP in front of the pop machine/log cabin is there - dated 2007. There are also shots of SP with Trig in May/June - both at running events . Finally there are a few phtotos of SP at Sand Lake area girl scout tea - have been trying to get the date of this unsuccessfully.

link to the photos:

scroll down and reader submitted section is mid screen.

anon in canada

Anonymous said...

Sandy beach @ 12:47 said: Mary G:

“When a baby is born in Alaska, a "record of live birth" is issued. That document contains the name of the attending physician. It is not a matter of public record. We will never see that.

A birth certificate is issued later. That document contains the names of adoptive parents only and no attending physician. Even if they released it, it would tell us nothing.”

Wrong - There is an Original Birth Certificate for every child born that names the natural parents. It is the Amended Birth Certificate that lists the adoptive parents.

In Alaska OBCs - original birth certificates - are not sealed so a child or natural parent can have access to them one day.

I am an advocate for adoptee rights. Based on the assumptions here Trig is an adoptee. right?

palin pregnancy truth said...


Scott said...


I love your site. It is a great mystery. I followed your link to Appel's piece where I found this. I was wondering what you thought about Tipton's claim?

"The Dish interviewed Lori Tipton, an Alaskan TV reporter at the hospital the day of the delivery. Here's part of that interview:

Sarah [Palin] was in another room, and they said that she was sleeping when we arrived. And so, we got a little bit of footage of Sally [Heath] holding Trig, and Chuck [Heath] standing next to her. And Bristol [Palin] was in there, and I said to Bristol, "We should get some footage of you and your brother and your grandparents." And she’s like, "No I really don’t like to be photographed." And I said, "Are you sure?" And she’s like, "Yeah, yeah, no." And she didn’t have any make-up on or anything, but she was dressed in typical teenage attire, a tight shirt, low-cut jeans, you know, and we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby also, that Bristol was pregnant, and so, when my photographer and I got to the hospital and we saw her, I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago."

Anonymous said...

palin pregnancy truth---

Halcro's blog entry was very interesting. Good catch.


Windy City Woman said...

Bravo--great post!

I like your scenario about Sarah's sister, mother of 9, not being able to handle baby #10, especially one with DS. She may or may not have insurance, but of course Sarah does, being the governor. So, Sarah's sister, if she has no insurance, gets Sarah & Todd to pay the hospital bill; they have a net worth of $1 million, I here. And they raise Trig, as they are better able to. That also is consistent with Trig having an older biological mom.

Punkinbugg said...

Dear anon in Canada,

I too have flipped through the pictures on the ADN's website called "Sarah and me", where readers are asked to submit pictures that they have taken with their beloved governor. Hardly ANY of the captions include a DATE, to which I think "ARRGH! you morons! Don't you know what we're looking for?!"

So then I click on the "submit your picture" link and guess what? The ADN ASKS FOR THE DATE OF THE EVENT and a caption! But they (conveniently) do not *publish* the date on the website. ARGH.

Craig said...

Well Marcy, you gave me a scenario, but we may differ on the term "likely scenario".

Question: Does Sarah file down her devil horns before or after she gives her infant drugs to keep him in a constant stupor?

Anonymous said...

All I want is a statement from Dr. Baldwin, who did not have privileges at Wasilla Hospital, that she saw Trig's head emerge from Sarah's body and that she actually helped deliver that baby. Has she said that? NO! And why not?

Saying child is that of a particular person is not the same as saying that child was born of a particular person's body.

And just how did Dr. Baldwin get privileges for one birth? How many children has she ever delivered? Anyone care to delve into those questions?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant Mat-Su Hospital.

Anonymous said...

ai would like to give my take on what the real problem with the baby's birth may be.I could well be wrong but my gut feeling is that he is Sarah's baby.I feel that when she said she found out he was going to be Down Syndrome,they prayed over it and "put it in Gods hands".I think she literally did that,pushing the envelope in all ways,with extreme excercise and taking great risks with her unborn childs health,such as the Texas tale.I believe she hid her pregnancy as long as possible,resorting to "wraps" or " bands" designed to hold her belly in check,along with loose clothing,scarves,etc.Why?So that if a miscarriage occurred,she could keep it quiet.I think maybe they put it in Gods hands and decided to take lots of risks and see if the baby would make it full term.Put in that light,the Texas tale is the story of a mother intentionally taking risks to the detriment of the unborn child.Then,when he survived,it was "the will of God" .I think she announced she was pregnant when she did because the baby was now at a stage where he would be viable at birth.Not telling family and friends that the baby had Down Syndrome would also fit,because if she miscarried,no one would have to know.I have no evidence,of course,just a "gut feeling"

Anonymous said...

Re Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson not having privileges at Mat-Su, according to her statement about Sarah's medical history, Dr. Cathy was on staff at Mat-Su until June 1, 2008. So she was on staff at the time of Trig's birth. She claims that she resigned her staff privileges "to devote more time to my work in the area of child abuse evaluation and prevention."

That makes little sense to me, since she is apparently on staff at other area hospitals.

Wonder if she still actively see patients? If so, it is beyond strange that she no longer has privileges at her local hospital. Her clinic's website makes it look like she is an actively practicing physician as opposed to one who does nothing but child abuse evaluations.

I bet dollars to donuts that she is still actively seeing patients (I doubt she could make a comfy living just doing child abuse evaluations).

It is also very strange that Dr. Cathy used the first paragraph of her written statement about Sarah's medical history to talk about her staff privilege situation and why she no longer has staff privileges at Mat-Su.

By the way, in regard to tin foil hats, I guess we are all Palinites now, since being prayed over by a witch doctor and believing that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together definitely puts you in tin foil hat territory. Maybe we can all make pilgrimages together with Sarah to the Creation Museum in Kentucky to look at the dinosaurs.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know whatever happened to this promised bombshell? I suppose it was just hearsay?

( from http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Sue%20Deaunym/ ):

This is cut and pasted from VF. I'm new and don't know how to add to the "waterbreak" blog...

Report abuse
There are all kinds of suspicious facts and photos, but 'true believer' Republemmings will not believe a word of it till Sarah actually confesses on TV. That is why there is an organization with very deep pockets working on this story in Alaska, and will break the real story in mid-October (too late to get another VP). I heard the key was a large payment to a nurse at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, who was very worried about her safety. They are going to nail Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson for insurance fraud and some other stuff (medical ethics, faking documents... I got this over the phone, I'm not up on medical crimes). Turns out the Down's Syndrome was just a Red Herring, part of the cover-up that makes a 44 year old mother plausible. It's really Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Bristol got wasted a few times in July and August before she knew she was pregnant. That's why they couldn't quietly give the baby up for adoption, and why Sarah got a late start on faking the pregnancy. I heard they are going after the Doctor that gave the fake 'mono' diagnosis as well. So many crimes, so little time. Bristol's current 'about 5 months pregnant' is just afterbirth weight, and she is breastfeeding. Such a sick kid (Trig) really needs his mother's milk, no way would they force her to bottle feed only after all they put her through. Yeah, there is a 'miscarriage' coming. After the Presidential Election. And no, Sarah did not have a 'pillow' under her blouse for those famous TV interview photos. She splurged the $500 : http://media.tumblr.com/8tqDWct6WdhxfvmckqBXVoSi_400.jpg"> If Sarah wins VP, most likely. If not, he keeps the Hummer and goes his redneck way.

Posted 9/9/2008 by JessicaMG

Anonymous said...

All I want is a statement from Dr. Baldwin, who did not have privileges at Wasilla Hospital, that she saw Trig's head emerge from Sarah's body

You guys are kinda creepy.

Anonymous said...

@ Two Blue Jays 4:19
I think there is a lode to be mined in the history of the Mat-Su hospital - way back in 2002 there was community controversy and financial trouble. Then the dispute about the imaging center. Building any hospital brings out the best and worst in its community, so what political chits did SP get and give on this one? There are rumors about the hospital board and its conservative/religious convictions. I am sure that SP ran to "her" hospital, but why did she need to? I don't think you can discount the cult mentality she grew up with in the WAG and how deeply that sensibility permeates her worldview and choices.

the Norwegian Blue

luna1580 said...

if you've read any of my comments you know i do not support palin, but i support looking at this from a rational, scientific angle whenever it's possible -that's why i'm so interested in the health risks of the "wild-ride." we've got to eliminate what is known to be unfounded speculation whenever possible (to give this any credibility at all).

some on this blog have speculated that it would be insurance fraud for SP to claim trig as her son if he is not. and it would. it would give him access to her state plan (which will only last as long as she works for the government) and the coverage todd receives in alaska because of his native blood, which he (the child) wouldn't be entitled to if not their child.

the thing with this is, wouldn't their legally adopted child have the same rights to any coverage, with the exception of the "native blood part"? and i can't imagine the coverage offered to the descendants of alaska's first peoples is gold plated -this is a state where some people in the bush have no plumbing/sewer systems and have to pay $10-$20/gallon for heating oil or milk, it's not like the state is showering everyone with social services, i don't think a native health plan would be an exception. but "stealing" access to it would still be fraud.

i did some digging, a follow-up on the "native blood" insurance thing:

uhm, it doesn't exist. this is as close as you'll get, treatment at alaska native medical center in anchorage, and it won't be free.


in fact, 38% of alaska's natives under age 65 have no form of medical insurance, according to the CDC. if they all got it free this would be impossible.

so whoever was pushing that ("native insurance") as the motivation for the whole deception can throw it out the window.

Anonymous said...

Craig, have you ever cared for a small infant? They wake up and cry all the time. How did Sarah Palin think she could risk bringing him to the RNC and having him cry through a speech? I just think there's no way in hell that kid stayed asleep/quiet through those long speech blocks without medication.


Anonymous said...

Hello Audrey!

Very powerful response! Bravo!

You know, I just came acroos this site:
You have all these photos at your website. Yet I wanted to point out again that I still do not believe Trig Palin was born on April 18, 2008. The poor child looks so mature as a newborn( and he is supposed to be pre-mature).

Yes, I also believe, unfortunately Sarah Palin used this poor child for political gain (remember how she would lift him up and show to her fans at the rallies). I felt so sorry for him. I am sure campaigning around is tough enough for the healthy adults. A special needs baby.. no way! They were carrying him around like a sac of potatoes. You gotta feel sorry for Piper too. Poor girl ..she was holding Trig who looked pretty heavy.

Now, I remember also someone's post about a reporter seeing Bristol at the "hospital" where Trig was supposed to be born and that Bristol could not have given birth some hours earlier. Well, who says that Trig was born on April 18, 2008? By looking at this child's photo, there is no way he was born on April 18, 2008. As a pre-mature baby, he looks fantastic. I think he was born earlier. I am not sure why the date is April 18, 2008, except for Palin family seem to like the number 18:-|

Whether Bristol or someone else is the mother, I dunno. Bristol soon gives birth or not, will not have any impact on the mystery around Trig Palin's birth and his biological parents. Two separate things ( though they might have thought that Bristol's pregnancy would stop the rumors.. It didn't happen then and it will not happen now even if Bristol gives birth soon).

Anonymous said...

Grewingk over at Mudflats has just stated that she meet Sarah Palin a few weeks before the birth and has pictures of an obviously pregnant Sarah. She offered to email them to anyone who is interested. Just thought I'd let you know.

Anonymous said...

Comment @ 10.10

Your scenario does not fit with SP's supposed pro life agenda, does it?

If this were truly the case then Sarah is a bigger monster than any of us would care to even think about.

Lady Rose said...

Audrey - you and Andrew are my heroes. No matter what the truth is about Trig's birth - Sarah Palin can not be left off the hook for her reckless disregard for his well being, for her lies about almost everything, her unethical behavior (i.e. who built her house and where did the supplies come from), etc. etc.

By keeping up the pressure to find the truth in this matter, it also, I hope, keeps the pressure up for the truth to be uncovered about many more things that are very distrubing.

Audrey said...

Thanks to Anon at 5:15.

I have contacted Grewingk. Hopefully he/she will respond.


Anonymous said...

My pleasure Audrey!

Anonymous said...

Yes, Craig. Until clear evidence to the contrary emerges, Willow must be considered as potentially Trig's mother. Not considering this possibility is to ignore uncomfortable truths based on emotion not reason.

Piper is not a candidate because she is pre-pubescent, and sarcasm about her being a 'midget' doesn't change the fact that Willow is mature enough to a) have had sex and b) become pregnant as a result. So if you are hoping the eliminating Bristol as a possibility for Trig's mother puts this to rest, think again.

We will go where the facts lead us. We will consider speculation but only as the verifiable facts allow and to suggest avenues of investigation.

If you have evidence, direct or circumstantial, that Willow is not Trig's mother, we will consider it for its probative value. We know she was listed on honor roll for the winter term for a junior high in Juneau, but that it. We have no definitive pictures of her (or Bristol) for the time period in question: Feb-Apr 2008. There is a few second video of either Willow or Bristol from Feb. 16 Iron Dog, but whoever it is is far from the camera and wearing a big winter coat, necessary for February in Fairbanks. That's all.

Nobody would be happier to exclude Willow than I would. I'd hate to think that a 13-year-old girl had a child and couldn't at least claim it. But until clear evidence arises, we must rationally consider all possibilities or we are, as you so derogatorily call us, 'truthers'. This includes the possibility that we are wrong and SP is Trig's mother. (But then we have to conclude that SP is horribly reckless.)

The "cord of credibility" stretches as far as necessary to investigate the truth, whether that hurts peoples' feelings or sensibilities or not. If you're not ready to do that, Craig, I suggest you get out of the way and leave it to those who aren't afraid of the truth.


Anonymous said...

A smoking gun?? ..I have sent posts regarding the following evidence in response to other blog posts here, but I think it may be so important that I am repeating it now, since this is the most recent blog posting and perhaps it will be read by more people.

The "medical records" letter from "Dr. Johnson" may well be a forgery. The credentials after her name and signature are in dark type like the entirety of the letter, EXCEPT for the final two letters which are in the same lighter shade as the "signature."

I have seen it hypothesized elsewhere that a forger cut and pasted a photocopy of Dr. Johnson's signature and then lightened it with a computer stylus or via some other method to make it appear as though it was written in blue ink. However, either because of the limits of that method, or because of sloppiness, the final two printed letters immediately below the swirl of the signature were also colorized.

If there is no innocent explanation for this disparity in color/shade, the letter MUST be a forgery. Since it was sent by Palin and her campaign, they have to be the forgers. Why would they forge a letter? Obviously, since the only issue in controversy is whether Sarah Palin lied about being Trig's biological mother, the forgery would be undertaken in furtherance of that falsehood.

So... any computer experts, forgery experts or others out there with sufficient expertise to opine on this isue? Audrey, do you have someone with expertise available to you to confirm this theory?

If it is confirmed, it may be the evidence which the MSM can rely upon to pursue this story. As I recall, when Dan Rather and CBS were exposed for relying on a supposedly fraudulent document to run a story regarding George W. Bush, the forgery itself became the story and, indeed, led to the departure of Dan Rather as a CBS correspondent/anchor.

Anonymous said...


I went to your sources.

I read the Native American health care site to say that IF you have
insurance or Medicare or Medicaid, they wasnt to file for it, because they need the money. That doesn't mean that you don't get the care if you don't have insurance, etc.

Also, the statistic about Native American health care is how many are INSURED. The NA system is not insurance.

I disagree about Trig not having the system as backup for life if he is Bristol's (or Track's) child, since he would have Todd's bloodline.

The NA lifetime health care could be a motive only if the child is not Todd's, e.g., Molly Heath's. So I won't rule it out, but my focus is on Sarah and not other potential biological mothers.

Bottom line is we cannot say Palin didn't fake a preganancy because she had NO motive. There are many possible motives, some we haven't even thought of. -B.

Anonymous said...

I just posted a comment regarding the alleged forgery issue regarding Dr. Johnson's supposed medical records letter. Further detail, explained below, further suggests a forgery and this matter urgently needs to be considered by someone with expertise in this technical area.

If you look at the address at the upper left-hand corner of the letter, the tops of some of the characters have odd stray horizontal light lines, specifically at the tops of the 3, 7, 6, 0 (zero), P and S. The same odd horizontal lines are at the top of the upper case letters and the taller lower case letters (including the dot on the lower case i) in Dr. Johnson's purported signature. I checked several variations of the letter, including the one on John McCain's official web site, and all have the same markings.

This suggests that the address, which is also in lighter shaded print, was colorized and added-in by the forger, as was the signature and the accidentally colorized "FP" after the signature.

I repeat...someone with expertise needs to look at this. If a forgery is confirmed, we may have our first real smoking gun.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it is or it isn't her child. Time will tell.

Isn't Bristol due on their time schedule on Dec 18.

I do have a theory, and not a pretty one, and it is merely that, a theory.

Whoevers child it is, family or otherwise, was shoved aside when she got pregnant, and possibly may have wanted to abort when they found it was a Downs baby. that was unacceptable, plus baby gets the governors insurance coverage till he is 25.

Of course all she would have to have done is adopt the child.

I can understand Sullivans attempt to get at the bottom of the matter.

The birth story is very odd.

I cringe when I see S.P. hold her child

I also cringe when I see Piper toteing the baby around like a doll in high heels.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, and if it has I'm sorry to repeat. It is about the signature of Dr. CB-J. The last N in Johnson swoops downward and mid-way through the swoop she stopped the pen. This is very odd, and actually hard to do. Unless you are not writing your own signature.

Just a thought. Is this signature a 'stamp'? Are there any of her other signatures with which we can do a comparison?

Anonymous said...

Regarding Dr. CBJ's letter of SP's medical condition, lawyers can correct me but it would not be considered solid evidence of anything since

a) Dr. CBJ has not been available to confirm that she wrote it;
b) The statements made in the letter are not sworn, i.e., not in the form of a swown affidavit;
c) The letter purports to summarize medical documents that have not been made available for independent evaluation;
d) The statement was issued through a 3rd party whose motives and actions have not subject to cross-examination so the chain of custody of the letter cannot be substantiated. Hence, it could have been altered;
e) All statements in the letter are hearsay;
f) The person purportedly making the statements has not been established as an expert on the subject matter involved;
g) The person purportedly making the statements does not claim to have direct knowledge of some or all of the facts alleged.

I could go on, probably, but that should be enough for any reasonable person to reject any supposed evidence presented in that letter, whether it is a forgery or not. Trying to prove it's a forgery misses the point. Whether it is or not as evidence it's worthless to our investigation.


Anonymous said...

'Bristol being banned from the house...' is that the same as being ''kicked out'' to the rest of us...lol people usually get banned from other peoples houses and kicked out of the ones they live in... ;-)

If not Bristol's kid, maybe the baby is Track's. He may have a baby momma out there we don't know about.

Since the word was already out about her giving birth, why remove any word of it from the hospitals public announcement logs? I'm just surprised she didn't switch babies with one of the other mothers while she was there...

Her tax filing cannot be relied upon to show the truth, either, since they only show dependents not bio children.

I'll bet she stays up on this blog and just loves the attention, too.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 515am. Do we really have to ask you for the email address or can you just ''finish'' your post by including it with the post?


Anonymous said...

I just realized something. 2BJ at December 9, 2008 4:19 PM mentioned that she claimed to have been in labor (water broke in TX), yet she had to be induced...
If the baby was really pre-term (35 weeks or so), I don't think the doc would have INDUCED her at that time - the doc more likely than not would have tried to keep her from going INTO labor - especially given that she was about to have DS kid, which most likely has more underdeveloped lungs than another 'normal' baby of that term would have.
Just another nail in the coffin, I believe. They slowly add up.

Craig said...

I keep posting this question and everyone ignores it.

For all those busy picking out nuances in photos and letters, what about the elephant in the room?

It actually is a fact that dozens or more professionals have been, or still are, in Alaska for months, digging up every possible lead they can find involving scandals attached to Sarah and her family. Lawyers, political operatives, journalists, National Enquirer mudrakers, etc. She has very powerful political and media ememies, before and after the presidental campaign, whose fervant wish is to take her down in a smoking heap.

So how much sense does it make that, after all that collective focus by those who know how and where to reach people who can provide damming evidence/testimony if it is out there, there is not one credible source or even an unnamed source being brought to the attention of the public to state that Trig isn't Sarah's child?

A Governor and a staff who cannot coordinate a simple PR event like a Thankgiving turkey pardon without looking silly, are capable of fooling the world with an audacious baby switch and keep everyone with first or even second hand knowledge utterly silent?

Not one person has either enough principles to correct a wrong, or enough hate to bring down a false hero, or enough greed to talk for money, to make their voice heard? No one? Not one? Nothing?

Someone has to realistically explain this before any other options should be given merit.

Anonymous said...

KaJo: "RE: the so-called "medical report" letter on PDF at http://www.iht.com/pdfs/america/20081104_medical.pdf

Dr. CB-J said in her letter on the second page that "it is not routine to perform screening tests such as electrocardiograms or liver enzyme panels on young healthy women with no risk factors -- and as such I have not performed those tests on Governor Palin"."

...SORRY, but SP is NOT a 'young healthy women with no risk factors' at age 44, when she is carrying a DS child!!!!

Also: Trig required phototherapy for 'several days AT HOME'??? I don't know, but all the babies *I* know that needed phototherapy had to stay in NICU for the duration...

Just Me

Anonymous said...

Anon at December 10, 2008 8:23 AM : GOOD CATCH!
The inks are different color and strength in the address, and the streaks above the letter/numbers are there, too, as if it was pasted on later.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:11; the inducement is about the only part of the story that makes sense. No Doctor would induce preemie, but if the amniotic fluid leaked away would have to in order to prevent infection.

Anonymous said...

For Anon.@ 7:45 and 8:23 re: the PDF of CBJ's letter.

The color of the letters for CBJ's typed signature is indeed interesting. That coloring of the last two letters should not be the same as the signature. Even when scanning an original document into PDF, it would show the original colors. Very odd, but given how scanners work, not an impossibility that a low-cost scanner did not work well and somehow mis-read what color went where. I'll return to this in a minute.

The artifacts on the address and signature are also a result of the scanning. I found some others down in the text of the letter, usually hanging off the bottom of the letters. If the entire document is blown up to at least 400%, they all disappear for the most part. This type of resolution issue happens when looking at a PDF file at a lower resolution, say 100% or less. The color is the same as the hospital name opposite, and is not uncommon when using blank stationery in any sort of corporation.

Back to the signature. If you look at the cursive signature, you will see the last two letters touch the "swoop" of the "n" in Johnson. If one is cutting/pasting and recoloring for emphasis, this will happen. It can be corrected, but it must be done before scanning into the PDF format, using Photoshop or something similar. It also requires that the signature be manipulated as a graphics file, and then inserting the graphics file into the text file.

When I blew the letter up using Adobe Reader, I used the Loupe Tool on the signature, boosting magnifcation up to over 1000%. There is a puffy little cloud to the upper left of the very tip of the last "A" in FAAFP.

It looks like the tip of the "A" overlaid the swoop of the "n", and someone tried to erase the overlay but failed. Nowhere else that I can see are there any other remnants of the gray color in the signature area.

While not definitive proof, this indeed suggests manipulation of the signature. If the signature was signed after the letter was finished, the swoop would be intact and it would cross the letter cleanly. There should also be two colors, since the scanner would be able to distinguish between black and blue(?). Witness the hospital name at the top: that came out reasonably cleanly, so why not the signature?

The cursive signature's color may have been changed to improve legibility after the signing but before the scanning. Still, manipulation seems entirely plausible.

Some points I noticed this time, but not before: whatever printed this letter did it crooked. Both pages show a noticeable slant, page one from right to left, and page two from left to right. Enlarge it to see it. That's a pretty poor printer. The address does not appear to be slanted at all. Most printers I've ever used would would not slant in opposite directions on two consecutive pages, they'd do it the same for both. Even a $70 inkjet printer can do better than this. This is not an artifact of the scanning process, since the address appears to be fine. It would all be off. Second, the letters "FAAFP" seem to have no gap between FAA and FP, they look too close together. Without knowing what exact font was used, it's hard to see if this is normal. It looks odd to me though, and I may try to duplicate it. Third, the "Providence" logo at the top shows distinct fuzziness on the left half that is multi-colored, but not on the monochrome blue right half. In contrast, the address is also quite clean. This doesn't appear to be a function of the orange color, since even the blue of the "P" is fuzzy. The font used for the body of the letter is quite crisp when examined at 400% or better, the logo is still fuzzy no matter what magnification is used. More cut and paste? Professionally printed stationery should be crisp everywhere.

These three points indicate a less than professional preparation, and throw in the dicey signature issue, we can have legitimate doubts about the veracity of this letter. It seems as if the various portions of the stationery were simply cut and paste onto a blank screen, printed, and then scanned into a PDF file. Poorly, I might add.

I am not a professional in the graphics field. I do use Photoshop and PDF files quite a bit, and have done image manipulation myself, mostly as art. I have worked with PC's for over 20 years, using many applications in that time. Anyone can use Adobe Reader (it's free) for PDF files to examine the document as closely as I did and see the little clues therein; please do so.

I've only posted a couple of times before, but read daily. Something is rotten in Wasilla (I won't slander the wonderful people of Denmark), and the questions keep appearing about SWWNBN. Keep it up!


Anonymous said...


I will take up the challenge of your purported 'elephant in the room'.

First, and most importantly, this is cart-before-the-horse reasoning. Lack of definite proof yet from anyone, one way or the other, does not serve as proof in itself. 'Inconclusive' can be a permanent condition. See: Chappaquiddick.

Second, we do not have any direct knowledge that anyone in the MSM or even National Enquirer has been pursuing this story at all. They might be, but don't have a story they are ready to print. Or perhaps they have the facts but have chosen not to publish them for other reasons. Further, those parties may be continuing to investigate, as we are.

Third, SP has not been completely successful on keeping everyone quiet. Those parties may or may not have the facts correct, and they may also be repeating other things they have heard. Without independent confirmation, or access to the necessary records which we know exist, it is all hearsay. Many people have said that SP is Trig's mother without direct knowledge that this is true. Those who do have direct knowledge -- which could be a select few -- probably all have strong motivations NOT to tell the truth about it. So first hand knowledge is not that hard to suppress, and second-hand is practically worthless with independent confirmation.

Fourth, any story told for money or other compensation is suspect on its own merits. Again, independent confirmation will be necessary to carry any weight. Otherwise, National Enquirer could spend money to get Audrey or me to give our opinions. They won't waste it. Could they intice Levi Johnston or someone close to spill the beans with enough money? Perhaps. But without independent corroboration even his statements would be just gossip. For example, if he said: 'I took Bristol to her 7-month pre-natal visit with Dr. CBJ on March 19, 2008 at 9:30am,' that statement would have be corroborated with documents before I would believe it, even though I think SP isn't Trig's mother.

Fifth, there is no conclusion yet on whether the Palins could carry off such a scheme. It is again cart-before-the-horse reasoning to suggest that they couldn't expect it to work. If they did engage in a ruse, they must have expected that it might work. It may have been, from their perspective, the best optoin among bad choices.

Sixth, to pull off the deception requires only some ambiguity and keeping the truth well disguised. That's exactly what we have as evidence, and it's hardly a perfect cover-up. SP admits that she tried to hide her condition. She gives a motive for that but it's suspect. Her announcement was received with much incredulity. She may have waited to long to start the ruse, but counted on ambiguity. She remained ambiguously pregnant right through the purported end of the pregnancy because it ended sooner that she said it would, and the circumstances by which SP claims it ended are highly suspect.

Further, Bristol is AWOL from school during the key period, and nobody can seem to alibi Willow, either. But we're digging.

Lastly, the definitive answer is in Alaska and readily producable and verifiable if only SP would release those records, LIKE SHE SAID SHE WOULD ON NATIONAL TV. if she doesn't, this will hound her future ambitions just as Chappaquiddick has haunted Ted Kennedy.

Your elephant is not that big a hurdle. I'll just go over or around it to get the truth.


P.S. I don't expect this argument to carry much weight with Craig and others, because they are in the cart and refuse to look behind to see the horse.

Anonymous said...

I'm baffled by the contention by some that Sarah Palin's truthfulness no longer matters post-election. We are being told she's going to have a political career on a national level. Her truthfulness about Trig, about the clothing, about who built her house and everything else absolutely matters. There are way too many unanswered questions swirling around this woman.

Windy City Woman said...

Craig, you ask why no one has exposed Sarah's cover-up. Yes, she has enemies, but they would not have been in on the secret. Medical personnel are forbidden by federal law to give out medical information. Family members aren't telling. She probably told very few people, as the more people you tell a secret to, the bigger is the chance that someone will leak, unintentionally or otherwise. If, say, Bristol is Trig's mom, maybe her closest 1 or 2 girlfriends, know, but they aren't going to tell. To me the only hope is that a friend (or relative) knows, then has a falling-out with a Palin family member, and then spills the beans. Since family pix were removed from websites, she was careful about the cover-up. Her whole career depends on it, not true of the turkey slaughterhouse video.

Alex said...

Craig, you are either the most naive person in the world or the least imaginative.

Have you ever heard of the story of The Emperor's New Clothes? The theme of this very old story is that foolishness and lies exist because we 1. choose to see them 2.rely on others to tell the truth 3. live in denial because it's easier or safer.

We've seen what Palin did to Wooten. Everyone up there has stories of people who have crossed her path and paid for it. Who in AK is going to speak up, give their name, and pit their credibility against hers? If you remember the story of the Emperor's clothes-- it took a child. (Who wasn't bribed by the Enquirer.)

Literature, or in this instance a classic story, lives on because of its universal truth.

And you think some housewife in Wasilla is going to blow the whistle against the pitbull in lipstick? Or a nurse who depends on her job? Or a press secretary who's already compromised himself?

How many whistleblower stories have you heard? Cigarette execs or the women at Enron. . .All of them fared horribly. In the end they may have triumphed, but many whistleblowers say that if they had it to do again, they might not.

On a more personal level, my father was a pedophile. Many people in my hometown knew it, but because he was prominent, no one ever spoke up. No one challeneged him. They kept their children close and their mouths shut unil he died.

Think of Bill Clinton's philandering. Think of the women who came forward and were shamed and name-called. Think how long it took for the truth of his sexual activities to prevail.

I doubt anything I can say will convince you. But I imagine that Alaska has afforded its citizens a unique climate of freedom for many years, where personal independence trumps community good.

I like to think, only in Alaska could a governor fake a pregnancy. But hey, in Illinois, the governor can sell a senate seat! How long did that horrible man do those kinds of things until finally, finally he was caught?

Anonymous said...

Dr CBJ is a real person. If someone had forged her signature, she would be suing somebody right now.

I saw her the day after the letter was issued. She was perfectly calm as she delivered a lecture about how to distinguish between injuries inflicted by abuse and those from accidents. Milling around with conference attendees, she was all smiles.

I think she probably worked with the campaign and her lawyer to craft a letter that said as little as possible without outright lying, which is why she never states that she attended the birth. Apparently doctors can include information that they receive from others in such a document; for example, the mentions of the other children's births. So Trig's birth info recounts what she supposedly got from the actual birth attendants.

Anonymous said...

They did not announce Bristol Palin's pregnancy because that's 'all they had.' They announced it because she was going to be seven months pregnant on election day, and they knew that would be impossible to hide. You cannot announce that kind of thing quietly, and you're a fool if you think that you can. In fact, the campaign had already received questions about it from a reporter who noticed that she looked pregnant at Palin's introduction speech. And obviously you want to release that information yourself, and not have a reporter break it.

They knew from the time that they chose Palin that they would have to announce that Bristol was pregnant. They timed the announcement so that it would have the minimum amount of media coverage: i.e. the day that Hurrican Gustav was the biggest story. Normally, when a campaign wants to bury a story it's done on Friday afternoon when the public is leaving for the weekend and not paying as much attention to the news. In this case the best timing was not to announce it the day that Palin was introduced (which was a Friday) but on the day that it would receive the least amount of coverage: on Labor Day when most people weren't watching the news anyway and on a day when a hurricane was hitting New Orleans. And, in fact, their strategy worked: the story was not the lead on the nightly news casts like it would have been if it was announced on any other day during the campaign.

The internet speculation about Trig just gave the campaign extra cover to announce it, and a way to frame the story so that the Palin's were portrayed as victims. The campaign said that it was in response to the speculation on the blogs, but it wasn't. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not looking at the situation from a campaign strategy standpoint.

Anonymous said...

So here's your argument in a nutshell: No one else has proved it yet so you can't either.


I feel for you, man. You keep coming here day after day trying to stop us. Why? What's in it for you if we stop?

Anonymous said...



I am sure a lot of professionals have been digging up every possible lead they can find in Alaska. You're right about that. Do we know for sure that those professionals have stopped and given up? We don't. I feel strongly that there are still some people(lawyers, journalists, private investigators) who pursue this case and the others(like Wasilla Project, Troopergate).

Do you think the feds found all about the corruption surrounding Governor of Illinois the day before yesterday? Of course, not. It takes time to build a strong case, to put all pieces together.

My feeling is that the poor child's mysterious birth story is the least Americans should be worried about Sarah Palin.

Now, what you wrote:
A Governor and a staff who cannot coordinate a simple PR event like a Thankgiving turkey pardon without looking silly, are capable of fooling the world with an audacious baby switch and keep everyone with first or even second hand knowledge utterly silent? is so true.
This is actually what gives away Sarah Palin and her staff. ?Staged photo(s), Sarah Palin's her own words, her bizarre travel from Texas, scrubbed photos from Governor's website during alleged pregnancy period, etc, etc.. Yup, it was not well-organized and indeed too sloopy. Desperate people or guilty people do desparate things.

So, Craig, please tell us why Sarah Palin had to create such a bizarre mystery around Trig Palin's birth, if it was her own natural born baby?

Do you think several million people all over the globe are wrong when they're pursuing this mysterious birth story?
Are we all crazy?
I don't think so (you don't have to be crazy but if you're it sure helps to live in this crazy world *smile*)

Anonymous said...

Love the way you think, Dangerous (12/10, 11:24AM) - and thanks to you, BeeJay (12/10, 11:08AM), I've just learned some interesting new facts about PDFs and scanners. This blog is so informative!

leu2500 said...

Palin held a Xmas open house the other day. Per the Anchorage Daily News "Three of the Palins' children were on hand.

Willow, 14, helped keep an eye on Trig, 7 months, who was decked out in a Santa suit and hat. Seven-year-old Piper wore a tiered holiday dress set off by a black velvet bolero jacket." http://www.adn.com/palin/story/617789.html

Once again, where's Bristol?

palin pregnancy truth said...

Craig, I actually think you bring up a pretty valid point. The one thing that keeps me thinking that maybe I am wearing a tin foil hat is that NO ONE has spoken up. There should be at least one teenager who knew Bristol who was willing to talk.

Did the RNC pay people off? Did the McCain's? After all, it would look bad for their judgment if they didn't vet her properly.

Where is the news media? This is so frustrating. Where is Cajun Boy's source!!!

P.S. "Other Patrick" brought up some excellent points in the previous post's comments.

Anonymous said...

Re jaundice:

The doctor states that Trig was treated both at the hospital and at home. My twins (who were premature but strong enough to go to the term nursery) were treated for jaundice at the hospital about 2 days after birth, then went home with "bili blankets". A nurse came by once a day to check their blood until their levels were normal. This took several days and actually provided some comic relief because once you wrapped them in their blankets and turned off the lights, they looked like little glow worms. So the comment by the doctor that he was treated both at the hospital and at home would make sense if there are home health providers in that area who provide this service.

lilybart said...

Giving birth to a DS baby pretty made her as a candidate for the religious right. Trig is VERY IMPORTANT to her future. That, and the fact that she lies about EVERYTHING, are what drive this discussion.

She must know these rumors continue and yet she does nothing to disprove them. Just to make people crazy? I think she is mean-spirited as many radical Christians seem to be, so that is possible.

Emily said...

Anonymous @ 12:00 PM, Dec. 10:

They did not announce Bristol Palin's pregnancy because that's 'all they had.' They announced it because she was going to be seven months pregnant on election day, and they knew that would be impossible to hide.

So, why then has Bristol been mysteriously absent from view if they now have nothing to hide? I mean, they announced the pregnancy, right? So no need to hide her pregnant belly!

They knew from the time that they chose Palin that they would have to announce that Bristol was pregnant. They timed the announcement so that it would have the minimum amount of media coverage: i.e. the day that Hurrican Gustav was the biggest story.

I highly doubt that. If anything, they should have released the info before she was named, before there were news stories around her at all. Because while Gustav may have been the no. 1 story, Palin was a very close second.

And as for it being a "campaign strategy"...you take a good long look at that campaign and tell me you think its strategists were that astute.

Gobbler said...

Audrey, there is another very important reason for wanting to know the truth of this matter, and it's unbelievable you nor anyone in the above 100 comments mentions it. Namely, it was, and is, a matter of national security, since the truth of the matter has probably already been ascertained by foreign intelligence services through surreptitious DNA analysis. In so doing, she has opened up herself, and the country, to blackmail. Are we supposed to think the KGB feels bad about 'badgering the poor woman'? Yes, it's true the risk is less now since she did not win the Vice-Presidency, but if a security breach were said to have occurred temporarily with a "loose nuke", would we no longer concern ourselves after hearing it was safely returned? Of course not.

More on this argument by John Toradze can be found here.

Punkinbugg said...

anon @ December 10, 2008 11:53 AM said, "Dr CBJ is a real person. If someone had forged her signature, she would be suing somebody right now.

I saw her the day after the letter was issued. She was perfectly calm as she delivered a lecture about how to distinguish between injuries inflicted by abuse and those from accidents. Milling around with conference attendees, she was all smiles.

I think she probably worked with the campaign and her lawyer to craft a letter that said as little as possible without outright lying, which is why she never states that she attended the birth. Apparently doctors can include information that they receive from others in such a document; for example, the mentions of the other children's births. So Trig's birth info recounts what she supposedly got from the actual birth attendants.

WHOA... hold on ...?!? YOU have the privilege of living in ALASKA and even possibly knowing Dr. CBJ personally?

We here in Dallas are still scratching our heads and checking our rugs for amniotic fluid stains, and you have the #1 PERSON OF INTEREST in your own backyard?

Good night, girl! Go ask her yourself - or somebody who works at Mat-Su! Somebody!

Anonymous said...

Comment at 12.49

So did you take your children into the office while they were supposedly under treatment?

Craig said...

Lack of a credible opposing source is not proof in itself, but it diminishes the likelyhood of the existence of such sources, especially involving a high-profile, lightening-rod like Palin.

Numerous media sources were reporting from Alaska during the feeding frenzy between September and November. The National Enquirer was the one that splashed their big story about Sarah's affair (even though the story died for lack of oxygen). There were stories coming out daily about Palin, all the way back to her days as a mayor of Wasilla. All the way back to her college years, and those who knew her then. Anyone who had a critical word about her, from former city council members to a librarian, was being aired. The Wall Street Journal had sources who said other professionals were sent into Alaska to specifically find more dirt (although the DNC denied it).

Its so easy to say a publication won't publish known facts gathered on Palin for some mysterious reason. It eliminates the need to present a credible reason for them to be so fearful.

And again, suggesting people who have key knowledge but won't do so due to "strong motivations". Suddenly, the baby story is the one story that can't pass anyone's lips, but plenty of folks felt no fear to not talk about book banning, rape kits, strong-arming phone calls by the Palin's to fire people, dirty trick politics while running for Mayor, etc.?

And the Enquirer is obviously going to pay people who have access to first-hand information. Not some bloggers with opinions. The theory is that once you get an initial "source" statement, you can trigger some momenteum of other sources to build upon. Greed will usually sniff out some takers, especially teenagers who can see, and talk to, or hear about principal characters on a daily basis.

So Dangerous, since this issue I raised doesn't concern you at all, I'd suggest that you continue to pursue your legal course of indictment against Palin. Especially since you believe you have enough information already to get a court to act on it.

Alex, you are the one being naive if you think Sarah has some special hold on people that is different than an imposed silence that has been broken by others in similar circustances in countless examples. People have been blabbing about years of both alleged and truthful misdeeds by Sarah or her family over the last 4months. But now, suddenly, this is "the lie to which we cannot speak of"?


Some people will be just unreachable with this premise that I have suggested, and go on comparing letter smudges and fonts and pregnant woman pictures and necklaces. Have at it.

I hope some will give it some thought and wonder why such a half-baked scheme, conceived by those who have proven themselves to be inept in the execution of far simpiler events, would hold up in such a politically partisan and media intensive spotlight, without a single credible first-or second-hand voice to give a shred of evidence otherwise?

You want a birth certification or medical record? I want just that one person to stand up and say "lie".

Anonymous said...

You know, I wish I could still trust journalists and reporters. I really do. But considering what a pass the media gave the Bush administration for 8 years, and considering the pass they gave many politicians in the last election cycle...Let's just say that between corporately-owned media, and media consolidations/newspapers folding, I don't think any journalists feel safe or supported going after a "tough" story. And the Enquirer...come on. They go after stars' affairs and cellulite. This is a tougher story than they can handle, too.

So if the argument is that "professionals haven't found anything yet," I would respond: 21st century journalism is a whole new bloggers ball game. Even the big newspapers will soon only exist on the web. Why not us to crack this story? I'll even bet that some of the posters on here have gone to J-School.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

that medical records PDF is all f'd up!

The angle of the letterhead is tilted in comparison the body of the letter and the Providence logo is at yet another angle..., the grey signature color spills into her black credentials..

something isnt right with that PDF...a scan of the doc might cause ONE of the angles to be off but not all of them!

Anonymous said...

pregnancy truth at 12:41:

The reason why nobody talked so far is because the people in Alaska are too SCARED to talk about this issue. Don't believe me? Then go to Alaska and try to start some conversations about it...good luck!

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say...
"--Amy" you've impressed me with her well thought out posts.
Thank you.
Thanks too to Audrey and everyone else who is trying to sort this out.

Anonymous said...

Please, let us continue to welcome Craig and his views to this site.

Don't we all wish he were right, it was all a misunderstanding with a reasonable explanation. Everyone is innocent. I know I would feel I had overreacted, should have left the family in peace, etc.

But what if he is wrong? (The national security article just posted, while written before the election, still is compelling. Certainly so if SP plans to succeed in national politics.) Then we would have been stupid sheep to have slept through it.

And the fact that we, as nonprofessionals in the solve-a-mystery business, look at both trivial and important things, that we get into blind alleys as well as discover productive lines of thinking about this -- that seems only normal to me.

So Craig: stay aboard. I can use your perspective to test my own. I do disagree with you, but you have prompted me to think a little harder, a little better.


sjk from the belly of the plane said...

the "FP" at the end of FAAFP looks to be to clean to be of bitmap origin. It looks like that was dropped in as the letters have different characteristics than the FAA. will dig more as I'm sure others will.

Mary G. said...

Someone commented that the reason the McCain campaign *had* to announce Bristol's 5-month pregnancy was not to "prove" she could not be Trig's mother, but because they wouldn't have been able to hide how pregnant she was by the election. Funny thing, even after the announcement, they actually *did* (and do) keep Bristol hidden... why? Mary g.

luna1580 said...

about the insurance thing: maybe i'm wrong and alaska takes care of the health of all people of native decent, for free, forever. but i can't find any evidence of this "plan." and it seems out-of-sorts with a state government that won't pay for plumbing for isolated native villages.

if someone else knows where the info on this "perfect health plan" is please give me the link. oh, and not the link right below, because that only shows you don't understand the following organization.


is what DOES exist. it's a non-profit created by the tribal governments that tries to provide things like dental care, safe drinking water, education and treatment for alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome, and cancer care. it is focused on rural, isolated bush communities that without this and other aid basically are reduced to 3rd world countries in the areas mentioned above.

it has no specific resources for helping down syndrome kids, and is not an insurance plan so it wouldn't pay for specialized treatment, educational therapy, or later-life housing, should they be needed.


how many people actually know for a fact if SP was pregnant or not? i think it is a very small pool to draw "informers" from.

it would be:

*people who saw her naked belly during the pregnancy

*people who did medical tests on her

*people in the birthing room at mat-su regional

it's entirely possible those people are: sarah, todd, cathy baldwin johnson, and let's throw in a perinatologist 'cause the "health letter" mentions tests one would do, and 2 nurses, because mat-su is a small hospital.

Hospital Information
• 74 licensed beds
• Physicians: Active: 85; Courtesy: 52
• 670 hospital employees

mat-su regional

this could be why "no one's talking."

Anonymous said...


Alaska is a lot larger than you think! I live in Juneau, some 700 miles and either a boat or plane trip away from where Dr CBJ is. I was in Anchorage briefly for a conference. I was actually very busy at the conference, plus it was election day to boot! So cornering Dr CBJ was not high on my list. I did actually try to get through one of her sessions so I could observe her but the subject matter was really designed for medical professionals, which I am not.

artful_dodger said...

LUNA 1580, you have a good point about the hospital size and small number of staff. In fact, if I doubt myself at all in the belief that SP is lying, this is where my doubt lies. I'm a health care professional and understand well the HIPA rules. However, I also know that we sometimes talk anyway. In the elevators to each other, at the nurses station where a patient or visitor could overhear, to friends outside the hospital. Right or wrong, it does happen. I find it hard to believe that a baby was born there to someone other than SP and not one person leaked anything. They would risk their license and worse if they talked "on record" to any publications. The only explanation, for me, is that no baby was born at a hospital. But still, wouldn't someone mention the set up that happened the next day? And, if the baby was not born there, SP was no patient and therefor not protected by HIPA. Could fear of the Palin wrath alone be enough to keep everyone quiet? Even if I, should I want to go and get a job, found something out while working there would never be able do divulge this info. (unless I wanted to find another line of work.)

Anonymous said...

I am glad to see that folks are raising questions about Dr. CBJ's letter. I had made some posts on this on earlier threads (Another Photo, posts on 12/8 and 12/10). My understanding is that the identical coloration of the signature and FP indicates that this cannot be an original signature, and that the letter/signature has definitely been manipulated. If so, it is a very important clue to recognize that CBJ did not sign the letter herself, nor does this seem to be a routine importation of an electronic signature, which would not affect the "FP." It is also my understanding that this letter was released by the McCain campaign at literally the 11th hour on Nov 3rd, not by the doctor or medical center (can someone verify?).

If so, we do not know whether the letter is even legitimate, let alone truthful. (CBJ's silence should not be construed as validation of the letter -- she may be in this mess too deeply and may not see an easy way out that doesn't ruin her reputation, except to keep her mouth shut -- or maybe her lawyer has advised her to stay silent.)

I also noticed that the text was crooked, but hadn't realized that the logo and address were not crooked too -- good eyes, Beejay! I'd been thinking it meant the whole thing was scanned; but probably the paper fed through the printer crookedly. It is odd that it would have done so in the opposite direction on the two pages. We can at least deduce that this letter wasn't printed as a single electronic file (like a Word-doc with an electronic Providence letterhead template)-- the obvious thing to use if you had to electronically transmit an important letter. (In that case, the printing and logo would be aligned or crooked in the same direction, right?)

I also agree that the logo looks of poor quality. That is very strange indeed, if this were truly produced by the doctor or medical center. They would want their logo to look good and would have decent letterhead and high quality electronic files! I would have thought that, for such an important letter that literally the whole country would be able to see, the doctor and/or medical center would have provided a pdf of the letter printed by them on their own high-quality letterhead, signed by CBJ so there could be no question of unauthorized manipulation. Since this is not the case, it makes me wonder if the letterhead was made from an online logo.

My current theory -- unproven! -- is that this letter was generated at McCain HQ, not in Alaska. It may still have been with the cooperation and permission of the doctor and medical center. Or maybe not. Perhaps -- speculation alert!-- SP decided to do this, leading to the "whack job" characterization. Wouldn't it be nice to find that out! MSM, how about looking into these doctor's letter issues? They would make an interesting story... which you can always use a few of, right?

In the big picture, the fact that CBJ did not physically sign the letter herself, and that neither she nor the medical center released it, means (to me at least) that it cannot be considered validated.

artful_dodger said...

Oops,I meant to put a question on the end of my last post.
Audrey, I haven't read everything that you've written yet so you may have addressed this already but, being that you and your husband are in the business, how do you explain this?

Anonymous said...

To anonymous at 1:40 p.m. who bemoans the fact that journalists of all stripes seem unequal to this story:

I totally agree with you. Journalists are more worried about keeping their jobs than pursuing the misdeeds of the powerful. And Palin is a very powerful (in Alaska) and vindictive person. And you are right - some of us bloggers are former journalists. I happen to teach journalism at the college level (which gives me more job security than a working journalist).


Anonymous said...

Great points about the signature and FAAFP. If you open this in Adobe Reader and magnbify (I did up at 1600%). Compare the first F in FAAFP and the second. The horizontal "arm" in the middle of the 'F' is one pixel smaller in the first F than in the second with all pixels except 1. And, the base of the second F and P have one pixel missing on the right side where it attaches to the vertical "arm". Plus, the first F (and other characters) have extraneous pixels. There are other anamolies throughout, which look like something you would expect from text that has been scanned.

And, I do see the issue with the text slanting. But I'm stumped as to why, if you're going to go to the trouble to forge a document, wouldn't you get this right? Did they only have one piece of letterhead, messed up and figured they had to go with it? Create a distraction to keep people away from other "evidence"? Total incompetence?

Alex said...

One last word to you, Craig. How come it took 8 years to get the dirt on Bill Clinton? With Republicans working day and night? Because those who know and are loyal, are loyal. Or in the case of Sarah Palin, they know and they're her children. Or they are teenagers who couldn't care less. Or those who know, could lose everything by speaking up. Anyone who could tell us, would have to face complete ostracization from family, friends, and coworkers if they were to talk. These are people who, I venture, love where they live and love their lives. What's in it for them to talk? Money? What's that if you end up vilified where you live? And for that you'd hand over your life to the National Enquirer?

If Audrey keeps up the heat and postulates any and all possibilities, the truth will win out eventually. Just as it did with the Illinois gov (whose name I have no interest in knowing how to spell), for Bill Clinton, and for Bush's WMD.


(change subject)

Sarah Palin would have faked a pregnancy ONLY to avert scandal.

An adopted child would have been eligible for all SP's medical benefits.

How saintly SP would have been to adopt her sister's special-needs child! Or to openly adopt her daughter's special needs child! How saintly she would have been to adopt ANYBODY's special needs child.

On the other hand, if Trig were the product of rape (involving Bristol or Track or Willow), or marital infidelity (her husband), or bi-racial sex (internet rumor), or promiscuous sex and drug use (Bristol or Track) or blackmail (a girlfriend of Track's or First Dude's) -- then this absolutely incredibly bizarre scheme would make sense to a maverick like Sarah Palin.

AND if it involved any of those ugly scenarios above, it might have ensnared the Abuse Doctor's best intentions, as well. Especially if children (other than Trig) were involved.

I wholly admit that faking a pregnancy is absolutely LULU Bonkers. But Sarah Palin has proved that that's her operating style. And if faced with scandal, I have no doubt she could rise to the occasion with such a bizarre scheme.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

the WHOLE CBJ PDF was copied and or scanned from something. It WAS NOT PDF'd from Word or another word processor. Everything has serious jaggies. I just PDF'd a word doc and the text has ZERO jaggies at MAX magnification in Adobe.

Anonymous said...

BTW - I agree that Craig forces people here to sharpen their arguments. But I do doubt that he is a disinterested seeker of truth. He has an agenda, and it seems to be a pro-Palin agenda. Beyond that, who knows what his motivations are?

Alex said...

Didn't Sarah Palin go to J-school?

My money is with the bloggers.

hrh said...

Amy at 1:50p:

Are you aware that there are reich wingnuts who pay people to go to progressive/liberal/left websites to cause distraction and chaos, and are paid for every response to their comments?

While all but one troll has deserted this ship due, most likely, to the excellent quality of responses (few that there were), do you really want possibly to be putting money in some troll's pocket, thus, encouraging their nefariousness?

Without responses, trolls, sooner rather than later, slither back under their rock and look for another target.

BTW, have you noticed the change in rhetoric from the troll's first comments? Not returning trash for trash certainly has changed THAT troll's tune! While you (plural) are to be congratulated on your civilized, well-thought-out and all-around excellent responses, I'm hoping y'all just let this troll wizen away.

Anonymous said...

To Craig 1:36

Would you have said the same thing all along re the National Inquirer's Edwards story? I understand that the NI had that story for MANY months before the MSM took it, and that the story was also "common knowledge" among Wash DC insiders. But no MSM for a very long time.


Because that ONE piece of data, proof, was missing all along, and when it appeared (I forget what it was), the MSM broke the story and he confessed.

I have never before respected the Nat Inquirer, but they had me on that one.

So, you could be right, or it could be that that first piece of proof is just lying there, waiting to be discovered. And if it concerned something less serious than the top levels of American politics, then most of us would not care.


Re the medical letter.

It's possible for the letter to be a sloppy cut-and-paste and/or Photoshopped job and still be authentic. In fact, if we suppose that Dr CBJ or someone on her staff actually created the letter, the sloppier the better, because we don't expect them to be trained in electronic graphics. Who among us has not done a sloppy quick workaround when some part of our e-process for getting work done has failed us in a crunch?

Even if CBJ wrote it to look like a ransom note, it would still be authentic if she wrote it.

That's why I invited us to put ourselves into her shoes when creating the letter (in my 12/7 12:01 post on another thread*). The likelihood of an MD's office doing some things is greater or less than other things: for example, my thinking was that an MD would not be likely to change the color of ink in her signature (because she would be concentrating on content and SHE knows the letter is genuine); but a forger would be very much concerned with details like ink color, etc. Likelihoods are where we start, but they only point the way.

The Obama health letter is also somewhat weird in format, and the pdf I've seen looks like a 10th generation xerox. No problem, if it's authentic. And we have no reason to think it is not authentic, in part because other data (other Obama med info) fits well with the letter.

But not so in the SP matter. Others on this blog have noticed irregularities in the letter that I did not, so the more eyes, the better. In the end, we might identify every single weird detail, and yet Dr CBJ might come forward and say "Yes, I wrote it late at night and didn't know how to work some computer stuff, plus I ran out of letterhead, so I punted. But the content is mine."

No problem. Now we would know.

But if the MANY puzzling irregularities (including the fact that Dr CBJ has not spoken up about the letter) point us to a forgery or alteration, we would want to know that. That would be way more than a smoking gun.

--Amy (the first Amy)

*See my earlier posts in the "Another photo..." thread:
--December 7, 2008 12:01 PM
--December 7, 2008 9:48 PM

Anonymous said...

OK. I have checked some of the public pics available from the http://www.adn.com/palinphotos/ site, and to me, it seems like SP is simply a person who 'looks' pregnant when fotographed at a certain angle. Similar to the way when my daughter was a baby, she always would look chubby, when in reality she was skinny (always in the 25th percentile, but 95th percentile in hight)
Check out the pics on that site, especially the ones from summer 2007. In many if not most of the frontal shots, she looks chubby, kind of like she looks when she was supposedly 7 months preggy this year.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Comment at 12.49
So did you take your children into the office while they were supposedly under treatment?
December 10, 2008 1:33 PM

No one thought to tell me I couldn't take them to the office, possibly because they figured I had the common sense not to. The equipment is portable. You can plug it into any outlet. Mind you, if Palin had taken a child under treatment to the office, she still would have to meet the nurse somewhere during the day to have his bilirubin levels tested.

What this highlights is yet another lapse of judgment on her part. She took a baby into the office that was likely undergoing medical treatment. Not wise, but certainly possible.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:45 -

My point exactly. Even my 9 year old niece would have managed to get the text straight had she done this. You have to have the paper feed really badly in almost any modern printer to have it come out this poorly.

Does the word "rushed" come to mind? After all, someone previous to this (way back when it first came out) noted that it appeared to have been written by two people with different styles and voices.


Anonymous said...

To all the people who say: 'They're hiding Bristol' or 'They hid her during the campaign': Are you under the impression that Bristol's really psyched for you guys to analyze her every curve and judge her? Beyond being pregnant, she's a teenage girl. If you read Mr. Appel's post you may have noticed that the reporter that he interviewed in Alaska said that Bristol said she doesn't like to have her picture taken.

And she did travel with the campaign quite frequently. If you go back and look through the pool reports from the campaign that made their way onto a few postings here and there you'll see that she traveled with the campaign quite a bit. And go read the Politico story written by McCain's advance man that mentions that she was there during Palin's New Hampshire swing. That didn't go into the actual news stories posted by the traveling reporters.

Why? It's called a gentlemen's agreement. Bristol traveled with her mom, but the press didn't publish pictures of her. And she didn't go up on stage during the events, or get off the plane with the rest of the family, or make staged public appearances, or give them any reason to have to take pictures of her (your curiosity doesn't count as a legitimate, newsworthy reason to take pictures of a 17 year old girl). She waited until the press got their pictures of Palin getting off the plane for their B roll, then got off with the traveling campaign staff. There were a couple of local stories that mentioned Bristol doing this, and she was mentioned several times in the pool reports that are normally only circulated among the traveling press.

If you'll recall, something similar was done for William and Harry, for the Bush girls, and for Chelsea Clinton. They were all allowed a modicum of privacy. Why should Bristol be treated differently? Because you all think her mom's a liar? Because you think that she should be? Those are rhetorical questions by the way.

And for those who want to argue that she was onstage at the convention: Gosh, who were those two girls I saw with Obama at the convention? Oh, that's right, they were his kids. Maybe, just maybe, Bristol decided that she wanted to stand up for her mom at the convention and show that she's proud of her. And after that she and her mom and dad decided to keep her away from all of you.

You want to make other arguments about the pregnancy and analyze Palin. Fine. Public officials should be criticized and held to account. But leave Bristol out of it. And don't start that garbage that Palin brought her into it. That's just you making a poor justification for indecent and disgraceful behavior.

Anonymous said...

"it's entirely possible those people are: sarah, todd, cathy baldwin johnson, and let's throw in a perinatologist 'cause the "health letter" mentions tests one would do, and 2 nurses, because mat-su is a small hospital."

There would also be nurses taking care of the mother following the birth. Whoever gave birth to that baby, if she was hospitalized afterwards for a day or so, would have been having her uterine fundus checked as well as her lochial flow and episiotomy (if any). They would have been checking to see progression of milk production, too. A woman who has just given birth shows it.

"I also know that we sometimes talk anyway. In the elevators to each other, at the nurses station where a patient or visitor could overhear, to friends outside the hospital. Right or wrong, it does happen."

It might, but it depends on the culture in the hospital. Mat-Su is a Providence hospital. I'm a nurse at a Providence hospital. Obviously there can be differences, but Providence has a very strict approach to confidentiality. I don't hear people talking about patients, other than consulting one another about providing care. In fact, at our hospital, I saw a name on a surgical schedule and asked "oh, is that our employee?" and was surrounded by yells of "HIPAA! HIPAA!" because I wasn't taking care of that patient and had no need to know that information- I was a bit embarrassed! Heck, I was hospitalized for surgery on a floor where I worked for 3 years, and surprised my former coworkers by walking in the middle of the night... because they didn't know the person with my last name in room 22 was me. Nobody talked about it, even though they all knew me. Because our administration, local, regional and systemwide, is tough on confidentiality regulations. It would not surprise me if nobody said anything about Sarah Palin having given birth or, alternatively, not given birth.

Ivy Freeborn

KaJo said...

sjk, in your comment Dec 10 @ 1:57 PM, you said, "the "FP" at the end of FAAFP looks to be to[o] clean to be of bitmap origin. It looks like that was dropped in as the letters have different characteristics than the FAA. will dig more as I'm sure others will."

My original contention yesterday was that, indeed, the "FP" was dropped in at the same time as the signature, in what I surmise was a scanned image file.

However, both the signature and the following typed letters can easily be cleaned up and "defuzzed" when the image file is enlarged to 400% or so, and individual pixels are erased or added. I've done the same thing to stencil drawing images to clean them up. Same process.

Anonymous writes Dec 10 @ 3:45 pm evidently has examined the PDF letter in the way I've described, to 1600%! (kudos to you!)


Anonymous, in your comment Dec 10 @ 3:15 pm, you discuss the quality of the letterhead being less than one would expect for an "official letter" (as some others have already mentioned in their comments, too).

I have one possible explanation for that which doesn't depend on something as "modern" as manufacturing a logo from one found online (in fact, if someone follows the procedure I mentioned above, that online logo can easily be cleaned up).

I wouldn't be surprised if the quality of that letterhead logo is fuzzy because originally it was on a legitimate letter, which was clandestinely copied on a standard copy machine, then the copied letter was scanned and cropped to save the logo as an image file. If one repeats the copy-of-a-copy procedure too many times, then the text and pictures can appear "slipped".

A fax transmission by its nature has that appearance through no fault of the sender or receiver.

luna1580 said...

i have a big question about the "health letter."

every newspaper article i read (online, courtesy of google, then and just now) that mentioned it, and those still hosting copies of the PDF, note it was released by the mccain-palin campaign.

well, their official site is still up and i just searched it for the terms "Baldwin-Johnson" "palin health" and "palin medical" using a domain specific google search and using the site's internal search feature.


then i read the site's lists of news, press releases, etc. for the 3rd and 4th of november. cnn reported the letter was released close to midnight on nov. 3rd by the campaign.


why is it not on their website? was it ever, does anyone know?

the whole rest of the site seems to be as it was leading up to the election, why does it now contain zero references to palin's health, doctor, or the much-touted letter?

ok, maybe i'm over-reacting. to be fair, i just tried the same thing for obama. his "health letter" came out may 29th, and his doctor is Dr. David L. Scheiner.

nothing for him on his site either.

were these letters ever on anyone's sites? did they just go to the media, but were not considered press releases?

any of the current/former journalists reading know how this stuff works?


Emma said...

To the issue that someone at the hospital would have seen, multiple nurses would have attended to the mother ... maybe the baby wasn't born in a hospital. Nowadays, numerous babies are born at home with a midwife, or in some cases, physician attending. Granted, had a mother who knew she was carrying a baby with DS, and potentially (depending on identity of mother) gone into labor 5 weeks early, delivering at home would have been risky. Not as risky as hopping on two different planes for a total of 10+ hours, though.

Perhaps no one is talking because the people who were there were handpicked and whose silence could be counted on.

More food for thought ...

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

regarding the letters...having worked with MANY fonts years ago, literally thousands, the fonts appear to be very close, if not the same. BUT the kerning and spacing between the letters and their angles "just aint rite".
Vector to bitmap IMHO.

Quark Express flashback...

Along with the 3 different angles of the first pages body of text and the 2 bitmap logos (with their own issues), I'd say this doc was a cut 'n paste job done by campaign amateurs.

They shoulda just released a letter like Obama.

Now we have a funny PDF to play with.

Craig said...

Alex, Gennifer Flowers came out in Clinton's 1992 campaign and said she had a 12-year affair with him.

And hrh, you are cracking me up! Somebody owes me some money, evidently!

I have no dark agenda. I am just coming at this from a different perspective and am trying to get people out of the tunnel vision of a closed narrative and into the idea of accepting counterpoints as vaild, and not something to just spin and discard.

It just seems that staring at belly pictures, and font sizes and smudges on a letter, and prom pictures is inconclusive at best and pointless at worse, yet it may be satisfying from a "someone out there thinks like me" standpoint.

If someone credible (i.e. with plausible access to a principal character) steps up and says "I know that this baby can't be Sarah's", then I'll be willing to sit up and listen.

I think Palin is okay, but she has no real shot at any future national office (other than maybe senator). She is more of a populist figure and just isn't presidential timber.

Punkinbugg said...

to anon at 2:43pm:

RE: Alaska is a lot bigger than you think.

I gotcha. I can get in my piece o' crap car and point it west or south for 500 miles (if it would go that far) and STILL BE IN TEXAS. LOL.

So sorry - I was hoping you lived closer and could coax the info from some disgruntled Mat-su candy striper.

Keep your ears to the ground - you're a lot closer than we are!!

Anonymous said...

Craig wrote: "I have no dark agenda. I am just coming at this from a different perspective and am trying to get people out of the tunnel vision of a closed narrative and into the idea of accepting counterpoints as vaild, and not something to just spin and discard."

Why? Why do you care what we think? - Mark

Anonymous said...

Craig wrote: "I have no dark agenda. I am just coming at this from a different perspective and am trying to get people out of the tunnel vision of a closed narrative and into the idea of accepting counterpoints as vaild, and not something to just spin and discard."

And Craig, I should add: there is no closed narrative here. There are myriad possibilities as to why Palin lied about the wonderbirth of April; people list different theories all the time. And you never accept our points as valid, so why are so eager for us to accept yours? Do you need validation that badly, dude? - Mark

Anonymous said...


Isn't it likely that Cajun Boy's source is Kyle Hopkins from the Anchorage Daily News?

The ADN lists Hopkins' profile this way: "Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press."

On August 31, 2008 Kyle Hopkins posted an article on the ADN "Alaska Politics" blog titled “Rumor patrol -- Baby Drama.” In it he reported asking Bill McAllister – a Palin spokesperson -- why the McCain campaign wouldn’t just release Trig’s birth certificate. According to Hopkins, McAllister suggested the request was disrespectful. Hopkins went on to defend the request as the easiest way to “put it [the rumor about Trig] to rest.”

You can find the article here http://community.adn.com/node/130178?page=1

Interestingly, this article has been cited in Audrey's blog before, but mainly to note that McAllister also revealed that he discussed the rumor about Bristol’s pregnancy with Sarah Palin BEFORE she announced her pregnancy in March 2008.

One other interesting hint is a comment to this blog posted on Sept. 5 by “rfn” which asks, “Do you pay by the word or pay by the story? I might have something to tell you but it would be nice to know the going rate first. Others are asking, so hurry.”

Now, “rfn” seems to post a lot of comments to ADN blogs and might be a “crank” or just sarcastic.

On the other hand, what if someone from the ADN did pay for information and the editors later held the story to wait for independent verification because they learned about the payment which would undermine their reputation? Or . . . what if the ADN paid for the story with the condition that the person could not sell the story elsewhere? That could explain why the Enquirer has not been able to buy informants.

Anonymous said...

Emma at December 10, 2008 7:01 PM :This MIGHT be possible, but not in this case: Remember, SP said she drove herself to Ma-Tsu, and the doc (supposedly) wrote that her labor was induced. Besides, the adn news crew supposedly was at the hospital, and SP 'was sleeping' in a different room.
So... Good try, but no cigar!

Anonymous said...

Going back to the CBJ letter, it does not seem credible that a large medical facility, which produces records and documents regularly, does not have a letterhead template in its word-processing program files. And CBJ must have to write letters all the time and would probably use that as well. That would be the obvious thing to use in generating such a letter. Even if using regular letterhead, it's hard to imagine that BOTH the doctor's letterhead would be such poor quality AND the printer used in a medical office would feed so erratically (they are usually high quality machines suitable for high volume use).

Does anyone of the bloggers use Providence Health & Services? If so, would you have a letter from them to use for comparison?

I believe that the poor quality of the letter and logo, and the discrepancy with the signature and FP, are significant and warrant further investigation, preferably by the MSM.
--Truthseeker the 2nd (actually I'm not sure which of us was first, but I just realized there are two)

Anonymous said...

Yes, the Palin medical statement was definitely on the McCain.com website at the time it was released. I don't know how long it continued to be available there, since that wasn't a site I visited often ;)!!
I have no direct knowledge about the Obama medical letter, though...

Anonymous said...

Comment @4.40

Thanks for the response. You have made my point for me. I believe that Sarah showed extreme lack of care and motherly tenderness when she took that poor, supposedly premature, Downs Syndrome child into the office when he was under the care of professionals for a condition which has a potential for being serious. Why does Sarah appear to have little regard for Trig's welfare? I have seen TV interviews where in the background Trig is carried like a doll UPSTAIRS by PIPER. Sarah and Todd were way too busy with the interview to intervene and I felt such saddness for little Trig.

When she made the trip from Wasilla to Anchorage and back again where did she plug the equipment? I expect that the equipment was not that portable!

Anonymous said...

Emma at December 10, 2008 7:01 PM :This MIGHT be possible, but not in this case: Remember, SP said she drove herself to Ma-Tsu, and the doc (supposedly) wrote that her labor was induced. Besides, the adn news crew supposedly was at the hospital, and SP 'was sleeping' in a different room.

...how convenient...

Emma said...

Re Anonymous at 6:32. Yes, it's true SP said she drove herself to the hospital, but she also claimed she said "Thanks, but no Thanks" and that the gas pipeline was already built/being built. Yes, the doctor said that labor was induced, but didn't specify where (hospital or not) and people are already questioning the veracity of the letter. And, yes, a news crew was at the hospital, but that doesn't mean the baby was delivered there.

I'm not saying the above proves the baby wasn't born at the hospital--far from it. Then again, so far there is no definitive proof that he was. But, IF (and that's an IF) SP went to the trouble to fake a pregnancy, why wouldn't she fake the baby being born at the hospital? In fact, she would need to because of the situation, i.e., DS at 35 weeks. She might have thought people wouldn't think twice about the story of someone who knows she's carrying a DS baby, leaking amniotic fluid at 35 weeks, getting on a plane for 10+ hours and driving past multiple hospitals with NICUs to a hospital without, knowing that 50% of DS baby's have some issue with their heart, but obviously people are questioning the story and/or judgement. Either the story is false (that doesn't necessarily mean she faked the pregnancy) or her judgement is severely lacking. But, to claim to deliver a DS baby at 35 weeks at home after flying 10+ hours would never have passed the smell test. Needing to be in the hospital was a must. Again, the fact she was there (or not, if news crew didn't see her) and baby was there doesn't prove baby was born at that hospital.

Again, just a thought ...

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone of the bloggers use Providence Health & Services?"

I work at a Providence hospital, but we have our own logo. I haven't been able to see the letter from Palin's doctor (I read a transcript of it) but it's possible that Mat-Su has its own letterhead.

Ivy Freeborn

Anonymous said...


Neither Todd nor any of his children have enough Native blood to qualify for the service (1/4 minimum). IF Todd is 1/8 he may have qualified as his mother's dependent until he turned 18 ; but I think he may be only 1/16...?

It's the same health care as for Native Americans in the Lower 48: The Indian Health Service, which is part of the Public Health Service.

- gina in fairbanks

Anonymous said...

I have some questions about the medical letter, but first, I'm wondering why the doctor was quoted initially with comments on the state of labor and it being okay for SP to fly. Wouldn't this be a violation of HIPPA?

The letter itself is so poorly organized that I cannot see a Medical Doctor composing it. First there is a lot of information about her that is present on her website.

Second, rather than list the number of pregnancies and birth (grava/para) she gives the year of the birth and the stages of development.

Third, she goes into detail on the jaundice of Trig which has nothing to do with the health of his mother.

Fourth, she lists a blood pressure reading without a date rather than "consistantly in the normal range."

Fifth, she doesn't mention any pap smears which could be a concern for a woman who is a candidate.

And finally, this is all supposed to indicate she is healthy enough to be the VP.

It certainly looks as if someone else wrote the letter. Also, if SP had approved it, she would have noticed the incorrect birth year for Piper.

sandra in oregon

Anonymous said...

For Ivy Freeborn: the url for the letter on Palin's health is:

Anonymous said...

gina in fairbanks,

According to an article at washingtonindependent.com, 10/7/8, Todd and his children do qualify for free lifetime health care and there is no blood quantum requirement, so his grandchildren would also qualify. I don't think this is Palin's motive, but it might be a factor if Trig was born to Molly Heath. The article says:

Todd Palin’s ancestry grants another plus — it makes him and his children eligible to apply for free government health care.

To qualify for the state-based, federally funded program, Alaska Area Native Health Service, residents must provide proof of ancestry. Cecile Wesley, the director of eligibility at the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, told me in an interview that one way of establishing ancestry requirements is to present a shareholder card for one of four Alaska native corporations that list “blood quantum” — the carrier’s percentage of “Indian blood.”

“[Alaska Native Medical Center] does not have a blood quantum requirement,” said Wesley, when I asked what percentage of native blood a resident must have in order to receive the healthcare.

One corporation that issues cards with the blood quantum requirement is the Bristol Bay Native Corp. According to public disclosure forms Sarah Palin filed with the state of Alaska, her husband and their children are BBNC shareholders. Palin’s disclosure form is available here.

Todd Palin and the Palin children are also a shareholders in another Native corporation, Choggiung Ltd.

luna1580 said...

thank you so much to the 2 posters who've given more information about Alaska Area Native Health Service and the palins!

i was not able to find this information on my own, and i was just getting sick of people essentially insisting:

"there's this magic, no-name, cover-all health insurance that would be enough to motivate SP to commit insurance fraud by claiming the baby."

it's wonderful to have the actual names of the programs that can be researched if it ever comes to a point that a serious argument would need to be made that this could be SP's motivation

for the record, i personally still find this argument very weak (i find it much more likely that she was motivated by a desire to protect someone in her family, or in keeping with some religious belief she has.)

for people who do feel this is "the key" i would encourage you to start looking into Indian Health Services here, their FAQ page

if you don't feel like doing that, here is a quote i feel is illuminating:

"I am eligible for health care from the Indian Health Service, but the local Service Unit will not pay for the [surgery, health care, medicine] that I need? Why?

Direct health care services are services provided at an IHS facility. Contract Health Services (CHS) are services that the IHS is unable to provide in its own facilities. CHS are provided by non-IHS health care providers and facilities. CHS payments are authorized based on clearly defined guidelines and are subject to availability of funds. The Indian Health Service cannot always guarantee that funds are always available. Funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress currently cover an estimated 60% of health care needs of the eligible American Indian and Alaska Native people.

Unfortunately, that means that services obtained under CHS must be prioritized, with life-threatening illnesses or injuries being given highest priority. It also means that the IHS formulary (the list of drugs and medicines available from IHS pharmacies) may not include all drugs and medicines, but will include most of the ones that have proven to be beneficial and cost-effective."

full disclosure: i have no native blood and no agenda other than eliminating dead-ends in the search for what really happened with SP's birth story.

but it is my understanding that the IHS was created to try and help native people, many of them on reservations, who live in poverty. as such, it really has no bearing on SP's kids, as she and todd have a combined reported income around one million dollars/year.

thanks again for the info! :)

luna1580 said...

apologies, i should have said sarah todd have a net worth around a million, NOT yearly income.

palin, not quite below the poverty line

the reported income seems to be more like $150-200 thousand/year. it's a bit unclear, really

SP tax return fun


Anonymous said...


I am actually Alaska Native and eligible for the service. I also have private insurance through my employer. Since I have an option, I choose not to use the Native Health Care Service. It is like any government bureaucracy; under-funded and under-staffed. Long lines and long waitlists for appointments. Also, since I do have private insurance, they would bill my insurance anyway as a cost saving measure. Using private doctors I can choose who I see and have an easier time getting appointments.

Based on their lack of participation in the Native community in general, I doubt if given a choice, the Palins would use this service even if available to them. If they had when Piper was born, she would have most likely been born at the Alaska Native Service Hospital in Anchorage, and not in Wasilla or Palmer. She would also have been attended by an ANHS doctor, not a private physician.

If ANHS spends money on you, they put you in their facility with their doctors whenever possible. Think "VA Hospital", you'll get the gist.

I am also certain that both Sarah and Todd had/have private insurance through their employers and that their children would be covered up to age 19 (and older if in school usually). At age 17 a dependent child (even a pregnant one) should have been covered under one or both of those plans.

I am aware that the blood quantum requirements differ based on where you are ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) enrolled, but I still think whoever wrote that article did not have their facts straight concerning the Palins. You can be a shareholder and not even be Native, let alone meet ANHS requirements. For example: my father was Native, my mother is not. When he died, she inherited a portion of his Native Corp. shares. She is now a shareholder in an ANCSA corporation without one drop of Native blood, and is NOT eligible for health care through ANHS (even when he was alive she was not eligible as a non-Native spouse). Non-Native spouses are only covered when they are pregnant with and/or delivering a Native child.

If Todd is 1/8 or less (and I'm pretty sure that is the case), he would not have been eligible under ANCSA to enroll in a regional or village corporation. If he has shares, they would have been gifted to him or he would have inherited them.

I didn't want to go into an overlong explanation of all this stuff, but their are also different kinds of Native corporations/organizations in Alaska:

There are the regional (profit-making) corporations BBNC being an example of this. They have nothing to do with Health Care.

Village Corporations (also profit-making); like Choggiung Ltd. They have nothing to do with health care.

Village Tribal or Traditional Councils. The closest thing to 'tribes' as you know them in the Lower 48. They receive health care funds, which are almost always administered by:

regional tribal consortiums. These entities administer public and private funds allocated for Alaska Natives and Native Americans living in Alaska. This is where you will find your Native health boards that administer IHS funds for tribal health care. Yes, they can and do have different blood quantum requirements. But if their were no limit on how far back ancestry is traced, just about everyone with a "Cherokee grandmother" would be eligible.

In my case, I am eligible both by blood quantum and ANCSA enrollment. When my children came of age, they had to formally enroll to a village (tribe), which meant sending your proof of parentage and family tree to the tribal counsel. The counsel then meets to decide if you qualify under their standards to be enrolled. If they accept you, you are issued a 'tribal enrollment card' which is acceptable proof for ANHS services in most cases.

Since requirements have tightened as money has been pulled from health programs, even though both my husband and I are Native and original shareholders, our children needed 'further proof' in the form of this tribal enrollment.

At the end of the day, no one I know who uses the ANHS services in the Anchorage area has ever seen a Palin in the waiting room...

For some further insight into Alaska Native Culture and Politics:


She has some great stuff about Todd's Native identity.

-gina in fairbanks

Windy City Woman said...

Gina, thanks for your insight into the issue of health services for Native Alaskans. And thanks for the reference to the alaskareal web site. There is lots more there of interest besides just Todd's heritage. This is not related to the issue of who-is-Trig's-mom, but very interesting nonetheless.

Northerner said...

That’s all. That’s it. That’s what I … and others like Andrew Sullivan… have been asking for for three plus months now. If that press conference had happened on September 1, I guarantee I’d be baking Christmas cookies for my family right now instead of writing to you.

But they didn’t do Option A. Not even close.

Maybe because they don't feel like they have to answer to every dumbass who makes an absurd allegation. I didn't notice Obama holding any press conferences about his birth certificate either.

Anonymous said...

Alaska Native, thanks for the info.

No one has doubted that Bristol would have been covered by insurance (Sarah's, maybe Todd's) for Trig's birth. Trig might not be covered as Sarah's grandchild until Sarah adopted him. He would be covered if born to Sarah.

Some have questioned whether a reason Bristol and Levi have not married yet is for Bristol to stay covered for her current pregnancy and imminent (12/18) childbirth. Levi has a job that probably has benefits, but her pregnancy would be a pre-existing condition. I don't know how Bristol's no longer being a student figures in.

At best, insurance or health care would have been just a factor in Palin's decision to make Trig hers, not her main motive.

The only suggestion I recall about the free lifetime care was for Trig, not Bristol. A person with DS may have many health problems throughout his or her life. Trig's biological mom may not have had insurance to cover him. While the Palins' adopting Trig should bring him under their insurance, Trig would need to be related to Todd for access to the backup (however undesirable) plan of free lifetime care. -B.

ravenstrick said...

Anonymous above says, "Trig would need to be related to Todd for access to the backup (however undesirable) plan of free lifetime care."

IF (and it is a big IF) Todd were even eligible. The point is: I don't think Todd is eligible, so I don't think his children are even close to being eligible. The question is: "Is Todd enrolled to a VILLAGE (tribe)?" It is a very different thing from being a shareholder in a profitmaking regional or village corporation.


"Is Todd an original land claims settlement act shareholder?" I don't think he has the blood quantum.

Let me tell you, if Trig were being seen by a Native health service physician (which would have to be the case, you don't get to use your private MD) we would all know about it. Alaska is a big state, but still a very small town; and the level of privacy at ANHS facilities is equivalent to the unemployment line or the DMV. Remember, they are public facilities.

Denali Kid Care, Alaska's CHIP program would cover Trig if his parents could not insure him. Interesting to note: Gov. Palin reduced funding to the program.

Also, Trig would only need to be a legal dependent to be covered under the state's employee insurance. That doesn't necessarily mean adopted.

What a wonderful world we would be living in if we had national health care, all the little children covered...sigh....

When all is said and done, I don't think insurance had anything to do with any decisions made by the Palin family. If there was deception, I think the motive can be found elsewhere.


Anonymous said...

My point about SP claiming to be Trigs mom is that like that, she can go around the adoption issue - she claimed to have been prenant with him, so she would not need to adopt him. He would automatically be covered by her insurance as 'her' kid. There might be extra issues involved if she would have adopted him, and she/they simply thought it would be far easier to claim to be his natural mother.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone not choose option A?
For the same reasons someone would drive herself to work instead of have security pick her up, or forgo a personal chef. "I just don't like to inconvenience anyone." -Sarah Palin (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blh_1wC7thg)

As far as option B. What would've happened had she not been forthright about her daughter's current condition? A cloud of speculation? And more questions about her honesty with the public?