Good point. My supposition is that either Trig or Tripp
was not born to a Palin, which pretty much takes care of the math
problem. There is another active rumor in Alaska to the effect that
Todd Palin had an affair and fathered a child. Might that child be
either Trig or Tripp?
While concocting a birth
hoax is rather more dramatic than endlessly polishing your narcissism,
you are making a provocative connection here. (Or, as the case may be, I
am making it for you.)
Palin's "blood libel" outburst after the
Tuscon rampage was entirely unnecessary and caused her grievous
political harm among an already shrunken core of supporters, but she
obviously felt aggrieved because the Giffords bulls eye graphic at her
website exposed her to criticism -- justified or not -- and could not
leave well enough alone.
She also has repeatedly raged against
people who would violate her family's privacy while repeatedly using her
husband and children as stage props, most dramatically in her
short-lived reality TV show, which was another miscalculation because it
further revealed her to be a phony.
This seems a little more than spur of the moment shoot your mouth off, though.
that I'm not taking a position one way or the other on whether she did
it, just wondering, if she did it--she's certainly capable of something
so irrational and pointless--what the heck she hoped to prove.
Thank you for responding, Mr. Mullen. First of all, I think your essay
is one of the best summaries of Babygate that I have come across, and I
have read a lot of them! You covered the subject brilliantly. You will
note that you have probably never heard of my book before now. That is
because most of the Babygate bloggers suppressed it as much as possible.
are two key differences between the other Babygate bloggers and me. I
am quite possibly the only lifetime Democrat in the bunch and I have
lived in the South and observed the effects of The Southern Strategy for
decades. My book is about national economics and political history as
much as it is about Babygate. I had been working on the project years
before Sarah Palin entered the national consciousness. The basic intent
of the book, as far as Palin goes, was to dare her to either come after
me to force a denial of the story or to have the established media pick
up the story. Neither of these things occurred, however, one contact I
had, apparently a person close to the Palin inner circle, claimed that
Palin was fully aware of the book and thankful that few were paying any
attention to me.
The most shocking part of the story to me has
been the research I have done after the book was released. I have
accumulated countless pages of data on the leaders of the Babygate
movement. What I have discovered is truly appalling. I have been keeping
this material in case I want to publish it at some later date. I am not
the only one aware of this material. There are a number of others, but
they all deny any direct knowledge of it. The last word I have published
concerning my most likely Babygate theory is here:
you for your interest, Mr. Mullen! Any further communication should
probably be continued through my direct e-mail, ice9 at nctv.com. Thank
Hi Shaun, many thanks for writing this post. It takes courage to write
about this subject, as this is considered to be "birther" territory. In
the end, you, Andrew Sullivan, Brad Scharlott and the others will be
proven right, because Sarah Palin's "big secret" cannot be hidden
This is an excellent summary. However, I personally
don't agree with the claim that a "stand-in-baby" was used at the
beginning, I don't think that this was the case.
commentator above who asked how the baby could have been Bristol's, as
she also gave birth to Tripp in December 2008: The answer is rather
simple, yet "hard to believe." Trig was not born on April 18, 2008, but
much earlier. When exactly, has never been conclusively established, but
December 2007/January 2008 would be the best guess. From February 2008
onwards, Bristol appeared in public again.
There would be many
more things to say to this. "Babygate" is a highly complex issue, and
the complexity has helped the Palins to conceal the truth. However, it
was the unwillingness of the mainstream media to take this issue
seriously in the first place which prevented an exposure of this scandal
- with the media believing that it could backfire on the Democrats (or
For further reading, our most important posts about "Babygate" can be found at the right sidebar of our blog:
(Collection of posts about "Babygate", Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy with Trig)
Like you, I remain interested in the hoax, but not because of Palin. I
am interested because this hoax was surely known to McCain, Schmidt, and
other top GOP folks. Those who did not know before the election surely
knew after it, if they could read and chose to understand what happened.
What happened is a hoax meant to sway an election, taking
advantage of a disabled child to do so, and a cover-up that persists to
this day, abetted by the mainstream media. Scharlott quotes the late
Christopher Hitchens as saying that the hoax and its sordid details was
common knowledge to him and his top-tier journalist pals. Which implies
that it must be the true decision-makers of our national media that
have chosen to leave this hoax unreported.
Why? Because to
report it would mean that lots of VIPs would have really unpleasant
explaining to do. And it would reflect so badly on the GOP's "family
values" that the hoax was supposed to symbolize, that it was all based
on a lie. As we know it is anyway.
So, this remains a very
important issue in terms of freedom of the press to report chicanery,
even at the top levels of our wanna-be leaders.
(By the way, the
"hasty return" from the talk in Texas, with the alleged amniotic fluid
leak, was hasty only per Palin's own account. There is no other
supporting evidence that calls were made, plane tickets were changed, or
any haste whatsoever demonstrated. Ditto re the alleged phone calls
with the MD in Alaska, who has corroborated nothing: we know about
these phone calls only from Sarah Palin, a well-documented and chronic
Good for you to keep raising this issue. It is waaaaaay
more important than Sarah Palin. I believe the photos prove she was not
pregnant: there are too many photos that show her flat profile too
close to the "birth" and immediately following or preceding other photos
that show her with a watermelon-sized belly. You can put on a fake
"empathy belly" at will, but you can't take off a real pregnancy and
then have it intact a day later. I believe the proof is in the photos.
Until more people decide to talk. Tick tock.
I have followed this hoax from the beginning and I'm very happy that you
have done this terrific recap of it. Perhaps my comments will help you
pursue it further.
-- Although the question of Trig's
bio-parentage is interesting, as is Bristol's role, it is very easy to
go far afield with various conjectures. Trig's bioparentage is
irrelevant to the fact that PALIN WAS NOT PREGNANT WITH TRIG. That is
the key fact re the hoax. All else is interesting red herrings in terms
of unmasking the hoax, including the multiple babies issue. Her tubal
ligation after Piper and before Trig, even, is not as relevant as the
simple question: was she pregnant or not pregnant?
-- I was one
of those who pressed McGinniss on his blog to come off the fence re his
"trignosticism," and he made it clear at one point that he was sure
there was a hoax but if he said so his book would be marginalized as
being written by a crazy person. As it turns out, his book had enough
well-documented negative info about Palin to be marginalized anyway.
There is a rumor that there was a comprehensive story about the hoax
ready to go to press at the ADN just before the election, but it was
pulled by management at the last minute. If true, there is surely a
copy of it around somewhere. More interesting than its contents are the
lines of force that kept it from being published.
-- The "Gusty
photos" (showing Palin in watermelon-sized-belly mode) appeared on the
web only in August. Could they have been taken then (in Aug 2008)
rather than before Trig's birth? a video appeared after the election
saying no, the Gusty photos were taken when the legislature finished the
budget on a "Live at 5" broadcast. However, the alleged 5 o'clock
taping shows a dark glass panel in the door behind Palin, her styling is
more like that done by the RNC than her own efforts (hair combed, down,
no scarf, giant belly, thinner face). The video serving as "proof" of
the date of the photos has multiple splices in it and should be
-- The medical letter has so many more
oddities than you list, notably the MD's signature in two colors of ink,
suggesting sloppy Photoshopping.
With your near-Pulitzer
background, I wish you would go for it: solve this hoax and win the
prize. But even more important, bring the real facts of the 2008
election to the fore.
The claim that the
"Gusty-pictures" which were taken on April 13, 2008 could be
photoshopped was intensively investigated by the "Trig Truthers" in
2008/2009 and proved to be a dead end. No real evidence could be found
that these photos were manipulated, and Andrea Gusty herself published a
is true however that these pictures were published on flickr on August
31, 2008 in an obvious attempt to silence the "fake pregnancy rumours" -
and this attempt was successful, as these photos were immediately used
to discredit the "doubters." This is the real significance of these
photos, I wrote a recap of this issue for example here:
pictures were even used by a website like "factcheck.org" (as well as
Huffington Post) as absolute proof that the pregnancy was not faked.
That fact that somebody who fakes a pregnancy needs to look pregnant at
some point (in order to be convincing) was simply ignored.
Crucially however, just 18 days before, on March 26, 2008, Sarah Palin's belly was flat.
April 13, 2008, Sarah Palin wore in fact a pregnancy belly, but this
"claim" seems to be so unbelievable and outrageous (from the perspective
of a "sane person") that it is virtually impossible to believe. It's
the "big lie" that Sarah Palin got away with: We ourselves would never
do anything like that - and this is why Sarah Palin got away with it, in
combination with the well-documented reluctance in the media to touch
(see the leaked journolist-emails: http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/04/justin-elliotts-definitive-debunker-of.html )
...due to the fear of a political backlash against the "accusers."
So here we are now, five years later, the truth is still in plain sight, and yet, nobody can openly talk about it.
When I had an email exchange with a well know liberal journalist in
April 2013, this person told me that "everyone" that this person knows
is well aware that Palin faked her pregnancy. Apart from Sarah Palin
being a fraud, the other scandal is the fact that the media rejected to
expose her, despite the fact that they know the truth.
thanks again, Shaun, it is so rare that anyone dares to touch this
issue (apart from Andrew Sullivan). Any journalist seriously
investigating the topic would quickly find out that there is no doubt
that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy. I myself for example talked to
several Republican politicians in Alaska on the phone in 2009 (for
example Lyda Green and Randy Ruedrich), and they are all well aware that
Sarah Palin's pregancy wasn't "real." Lyda Green for example herself
saw Sarah Palin when she made the pregnancy announcement on March 5,
2008, and saw her again later, and Lyda said to me that Palin did not
look pregnant at all (however, she also made it clear that she doesn't
know the "truth" about the pregnancy).
I am just feeling bad
about the fact that for example Andrew Sullivan's reputation has been
damaged due to his courage on this topic, and Joe McGinniss had to
suffer as well, and it really is about time to finally reveal the truth.
Thank you for the additional information and perspective.
do take mild exception to one thing you wrote: Not only do I not
believe that Andrew's reputation was damaged in the long run, when and
if the smoking gun is found or someone credible with ties to the Palin
family confirms the false pregnancy, it will be noted that people like
Andrew -- and you and I and a small handful of others -- refused to let
the story die.
Hi Shaun, yes, my remark regarding Andrew Sullivan was not properly
worded. What I meant was that at this moment in time, Andrew has to live
with the fact that quite a number of people feel free to label him a
"conspiracy theorist", and this is one of the milder terms. Right now, I
am pretty sure that Andrew feels that this is a very unpleasant
Joe McGinniss, who wrote about the pregnancy hoax in
his book "The Rogue" and there made it absolutely clear that he had not
much faith in Sarah Palin's reassurances that nothing was wrong with her
pregnancy, was in a similar situation. It's very tragic that he has
already passed away.
Yes, in the end, the handful of people who
didn't let the story die will be the winners. I just hope that it won't
take decades for the truth to be revealed to the public.
One, Palin's return flight home was not "hastily
changed" after the "contractions" started. Palin took her ORIGINAL
flight, the details of which are public record. There was no last minute
changes made by Todd as Palin wrote in her book; they never intended to
stay for the black tie ball that night in Texas. Why? Because one
cannot camouflage a non-pregnant silhouette in a formal ball gown. They
flew home on the originally booked flights.
Catherine Baldwin Johnson DID indeed utter a lone but pivotal statement
regarding Trig's maternity- after being met with multiple "no comment"
answers in regard to Palin's pregnancy, a frustrated editor in chief of
the anchorage daily news exasperatedly demanded "can you please just
confirm the child we know as Trig Palin was born to governor Sarah Palin
on April 18 of 2008?"
And with her lawyer present, Baldwin Johnson stated "I cannot confirm that".
Not "I refuse to speak about the issue". Not "I won't confirm that".
"I CANNOT confirm that".
I take this to mean she literally was not able to confirm the details.
is a simple reason for her inability to confirm Palin's narrative-
Baldwin Johnson was not at Mat Su Regional Medical Center on 4/18/08.
She was not even in the same town. She was at another hospital, her
presence logged in with her key card.
The "I cannot confirm" was, at some point, on the
anchorage daily news site, linking to a video of CBJ looking nervous and
resentful, with her attorney hovering about six feet behind her. I'm
sorry I don't have the time to run it down today but I'll go digging for
As for the other issue...no, I cannot provide the
details you would like. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out why.
I truly want nothing more than to shout it from the rooftops- CBJ
wasn't at mat su; I know this because she was working a shift WITH ME!
I'm perilously close to HIPAA grey areas...and in this economy, I need
to keep my very good job which provides the sole support for my family
and the benefits which care for my disabled child. (Whom I actually did
give birth to without benefit of pre-labor air travel.)
keep hoping if I leave the bread crumbs, someone with less to lose than
myself with follow them to the door and kick it down.
there is another poster on IM who also is saying CBJ wasn't there. I'm
hoping the two of us are but the beginning in a line of swiftly falling
dominoes, the last one of which will be Palin herself, tipping over into
I want to comment further
on the issue of how such hoax could possibly go forward, without someone
going public to denounce it as a lie.
A good comparison to make,
is the case of fake memoirs. Several high profile memoirs have been
found to be fakes, which flourished in the public eye for some years,
despite the fact that many people knew of the true identity of the
authors. Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments, a supposed Holocaust memoir
which received several prestige awards, is one example. Mischa
Defonseca, Survival with Wolves, which flourished for years despite the
doubts of a small minority, is also worth considering.
doubt upon a personal story seems cranky and illmannered. People like
Wilkomirski and Sarah Palin know how to take advantage of this, and
portray themselves as brave and truthful. They are anything but.
Also, since people reference certain times of the year, please recall
the now public emails from Dec 30th 2007 where Sarah tells close
staffers that her family will be at their cabin enjoying her oldest
son's last few days in Alaska. That and the whole family was in Juneau
in mid December 2007. You'd think that if they were trying to hide a
pregnancy, the person in question wouldn't be SO public. AND in school.
so the claim is that the first baby was born to sarah April 18, and the
second baby was born to bristol December 28. bristol could have had the
first baby on April 18th (or a few days earlier) after hiding a
pregnancy from her family and thinking she wasn't as far along as she
really was (explaining why sarah would have claimed to not be as far
along). she could have gotten pregnant again immediately after
(seriously, i know people with kids that are 9-10 months apart) and then
either induced labor early to keep up the charade, just gone into labor
early, or pretended that the baby was born slightly earlier than it
was. if she got pregnant right away, the baby would have been due in
Jan so late december wouldn't be ridiculously early. it seems much more
likely that the first baby was the product of her husband having an
affair and that his birth mom didn't want to keep him once she found out
he had downs, though. to me, it seems very unlikely that sarah was
pregnant based partially on photos but primarily on her behavior leading
up to his birth.