John Edwards Admits Extramarital Affair

John Edwards made his millions being one of the best liars. He went from lawyer to politican. I think that goes without saying.
 
boloboffin said:
The affair happened when Elizabeth was in remission. I'm not excusing him at all, but there's no need to make up stuff about something bad enough on its own.

I continue to be mad that John didn't get a paternity test done to issue when he did all of this. Now the tabloids will drag this out until he does, guaranteeing him minutes in the news coverage off and on during an election year. Another example of the ego at the core of all of this. Much disappointment, and my heart goes out to Elizabeth and the family.
Click to expand...

He claims the affair happened when she was in remission. He had the affair, he lied about it, he went for a 2 am visit with her a year later.... exactly what makes you think he's telling the truth about the timing of the affair? Does he seem like a trust worthy guy?
 
RandFan said:
I guess political leaders are human. Who woulda thunk it?

While I question the prudence of someone like Edwards to make such a dumb mistake given the American opinion (the French don't give a Damn)
Click to expand...

They also don't give a damn about deodorant. I'm not sure I agree with their view on either issue.
 
Edward must be a good friend of Mr. Bill's. Sheesh. No Veep for John.
 
novice skeptic said:
He claims the affair happened when she was in remission. He had the affair, he lied about it, he went for a 2 am visit with her a year later.... exactly what makes you think he's telling the truth about the timing of the affair? Does he seem like a trust worthy guy?
Click to expand...

Because I don't have any actual evidence that he's not telling the truth about the timing of the affair. Impeach the integrity of the witness all you wish. Until you present evidence that he's lying about that too, all you've got is prejudiced speculation.
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
Because I don't have any actual evidence that he's not telling the truth about the timing of the affair. Impeach the integrity of the witness all you wish. Until you present evidence that he's lying about that too, all you've got is prejudiced speculation.
Click to expand...

As opposed to your prejudiced speculation? I am not saying whether the affair happened before, during, or after her cancer relapse. You are definitively stating that it was during the remission. YOU are making an affirmative claim. It is up to you to provide evidence to substantiate that claim. So please post your evidence and we can evaluate it. I have no problem looking at any evidence fairly and subjectively.

However, the only evidence you've thus given is the word of an admitted liar. Personally I don't find that all that credible.
 
boloboffin said:
Because I don't have any actual evidence that he's not telling the truth about the timing of the affair. Impeach the integrity of the witness all you wish. Until you present evidence that he's lying about that too, all you've got is prejudiced speculation.
Click to expand...
Ok, it was just reported that the lady is refusing a paternity test. That conveniently lets John off the hook since he was noble enough to agree to one. I have to question why. John could legally demand a paternity test to salvage his reputation or if he is shown to be the father do right by the child. This tag team between the 2 is just chum in the water for the press.
 
Texas said:
Ok, it was just reported that the lady is refusing a paternity test. That conveniently lets John off the hook since he was noble enough to agree to one. I have to question why. John could legally demand a paternity test to salvage his reputation or if he is shown to be the father do right by the child. This tag team between the 2 is just chum in the water for the press.
Click to expand...
I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Texas about this.
 
What's her game? That's fishy.

Now that the MSM taboo on this story is broken, columnists are commenting. This column called 'Ken Doll in Lust' is from Gail Collins at NYT:

For a man bent on clearing things up, Edwards seemed strangely incurious during his interview on “Nightline” on ABC. He had no idea why his national finance chairman has been funneling payments to his ex-mistress, and he was apparently never tempted to pick up the phone to ask. His 2 a.m. visit with the woman, Rielle Hunter, at a Beverly Hills hotel last month was a secret mission to keep her from going public about their liaison, the briefness and meaninglessness of which cannot be stressed too often. And he has no idea what baby that was in The National Enquirer picture.

Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York in 2006, and paid her $114,000 to follow him around, documenting his every move for campaign videos. (In a TV interview back in happier times, Hunter called the experience “life-altering.”) Said videos were posted, then mysteriously disappeared from the Edwards Web site, with officials muttering something about campaign finance rules. They exist today on YouTube, where you can see the candidate sitting on his plane, grinning like a hound dog in heat, while he tells Hunter that he doesn’t want to be “some plastic Ken doll that you put in front of the audience,” and pokes himself in the chest while announcing, “I actually want the country to see who I am — who I truly am.”

When The National Enquirer ran a story that Hunter was pregnant and named Edwards as the father, he denied that there had been any relationship. One of his campaign workers stepped up and took responsibility for the baby. But when the little girl was born, Hunter did not list any father on the birth certificate.
Click to expand...

Edwards gets no credit from me for offering to take a paternity test if Hunter won't cooperate. I think she's getting hush money from Edwards (if someone who works for Edwards is giving it to her, that's the same thing).
 
The Huffington Post (yes, the Huffington Post) is all over the story:

WOODRUFF: So you hired her before it even started?

EDWARDS: That is correct.

A review of political action committee payments, contemporaneous reporting, and emails obtained by the Huffington Post reveal this statement to be false.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Hunter had no experience in film-making before being hired by Edwards to document his campaign. At campaign expense. As far as I know, even Elliot Spitzer didn't have the nerve to charge his gals to his campaign (although there are claims he charged the hotel rooms).

However, I think this thread belongs in politics. It's not 2008 campaign related.
 
Puppycow said:
What's her game? That's fishy.

Now that the MSM taboo on this story is broken, columnists are commenting. This column called 'Ken Doll in Lust' is from Gail Collins at NYT:



Edwards gets no credit from me for offering to take a paternity test if Hunter won't cooperate. I think she's getting hush money from Edwards (if someone who works for Edwards is giving it to her, that's the same thing).
Click to expand...
This sounds harsh but I think she is convinced that when Elizabeth dies she will become the new Mrs. Edwards. I am generally an SOB but I really feel for his wife.
 
Brainster said:
The Huffington Post (yes, the Huffington Post) is all over the story:



Not to mention that Hunter had no experience in film-making before being hired by Edwards to document his campaign. At campaign expense. As far as I know, even Elliot Spitzer didn't have the nerve to charge his gals to his campaign (although there are claims he charged the hotel rooms).

However, I think this thread belongs in politics. It's not 2008 campaign related.
Click to expand...

So people who contributed to the Edwards campaign were paying for his mistress as well. That's a lot of money for anyone, but for an inexperienced filmmaker, no way.

I thought it went in this forum because Edwards was a candidate for president in 2008. He was also presumably under consideration for veep or AG or something.
 
Brainster said:
However, I think this thread belongs in politics. It's not 2008 campaign related.
Click to expand...
Except for the eerily reminiscent way it mirrors the sleazy way that McCain replaced his first wife with an willowy heiress (with a bank account large enough to run up (and I assume pay off) 225k credit card bills). Other then that, it has nothing to do with the 2008 campaign.

Daredelvis
 
Puppycow said:
So people who contributed to the Edwards campaign were paying for his mistress as well. That's a lot of money for anyone, but for an inexperienced filmmaker, no way.

I thought it went in this forum because Edwards was a candidate for president in 2008. He was also presumably under consideration for veep or AG or something.
Click to expand...

--Criticism of moderators snipped.--
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom