1) Did the affair begin before Hunter began working with the campaign? If nothing was going on, why did Edwards pay a novice $114,000 to shoot a handful of videos for his campaign?
2) If Edwards' loyalist Andrew Young is really the father of Rielle Hunter's baby, why did his wife consent to having Hunter living under the same roof?
3) Can anyone seriously believe that John Edwards' supporter Fred Baron was paying off Rielle Hunter without his knowledge?
4) Did Elizabeth Edwards really know about the affair back in 2006 or is that just a cover story concocted after the fact? If she did know about the affair, why did she allow Rielle to remain on with the campaign after finding out Hunter had been copulating with her husband?
5) If John Edwards didn't love Rielle Hunter, the baby isn't his, and the affair has been over since 2006, what was he doing meeting in a hotel with her?
6) Why did Rielle Hunter decide not to take a paternity test when establishing who the "baby daddy" was could be worth an enormous sum in child support? Could it be because she was paid a considerable sum of money NOT to take a paternity test that would show he is the father? Furthermore, if John Edwards really believes the baby isn't his, why isn't he demanding a paternity test to put the matter to bed, once and for all?
PS: I do have a working theory about why Edwards came forward with an admission of the affair that opened up all these cans of worms. There's no way to know for sure whether it's right, but it would explain what happened:
ABC had the goods on Edwards and was going to do a damaging piece on the affair. ABC then came to Edwards and gave him an opportunity to do an exclusive interview rather than breaking the story.
Edwards took that opportunity, but felt compelled to lie about a number of things because Elizabeth may not have known the whole truth. So, he either had to go public with a story full of holes or admit to his wife that he was still cheating on her with the woman who'd had his love child.
|










1. They're so presumptuous as to decide on our behalf what is or is not important... this, from a media that will fixate with such "important" news as Britney Spears.
2. They're irresponsle enough not to disclose to their audience that Edwards was subject to blackmail: I mean, he was ALREADY shelling out $15,000 a month to Hunter to keep her quiet. How much - or what else? - would he give to, say, a Chinese operative to keep things hushed up if he became President?
3. They were doing their own beloved Oh!-Bama a disservice: what if Edwards had been chosen as his Vice Presidential candidate: what would that have done to the Mighty Oh!-Bama? Not that I would shed too many tears, but still...
4. If they had disclosed this info during the Iowa caucuses, who knows if Hillary wouldn't be the Democratic nominee right now...
5. They're sending out a message to politicians that it's OK to be irresponsible or per haps crooked, because (so long as they're politics agree with theirs) the MSM will cover for them. Are we quite sure that $15,000 a month wasn't being stolen from campaign contributers, that thought they were giving money for Edwards' political vision, instead of Edward's nookie?
All in all, shame, SHAME, Mainstream Media!
Posted by CoolCzech
2008-08-11 08:07:38
Posted by Sammy
2008-08-11 08:26:38
Posted by CoolCzech
2008-08-11 08:31:48
Some people just need to be told the facts of life. They think that gravity doesn't apply to them.
Posted by BobA
2008-08-11 08:37:26
CC hit it. There were 3 clowns in the running for Dem nominee. Edwards, as third, had he been out because of his inability to keep it in his pants would have changed the race and we may not be facing the messiah.
The other disgusting thing is the "truth" is so full of lies it is insulting.
Posted by OregonConservative
2008-08-11 10:39:09
August 11, 2008 8:31 AM
Blackmailed? That is a good question. I have another: if so blackmailed, were public funds used to pay for it?
Perhaps Edwards' campaign didn't make it to the public financing part of the primaries, but as the others have shown just because they're rich they don't pass on tax payer money. It would be curious to know all around.
--------------------------------------
I have to fall back to the speculative posts about the John Edwards affair earlier this year. Remember when it was just rumors, I guess back in January? John Hawkins posted an article or two about it. At the time many of us -- I as well -- believed it was someone 'kneecapping' Edwards: I won't name names, but the attacks were rather Clintonesque in appearance.
Since June, when Obama won the delegates, I've been hearing from folks with considerable Democratic pull here in Michigan that Edwards was going to be tapped again for the Veep. Operative theory was that Obama was going to adopt word-for-word positions from Edwards, and therefore he needed that 'cheerleader-like' Veep: one that gets things done via political pressure from the outside in through public response.
But then THIS happens two weeks ago, and just last week Hillary Clinton has to come out and say 'No, really, I really don't want the nomination, I swear, I'm not lying, I don't want to be Vice President either' after Obama tanked in the polls. Meanwhile Clinton employees are talking to Obama delegates and denying it at the same time.
(Cocks an eyebrow) Coincidences, maybe all, but....
Posted by Corperate_Cabana
2008-08-11 11:13:26
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 12:13:13
since she has not asked the court to assess child support against The Breck Girl, he has no legal basis to demand a paternity determination. it also holds true because she is not out there pounding the airwaves with claims that he is the baby daddy to the detriment of his reputation.
i think he is on thin ice. the Ho is bought for now. but when Mrs. Breck Girl loses her cancer battle, and The Breck Girl won't marry the Ho, then the ice will crack. she'll sell her story or file for child support.
the other bit to remember is that the National Enquirer will never forget this story. i wonder how long it will take to obtain a DNA sample from a public place. i wonder if a single shaft of hair from each party would be enough.
Posted by clyde_m
2008-08-11 12:18:27
August 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply
My thoughts exactly...who cares.
Posted by whats_up
2008-08-11 13:26:46
Posted by Corperate_Cabana
August 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply
There are so many angles to this story...
http://tinyurl.com/5zs7vd
Posted by seas_of_cheese
2008-08-11 13:32:39
Posted by smelvertising
2008-08-11 13:33:43
Amazing how this is always the attitude what a Leftist is in the crosshairs.
But then again, you'd rather talk about Cindy McCain's cookie receipe, wouldn't you.
Posted by StanW
2008-08-11 14:32:30
Posted by whats_up August 11, 2008 1:26 PM
Amazing how this is always the attitude what a Leftist is in the crosshairs.
But then again, you'd rather talk about Cindy McCain's cookie receipe, wouldn't you."
No...Where Cindy McCain is concerned there is a more important issue: how she and her husband should handle their assets in the event McCain is elected.
There's also another more important issue that leftists are concerned with: The mounting evidence that the Bush Administration purposefully misled the American people by forging a letter to make it look like their pre war claims against Saddam were true.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 15:17:34
What will be of particular interest in the long run is how the Silky Pony, who has only his new-found infamy left to feed his massive need for attention, is going to cope. Will he turn into another Jimmy Swaggart-type figure? Is he so hooked on his ego and dealing with such a gigantic need for attention that he will engage in progressively more destructive behaviour?
Posted by martinhale
2008-08-11 15:45:08
Posted by TheMaster
August 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply
Look TheMaster-bator is back and trolling, with more off topic BS. Congrats, you've just effectively been relgated to turd of the week.
Posted by bthewolf
2008-08-11 16:00:08
Posted by TheMaster
August 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply
The ones where they said he supported terrorists? That was true. Violated the cease fire from Gulf War I? That was true. Was looking to buy more uranium in Africa? True, and Joe Wilson tried to cover it up to make embarrass the Administration.
Thanks for playing, MasterBater.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2008-08-11 16:15:05
ABC had the goods on Edwards and was going to do a damaging piece on the affair. ABC then came to Edwards and gave him an opportunity to do an exclusive interview rather than breaking the story.
Edwards took that opportunity, but felt compelled to lie about a number of things because Elizabeth may not have known the whole truth. So, he either had to go public with a story full of holes or admit to his wife that he was still cheating on her with the woman who'd had his love child.
John Hawkins
Back to the subject at hand.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2008-08-11 16:16:32
And what left field did you pull this one out of?
Posted by StanW
2008-08-11 16:18:15
Thanks for playing, MasterBater.
Posted by Dick_Nixon "
No, I'm talking about the forged document that Ron Suskind has documented and even has recordings of high of CIA officials corroborating.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 16:28:01
Posted by TheMaster August 11, 2008 3:17 PM
And what left field did you pull this one out of?
Posted by StanW"
Take your pick:
http://www.google.com/search?q...ial&client=firefox-a
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 16:30:21
Ah yes, the BDS infected one.
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2008-08-11 16:34:28
Save your threadjacking for another time, then your lies can be slapped down.
If you have nothing to say about Edwards, then say nothing at all.
Posted by StanW
2008-08-11 16:37:45
Posted by TheMaster
August 11, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply
Still stuck on this BS, troll??!! The topic of this thread is John Edwards, If you cannot post on topic, STFU.
Posted by bthewolf
2008-08-11 16:52:50
If you have nothing to say about Edwards, then say nothing at all.
Posted by StanW "
You did ask, after all, Stan. Ask and you shall receive (didn't like what you found, did you!)
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 17:02:37
Ah yes, the BDS infected one.
Posted by Dick_Nixon"
Actually it's the RIC infected on.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 17:04:04
Posted by TheMaster
August 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply
Ever hear of a RHETORICAL question, master-batur? Again if you can't post on topic STFU.
So is Edwards a sleeze, NO DOUBT.
Posted by bthewolf
2008-08-11 17:11:44
Mine was a rhetorical question, and I didn't look.
Post on topic and save your Dan rather imitation for another time.
Posted by StanW
2008-08-11 17:19:25
He's your source? Heh heh heh...
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2008-08-11 18:53:47
He's your source? Heh heh heh...
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
No, the source is two very high up CIA officials who talked on the record and had their conversations recorded.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 18:57:54
Post on topic and save your Dan rather imitation for another time.
Posted by StanW"
God forbid you educate yourself...Doing that would require you to reevaluate your biases.
Can't have that.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-11 18:59:34
Since you are incapable of staying on topic, then continue to argue with static. I have no desire to enable your threadjacking further.
Posted by StanW
2008-08-11 19:06:19
According to Suskind, who reported it. He had a "pentagon source" who gave him an official map too. Oops.
Again, spies. Think about it a while.
Posted by Christopher_Taylor
2008-08-11 23:25:38
According to Suskind, who reported it. He had a "pentagon source" who gave him an official map too. Oops.
Again, spies. Think about it a while."
Thought about it.
The spies in question spoke with suskind on tape. When the book came out they denied having said it. When suskind reminded them he had tapes of them, they threatened to sue.
At this juncture the issue isn't whether or not the administration committed fraud on the American people. It's how they developed the hubris to think they could get away with it. But don't worry, there will be no impeachment. Bush is lucky we found out about it this late in the process.
Posted by TheMaster
2008-08-12 00:50:44