The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: dutch508 on August 09, 2008, 07:23:11 PM
-
Edwards ex-mistress rules out paternity test
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080809/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_hunter
28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The ex-mistress of former presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the paternity of her daughter.
Rielle Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, says his client is a private individual who wishes to maintain the privacy of herself and her daughter.
In a statement, Gordon says that Hunter is ruling out any kind of testing that could establish who the daughter's father is.
"Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future," he said.
On Friday, Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair with Hunter in 2006 but denied that he was the father of Hunter's 5-month-old daughter. Edwards said he will take a paternity test to prove he is not the father.
The decision by Hunter means that the issue of who the father will remain an open question.
Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born on Feb. 27 this year, and no father's name is given on the birth certificate filed in California.
A former Edwards campaign staff member professes to be the father.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, confessed to ABC News that he had lied repeatedly about the affair with Hunter, then 42, who produced videos for Edwards as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign.
In an interview which aired on ABC's "Nightline" on Friday night, Edwards said he would be willing to take a paternity test to put the issue to rest but wasn't sure whether Hunter would be willing to.
"I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established," Edwards said.
The National Enquirer first reported on the affair in October 2007, in the run-up to the Democratic primaries, and Edwards denied it.
Last month, the Enquirer carried another story — the blaring headline referred to an Edwards "love child" — stating that its reporters had accosted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles where he had met with Hunter after her child's birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash."
In her statement Friday, Elizabeth Edwards said it wasn't easy to find out about the extramarital affair in 2006 but indicated she did not believe that her husband was the father of Hunter's daughter.
"This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well," she said. "Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private."
Edwards declared his presidential candidacy in December 2006. His wife campaigned enthusiastically with him and by herself in the months that followed. She announced in March 2007 that her cancer, formerly in remission, had returned and there apparently was no cure.
Edwards dropped out midway through this year's primaries. He recently endorsed Barack Obama and had been mentioned as a possible running mate. But as rumors spread of Edwards' possible affair it became clear that he would not likely speak at the Democratic National Convention later this month in Denver.
AHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!
-
So if it's not his child, then she was cheating on him while he was cheating on his wife with her. I don't buy his "I did not father that woman's child" line at all.
If that's not his kid, why was he in that hotel in the middle of the night? I thought this was "over"?
-
Edwards ex-mistress rules out pissing of her sugardaddy
fixt
-
Well then if she wants to do this then she had better hope and pray that someday her kid doesn't need some kind of bone marrow transplant or kidney or anything that requires John Edwards to be the donor. He's just big enough of a snake to say screw you.
-
Well then if she wants to do this then she had better hope and pray that someday her kid doesn't need some kind of bone marrow transplant or kidney or anything that requires John Edwards to be the donor. He's just big enough of a snake to say screw you.
You are looking at it wrong. This is coordinated deception. Edwards is off the hook now as far as proving anything. The woman won't cooperate....that's the story and he's sticking to it.
-
Edwards ex-mistress rules out pissing of her sugardaddy
fixt
Exactly, and you just went to 50 for that.
-
You are looking at it wrong. This is coordinated deception. Edwards is off the hook now as far as proving anything. The woman won't cooperate....that's the story and he's sticking to it.
indeed. They have played it exactly right to get this monkey off of Edward's back. It doesn't matter much though. His career is still toast.
-
a private individual who wishes to maintain the privacy of herself and her daughter
Yeah, the first part may be true, but when you went media whoring (not to metion becoming a homewrecker with a nationally-known political figure), any chance of maintaining your privacy pretty much got shot to shit. So unless "da baby daddy" is ponying up SERIOUS caysh to keep your little love child in sterling silver Pampers/private schools/MTV-style Sweet 16 parties, you might want to reconsider that DNA test. After all, as has been mentioned before, dude IS a lawyer and won't hesitate one second to throw you under/through/over/on the bus if he thinks he can legally get away with it.
-
I bet she's getting money via the other guy who claims to be the father of the baby. I bet the bank records between these three would be interesting reading. He's a lawyer. I'm sure he's set everything up.
-
"This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well," she said. "Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private."
So this woman whose spent her entire adult life being an attention whore suddenly wants privacy? Something smells here.
Cindie
-
So if it's not his child, then she was cheating on him while he was cheating on his wife with her. I don't buy his "I did not father that woman's child" line at all.
If that's not his kid, why was he in that hotel in the middle of the night? I thought this was "over"?
Yep. Married men with nothing to hide don't visit their mistress and her child at 2am in a hotel.
-
So if it's not his child, then she was cheating on him while he was cheating on his wife with her. I don't buy his "I did not father that woman's child" line at all.
If that's not his kid, why was he in that hotel in the middle of the night? I thought this was "over"?
Yep. Married men with nothing to hide don't visit their mistress and her child at 2am in a hotel.
Aren't you paying attention. He admitted to the affair but he didn't impale :-*
-
So if it's not his child, then she was cheating on him while he was cheating on his wife with her. I don't buy his "I did not father that woman's child" line at all.
If that's not his kid, why was he in that hotel in the middle of the night? I thought this was "over"?
Yep. Married men with nothing to hide don't visit their mistress and her child at 2am in a hotel.
Aren't you paying attention. He admitted to the affair but he didn't impale :-*
No, he said the affair was back in 2006. Why the heck would he still be in contact with her within the last month and seeing her in a hotel room at 2am?
-
I bet she's getting money via the other guy who claims to be the father of the baby. I bet the bank records between these three would be interesting reading. He's a lawyer. I'm sure he's set everything up.
She's supposedly in a $3 million house in CA.
Someone is paying her a whole bunch of money to not submit to a DNA test.
Kind of like one of those civil lawsuits where everyone involved signs a form to not publicly discuss/disclose any of the settlement terms.....it's still hush money....however much it "prettied" up in legal terms.
Whatever arrangement's been made.....Hunter won't be a fool and submit her daughter to a DNA test....and have the money stop. I'd venture a guess that she has everything she wants right now.
-
And the DUmpmonkeys have bent over backwards to accept this pack of lies. *eyeroll*