Posted on 08/09/2008 7:42:59 AM PDT by notes2005
The family of John Edwards' former mistress, Rielle Hunter, is challenging the former senator to take a DNA paternity test after his claim that he did not father Hunter's six-month old child.
In the first reaction from Hunter's family, her younger sister Melissa told ABC News that Edwards should immediately follow through on his pledge to take a paternity test.
"I would challenge him to do so," the sister said. "Somebody must stand up and defend my sister," she said. "I wish that those involved would refrain from bad-mouthing my sister."
In his interview with ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff acknowledging the affair, Edwards said he knew the child was not his because of "the timing" of the pregnancy and the affair.
"I would welcome participating in a paternity test," Edwards said. "I'm only one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one."
Hunter left her Santa Barbara home earlier this week in advance of Edwards' ABC News interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
*snert*
I'd expect that the civil legal process can only be started when an injured party (Ms. Hunter) files a claim for damages (lack of child support). At $15k per month, she'll undoubtedly be more than happy to keep her mouth shut.
This would probably be true unless she was assured (by a lawyer in a position to know) that she'd be awarded more than that by a California court.And for that matter...without a court order what's to stop Mr Two Americas from stopping the checks in a year or two...after this thing has blown over.And then there's the question of health insurance...educational expenses,etc.
Given his (many) millions I'd wager that she'd be wiser to go to court (assuming that he's the daddy) rather than depend on a promise of 15K/month from him.
No,...I am not going to say it.
Sure he will...the same day Sandy Burher takes his polygraph test.
Edwards is a deadbeat dad, throw him in pokey.
I agree. And the saddest part of the whole story is that one day that baby will grow up to find out that dad denied her to the whole world. That's just awful.
All condoms? I wonder about that.
Really good summary and analysis. It does seem like there would be additional women.
Maybe she’s against it. There is no way to know now. We just have the words of one liar/lawyer (Edwards). Even if he tells “the truth,” it can be deceitful.
“Maw,Maw,where’s my paw?
Gone to Denver,haw,haw,haw!”
Post of the day on this thread.
The mainstream press is actively trying to kill the bambino story. LA Times editor Tony Pierce shot off this email to the blogging staff:
“Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
f you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Keep rockin,
Tony”
Tony sure sounds like one heck of a hip dude.”
I posted a link and quote, moments ago. I should have been more thoughtful. Please pull the post, sorry.
I have no doubt sure that Edwards is NOT the father of the baby. He would never have proclaimed that he is willing to take a DNA test unless he had ALREADY taken a DNA test.
That was probably the reason for the visit to his girlfriend and the baby at the hotel room last month. One quick swab of the baby’s cheek with a Q-Tip is all it would take for a DNA test.
Edwards probably insisted on taking the sample himself so he would know for sure that it was the baby’s and so that he could have one of his flunkies send it and his own DNA off to a lab without anyone else ever knowing it was his.
The public DNA tests will now come out negative and the MSM will happily accept Edwards’ claim that he had ended his affair sometime before his wife’s cancer came out of remission. The truth is that he probably continued the affair until the Enquirer first outed him last fall.
Previous post is of negligible value. Maybe true, but lacks value. Please pull it down? I’m sorry. I have yardwork to do.
Webisode#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDjxDL00mvg
#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECWwDSRF1_4
Webisode #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnr2IGCFoOU
#4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCFv0yuD_2M
Thanks, Kabar! Only to certain Boston Globe journalists, NOT to the public? Sheesh. What a man!
Yep, that is how the wascally Dems operate. You must parse everything they say or promise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
