Posted on 08/09/2008 3:31:12 PM PDT by advance_copy
Seriously! Because it’s either his or the other guy. If it’s the other guy (who already said it was his if I’m not mistaken) then why not come out and say “I don’t need a test because I know so-and-so is the father”. So I have to conclude if she doesn’t publicly name the father it’s because Edwards is the father.
She knew since 2006?
And she stood behind him while he was Father of the Year, and beside him all the way, campaigning for him, FOR PRESIDENT, while thinking no one would find out about her husband.
SHE IS A SLIMEBALL TOO. And SICK, in many ways.
What a way to prepare yourself to meet your maker!!!! NO SHAME, like most Democrats.
Who wants to bet on how long it will take for pundits on Morning Joe to applaud how well Edwards has handled this little blip?
Her own sister reportedly is calling for Edwards to take the test. Surely the sister is not in doubt as to Edward's paternity. Her call for the DNA test must be to force Edwards to acknowledge the child is his and be a man about it.
I told my wife when the reporters caught Edwards in the hotel at 2 AM that someone close to Hunter had tipped them off. I even suggested it was a sister who knew the truth and was extremely pissed off at Edwards for sneaking around and lying. I didn't even know Hunter had a sister but my hunch may have been dead on.
A disgraced politician and ambulance chaser thinks money payoffs can take care of everything. Money doesn't cover a father taking responsibility for his child and giving it his love and his name.
This baby girl will continue to suffer for the cowardice of her father.
It's unreal that another man has apparently claimed paternity and agreed to take the heat for a lying coward. That's two men lying to cover one man's sin. It's wrong for the second man to lie on behalf of the true sinner.
Is everybody for sale?
Obviously, the DNC thinks the public is real stupid, or they wouldn't be putting up candidates for high office like Edwards and Obama. Neither of them are qualified, beyond being pretty, and telling people what they want to hear.
Can you believe this. Edward thinks that the public is more than just stupid.
It’s so apparent that this is the reason that he made the odd statement that he would be willing to do the DNA test, but that “of course he’s just one half of the test”
(remember that tomorrow morons, when my baby’s mama refuses the test).
How idiotically transparent. He really thinks he’s smarter than everyone.
Who remembers the earthly send off of another North Carolina former United states Senator a few days ago? The other Jessee. The one derided by the MSM for a couple of decades. Oh, yes. His name was Helms.
This is, of course, a qualifying event for Edwards. He is now in the private club of Democrats Qualified For Higher Office.
In this, he joins Kennedy, Clinton, Jesse, and a host of others.
If he were a Republican, character would matter and he’d never run again.
As a Democrat, he now has his “bona fides” that endear him to Democratic Liberals across the nation.
Wonder what that cost?
I may be mistaken, but I believe during Edwards' recent run for the presidency, Elizabeth took a swipe at Hillary for not being able to keep her own family in order (Bill's affairs). (I'm sure someone can research the exact quotes) If so, people in glass houses, Liz, ...
The question I have not heard is: why did she not have an abortion?
Silky Pony’s blood lines are too royal to abort!
Actually, I think he has a really stupid hairstyle. (on top of being femmy looking)
Seems to me the only person who would know that for sure is her.
I think the guy's wife is pretty sure - that's why she had Rielle over for dinner, to throw it in everyone's face that she doesn't believe her husband had anything to do with her.
Money can hush this for a while but there WILL come a time in the future that the child’s DNA will be gotten and compared to the already captured DNA of Edwards. Just a matter of time. When that time comes, Elizabeth will be dead, long forgotten and the story will be short lived as John Edwards will have been a past memory.
You said: “THE “HUNTER” NAILED EDWARDS!”
My sentiments exactly! (posted earlier: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2058933/posts?page=23#23)
Was Rielle Hunter a Clinton Trojan Horse?
1. The affair began in late 2006. At that time, who was HRC’s biggest potential roadblock to the WH? Wasn’t it John Edwards, the 2004 VP nominee who immediately took to the airways after Kerry’s loss to explain why John Edwards shouldn’t be blamed? IIRC, Obama didn’t enter the race until spring 2007 or later.
2. National Enquirer is owned by Clintonite Roger Altman. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clintonite_who_owns_National_Enquirer.html
3. The affair began with RH meeting JE at a bar. Would anyone be surprised if this meeting were much less “accidental” than it appeared to JE?
4. I have not worked through all the mechanics: someone with more time than I have might do so. Given what we know, is it implausible to believe that:
a) There was a plan developed in 2006 to ‘take out’ JE with a sex scandal since he was the most worrisome roadblock facing HRC’s run for the WH;
b) This plan included either front-end collaboration with NE on the nature/timing of coverage and perhaps even an agreement on compensation for RH’s participation OR the presumption by planners that once the situation had “ripened” sufficiently, NE could readily be counted upon to break the news in exchange for ample anticipated compensation to RH for her cooperation in setting JE up, providing “covert” photos etc.;
c) This plan required finding someone attractive enough to catch JE’s eye, brazen enough to propose/negotiate/secure a media contract despite having no prior experience, shameless enough to let her name get dragged through the mud under the guise of “cover stories” (Andrew Young is the father) designed to make it look to JE as if RH was doing everything in her power to trip up the media hounds even as she actually was supplying all the tips needed by NE to catch JE with his pants down (so to speak).
5. Was I alone in watch the Timeline interview and thinking that JE implied that he was being shaken down by RH, which is why he agreed to the meeting at Beverly Hilton? Perhaps he was fabricating a tall tale, but what if he wasn’t? What if he thought this all had been “taken care of” back in fall 2007, with RH and Andrew Young both providing media confirmations that AY, not JE, was the father of RH’s baby, all presumably in exchange for some understanding about the financial arrangements that would be made to both parties to permit their living very comfortably in NC and then CA?
6. For the time being, JE has created a hermetically sealed situation. He’s agreed to take a paternity test. However questionable his ethics might be, JE is a pretty smart lawyer.
a) Would he really put such an offer on the table without an ironclad assurance that it will never be put to the test?
b) Does anyone doubt that RH will now offer any of a number of reasons to refuse taking him up on the offer?
c) Absent cooperation, I assume the media is stymied and will let the matter drop (is there a legal eagle who knows whether a media source would be risking jailtime if they figure out a covert way of securing RH and JE DNA—say from a drinking cup—and performing a paternity test without either’s permission?).
d) Likewise, JE claims he knows nothing of payments to RH and his friend has corroborated this, stating this is a private matter and no more needs to be said about the matter (hint to media: don’t call for interviews).
7. If the foregoing is correct, RH is no dumb blonde.
a) We can assume she has been paid handsomely by NE for her cooperation, photos and willingness to play the “other woman” villainess in this drama;
b) But she also has managed to secure $15,000 monthly (and that’s only what we know about) from supporters of her patsy in this Greek tragedy (admittedly, we don’t know how long these are expected/intended/promised to last);
c) I have no idea what Monica got for her book, but in RH’s case, with a baby involved, I can imagine her garnering several multiples of Monica’s royalties;
c) Likewise, we can only speculate what promises she might have extracted from JE to ensure there is no paternity test. After all, 20-something Monica Lewinsky fantasized that WJC would dump HRC and marry her. 20-something RH seems a bit more “worldly-wise” than Monica, but such a fantasy on her part at least would be grounded in the reality that JE may well be a widower before President McCain ends his first term.
8. JE clearly thought with his d*** (if he thought at all). Once he was ensnared, what should he do? The least painful path for Elizabeth is to publicly:
a) admit a brief fling in the past;
b) announce it is over;
c) assert unequivocably you don’t love the other woman;
d) reaffirm your love for Elizabeth (and laud her strength of character in forgiving such a sinner); and
e) deny paternity.
f) Repeat a) through e) as frequently as needed so long as Elizabeth is alive and make whatever promises to RH you need to make these all stick.
9. Once Elizabeth is gone, the game changes entirely. At some point—allowing for a period of respectful mourning— JE can once again eat some crow to acknowledge:
a) the baby WAS his;
b) BUT it’s been well taken care of;
c) he loves RH after all and they plan to be married;
d) he regrets all the lies, but they all were NECESSARY for the sake of Elizabeth;
e) now he would like for his new constituted family to be together and live happily ever after, so could the media now just please leave him alone?
That would clear things up if she and Young are telling the truth. If they are lying, then don't do the test. If the test proved Young was the father then the money would stop as the affair is already admitted to. On the other hand if the "Breck" girl knows he is not the father he could stop the cash flow and force her to prove that he was the father and should support the child.
according to women, good looking. Not me.
“And the payments would likely be enormous....far more than $15K/month.”
Maybe. It depends on the child support laws of the state where the suit is filed.
I know that in Virginia, she wouldn't get very much at all.
I googled regarding the child support of Jack Kent Cooke that he was required to pay his ex-wife for their daughter. She had to fight to get less than $4,000 per month in child support. This is a guy who at the time was worth the better part of a billion bucks.
Apparently, in Virginia, child support takes a big bite out of the first $50,000 per year, and then 1% of everything above $50,000. To get to $180,000 per year, Mr. Edwards would need income in the range of $13,000,000 per year, if he were sued in a state with laws similar to those of Virginia.
Mr. Edwards is known to be very wealthy, with assets of well over $50,000,000. But those sorts of assets won't typically produce ordinary income, or interest and dividend income, of $13,000,000 per year.
I believe that the child was born in California, and that that's where the mother currently lives, so I imagine that she would sue for support in California courts.
I don't really know the rules for California, but I found an interesting tool on the web that purports to approximate child support payments in California.
If one assumes Form 1040 income of a million dollars per year, after all adjustments to AGI and after taxes (California apparently computes child support on net, after tax income) (and if Mr. Edwards is primarily living off investment income from his amassed fortune, it would be simple enough to keep his reported income to that little, even with his large fortune), then his responsibility would be approximately $11,000 per month.
On the other hand, if his gross is more like $2.5 million per year, and his net closer to, say, $1.5 million per year, then his payments would be about $16,000.
However, we need to take into account what it would take to rent a $3,000,000 house. A traditional way to determine rent has been to assume that rent would be 1% of the value of the home. That would be $30,000 per month in this case.
However, in many regions, folks just don't get 1% of value. Thus, fair market rent might only be $15,000 per month. Heck, maybe even a bit less (although I'd be shocked if it were a large amount under 0.5% of the home's value). I looked on realtor.com for rental properties. I only found one rather modest property - 1 acre, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2200 sq feet. - $5500 per month. In trying to compare with other similar houses on realtor.com, I'd take a WAG that the house is worth roughly a million to a million and a half. Might be more. Doubt it's much less.
Thus, Ms. Hunter is actually receiving benefits worth around $30,000 per month, give or take. This is assuming she is receiving no other benefits from her “benefactors,” such as use of an auto, health insurance, etc.
I would be very, very surprised if Mr. Edwards couldn't keep his Form 1040 from showing $2,500,000 or less in gross income, and wouldn't be at all surprised if his tax form shows a whole bunch less. Like less than half. Thus, it appears that she is being paid a significant premium for her refusal to submit her daughter to testing to determine paternity.
However, it's unlikely, as far as I can determine, that she would get a great deal more than what she's getting now.
As well, it's possible that she was running around with several men at the time of conception. SHE might not know who the father is, herself. In that case, it is in the interests of both Mr. Edwards AND Ms. Hunter not to conduct the paternity test, as proving paternity would be the last nail in the coffin for Mr. Edwards’ political career, and disproving it would be the end of Ms. Hunter's gravy train.
sitetest
Interestingly, in googling around, I also found this commentary on California state law:
“In creating the child support guideline, the California legislature understood that there may be situations when the mechanical application of the guideline would not be fair or reasonable. Family Code §4057(b) contains a list of factors which, if present, can justify a judge’s decision to award child support that is higher or lower than the amount generated by the guideline formula. Among those factors are the following:
“The parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children....”
Mr. Edwards would have good cause to ask the court to consider that he has extraordinarily high income. From the roughly ten or fifteen thousand that the formula might award, he might argue down to perhaps something under ten thousand.
The $15,000 plus rent on a $3 million house, plus any other benefits that are accruing to her might look good in comparison to the uncertainty of a child support process that likely won’t provide quite as much as the current arrangement, and potentially significantly less.
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.