Posted on 08/10/2008 12:13:24 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
When I next saw Rielle weeks later, she told me that she'd been fired by the Edwards campaign. She seemed perfectly cheerful about it, but she proceeded to tell me a tale of woe—how the campaign hadn't understood her, how they'd ruined the Webisodes, how they'd impeded her vision and how Edwards himself had failed to defend her. The chief villain in this saga was Elizabeth Edwards. "Someday," Rielle said, "the truth about her is going to come out."
[snip]
But I didn't. I stayed in touch with Rielle for months. At lunch at the Soho House in late spring of '07, Rielle told me that she and novelist Jay McInerney were working on a "genius" idea for a television show about women who help men get out of failing marriages by having affairs with them. She said they wanted to pitch this idea to Darren Star, creator of "Melrose Place" and "Sex and the City." At lunch early that summer, I asked Rielle if she was dating anyone. She answered simply, "I'm in love." I asked, "Who with?" "I can't tell you," she said, "but maybe someday we'll all be friends."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Boy, she better get herself some bodyguards, before she gets Chandra Levy'd.
At this point, I don’t see Elizabeth as anything other than a mother trying to protect her children by acting as if she stands by their father. As for the other woman, what a ditz, which makes Edwards look positively brain dead.
And, Edwards bought into this BS?! SCARY!
Her latest project was John Edwards. Edwards, she said, was an old soul who had barely tapped into any of his potential. The real John Edwards, she believed, was a brilliant, generous, giving man who was driven by competing impulses—to feed his ego and serve the world. If he could only tap into his heart more, and use his head less, he had the power to be a "transformational leader" on par with Gandhi and Martin Luther King. "He has the power to change the world," she said.
Yep. She kept up the charade right along with him. Not that regular people aren’t guilty of adultery, but she knew him for the swindler he is and was just happy with the chance to be First Lady.
But she knew about this 2 years ago! She obviously did stand by their father. Again and again and was perfectly willing to let him run for President again, knowing what she did about him.
There is something fishy about this loose woman suddenly wanting “privacy” and rejecting a DNA test to establish paternity of the baby.
Either part of her pay-off was that she would never “out” Edwards, or she had multiple partners and passed off the child as his so he would pay hush money. Either way, she would have to get off the gravy train.
There is poetic justice that this ambulance chaser is being ripped off by someone just a sleazy as he is.
“The Rielle World”
If this were Wayne’s World, drucker the umm well clucker..would be a psycho hose beast.
How comforting it must be to Edwards' wife and children to hear that he didn't love his girlfriend, but merely betrayed his family's trust for meaningless bimbo sex.
Where Are You Now Larry Flynt?
I am convinced that Edwards is NOT the father of the baby. He would never have publicly proclaimed his willingness to take a DNA test if he had not ALREADY taken one. All that a DNA test would require is a quick swab of the baby's cheek with a Q-Tip. That is probably why he met them at the hotel last month.
Hunter was milking Edwards for money telling him that he was the father. Now Edwards knows he is not the father, but cannot come clean about the DNA test because the fact that he needed one would prove that he was still having sex with her after his wife's cancer came out of remission.
So he admits to the affair, but denies he could be the baby based on the timing. Eventually, a DNA test will be publicly performed and Edwards will be able to claim that he was telling the truth all along.
Yes, it is a Machiavellian theory, but Edwards made millions as a trial lawyer.
“There is something fishy about this loose woman suddenly wanting “privacy” and rejecting a DNA test to establish paternity of the baby. Either part of her pay-off was that she would never “out” Edwards, or she had multiple partners and passed off the child as his so he would pay hush money. Either way, she would have to get off the gravy train.
There is poetic justice that this ambulance chaser is being ripped off by someone just a sleazy as he is.”
I believe she is covering for Edwards because she really believes once Elizabeth dies that Edwards will marry her. Her not allowing her baby to have the DNA test gives Edwards feedom to say he is not the father and would submit to the DNA test to prove it. Edwards knew all along the test will not be done so he knew he was safe to say he would take the test. All planned ahead! As for Elizabeth, I feel sorry for her going through cancer. But the more I think about all the lies coming from them, I now wonder if Elizabeth is really at the “terminal” stage. I hope she isn’t, but wish she would come to her senses, hire a great attourney and sue Edwards big time!
OK, I guess he has spoken to you....but consider....John and Reille have a sit down after their horizontal visit....."OK," says John, "This is going to get difficult. I will tell them with certitude and magnanimaty that I will be a stand up guy and take a paternity test. You will refuse to put our child up for a test. You should feign shock and indignation, Reille, just to put icing on the cake."
Kennedy, you are saying that after Mr.Edwards clued Ms.Edwards in Nov.2006, that Ms.Edwards was good to go with Mr.Edwards and Reille flying to Africa and all over the USofA for scores of unsupervised overnights. Then with testicles still insitu he makes multiple trips to the Beverly Hilton for 6 hour visits with Mr.McGovern? Then confesses to Ms.Edwards and she is OK with that?
I don't know, Kennedy. That is a hard set of facts to swallow.
“I am convinced that Edwards is NOT the father of the baby. He would never have publicly proclaimed his willingness to take a DNA test if he had not ALREADY taken one. All that a DNA test would require is a quick swab of the baby’s cheek with a Q-Tip. That is probably why he met them at the hotel last month.”
It could be he isn’t the father, but since the baby will not be made available for the test Edwards is “safe” in saying he would take the DNA test. Might be he and Hunter have this all planned out.
I know that there are quite a few married women who at least tell their husband that it is ok if he has a mistress, who is often brought in as a member of the household.
LOL! I was trying to remember who she reminds me of—that’s it.
To quote Hillary, I have to suspend disbelief to accept your assertion....at least in American culture...perhaps French....but not AMerica.
“She’d been a New York party girl, she’d been married and divorced, she’d been a seeker and a teacher and was a firm believer in the power of truth.”
Now she says she won’t permit a paternity test. So much for her firm belief in the power of truth.
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.