Skip to comments.EVEN BY TRIAL LAWYER STANDARDS, EDWARDS A REAL SLEAZEBAG
Posted on 08/13/2008 3:09:33 PM PDT by Syncro
EVEN BY TRIAL LAWYER STANDARDS, EDWARDS A REAL SLEAZEBAG
August 13, 2008
The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby.
The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.
Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.
Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.
I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."
As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."
With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.
Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!
Ann may want to go back to law school.
When an unmarried woman gives birth to a child, a man can file a legal suit for paternity and get a court-ordered paternity test. Even under the most liberal interpretations, once the baby is actually born, it and the potential fathers have rights.
Edwards will get right on that as soon as he reads this thread.
But by Democrat politician standards - He's one of the most honest ones...
Dern laptop with no backspace key.
Annie has a bigger pair than just about anyone writing these days.
Ok, you know the rules ;)
You are right about the man’s rights but only if he wants it. If he doesn’t want to know the results, if the woman is not on state support, and/or if the man and woman have agreed as to the finances and visitation rights, then there is no need for a paternity test and the woman can block it. What would be gained from the paternity test at this point? The only possible advantage is inheritance rights and I am not sure but what the father has already made arrangements for that contingency. At this point, it would only further tarnish Edwards and probably impair his earnings and therefore the kid’s and mother’s support payments. She has no reason to grant the rights and the father undoubtedly doesn’t want to publicly confirm what he already knows.
“EVEN BY TRIAL LAWYER STANDARDS, EDWARDS A REAL SLEAZEBAG”
Hey, do you know what happens when John Edwards takes a viagra?
He just gets a little taller. ;-)
Oh, ok. You’re excused this time ;)
I wonder if some jurisdictions might require the putative father to first file an acknowldgement of paternity as a condition precedent to finding standing to request a court order for blood or DNA paternity test . Whatever , Ann is right , Edwards and this Hunter person are acting in concert .
Trial lawyer standards? No THAT’S an oxymoron if ever there was one.
What if there is a different father’s name on the birth certificate or in the case of this situation, no fathers name listed at all on the document?
Oops, left turn coming up....
Drive safely now ;)
NO, NO! WRONG TURN! ;)
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.