Politics
More PoliticsEdwards Sex Tape Details
by Diane Dimond
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
Sara D. Davis / AP Photo
Andrew Young tells The Daily Beast he's going on the offensive against his old boss, John Edwards. Diane Dimond reveals how the sex tape imperils the ex-candidate–and its graphic details.
Senator John Edwards, the man who fancied himself a world-class trial lawyer and certain presidential material, has recently ignored the greatest lesson of Bill Clinton, another Southerner with a legal background and presidential destiny: Once your sex life gets dumped into the judicial system, only bad things can follow.
Things are indeed about to get worse for John Edwards, almost all of it his own doing. Besides making a sex tape, the details of which sources shared with The Daily Beast, Edwards apparently ignored the perils of the public eye, and had the mother of his love child file an invasion of privacy lawsuit against his nemesis—a long-trusted political staffer named Andrew Young, the author of the bestselling tell-all, The Politician.
It’s not just the raw nature of the video, but its context—a married presidential candidate with a cancer-stricken wife, roughly a dozen weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
On Friday, Young avoided being sent to jail on contempt of court charges. "I'm finally able to relax a bit for the first time in years," he tells The Daily Beast. And now, he's going on the offensive. "I just want to get on with the merits of this case," Young said. "And the next step is depositions."
"Deposition" is a powerful word. Rielle Hunter's lawsuit gives Andrew Young's side the opening to force Edwards and his lover to sit and answer questions under oath about their relationship, finances, and 2-year-old child. Now Hunter is telling her story--she has just spoken out in an extensive interview with GQ. An eerily similar deposition, connected to a legal case involving Paula Jones and involving President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, was what led to Clinton's impeachment.
In Clinton's case, the smoking gun was the infamous blue dress. In this case, it's the sex tape. That video, in fact, sits in the middle of Hunter's suit—she claims that that Young and his wife, Cheri, with whom she'd lived while pregnant and on the lam from inquisitive reporters in 2007 and early 2008, stole personal items, including the tape.
• Ann Louise Bardach: My Tenant, Rielle Hunter
• Diane Dimond: John Edwards’ Other WomenThe Daily Beast can now describe the video in detail, based on accounts from multiple people who have viewed it. One source who has a medical background and has worked with pregnant patients says Hunter appears four or five months pregnant based on the swollen state of her belly and nipples. This would place the tape's filming somewhere around September or October of 2007, smack in the middle of Edwards campaign for the presidency.
On the video, both participants are naked. Hunter is propped up against the hotel bed headboard, with John Edwards belly-down on the bed between her legs. As Hunter, the campaign's official videographer, holds the camera, a smiling Edwards performs oral sex. Because of the camera angle, Hunter's face is not visible, but her distinctive jewelry is. Not only does candidate Edwards know he's being filmed, one source says, he's also clowning around and "graphically performing for the camera."
It's not just the raw nature of the video, but its context—a married presidential candidate with a cancer-stricken wife, roughly a dozen weeks before his make-or-break moment, the Iowa caucuses—that makes it so damning. A leading candidate to be commander in chief putting himself in an easy position to be extorted.
During the recent hearing in the Hunter lawsuit, the Youngs told the court that Hunter had carelessly abandoned the videotape and other items at their home in North Carolina. They said they had quietly kept the things for two years because they were on the run with Hunter—from Aspen to Santa Barbara and points in between—and no one ever asked for the items back. More importantly, they kept the tape because it was proof that it was the senator who was having the affair with Hunter, not Andrew Young.
In his book, Young admits that he foolishly and falsely told the media that Hunter's baby was his to protect his boss. Young told The Daily Beast that Edwards begged him, "let Elizabeth die with dignity… don't let Elizabeth die knowing the truth." The senator promised to correct the public record after Elizabeth's funeral.
As everyone knows, Elizabeth is still alive, nearly three years later. In a recent email to Andrew Young, in which Elizabeth threatens to file her own lawsuit against him, she declares that she's never been near death and will certainly live to see the end of the threatened litigation.
The judge's decision on Friday to clear Young of contempt stems from claims made by Rielle Hunter's large legal team, widely believed to be bankrolled by Edwards, that Young was withholding evidence, and had other copies of the infamous tape.
After learning he would not be held in contempt or sent to jail, Young told The Daily Beast he felt like, "The weight of the world had been lifted from my shoulders." Young and his wife timidly ventured forth for dinner in Chapel Hill at the end of the court session and were surprised when 10 different strangers interrupted to say they were proud the Youngs had stood up against the "rich, arrogant, abuse of power" the Edwards had long displayed in North Carolina.
Young maintains the Edwards have spent much of the last two years smearing both him and his wife in a perverted effort to keep them from earning a living. He says John Edwards once told him, "Oh, you know, Andrew, the voters don't care about politician's affairs. If this ever gets out, it will be a one-day story."
"Everyone knew Bill Clinton was a rogue," says Young. "They knew it about Newt Gingrich too." But in John Edwards case, he "sold himself as a dedicated family man, with a sick wife… and he brought up religion whenever he could."
Now, Edwards will have to answer to all that while under oath during depositions made necessary by his former mistress' continuing suit against Andrew Young.
Edwards faces more legal headaches. Andrew Young actually turned over more items than the court order demanded. Included in the stash were eight photographs, the video sex tape, copies of the tape, a Hunter document entitled "The Slut Club," and other items. The Youngs' lawyers asked the judge to hold onto the material, because it has also been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating whether Senator Edwards misused presidential campaign funds to keep his pregnant lover in hiding.
Sources with knowledge of that grand jury investigation say the case is now complete and an indictment is imminent.
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
John Edwards in Exile
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
Horrifying 'Little Girl Sex Cult'
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
Edwards to Testify About Sex Tape
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
DakLak
Diane Dimond's account of thiis tawdry affair is very balanced.
May be the TDB will make her the main 'investigative reporter' now that the pladiarising Gerald Posner has been retired.
moqueuo
what is a 'pladiarising?"
ritamary
what is "thiis"?
hockeydog
I just love how the term "Senator" sounds.
"Senator" Edwards
"Senator" Dodds
"Senator" Burris
It's as though the meaning of the word still holds a connotation of respect!
Brother-FLE
As oppossed to
"Senator" Craig
"Senator" Ensign
want me to go on???
anolmec
allow me:
Senator Ted Kennedy
Centrist420
lol, yep... and Senators: Ensign, Craig, Foley, etc. BOTH PARTIES... keep it balanced, here. Funniest and best of all Senators, IMHO, is Ted Haggard. Biggest hypocrite on the Washington stage. And THAT'S sayin sumthin'.
Spanky Quigman
Ooo zing!!! That got 'em! Except that Haggard wasn't a Senator and wasn't in Washington. He was pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, so he might've been the biggest hypocrite in Colorado Springs (and that's saying something), but not in Washington.
Seanboy
Ted Haggard was not a senator
Brother-FLE
Senator Ted Haggard ????????? That one's news to me!!
If you want to slam, slam with facts
piktor
Ted Haggard is an Evangelical preacher. Never been a senator.
lordmi
along with conservatives values
juandixon
good post except for the punking yourself part at the end
gustav
I think all politicians should revert to using Mr/Mrs/Ms when they leave office. But that is the small 'r' republican in me.
Ankhorite
Senator "Diaper Me" Vitter (R-LA)
Sentor Kay Baily "Slappy" Hutchison (R-TX)
Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig (R-wherever that was)
Senator "Mom, Can You Pay My Mistress?" Ensign (R-Wild West)
and so on. Mark Foley was a Congressman (R-FL). Ted Haggard was a Christianist politician strongly identified with the Republican party, but not an elected official.
Jaydawg
And don't forget "Senator Vitter"... :) :) :) :) :)
juandixon
Bret Baier likewise nobly interviewed "President" Obama.
robjh1
Who wants to see a sex video tape of Edwards and this woman. Eww!!!!!!!!!11
Danbury
Most people would, while denying they would, I guarantee. Never underestimate the hypocrisy of people.
Ozone69
I always thought of John Edwards as a sleazy lawyer. Now, I think of him as a sleaziest lawyer of all time. Congratulations counselor!
Marisa
Let's hope you never need a lawyer. John Edwards was NOT a sleazy lawyer, and most lawyers are not sleazy. Most are really good guys who have a job to do and do it well.
aspen420
sorry francis, your mommy is a slut.
"keep your legs closed to married men, trashy hooker!" - nene leekes
topdocjim
As a doctor whose life has been nearly ruined by an unfounded lawsuit like the ones that made Edwards rich, all I can say is, "Bring it on." Not very sportsmanlike, but hell, that's the way it goes...
Danbury
What an awful piece of yellow journalism this is, but I suppose expected from a former "A Current Affair" "correspondent".
The deposition is "eerily" similar to the Clinton/Jones case depositions???? What an absurd, canned, predictable thing to write. Does Ms. Dimond think all depositions in, say, insurance fraud cases are "eerily" alike? They're "eerily" alike to people like Ms. Dimond because they involve sex, and this country is still stuck in its Puritan ways.
Then of course there's the silly claim of recklessness of behavior leading to possible blackmail of a commander in chief/president. Perhaps, but only because Americans are so sophomoric and provincial (not to mention hypocritical. The biggest industry in America is pornography!) when it comes to these matters. If we were like most of the rest of the world and just yawned, or at least had a "not my business" attitude about politicians who have girlfriends, there'd be nothing to leverage a blackmail scheme against.
Mr. Young is almost as much a cad as John Edwards. Mr. Young gives himself one standard - "I was stupid and did stupid things" to excuse his role in this, yet he is using Edwards's stupidity to enrich himself.
I blame all parties - everyone is culpable in this, and I sympathize with all parties, as there is much to be sympathetic about, including toward John Edwards. People mess up, and it's high time the rest of us, who - I hate to tell Ms. Dimond and all self-righteous stone casters who revel in the misfortune and difficulties of others - yes, even if brought on by themselves - also mess up on a daily basis in big and small ways, figure out that another family's pain should NOT be our joy.
Indeed, I'd suggest that it being so is just as, if not more, pathological and vile than anything John Edwards did.
It's time Americans stop finding joy in other people's pain and humiliation, whether it's on "American Idol" or in public figures' marriages. When people do this, it's usually because they are themselves living lives of boredom or even despair, and they're projecting their own disappointments onto convenient scapegoats.
And the Diane Dimonds of the world exploit that misery for a paycheck. Shame on them.
DougWhite
This (from "Danbury") is quite thoughtful. Edited a bit, it could be an op-ed piece in its own right in a newspaper. It has components that many of us can agree with, even though not everything will be appreciated by everyone. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
Danbury
Thank you, DougWhite. Nice of you to respond so kindly.
HollyK64
Since Rielle Hunter is trading on her infamy for a spread in GQ, you can't chastise DD for writing a blog. This is not about self-righteous stone casters, this is about Rille standing up there saying please pay attention to me and if that means throwing stones go right ahead. And if you don't pay attention to me, I'll file a law suit over my sex tape which will guarantee that I'll get attention from the press. Don't waste your sympathy on John and Rielle. Save it for John's children including his oldest daughter who has to walk by newsstands in her college town and see the magazine featuring Rielle flaunting the affair that destroyed the Edwards family.
Artist50
I must say Elizabeth added fuel to the fire in keeping this story alive, so there are no innocents here, except the children. No one was protecting the children. My other point would be that when one sets their self up as a "family" man then the world has a right to know about his hypocrisy when running for POTUS. There is too much danger of blackmail when ones life is this full of lies, and in this case both husband and wife were in cahoots.
Danbury
I didn't realize that just because someone says, "Please pay attention to me", one has to do so!
I've got plenty of sympathy for all parties in this. As for your sympathy for his oldest child having to walk by newstands and see the magazine flaunting the affair, well, YOU'RE the one defending those who write about it and give it the publicity it does NOT deserve.
tryker
You're right about everything you say Danbury. Thanks.
This American obsession with sexuality as a shock unlike anything else in the known world is just simply stupid.
We are a laughing stock and ignorant beyond belief and it's getting worse.
DianeMDimond
tryker -
please read my response to Danbury. And open your mind to another way of thinking about why you should care about the character of your elected officials. To remain closed mined is the most ignorant thing of all.
Diane Dimond
wafflesmom
Danbury,
are you Elizabeth Edwards?
Teuthida
I agree to an extent with you Danbury. Our interest in politician's sex lives is shallow and voyeuristic and prudish. And stupid.
Mr. Edward's response to the whole sordid mess is another story and IS relevant.
A simple "no comment" or "my personal affairs are that - personal" would have been an appropriate response. Show the same steadfastness and steady vision you claim you'd possess in a political crisis. Instead, we have a slick, deluded campaign of lies, the whole sorry history of which gives ample evidence that John Edwards isn't ethically, morally or emotionally qualified to be the mayor of Chapel Hill let alone a serious national politician.
And at this point, Ms. Hunter (certainly with Edward's consent) is the one inflaming the publicity with her GQ interview and photo shoot. Any self-respecting human in this situation, one who wanted to play the privacy card, could easily have faded from public consciousness by this point and slowly started to rehabilitate his image behind the scenes. The fact that Edwards hasn't says a lot about him.
DianeMDimond
Danbury -
So, if I read you right you'd rather not read stories that go to the heart of the character of our elected officials. Writing about what kind of people we've elected to high office is not of any interest to you? That is just a shame.
I submit this attitude is one reason we have the lackluster, under achieving Congress we currently have.
Look, to me, the author of this series on John Edwards, I hope this story will NOT be dismissed as mere tabloid journalism any longer. Kudos to the National Enquirer for having the reportorial chops to keep on this story when most of the so called "legit" media continued to look the other way.
John Edwards served in the Senate of the United States Congress for six years. He ran as a vice presidential hopeful and he ran for President TWICE. That means enough Americans were duped into donating millions of dollars to his campaigns to keep him operating. Don't believe the re-writers of history that Edwards never had a chance.
I continue on this story in the hopes it opens the eyes of the electorate. We've been fooled long enough by this type of power-hungry candidate.They made promises, we keep forking over the dough they need to try achieve their power thrones.
Just because a candidate looks good, speaks well and delivers a bunch of promises that DOESN'T mean they deserve our votes.
We need a media who looks - hard - into all our national leaders. But more than that we need an American public who gives a damn about the real character and integrity of elected officials.
Diane Dimond
Danbury
Ms. Dimond,
Where we diverge here is in believing that the sum of a person's character is in their sex lives. In fact, sex being the strongest drive for human beings - stronger even than hunger - I think it's actually the least critical in terms of means testing someone's character.
As I noted in my original post, there isn't a human among us who doesn't have character flaws and character perfections. Human beings are in fact a mixed bag of both.
Why it is that being a public official means one must be more chaste or saintly or otherwise totally lacking in any character defects, as opposed to say people in private vocations, is something I do not understand.
I'd rather have a doctor or president who has a girlfriend but can cure the disease or create enlightened and effective public policy on the things that really matter than an incompetent or even destructive doctor or public official but who doesn't stray in his marriage.
So I think you actually have it backward when you suggest that we need to know these things in order to select good public officials. I have no problem with a personally flawed individual holding public office. I expect it, even, since I am of the belief that all people are flawed, give in to temptations, etc. Indeed, it is those who sanctimoniously bleat on about the moral transgressions of others while implying they are paragons of virtue I am most leery of.
It was rumored that George H. W. Bush had a girlfriend while president, yet no one - least of Republicans - felt compelled to investigate that, and the nation survived.
Presumably George W. Bush was faithful to his wife while president, but it is arguable as to how well the country fared - I'd argue not very well at all - under his leadership despite his presumed sexual fidelity.
I think you are creating a false argument as a means of justifying moving forward with what ultimately is nothing more than a salacious and diversionary matter. I think it would also behoove us as a culture to, for once and for all, consider that these are actual human beings, and again, other people's pain and difficulties should not be fodder for our enjoyment. You seem to believe you are doing a public service by making sure we don't elect anyone who screwed up at one time or another in their life. But John Edwards's political career is over, so how can you defend your article here by insisting it's to make sure we don't elect a man of such low character to the presidency?
Edwards also is, I believe, quite sincere about his "Two Americas", poverty issue. Does that not indicate GOOD public character? Is a politician bent on policy that disregards or even further harms the impoverished but who is faithful to his wife really of higher character? I don't think so. I think in fact he is of worse character.
People are complex. It is a mistake to judge ANYONE solely by one criterion, one screw up - even a big one. A person can be great in one area (public life, for instance) and struggle in another (marriage, for instance).
I appreciate your responding to my post.
Danbury
Marisa
Very well said, Diane. Keep up the good work.
razor150
You make a large assumption that somebody who cheats would make a bad president or even a politician in general. History would prove your wrong, as well as right depending on how you chose to cherry pick it. It would mostly prove you wrong though.
A husband's philandering is nobodies business but his families. The only troubling part of the Edwards story is the way he tried to hide his mistress that could have involved campaign funds, which you barely touched on so you can emphasize the sex. You sensationalized that part of the story, especially the sex tape, as if it mattered in the least. As if it was the only thing that mattered. It doesn't. This story is is akin to being a peeping Tom.
amapola101
Pigs, all of them.We should just ignore them all, not even post, write, read invite them to tv. This group is really the lowest, of all our scandals.
Danbury
No, "this group" is not "really the lowest..."
The bankers and mortgage lenders who nearly sent the globlal and national economy into a full collapse are much, much lower. The Catholic priest scandal...much worse.
Lying to start a war...much, much, much worse. Exploiting 9/11 to do so...much, much, much, much, much worse.
The Agrafood industry altering the food supply to one of basically junk food, unhealthy crap...far worse.
Enron bilking Californians by manipulating the market...a whole lot worse.
This is a man who, like millions before him and millions after him, had an affair, and it's really none of your business. It's time Americans grew up.
amapola101
Danburry, you are right and Chris Dodd and Charley Rangle and Schumer and calling a airplane hostess bitch, and Nanci Pelosi using our dollars to fly around in a new jet.BF, who was warned FM and FM were heading for a collapse. Yes and all of the others in congress(Republicans, and Democrats, they socialize together while the idiots in the country suffer.) having lobster, caviar, healthcare retirement, for looking the other way while they all raped our country.!!!None did and are not doing their jobs.......... No the Edwards, affair does not mean a thing to me. That is human nature, Edwards wife was and is dying, she(Eliz) lied to get him elected president,(knew she was putting the party in danger) this guy steals a sex tapesYoung,, Edwards and Rielle have no dignity as to keep their affair, private."" they make a tape.""? It is none of my busines.. YOU bet, we are all so over them, the whole group is concidered Scum Bags.!!! Americans, have been having affairs since the beginning of Adam and Eve. So has the whole world. we are all grown ups. It is in the context it gets told to the public, But Hey, there is a new, scandal brewing, new story old characters. in Wash, If that comes out that will fuel the media for 6 months. Good day to YOU to.This group are a bunch of filthy bums. that is it. !!!Rielle for making a pregnant sex tape, what did she think She is Demi More?Edwards,narcistic. Young and his wife, Good for making the money, the book, but to steal the tape and watch it, over and over.!!! They should have kept it for proof for a judge.The rest is is voyarism.?? Young edwards, all of them playing fine people to the media while running a campaign. Danbury, when it is all said and done, at least here,in the US you feel you can go to court, and fight. in Latin Arab,Iitalian,Eastern Chinese countries, people are bribed millions,courts bought off, or you dissapear in the night. So hurray for the USA...No one cares about anyone if he would not have been in the media, and or runnig for president. But anyway, No one can look at any of them. it is all just media propaganda.Narcisstic, hunk.!!!!!ja, ja. and fighting for the poor, the needy, the working class.Ja, ja, ja, ja.
DianeMDimond
wrong again Danbury = this is a man who ran for PRESIDENT of the United States TWICE. That makes it our business
Danbury
Ms. Dimond,
I disagree. That does NOT inherently make it our business. This sexual witch hunting in presidents is a new thing - really since Clinton since, as noted, no one batted an eye when it was alleged that Bush 41 had a mistress while president (and I don't care if he did).
Powerful men have had mistresses since time immemorial and will until the end of time. This should not STILL be shocking people, nor should it be causing anyone to think such a man is not fit for any job, including president.
How many Founding Fathers had mistresses, Ms. Dimond?
A lot. I'd say they were pretty wise men, regardless.
As a journalist, I would hope that you are a fairly well-rounded reader, but even the high school basics, namely "The Crucible" and "The Scarlett Letter" surely had to have been on your reading list. Those books illustrate the greater danger (than any silly affair). Maybe it's time people reread them, because the message seems to have been lost.
I'd rather have a president who has a girlfriend on the side - as so many have, from JFK to FDR to GWHB and BC (in fact, it might be noted that the least popular presidents in modern history both presumably did NOT have mistresses while president, while those among the more popular did!) - than return to the Puritan days.
It's just too easy to cast aspersions on men for affairs, and that is the problem. It's the lazy-man's (or woman's) means of judging another, in my opinion.
A man who has affairs is not fit, perhaps, to be a HUSBAND. That is all.
timeflies
Give it up, already, Danbury. Edwards twice ran for president. That makes his entire life open to scrutiny and very much the business of 307 million Americans, along with 6 billion people in the larger world, to boot.
ritamary
Since we are now trying to find the lowest scandal, here is my choice. How about "Senator" Ted Haggard, the born-again mega church minister and Bush pal who was doing drugs with a male hooker when he wasn't molesting a young male church volunteer. And now he and his wife are cashing in on the scandal with the book she wrote. There are lots of scandals to go around. How do you choose which one as the lowest?
Ankhorite
Why do you call him Senator?
hahail
Truth is stranger than fiction. Too much!!
cregis
I don't care if John Edwards had an affair. I don't care if he had a child with this woman. It's nobody's business except the wife, unless campaign funds were improperly used. I still like John Edwards' political views. If my guts had been sucked out by a swimming pool drain, believe I'd want to sue and so would the Edwards attackers. I didn't care about Clinton and Monica. That had nothing to do with me, except for the hundred million dollars Ken Starr spent, now that deserves an investigation. I remember that he spent $1500 a night on a suite where he interviewed Monica, tip of the bucket.
Centrist420
hear hear
DianeMDimond
Cregis -
So when the federal grand jury presents an indictment to John Edwards for his misuse of federal campaign funds - say the millions used to hide his pregnant mistress - THEN you'll care?
Interesting.
Diane Dimond
Marisa
VERY well said.
lel2007
A presidential candidate's sex tape, isn't that just wonderful? I can't help but wonder what people like Edwards do with such videos.
XiNeutrino
What a disgusting revelation. Edwards stands at the top of all the sex demented politicians that plague and have plagued this nation. I hope he gets far more than what he deserves including incarceration for stealing election funds for personal pleasure. We still need the stocks of the old days. Putting Edwards on public display and open to public revulsion would help ease the mounting disgust of we the people.
liberatorquest
You forgot burning him at the stake, you Moron!!!! When will you sheep, finally, get a life!!!!
Marisa
Well said.
Marisa
John Edwards is certainly NOT at the top of all the sex demented politicians. Your politics are showing.
Danbury
For all the (phony) worries about blackmail, isn't it ironic that the only people to ever actually blackmail a president over sex are Republicans, the ones who call themselves patriots and "real Americans" and who insisted during the Bush reign that all Americans should support the president and to not do so meant one hated America, wanted America to lose, sided with the terrorists...
And I'm sure they'd do it again if they could. Imagine, a roomful and partyful of philanderers blackmailing a president and propping up an extortive but meritless lawsuit against him, for no reason other than they hate that he won. Such patriotism!
amapola101
Sorry, Danbury, it is not Rrpublican or democrat. I love Bill Clinton. But when under oath he said he did not have sex with that women. That woman, wan a young girl, who had a name. he should have said yes I did. and the case was over.That we made a spectacle of the cigar story , in france mexico, Arabia, Brazil they were all cracking up at the tv sow we put on. But the president , should have never been put in public and asked those question. republicans or democrats.But anyone lying under oath gets prosecuted.for stupidities.
Danbury
1) He was not under oath when he said that;
2) She was not a young girl. She was a woman of consenting age;
3) He did not lie. They did not in fact have sex (and in fact they didn't so that, if caught, they could actually tell the truth by denying it). I don't know anyone who, say, goes out on a date, limits their "activities" to what they did, does not actually do the "deed", and when asked if they "had sex" says yes. They say, No, we just fooled around;
4) Why Americans even CARE is beyond me. Why did you or anyone else feel entitled to know the truth about such a thing? It wasn't criminal. It wasn't even remotely related to Jones's lawsuit. A consensual affair is NOT evidence in a sexual harassment suit;
5) Jones's lawsuit was found to lack any merit and was therefore tossed out. In addition, Jones tried to extort the president at the beginning of the suit. She tried to get $25K and a job in Hollywood for her husband. Are you suggesting that it is not only okay but even possibly a good thing for people to be able to file meritless, extortive lawsuits against people just so long as we get to some irrelevant, inconsequential but humiliating truth??? Wow. No. Wrong.
5) You are wrong when you say "anyone lying under oath gets prosecuted";
6) Clinton was acquitted in the political trial (the impeachment), by a roomful of philanderers, btw, a little fact you conveniently ignore. He also was never charged criminally because the prosecutor felt he in fact had no case for perjury.
7) Someone once said that "lying in a witch hunt is okay." I agree. The witch hunt was far more dangerous than the attempt to hide an embarrassment. It is in fact arguable that that entire episode caused Gore to "lose", therefore gave us Bush and Cheney, and I'd say the fallout from their taking the reigns of power was FAR more destructive than the ZERO fallout from Clinton doing what ALL men do: try to hide affairs;
8) The rest of the world was "cracking up" not at Clinton (Clinton is to this day adored around the world) but at Americans and how utterly ridiculous, naive, Pollyanna-ish, etc., they were over this.
You're right. He never should have been put in the position to answer the question. And that is the danger of witch hunts. Those women in Salem should not have been put in such a position either, and those that lied were burned. You'd have had to agree to the punishment, then, since it's the lying that has you all bothered, not the witch hunt.
Ankhorite
@Danbury, you're wrong about Salem. It was the women and men who told the truth and said that they were NOT who were hanged, and the ones who lied and said that they WERE witches who were permitted to live.
My 13x great-grandmother was among those hanged. None were burned. One man was "pressed" to death as a torture to make him confess to witchery; he would not. Giles Corey allowed himself to be crushed slowly by stones in order to protect his estate from government confiscation, so his wife and children would not starve. I believe my 13g-gramma, Anne Pudeator, was killed because her accuser owed her money for nursing his wife through the wife's final illness. Not only did the accuser not have to pay her, he and the sheriff got her property. Such a deal! Her testimony is heartbreaking; she reminds the court that her accuser was publicly flogged for perjury little more than a year earlier.
Back to Clinton: perjury is a lie about a MATERIAL fact. Nothing about Lewinsky, a woman who was eager to have an affair, was material to Paula Jones, who was claiming coercion. So, even if some would say he lied, it wasn't perjury -- except according to the witch-hunters, who won that round. What a shame.
As a society, we seem to remember our mistakes only so that we can repeat them over and over.
Marisa
Monica Lewinsky was NOT a "young girl" - she was a grown woman. I love Bill Clinton, too. And - his denial with regard to having sex with Monica was exactly what ANY man would have said. Remember, he was set up by Linda Tripp, a shill for the right wing.
liberatorquest
This is your main problem Danbury, you're a bleeding Democrat, it clouds and thwarts your judgement and makes all your points mute!!!! The constant and relentless attack on all things Republican, simply makes you irrelevant and predictable!!!!
ddemos
Yes, it is indeed predictable to disagree w/ the party you don't agree with...and your point is...? Why on earth would that then make one irrelevant? Oh, wait it must be because you don't agree w/ Danbury...so by using your logic,liberatorquest, this makes you irrelevant too. Funny how that works, huh?
I would also say your views are "moot"not mute...but you should consult Fox News for your further education!
hardwroc
You have a problem with perception. Danbury is CORRECT with her facts, and party has no bearing on Facts, except for the one party that has all the facts against them STILL after lying for 8 years in power.
The truth shall set you free, so , try it sometime.
innocentcitizen
wow dumbury, you managed to twist this into a republican hate diatribe. and by twisted, i mean your angry little mind. there is no shortage of creeps in public office, just look at barry o and his sick bunch. as i recall during the bush reign, the left spent 24 hrs a day attacking the president. the dems wanted bush to lose and they made no bones about it. even though they now take credit for his victory in iraq and have continued all the policies they opposed.
Marisa
You are SOOOOOOOOO right.
boredwell
On the human level, I can understand why Edwards reached out to touch someone. I can understand making the tape but not the decision to keep it, then, worst, giving it to Iago-Young for safekeeping. The ramifications of leaving such, ah, hard evidence around is just plain dumb. When John and Rielle were getting busy they obviously checked their brains at the door. Not only by engaging in the affair during the campaign and using campaign funds for mistress support but by engaging in unsafe sex as well.
liberatorquest
You are so cute, LOL, what bothers you the most of this whole mess, is that they were engaging in unsafe sex? I'm cracking up!!!!! By the way, is everyone expected not to get horny during a campaign? Wake up and welcome to the real world!!!!!
dooreen
Clinton did the "safe" thing, (allegedly or meritedly?) using a Cigar?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.