And why would the USAG be involved in a civil lawsuit?
Actually it would be the reporters who filed a complaint against the hotel security guards.
He wouldn’t but he has as much chance of seeing a judge as he does being the AG because of this.
…for being a freaking moron! Somebody with his money can find better ways to meet with a hoe/girfriend/mistress. This happened because of arrogance!
ralph you and I both know that politicians are, almost by definition, arrogant and think with their smaller, dumber heads.
Y’know, thinking as a recently-elected president, why on earth would I want a smirking sleazeball like Edwards as my AG? And after this, which will burn most of his remaining credibility, the kid’s dead politically. Like I said before, WAY too many people LURVE his wife. He’s a liability, and Obama can’t risk wasting a cabinet post on him. Edwards will be back to chasing ambulances just to keep a roof over his head in no time.
Because some of us think Edwards endorsed Obama and started campaigning on his behalf in return for being promised the AG spot. If this is true, though, deal’s got to be off.
Absolutely. “Sorry, old chap, but you and your dick fucked this one up from here to Election Day.”
Personally, I’m torn between hoping nothing like this comes out about Obama and a vain hope that Michelle has a thing for middleaged, fat, white guys to comfort her.
To be fair, if we are to believe the validity of this NE story, we must also believe the validity of these other NE stories, right?
(I especially like the one about Laura’s claw marks).
The overarching issue is that Edwards has denied the affair when questioned about it in the past. If it would now turn out to be fact, his credibility is shot, his veracity is challenged, and it becomes a broader character issue–much like Clinton’s lying about Lewinsky. And, unlike Edwards’ wife, Hillary was never a sympathetic character–but Bill was skewered nonetheless.
But in response to the OP, it’s an unfortunate fact that, in the court of public opinion, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. By virtue of that, Edwards has already become a liability. It may not be right, but it just is.
Hey it’s been about four days and I haven’t seen much on this… must be Edwards doesn’t have a lovechild.
Surely this would have made the mainstream if he did 
It will make the mainstream if it gets confirmed. Until then it’s not news. It’s not really that newsworthy even if it is true. There’s no law against getting some strange.
In this case, the affected spouse could sue:
North Carolina is one of few states that recognize alienation of affections and criminal conversation as torts, or wrongdoings that allow the plaintiff to recover damages. The basis of such laws, point to a type of injury or loss that occurs to the innocent spouse when a third party acts in a manner that is destructive to the marriage.
The foundation of a criminal conversation claim is injury, loss, or damage based on actual sexual intercourse between the plaintiff’s spouse and the third party (defendant). Under North Carolina law, each provable act of intercourse gives rise to a separate criminal conversations claim. In order to recover damages on the basis of criminal conversation, you must prove that: 1) the act of sexual intercourse took place between your spouse and the defendant, 2) you have a valid, existing marriage, and 3) the adulterous act or acts took place within the three-year statute of limitations. Consent by the plaintiff to extramarital sexual intercourse is the only viable defense to a criminal conversations claim. Ignorance, seduction, marital instability, and even separation are not valid defenses.
Or at least there isn’t any persuasive evidence that he does.
Yeah, believe it or not, those Communists on the TV news would pay attention if a once (and potentially future) candidate for Vice President turned out to be cheating on his cancer-survivor wife and had a child out of wedlock. CNN and Fox News would somehow manage to be interested in a story like that.
There’s also no law stating that only illegal acts are newsworthy. If he has a “love child”, it’ll be plenty newsworthy. Enquiring minds want to know!
Enquiring minds have pictures to look at.
A smart trial lawyer should be able to squeeze some money out of a slanderous newspaper.
You don’t sue newspapers for slander, you sue them for liable, and no, it’s isn’t easy at all for a public figure to recover any damages. It’s almost impossible, in fact.
Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer for saying she was drunk in a restaurant and won.
Given that the Newspaper set “reporters” on Edwards like a pack of dogs I’d say he has a good chance to sue if they are full of it.
No chance whatsoever. Carol Burnett is an extreme exception and the fact that you have to go back 30 years to find something only proves my point. The standards are all but impossible to meet. It’s not enough to prove that the story isn’t true. You have to prove that the publisher KNEW it wasn’t true and that it was published with malicious intent. Those are two extremely difficult things to prove. Not only that, but you also have to show that the story has damaged you monetarily. Hurting your feelings isn’t enough. That’s why celeberities almost never even try.
By the way, the Enquirer has made all kinds of allegations about George W. Bush over the last 8 years, including that he’s back on the bottle and that laura’s going to leave him. Why hasn’t he sued? I guess it must be true, huh?
I provided a real case. You provided… nothing.
All that is required is to show is reckless disregard for the truth. The newspaper needs some form of reputable information to fall back on.
Edwards should have an easy case of it.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Proving malice is the really hard part. You might think that proving “reckless disregard for the truth” is easy, but it’s not at all.
Do you believe that eveything the Enquirer has said about GWB is true? If not then why hasn’t he sued?