Edwards Furious ABC Broke Affair Story Before 'Nightline' Aired

Edwards Furious ABC Broke Affair Story Before 'Nightline' Aired

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
August 10, 2008 - 09:32 ET

John Edwards is apparently furious with ABC News for releasing information concerning his affair with former campaign staffer Rielle Hunter before "Nightline" aired Friday evening.

In fact, it appears the reason Edwards agreed to the interview was in the hopes that Americans would be so involved in watching the Olympics his confession would go largely unnoticed.

Such was reported Saturday by Broadcasting & Cable (photo courtesy AP):

Edwards had hoped to control the news cycle by making his admission late on a Friday night when the country was watching the Olympics and the long weekend yawned ahead.

According to multiple sources, Edwards was apoplectic that ABC News broke the story on its website and began promoting it early on Friday, giving the rest of the media a chance to play catch-up and cite ABC News’ report. (Representatives for Edwards did not return a call or e-mail for comment.)

I guess when the media sycophantically treats you like an objection of affection, it's easy to assume you'll be able to control them.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Poor Johnnyboy!

August 10, 2008 - 09:42 ET by iveseenitall

It's still all about poor Johnny. Still worried about his "image". I guess he's trying to be another Slick Willy. A republic can stand only if its leaders are decent and honest and work for the people, not for themselves. Aint happenin' today. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

That's exactly right!

August 10, 2008 - 10:15 ET by Galvanic

Pretty Boy Edwards still doesn't grasp the full magnitude of this scandal. He wanted to put it to rest with a quiet confession late on a Friday when he thought it would get little notice.

But this story is just beginning.

First, The MSM, scooped again by the gossip-rag National Enquirer (NE had also broken the baby Jesse Jackson sotry when the MSM backed off), is now digging into the money transactions. Who's paying this woman, and for how long?

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the MSM is angry that Edwards had flat out lied to them about this months ago, and they were gullible enough (or cooperative enough) to let it go. The MSM doesn't like being lied to.

So, get ready, Johnny! The hounds are comin'!

There is no honor among thieves, ‘tis true.

August 10, 2008 - 16:10 ET by needle

However, the abject dishonor among liars is infinite and legendary.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Johnny Be Bad.

August 10, 2008 - 09:43 ET by Crash

Johnny boy ... you broke your vows to your wife "early."

arrogance

August 10, 2008 - 09:50 ET by sawing batta

of course JE timed the release (so to speak) and of course he knew he'd continue to get kid glove treatment from the "friendlies" in the media.

So it stands to reason he'd be upset and surprised when an "independent" news source releases its own information in a fashion he didnt control and dictate to them.

Further proof Silky still thinks he's "special" (used as his excuse for cheating and lying), he has clearly NOT learned his lesson.

Why would anyone believe anything this person says?

Gee...I really feel for

August 10, 2008 - 09:56 ET by charlietexas

Gee...I really feel for JohnJohn. I'm sure THAT woman threw herself at him. So its really not his fault. And Elizabeth had to go and get cancer, so some of his affair is her fault too. Wives aren't supposed to get sick. Poor Johnnie. I'm sure he's never had an affair so we should all be Christians about this and forgive him. He's just HUMAN and we all make mistakes. Maybe he can get some comfort from Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson. My heart goes out to all these weak men.

an understanding wife and mother

PS. if he was my husband........I'd clean him out.

mom

Convention

August 10, 2008 - 10:00 ET by sawing batta

Is it true that Edwards will not be speaking at the convention?

What is the rationale?

If Bill Clinton can speak at the Convention, why not Edwards? What has Edwards done that Clinton did not?

- they both cheated on their wives (though you could argue Clinton was an even worse offender having cheated in the Oval Office while a sitting - or standing as it were - President).

- They both lied about it publically

Either pull the plug on Clinton or Let Edwards Speak

"Slick and Silky" at the DNC

August 10, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Eileen Right

"Slick and Silky" at the DNC convention, sponsored by KY brand.

~

August 10, 2008 - 12:26 ET by kch50428

"Slick and Silky" at the DNC convention, sponsored by KY brand.

Viagra or Cialis would be more appropriate. :)

Edwars is disposable

August 11, 2008 - 03:06 ET by CobraMan

"If Bill Clinton can speak at the Convention, why not Edwards?"

Mr. Edwards is disposable, while Mr. Clinton is not.

Mr. Clinton was a two-term President, not a two-time nominee loser like Mr. Edwards. That gives him a legitimacy that Edwards will never have. And Mrs. Clinton still has delegates that she's holding onto. Who in their right mind would DENY Mr. Clinton a speaker's engagement while Mrs. Clinton still has delegates in her purse? You need to remember that the nomination has yet to be made and Hillary could, theoretically, still win. They don’t want to alienate her by not allowing President Clinton to address the convention. Also, she’s still a Senator and Edwards is just another has-been. They need her vote.

So, Clinton is in and Edwards is out. Not much of a loss, if you ask me.

fine

August 11, 2008 - 06:36 ET by sawing batta

I agree a former President and husband of HRC has the stuff to be on the agenda...But Edwards, too, was already ON the agenda...and is now OFF the agenda due soley because of his infidelity and lying....these are identical to what Clinton has done.

So if lying and cheating are strong enough offenses to get a speaker kicked off the agenda, why is clinton still on? He did the same thing. Theres an appearance of standards at the dnc, but it's not really a standard.

I guess it's a "nuance" thing ;)

You still don't get it.

August 11, 2008 - 11:19 ET by CobraMan

You still don't get it. Clinton is not disposable. He's the only multi-term democratic president since Roosevelt. That gives him a LOT of political prestige and influence. And, despite his infidelity, he had high approval ratings while in office, especially amongst the left wing of the Democratic Party. It would be a mistake if he DIDN'T speak at the convention. You don’t toss out his political experience and name recognition simply to give the appearance of ‘fairness” in how Edwards is being treated. I don’t think the DNC is that stupid.

Edwards, on the other hand, is a one-term Ex-Senator who's now disgraced, even amongst the left wing. This "excuse" of claiming that it's his infidelity that is now preventing him form speaking is just that, an excuses. There's no real reason to HAVE Edwards speak at all, other than to keep his face in view of the public. I don’t think the public really WANTS to see Edwards right now, especially the Democrats.

Can Edwards possibly be this dumb?

August 10, 2008 - 10:02 ET by Blonde

Apparently. I didn't think it was possible that he could be any more stupid or inane....however!

Just goes to show how wrong I can be sometimes.

It's sweet to see the goose get some of the gander's sauce for a change.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

"It's sweet to see the

August 10, 2008 - 10:29 ET by Blazer

"It's sweet to see the goose get some of the gander's sauce for a change."

That wouldn't have happened if John would've just used a condom. : )

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.

" The Cake is a lie."

Wow, Blaze

August 10, 2008 - 11:01 ET by Blonde

I never quite thought of it that way, too funny.

If Silky thinks this is just going to go away quietly, he's even dumber than he looks.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

Let me see if I got this

August 10, 2008 - 10:04 ET by dbo

Let me see if I got this straight. Edwards (D-idiot) cheats on his wife (and kids) then continuously lies about it for 2 years to the American public. Then when he is finally caught, despite the lack of effort to pursue the story by the MSM, he hand picks Woodruff to do a taped interview for him to announce his embarrassment. The interview is such a puff piece that there are still more unanswered questions than answered. Then on top of that, the interview is edited so we don't see it in its entirety. So now Edwards (D-idiot) is the one that's furious. Heavens to Betsy!

If I have my facts right..

August 10, 2008 - 11:29 ET by Mike

According to John Edwards, he had his affair before he hired her for a video blog, for which she was not qualified to do, and paid her well for doing four videos. He then, because he did not love her, had a married campaign aid sleep with her, and cheat on his wife and kids, and so he must be the father. He said he does not know of any money being paid to her, although the NE has shown that she is receiving around $15,000 per month. I am sure that has nothing to do with her not wanting to take a paternity test. But her sister wants him to take the test, because she is not getting paid and is not happy about her sister being bad mouthed. I wonder how quick her payments would stop after she agreed to a paternity test? And one more thing, if he did not love her and is not the father, what was he doing in a hotel room with her and the baby just a few weeks ago? He must really like his former aid to go out of his way to meet his child, secretly in hotel.

Why?

August 10, 2008 - 10:08 ET by txco

I can't figure out why he is upset. The story did not break Friday....EVERYONE knew about this for months......!

The MSM--ABC didn't break anything early on Friday...they were just catching up with the rest of us...John

not in his world

August 10, 2008 - 10:24 ET by sawing batta

You are correct...

HOWEVER,

in the woozy dreamworld of Silky Pony's skull jelly (remember: he's special...and he's smarter than you are), he was simply being smeared by "tabloid trash".

...the story wasnt real to him until ABC broke it...

[for the avoidance of doubt: ABC, you didnt break the story]

hat tip: Dennis Miller

Control

August 10, 2008 - 10:14 ET by cocodrie

Edwards has a right to be mad. Dimocrats control the MSM, directly and indirectly, and ABC did not follow the party rules. Ms. Hunter may be able to claim a workman's comp injury because Mr. "Cleaner Than the Board of Health" bumped into her in a motel. She is already receiving compensation from the Breck Girl.

Contract violation?

August 10, 2008 - 10:28 ET by ThisnThat

Com'on Edwards, sue the he$$ out of ABC for breaking a contract, for crying out loud!

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Edwards.. "increasingly egocentric and narcissistic" again.

August 10, 2008 - 10:58 ET by Gary Hall

Looks like John Edwards is becoming "increasingly egocentric and narcissistic..." again. gh

He expects you to believe him

August 10, 2008 - 10:59 ET by KC Mulville

He's now a cartoon case of fantasy politics coming from a fantasy personality. He completely lacks shame or humility, and is perfectly willing to lie about his lies.

I caught part of the Woodruff interview. Astonishing. My favorite part was when Woodruff pointed out that Edwards' campaign finance advisor was paying the mistress $15,000 a month. Edwards claimed that he knew nothing about it, and you'd have to ask the advisor. Could this just be an enthusiastic supporter? Sure! Advisors routinely pay $15,000 a month for several years, just out of the kindness of their hearts. Edwards also said that the reason he showed up in the hotel room at two in the morning was that the mistress and "a man associated with her" wanted to tell Edwards about their troubles. No money changed hands, and no agreements were made. Right. It was a counseling call.

Does he really think anyone is going to buy that? Apparenly some do. Unbelievable.

Presidential timber

August 10, 2008 - 17:01 ET by needle

You gotta admit, John Edwards sure sounds like presidential timber, of the Democratic sort.

He ought to be the key note speaker in Demver.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Affair ended in 2006?

August 10, 2008 - 11:34 ET by Barker

So John Edwards would have one believe that only elephants and Rielle Hunter are pregnant for 22 months?

My thought exactly, Barker!

August 10, 2008 - 12:04 ET by goldenthroat

The Breck Girl kept denying and denying and denying this affair until it took a tabloid to blow it wide open - and just a few months ago, at that! Then this pond-scum, low-life, left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do as I say, not as I do' liberal hypocrite had to come clean about it - but has he really? I think he's sorry only because he got caught!

Now, the powers-that-be trying to protect what's left of his sordid reputation are going to knock themselves out trying to keep the paternity of this child under wraps.

Hmmm - if it walks like a duck...

"It's not a lie if you believe it!" - George Costanza

Po jonny

August 10, 2008 - 11:57 ET by kilrod

Is it possible the State can step in at some point on bribery and extortion charges, or mishandling of campaign funds?? Is it possible the State could step in at some point "in the best interest of the child" to determin paternity for child support and the possibility the child might be heir to part of a large fortune??

(GRINS) kilrod

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

Are payoffs consider income?

August 10, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Eileen Right

Are payoffs consider income? Any tax issues?

Edwards upset? me me me

August 10, 2008 - 12:07 ET by gopsteve

Edwards upset?

me me me me

What about your family?

Do a sleazeball thing and get upset about the way it was reported?!

Try not being a cheating sleazeball in the first place and he wouldn't have to worry about it

"- they both cheated on

August 10, 2008 - 12:16 ET by gopsteve

"- they both cheated on their wives (though you could argue Clinton was
an even worse offender having cheated in the Oval Office while a
sitting - or standing as it were - President)."

I think because Edwards cheated on a cancer stricken wife is what really galls people (after being father of the year too).

Bill, after all, only cheated on Hillary, ao I think it was seen as OK. I mean, I think most see their marriage as a politcal arrangement anyways.

But I am not defending cheating!

Don Fowler...

August 10, 2008 - 13:45 ET by sawing batta

One can argue it either way...point it, Edwards is out of the Convention bc of his infidelity and his lying (the possibility of paternity and hush money are still unproven and the DNC shouldnt assume him guilty)...this leaves the infidelity and the lying....a striking parallel with President Stainmaker.

The DNC rationale can't be, as you suggest, that Bill, too, would be disinvited had HRC had cancer....[thank God she did not/does not]

After johns late night visits over the last 8 weeks and Elizabeth's apology to Kos, I think we can conclude that the Edwards marital vows to God were for their convenience - just like the Clinton's...no difference there.

Hey, Don Fowler, Does the DNC welcome John Edwards to Speak? yes or no.

Hey Obama, should Edwards be allowed to speak? Yes or no. If 'no', on what grounds should Clinton be able to speak?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW....

Why should Edwards speak?

August 11, 2008 - 03:31 ET by CobraMan

"INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW...."

Why should Edwards speak at the convention? He's a one-trick (Silky) pony. What could he really offer, other than "I was a Senator, once." Enlightened minds have already figured it out. John's a liability now, and he was never really an asset so they‘re not losing anything.

on the agenda

August 11, 2008 - 06:38 ET by sawing batta

wasnt he already ON the agenda???

And now he isn't

August 11, 2008 - 11:40 ET by CobraMan

Yes, he WAS, past tense, but that was before he became such a liability. Insisting that the DNC should treat the two men equally ignores the effect Clinton has on his fellow democrats, and even independents.

Clinton faced the fire for his infidelity. He fought his battle with the public's perception (the impeachment, remember) and WON! He wasn't removed from office and he enjoyed high approval ratings at the end of his political career. His presidency ended on a high note for the democrats, the republicans couldn’t convince the public to stop supporting him. That’s a major asset to the democrats, and one that they truly need right now.

Edwards, on the other hand, has yet to face the fire. Think of this as punishment for repeating a past mistake, lying about his extra-marital affair to the public. He's nees to face the fire, so he's black listed by the democrats until after the next presidential election. I'm not saying that this is the right thing to do, but what choice do the democrats really have here?

steve, I'm not defending

August 10, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Simpatico

steve, I'm not defending cheating, either, but if I was married to Hillary...

The ultimate irony

August 10, 2008 - 12:28 ET by sarcasmo

Is that The Enquirer would have probably kept to such an agreement if he'd agreed to talk to them (I don't know if The Enquirer comes out late on Fridays, though).
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

To think that Edwards has

August 10, 2008 - 14:14 ET by bigtimer

To think that Edwards has the audicity to be furious about anything regarding him in the public now speaks volumes about the man....

I use the term 'man' lightly.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Next time, go live

August 10, 2008 - 19:46 ET by nkviking75

If Edwards wanted to keep excerpts from the interview from being leaked early, there was a simple solution available: demand that the interview be aired live so there'd be no tape to leak. I think ABC would have agreed to that in order to gert an exlusive. What a moron.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.