- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| John Edwards' Sex Tape!; Media Not Interested - Again! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 28 2009, 09:14 PM (810 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Mar 3 2012, 10:37 AM Post #16 |
|
Deleted User
|
Who cares???? |
|
|
| Mason | Mar 3 2012, 01:54 PM Post #17 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I posted a week or 10 days ago that who's to trust this tape will be destroyed, that it makes more sense one of these characters would keep it for a rainy day. It's about money. . |
![]() |
|
| cks | Mar 3 2012, 01:59 PM Post #18 |
|
Money or control.........I maintain that he is trying to use this as a wedge to get Rielle to do his bidding in the upcoming trial. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 3 2012, 02:12 PM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
If she testifies against him and he releases the tape he has ultimately hurt himself more than her. I don't see this as blackmail. I see this as future after dinner entertainment post jail time. |
|
|
| Mason | Mar 3 2012, 02:50 PM Post #20 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Here was my Post. We are not fooled. http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/single/?p=632172&t=4702796 . |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 3 2012, 06:47 PM Post #21 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would not trust anyone in the court system to destroy this tape. The fact is that the tape is the property of Hunter since she shot the film and certainly to the male actor in the starring role. The tape should go back to them to destroy. I think it is a logical request and not one to read much into. It seems that they are no longer estranged given the fact that if he gets jail time he needs a babysitter. Let's face it, they are both scumbags and questionable motives would not escape either of them. |
|
|
| cks | Mar 3 2012, 07:08 PM Post #22 |
|
I do not see that he has any claim - it was hers......in her possession, or was until she left it behind amid her myriad moves. That he has a "starring" role does not give him ownership. TD - you are right that both are scumbags.......I feel sorry for their child and for his by Elizabeth. What sorry excuses those two serve as examples for their offspring. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 4 2012, 12:07 AM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Was it filmed during the time his campaign or someone on his behalf was paying for her photography skills? If she was on his payroll at the time they mutually agreed to make the film, then I see that he has as much right to it as she does. Just because it was in her possession doesn't necessarily imply ownership. |
|
|
| Mason | Mar 4 2012, 12:31 AM Post #24 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Maybe it's just me, but I'm wondering if this was misreported. This is about as politically stupid as it gets. Or maybe it's just that other America. . |
![]() |
|
| cks | Mar 4 2012, 07:05 AM Post #25 |
|
You may be tight on the money on this. I had forgotten that originally she was hired as a videographer of his campaign.......though supposedly (if the news reports are to be believed on this) someone else was actually filming the two of them en flagrante. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Mar 4 2012, 11:01 AM Post #26 |
|
Deleted User
|
"someone else was actually filming the two of them en flagrante. " If true, this is even more smarmy than I thought. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






7:50 PM Jul 10