Rielle Hunter is a batsh-t insane liar, new GQ video reveals


Yesterday, we spent a lot of time going through Rielle Hunter’s epic, crazy, totally wrong interview and photos for GQ. Where she had once been a model of keeping her mouth shut, she revealed herself to be a woman obsessively in love with John Edwards, and completely enamored with his bullsh-t. Oh, and she seems to love the limelight too, so I imagine we’re going to see a lot more of her in the months to come too.

Within just a few hours of the GQ stuff coming online, Rielle apparently spoke to Barbara Walters, telling Babs that she found the photo shoot she participated in willingly to be “repulsive”. She also claimed that she cried and screamed about it, and that her explanation for the shoot was that she “thought that having one of those photos was okay and would be sexy and that there were others that were just beautiful headshots, but that GQ picked photos to hit one note.” Right.

Anyway, GQ revealed their behind-the-scenes video of what went down, and it’s pretty funny in the wake of Rielle’s asinine explanation. You get to see Mark Seliger (the photographer) asking Rielle to position her body in certain ways. So, you know, it was clear that he wasn’t just taking “head shots”. Oh, and he shows her the shots he’s taken! Jesus. I mean, how f-cking insane is this woman? And watch how she plays to all of the cameras! Oh, she thinks she’s the sexiest bitch in the world. She’s even pulling a Jennifer Lopez face, I swear. Here’s the video:



GQ photos of Rielle courtesy of the Washington Post and GQ online.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

37 Responses to “Rielle Hunter is a batsh-t insane liar, new GQ video reveals”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. mollyb says:

    What a loon. She seems to think if she says enough nasty things about Elizabeth Edwards, the American public will turn their allegiance from Elizabeth to Rielle and John. What she doesn’t realize is that we can hate all of them equally.

  2. Lady Nightshade says:

    To be fair, you’re twisting her words. She was upset about the pictures because she knew there were some sexy shots AND some “head shots” and she assumed (rather naively) that the magazine would run mostly head shots and maybe one or two of the sexy ones.

  3. YT says:

    Rielle knows how to get final approval on the photos used in an article. If final approval is not allowed, then you don’t do the interview. You certainly don’t dress and pose inappropriately then whine about the results later.

  4. Marjalane says:

    I think I need to clorox my eyes. Yuck. Also- when they showed the back of her head, you could really see what a nasty dye job she had. She’s in New York and being professionally photographed, why wouldn’t she have better hair? Sorry. Pet peeve. She and “Johnny” deserve each other.

  5. Meow Mix says:

    What time is it because I’m pretty sure I just heard the cuckoo clock chiming.

  6. lucy2 says:

    My guess is she’s really OK with them, waited for the public reaction, and when it was very negative, then decided to play the innocent victim.
    I’m sorry, but lounging on a bed with no pants, and you think they’ll use a head shot? Come on.
    And now I’m going to be really mean and say I sincerely doubt any of the head shots were “beautiful”.

  7. Twocats says:

    My eyes are bleeding…I feel nauseous.

  8. DoMaJoReMc says:

    @ MollyB Funny LOL!

    Are we to assume, or should I say visualize in our minds, that this white men’s dress shirt is John’s?

    Does she have such little regard or respect for her daughter that she would pose like this. While not pornographic, it is a bit suggestive. Her daughter will one day see these photos.

    Do any of these people ever think about the fact that everything is documented on the internet?

    I just don’t get it……… :/

  9. TaylorB says:

    I am with Lucy2, she was fine with the photos until everyone saw them and there was a resounding EEEWWWWWW!!! heard round the world. Then came the “boo-hoo poor me” nonsense.

    Personally I suspect that a good part of the ‘eeewwww’ reaction most people had was in regards to her freaky interview, perhaps she should focus on that a bit more.

  10. bellaluna says:

    Please, please, PLEASE for the love of all that is holy, please don’t post those pictures again. I don’t deserve that. No one does.

    She’s doing the typical Heidi-backlash-dance: conduct yourself in a disgusting, reprehensible way, then claim victimhood by blaming the mean people who misinterpreted your words or took advantage of your naivete or deceived you into taking dirty pictures (with you posing and your full consent) or any combination of the three. People like that should be shot. Put them out of their misery, and ours!

  11. Erin says:

    All that blinking in the video makes her look like even more of a dumb floozy.

  12. guilty pleasures says:

    Just thought of something…Why are we only bashing the moronic home-wrecker? Why do we not hold GQ to a higher standard?
    I can’t see them selling many copies of this rag, but shouldn’t journalism have some sort of bench mark for what we, the public, will accept?
    Run a story, on the inside, exposing her lunacy, but don’t try to bamboozle us into thinking this little creep is a celebrity, or anyone to be celebrated in any way.
    bah humbug to GQ this month.
    Besides, isn’t GQ for men? This ‘woman’ certainly does nothing for my husband, ladies, run a poll!!!

  13. Sumodo1 says:

    @guilty pleasures– Bravo, brava! You tell ‘em.

  14. snowball says:

    Why do I see her and immediately think of the other batshit crazy woman, Heather Mills?

    Yeah, John Edwards is a nasty, self-absorbed a-hole who deserves the public flogging he’s gotten.

    Those pictures are ridiculous. I love that they released the video proving what a lying sack of dog doo she is. And she should avoid the sexy face. She can’t pull it off.

  15. Pete says:

    This just makes me think less of Edwards–and I didn’t think that was possible.

    You are who you f***.

  16. mollination says:

    To be fair, one video doesn’t show the entire shoot. There could have been other “scenes” or locations or whatever, and there very well may have been tasteful headshots.

    But at the end of the day, the shots she participated in above are still inappropriate.

  17. Rosanna says:

    The real hypocritical thing is to think that a person should stay in a marriage s/he doesn’t want to be into just because his/her spouse is sick with cancer.

  18. Magawisca says:


    Um, when your spouse has cancer, & two young children, you should stay with them. This is a question of character. Abandoning a spouse with terminal cancer is vile.

  19. Whitey Fisk says:

    As usual, I’m with lucy2. She thought the public would think the photos were hot and when people reacted by dry heaving, she ran with this “repulsive” story.

  20. Linda says:

    She might as well have “DITZ” tattooed on her forehead. Take your pants off?? Come on.

  21. Hepzibah says:

    @ Pete: Well said, well said!

  22. Elanenergy says:

    Rosanna, #19: is that you, Reille? You are absolutely right. What husband really wants to stay around after a child has died, and then his wife has the audicity to regain cancer. (I’m being sarcastic, because this is what marriage is, a partnership for better or worse, sickness or health. Unless you are John Edwards, who doesn’t “do” sick, apparently. He does do crazy, and This ho is crazy, and so is her man. This whole thing is atrocious. No moral character to be found here.

  23. Therethere says:

    Reille Hunter has quite a checkered past… she was previously known as Lisa Druck… has anybody else read “Story of My Life”?
    I was sure she would pop herself back into the limelight in some messed-up way; over-entitled and in need of therapy!

  24. Madelyn Rose says:

    She needs to just follow the Angelina playbook – lure him away, marry Johnny, publicize the romance like it’s the most epic love story ever, do tons of humanitarian work, have several more kiddies, sell the pics of them for money, donate some of that $ to charity…and viola…on the road to sainthood. Funny how many of us worship Angie, who is also a “homewrecker” but vilify this lady, and lots of others, like LeAnn Rimes….

  25. Vanessa says:

    That poor poor kid.


    and John Edwards?

    Poor kid. :(

  26. Katie says:

    Why is she even in GQ? I just don’t get how all these skanky women continue to be rewarded and receive press time for being a sl*t.

  27. lola lola says:

    A slimeball that sleeps with a slimeball-married-man is a psycho liar? I shocked! Just shocked.

  28. Gistine says:

    Her chin needs an agent or at the very least top-billing.

    There is nothing else I could say that hasn’t already been said about this dick-infested whore mattress.

  29. Shannon says:

    Madelyn Rose, I think there’s a difference between this situation and celebrities. For one, Jennifer Aniston was never terminally ill. For another, politicians portray a false image of themselves, insist they are for family values, then go and be hypocrites. To top it all off, they usually then do some desperate and embarrassing cover up that implodes to make them look even more hypocritical. Generally I don’t think celebs do that to such a spectacular degree.

  30. Constance says:

    For those of you who think she was naive, you are SO wrong. She knows how to play the game… Is anyone else a WAY back Deceiver reader? She is made of so many facades it’s not even funny.

    I still believe she is backed by the Edwards PR camp. They may or may not be in total control, but I bet they are speed dialing her constantly in the past couple of weeks. Either way, she has lawyers she SHOULD have had brief her on her rights for contractual interviews. Anytime money is exchanged for an “exclusive” there is a written agreement.

    Back to my point for posting. GQ is a gentlemen’s rag in the same way Playboy interviews try to be Newsweek. It doesn’t have to be held accountable for Money Shots making sales perk in a market that is DYING. Printed publications are hurting, massively. It’s like saying the page Six should be cut out because it’s blind items hurt young people’s vision of what Hollywood is like.

    She should have covered her Scarlet letter cooch! That’s all her! SHE knew GQ can’t MAKE her take her clothes off to take photos of her face! DUH!!!

  31. BReed says:

    A picture is worth 1000 words. There is a name for wome like her: trash. I hope she and “johnny” will be very miserable together and Quinn turns out to be hell raiser who will shame them both–I know, dear reader, I mean no real harm to the child..I get wound up!)

  32. sandy says:

    i agree, there is a difference, jennifer the wife at the time have said, and i quote, (no one cheated) how much clearer can it be? now, moving on,yes, john is slime, but this woman kept quiet but had her family and friends do all her dirty work so not to upset her prey, john, she set john up from the get go, calling and sending cameras where ever they were to meet. she is a nut job alright, poor Elizabeth. on top of everything else, having to deal with an insensitive, conniving, opportunistic crazy person.

  33. Sunnyjyl says:

    Octomom with way fewer progeny.

  34. lastwordlinda says:

    Lots of eye blinking = liar. And posing with children’s toys while looking like a slut. That’s just sick.