John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview
“In a coldly-calculated political move, John Edwards has now admitted that he had an affair, but did not father Rielle Hunter’s daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.”
–DBKP, John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Admits Affair, Lies, to ABC News
“Come on, guys! Believe me!
Bruce, Bob, Katie, you all believed me before!”
John Edwards on:
* Affair ended in 2006
* No more to say
* Tabloids
* What Baby?
Edwards’ Web of Deception Continues
A few short minutes after ABC announced that John Edwards admitted his affair with Rielle Hunter and was going to appear on Friday’s Nightline to talk about it, we wrote the words at the top of the page.
We also wrote then:
“The political calculus is: Edwards hopes that his admission of having an affair will allow the incident to blow over, allowing him to proceed with his political career.”
UPDATES to follow, at end of story.
UPDATE #1: 15:33 EDT August 10, 2008 – MSM Scorned
UPDATE #2: 1557 EDT -What Ended Up on the floor & Shock and Awe Among Edwards’ Former Staff
Next UPDATE at 21:00 EDT August 10, 2008
After reading Edwards’ statement, our immediate instincts were confirmed: John Edwards only came forward after he was cornered by the National Enquirer–which he repeatedly labeled “tabloid trash”–and a few in the traditional press were finally, after almost a year, beginning to take an interest. After watching Edwards’ Nightline appearance and examining the allegations he made in the interview, we’re convinced–and we’re not the only ones.
How do I deceive thee? Let me count the ways.”
Was John Edwards the “99% honest” man on Friday? At DBKP, we noticed one falsehood almost immediately, which was confirmed the next day. John Edwards said that his affair with Rielle Hunter ended in 2006. He said it three times in his statement, so it must have been an important point.
It was–and is.
It allows Edwards to claim he is not the father of Frances Quinn Hunter. We weren’t the only ones who noticed that point–and others, as well.
How many times did Edwards prevaricate in his statement and interview? We believe that it happened three times–it’s likely there’s more when the whole truth finally comes out.
ALSO at DBKP:  Click on banner to access over 70 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal. |
“my actions in 2006…”
“In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs…I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then.”
–Edwards’ statement: John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Releases Statement to Press
There are many reasons to believe that Edwards is lying–the word sounds harsh–when he stated that his affair with Rielle Hunter ended in 2006. There is only one reason to believe John Edwards on this point: his word.
Sam Stein is back on the Edwards’ case at Huffington Post and reveals that the “99% honest” man lied during his Coming Out, Coming Clean appearance on Nightline.
John Edwards’ False Assertion During The ABC Interview
|
WOODRUFF: When you hired Ms. Hunter, that was back in 2006, the committee hired in July 2006, paid her $114,000 to make films for you… Uh was the affair going on when you hired her?
EDWARDS: No. No. And again, I always said this to you, I don’t think I’m going to go through the details of this, I already did it with Elizabeth– uh, she was hired to come in and produce films and that’s the reason she was hired. WOODRUFF: But this had nothing to do with the fact that you were having an affair with her? EDWARDS: Same answer. Same answer — no I did not. WOODRUFF: So you hired her before it even started? EDWARDS: That is correct. |
A review of political action committee payments, contemporaneous reporting, and emails obtained by the Huffington Post reveal this statement to be false.
Edwards and Hunter initially met each other sometime during the winter of 2006 (either late December 2005 or early January) in a hotel restaurant in midtown Manhattan. It would be another seven months before Edwards would first pay her for the documentary work.
What happened in between that winter meeting and the start of filming? Emails sent by Hunter suggest that her romance with Edwards was in full bloom that spring. In early April, Hunter wrote about a trip she had taken to North Carolina to see the man whom she affectionately referred to as “my love lips.”
A week later she wrote another email in which she described the mental anguish of “being in love with a (still somewhat dysfunctional) married man.”
Stein rightly observes, “In the context of admitting to an affair, it may seem innocent for Edwards to have misled ABC about the starting point. But the precise date is important. Over the course of nine months Edwards would spend more than $114,000 of the One America Committee’s budget on Hunter’s films. Whether he did that in an effort to have Hunter around or as a legitimate documentary project would likely make a difference to those who thought they were contributing to a poverty-eradication effort.”
Nearly a year ago–at least eight months after John Edwards alleges the affair was over–a small item was published in the New York Daily Post.
“WHICH political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he’ll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture.â€
Yesterday we wrote [John Edwards Scandal: Sister Asks Edwards to Stop Bad-mouthing Rielle Hunter - UPDATED]:
DBKP has mentioned the provocative item before and in searching for the DBKP posts it appeared in, stumbled across the NY Post reminding readers that “EDWARDS BLIND NO MORE“.
WE hate to say we told you so, and we normally never reveal the identities in our blind items, but in light of John Edwards’ finally admitting he had an extramarital affair, we bring your attention to our “Just asking†item of Aug. 27, 2007
Page Six goes on to: “Top Democrats have been assiduously following the Edwards scandal and don’t believe his denial, which was issued last year, before he was caught visiting Rielle Hunter in a Beverly Hills hotel.â€
Jonathan Darman, Newsweek, followed Edwards and Hunter around on the pre-campaign trail in 2006. Darman recounts memories of a lunch in the “early summer” of 2007 with Rielle Hunter.
At lunch early that summer, I asked Rielle if she was dating anyone. She answered simply, “I’m in love.” I asked, “Who with?” “I can’t tell you,” she said, “but maybe someday we’ll all be friends.”
That October, the National Enquirer wrote a story claiming that Rielle and Edwards were having an affair. Rielle called me to ask, should she put out a statement denying it? I asked her if she would give a statement to NEWSWEEK, which seemed to make her mad. She said she was talking to me as a friend, not a journalist. Though she said that our conversations had been “between you and me,” we had never actually gone off the record.
The most damning evidence against Edwards claims the affair ended in 2006 is Edwards’ actions themselves. The reason he repeats 2006 likely is for three reasons.
First, Edwards may have, no doubt, confessed to wife, Elizabeth, about the affair after the Enquirer’s December story–when the tabloid named Hunter as the pregnant “other woman” and supplied very specific details of the affair. If he changes his story now, he’s looking at another set of very serious problems on the home front.
Elizabeth Edwards apparently had her suspicions, even back in 2006, before the Enquirer named Rielle Hunter in December. Darman relates in his article that Hunter claimed that it was Elizabeth Edwards who had Hunter “fired” from the campaign.
Second, if Edwards paid Hunter out of his PAC’s money while the affair was going on, the FEC would get involved–and it wouldn’t be pretty. Finally, if the affair with Hunter really had ended in 2006, he has an iron-clad alibi that he is not the father of Frances Quinn Hunter.
Nothing more to say
I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.
The inkjet printer had barely had a time to cool down when Edwards put the lie to this last sentence in his just-released statement. Described as “apoplectic” that ABC had started promoting the Nightline segment in the afternoon–before reporters had a chance to take off for the weekend and while many Americans were still at work, in front of their computers–Edwards dialed up Bob Schieffer at CBS News.
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 site ABC News’ report. (Representatives for Edwards did not return a call or e-mail for comment.)
–Marisa Guthrie, Broadcasting & Cable, Edwards furious with ABC News
It turns out, contrary to a statement only minutes old on the AP wire, John Edwards already had more to say. DBKP wasn’t the only that noticed. ALESSANDRA STANLEY, New York Times: True or False: Everyone Looks 10 Pounds Guiltier on TV
On Friday afternoon, the former senator from North Carolina ended a long written statement with a promise: “I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.†He then promptly said more. Before ABC had a chance to show the “Nightline†exclusive, Mr. Edwards upstaged “Nightline†by contacting CBS.
…
Mr. Edwards, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, was well on his way to becoming a private citizen when he made his admission. He said the sin of hubris drove him to have an affair, telling Mr. Woodruff that he strayed because political campaigns “fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.â€Narcissism doesn’t lead politicians to believe that they can have an affair and get away with it. It leads them to believe that they can go on television and dispel it.
A small lie, or an intention quickly changed, due to even quicker events passing it by?
Lawhawk conveniently handles this in “Small Lies and Big Lies“.
Who Let the Tabloid Dogs Out?
Tabloid and dogs pop up in the Edwards’ statement. Edwards referred to “tabloids” hounding him. Edwards’ pal, Fred Baron, in one his statements referred to tabloids “dogging, dogging” Edwards and Hunter. A search revealed, however, it was not “tabloids” as was repeated by Edwards and Baron.
It was only the National Enquirer. We could find no references to the Star or any other tabloids mentioning the John Edwards affair. Even the Enquirer’s sister publication, The Globe, didn’t mention the affair–at least any that could be searched.
So, “tabloids” pursuing Mr. Edwards turns out to be one tabloid, The National Enquirer. But, as no other media–outside of a few in the blogosphere bothered to investigate or pursue the story–one struggles to imagine how this could have been the living hell that Edwards claims.
Again, a small discrepancy for a man who had over a week to craft his statement, using his skills as a trial attorney.
Who’s that Baby?
In ABC News’s transcript of the Edwards interview, Edwards goes out on a limb–a big one, DBKP believes–when he denies a baby being at the Beverly Hilton with him. He waltzes around answering the question; instead, positing conspiracy PhotoShop theories for any Edwards supporters that still may be out there.
WOODRUFF: People say they are in contact with her, have told us that you have met her out in California several times. True?
EDWARDS: I met her this last time when I was in California for the very purpose that you and I just spoke about.
WOODRUFF: And that picture is absolutely you and you are holding that baby.
EDWARDS: The picture in the tabloid. I have no idea what that picture is.
WOODRUFF: But you’ve seen it right?
EDWARDS: I did see it and I cannot make any sense out of that. When I went to this meeting you’ve already asked me about, uh, I was not wearing a t-shirt, I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I don’t know who that picture — I don’t know if that picture is me, it could well be, it looks like me. I don’t know who that baby is, I have no idea what that picture is.
Woodruff won’t let the matter stand. Finally, after Woodruff pursues the issue, John Edwards does answer with a simple, straightforward “no”–a rarity, so far, in this story.
WOODRUFF: But are you saying you don’t remember holding that child of Miss Hunter?
EDWARDS: I’m saying you asked me about this photograph, I don’t know anything about that photograph, I don’t know who that baby is. I don’t know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it’s a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby — I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that.
WOODRUFF: You did say you did meet her at a hotel in California.
EDWARDS: She was there, Mr. McGovern was present, and that’s where the meeting took place.
WOODRUFF: But you don’t remember a baby being there?
EDWARDS: No.
Though there is no proof at this point–outside of the Enquirer’s offices–to refute this allegation by Edwards, we are certain that John Edwards will soon regret the one time he gave Woodruff a simple direct answer.
One important point to keep in mind in the coming days: Woodruff’s wording of the question allowed John Edwards a legalistic escape.
Anyone who’s watched tapes of the Watergate hearings can recall the parade of witnesses before Congress and their many statements ending, “to the best of my recollections”. John Edwards did not say that there was no baby present: he said he didn’t remember a baby being there.
This gave Edwards a possible escape from perjury in the court of public opinion.
By the time Edwards had finished his interview and released a statement, Fred Baron was also talking to the press. ABC News has been reported as having already tied Edwards to the $15,000 payments to Hunter.
We’ll let the Baron/hush money matter stand until another day.
John Edwards, admitted narcissist that he is, may have convinced himself that this statement would answer enough to allow the scandal to blow over and his political career to resume at some later date.
He only convinced DBKP, as well as others, that there’s much more there–and eventually, the deception he wove into his interview and statement will be exposed. Some points already have been.
Our conviction: Edwards will be sorely challenged to further explain his explanations when the Enquirer revisits the matter this coming week.
UPDATES to follow.
UPDATE #1: 15:33 EDT
Hell hath no fury like a MSM scorned–or lied to. Huffington Post’s Bonnie Fuller and–surprise!–Maureen Dowd of the–surprise again!–New York Times attack the latest Edwards’ defensive position: Dowd on Edwards’ “creepy” interview; Fuller, on Elizabeth Edwards’ statement yesterday. The AP also got in a shot at Edwards’ claims, released in Friday’s statement.
DOWD: Edwards’ Affair was “Oncologically Correct”
Seldom do we agree with Maureen Dowd, but we’ll have to admit: Mo brings the Smackdown to Edwards’ “confession”
Maureen Dowd, New York Times: Keeping It Rielle
Even in confessing to preening, Edwards was preening. His diagnosis of narcissism was weirdly narcissistic, or was it self-narcissistic? Given his diagnosis, I’m sure his H.M.O. would pay.
The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.
HuffPo’s Fuller Clear-Eyed about Elizabeth Edwards’ Situation
Bonnie Fuller, Huffington Post: Elizabeth Edwards Drank Her Husband’s Kool-Aid And Became His “Ambition Enabler”
In any case, Elizabeth Edwards was a victim when her husband cheated. She did nothing to deserve that and as a wife she had every right and many reasons to forgive the jerk. But the decision to stand behind him and publicly broadcast his staunch family values image was her own doing. As courageous and admirable as she has been in dealing with her cancer, she is now the latest member of the Publicly Humiliated Wives Club, and she has no right to complain about the public’s interest in knowing exactly what has happened. She helped get herself in this situation.
A Little Gallows Humor Never Hurts
Edwards’ affair his most costly political risk”
“”If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself.”
To which, AP’s GARY D. ROBERTSON, writes, “That is unlikely.”
UPDATE #2: 1557 EDT -What Ended Up on the floor & Shock and Awe Among Edwards’ Former Staff
DBKP’s LBG makes several points worth mentioning in “Edwards Affair: Edwards Claims Enquirer Love Child Photo a Fake“:
What the public didn’t see were the parts of Edwards’ interview with Bob Woodruff that ended up on the editing room floor. DBKP took a look at the ABC Nightline transcript and found an interesting tidbit sliced and diced by ABC: Edwards claims the photo of him purportedly holding Hunter’s baby released in the Enquirer August 6 issue is a fake:
Her story is filled with observations on how Edwards handled the baby issue on ABC. As for Edwards claims that he didn’t remember a baby in the room?
If Edwards, a highly successful civil trial attorney, believes the Enquirer published a fake photo of him and a baby, claiming it was his love child, then why hasn’t Edwards publicly threatened to sue the “tabloid trash†pants off the Enquirer?
Edwards claimed that the “supermarket tabloids†were filled with “outrageous accusations†and he chose to deny the affair back in October because the Enquirer’s claims were full of falsehoods. As an attorney, Edwards knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Edwards could have threatened litigation over the love child photo, separate from the other story details that Edwards has confirmed the Enquirer did get right: Edwards had an affair and Edwards did meet Reille Hunter at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on July 21.
Cast of Thousands AP link above
The AP story from above also mentioned the shock from former Edwards’ staffers. Former campaign manager David Bonior was quoted as saying, “he was one of the thousands of friends and supporters that Edwards betrayed”.
“You can’t lie in politics and expect to have people’s confidence,” Bonior said.
Speaking of untruths, half-truths and spin, the steady stream of information now appearing in the Mainstream Media about the Edwards’ affair and its principles puts the lie to the “couldn’t confirm” and “consider the source” defenses put forth by the media to their readers on why they did absolutely nothing on their own to investigate Edwards prior to two weeks ago.
That’s when the Enquirer took the MSM’s hand and gently walked it to the story they had previously refused to investigate. As Enquirer Editor-in-chief, David Perel, told DBKP, “We Drew the Media a Road Mapâ€.
“We drew ‘em a road map to the story. All they had to do was follow it and do a little basic reporting. We did it. Fox did it. They can, too–if they want to.â€
It’s ironic, as we pointed out Friday, that the first mention of the scandal on ABC News occurred when they announced that Edwards would be appearing on Nightline to confess the affair. Millions of Americans who depended upon ABC News to keep them abreast of news, thus were informed of a scandal that’s been brewing for nearly a year.
The same applies to the other major media outlets. Not a word, not a question to Edwards, no investigation prior to a few weeks ago when the Enquirer’s reporters ambushed Edwards at the Beverly Hilton. Don Surber points out the differences between the New York Times and the Enquirer and the former’s reporting on John McCain in January and the Enquirer’s report on Edwards.
“Contrast and Compare”
Don Surber: NYT isn’t the National Enquirer
They staked the joint out.
They spent months checking it out.
They developed good sources including someone inside the room who was so trusted by Edwards and Hunter that they were comfortable enough to pose for pictures.
I don’t know for sure if cash changed hands.
But that’s how you do it.
What did the New York Times do? It talked to a few people, none of whom would go on the record, much less help them stake out the quarry.
I’m going to guess that the Enquirer has chased a few wild geese in its day. That’s expensive, but it seems to be a profitable enterprise.
Far from being unreliable, the Enquirer is very reliable in these matters. The stakes are high. Juries don’t see the First Amendment as protecting the right to fabrication. And the various goody-two-shoes journalism groups won’t stand up for the Enquirer.
The Enquirer is what it is. The Times is what it is and it is not as good as the National Enquirer, at least when it comes to uncovering a juicy story.
Amen.
by Mondoreb
Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman states Edwards’ and Rielle Hunter were traveling together on a small commuter flight on July 7, 2006.
A fascinating insight into Rielle Hunter, I might add.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151783/page/1
Reply
Follow the money…
Why Edwards is really in trouble…It’s the money, stupid.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2059486/posts
Why Edwards is really in trouble…It’s the money, stupid.
Aug 10, 2008 | Chuckie is a girlymon
Posted on August 10, 2008 1:32:37 PM EDT by Chucky is a girlie man
Yes, it’s great to have one more example of hypocrisy and lack of virtue in the Democratic Party made public, but we shouldn’t let this story devolve into just “another politician screws up, fathers illegitimate baby” meme. Yes, it’s rather “con-veeeee-nient” that Edwards says, with a smug, self-assured smile, that he will gladly submit to a paternity test and Rielle Hunter says, “No way, no how,” but is being named the father or not really what this latest cover-up is about?
No. Edwards, admitted narcissist that he is, wouldn’t have anything to lose by having his fatherhood confirmed. His wife will continue to stand by him, for however long she has left on this earth. Many of his supporters either consciously or subconsciously also know the truth, but have excused this conduct as being “just sex” or “a common human failing,” so they’ll still support him. So, why continue to lie?
Simple. It’s the money, stupid. He could be in some serious criminal trouble for running afoul of tax and campaign finance laws. This could also explain why his dying wife is continuing to support him as well – she is concerned about who would raise their two small children if she’s dead and Edwards is in prison.
There’s a lot of talk about Fred Baron paying $15,000 per month to Hunter and $20,000 to Young “out of his own money.” Don’t we all wish we had friends like that? Even better if those friends were powerful trial lawyers with a private jet we get to borrow! There’s even more to this tale than Baron’s payouts, though.
A June 22, 2007, article in the NY Times titled “In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008,” sets the frame for troubles ahead, should the media and/or law enforcement decide to pursue it.
Excerpt:
John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.
Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show…
…The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.
While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,†its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars†with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations…
…Mr. Edwards mixed policy and politics in a way that allowed his supporters to donate to the causes he believed in — and to the organizations he had set up. He also set up two political action committees, something commonly done by politicians thinking of running for president.
But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status…
…Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 “soft money†organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.
From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile…
…The two foundations and the two political committees all shared an address in Washington and jointly raised around $4 million…
…Mr. Edwards also developed mutually beneficial relationships with public and private institutions. He founded the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, which provided him with a platform. In return, he raised $3 million to sustain it…
…The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed…
…Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.
“I can’t say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong,†Mr. Owens said. “But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he’d fall over it.â€
Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards’ OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians…
Reply
Will ABC be making the information concerning the $15000 payoffs soon? Is there any chance the Enquirer has DNA (I know it would not be “legal”) I agree with Dossier – The Newsweek article speaks volumes – I think it indicates she was too much in love with John Edwards to sleep with anyone else.
Reply
Dossier and Jane,
Agree with you both. We mentioned the Darman article yesterday shortly after it was posted in:
John Edwards Scandal: Sister Asks Edwards to Stop Bad-mouthing Rielle Hunter – UPDATED
We mention it again today in this story.
Thanks for following the story. I suspect it’s not over by a long shot.
Reply
Sorry, I had missed that.
Now would be a great time for Rielle Hunter to tell us what she meant when she said about Elizabeth Edwards:
“Someday,” Rielle said, “the truth about her is going to come out.”
Reply
Andrew and Cheri Young in Edwards Book “Four Trials”
(Simon & Schuster, 2003, ISBN 0743272048 )
‘In the acknowledgments for his 2003 book, “Four Trials,†Mr. Edwards included Mr. Young and his wife, Cheri, in a select group whose friendship, he said, “cannot be put into words, but each knows his or her importance in my family’s life.â€
In the case of Mr. Young, that importance was easily overlooked because he would recede into the background, according to several acquaintances.
Burton Craige, a lawyer who collaborated on dozens of cases with Mr. Edwards, said Mr. Young maintained a low profile when he worked in fund-raising and development for the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers in the late 1990s.
“He’s a very capable, hard-working, bright person,†Mr. Craige said. “I know that he was very close to John, not just as an aide, but as friends.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us/politics/10edwards.html
Reply
Dossier,
Well, I have a few guesses, but that’d be all they’d be…just guesses.
And remember, EEdwards probably could smell something fishy with Rielle and her husband…I’m sure she wasn’t overly thrilled by her following JEdwards around everywhere….
Yep…Andrew Young’s gonna be found very soon, I suspect. And the MSM will scrutinize him much, much more in August than they did in December–when they refused to scrutinize him at all.
My prediction: Andrew Young will crack–as soon as the scrutiny level is about 1/2 of what EDwards is getting now.
Reply
I agree that Andrew Young will crack, and his wife Cheri Lynn Young appears to have already had enough.
I would not be at all surprised if their marriage didn’t survive the light of day.
Once the Young’s and all Rielle Hunter’s friends realize that their year-end-bonuses are never coming (since Edwards is potentially indictable for violating FEC regulations on maximum donations), and that the phone calls aren’t going to magically stop with a ‘no comment’, they will sing.
Reading her website, Hunter is attention seeking by nature, an actress wannabe who craves the limelight, and I’m surprised this house of cards remained held together as long as it did.
I believe Rielle Hunter can not wait to talk to the media. I believe she has been craving this day since June 2007.
I also think John Edwards has still not told EEdwards the whole truth, and his refusal to draw a line in the sand on when his relationship with RHunter ended is probably going to be the exploitable crack for media investigations.
Finally, I can’t find the link between RHunter lawyer Robert Gordon and Fred Baron. I know its got to be in there somewhere, unless Gordon is a garden variety New Jersey incorporation lawyer whose ad she stumbled across in the back of Variety.
Thanks for keeping the news coming. You guys really put yourself on the map with this one.
Reply
PS, the way Rielle Hunter described EEdwards as not looking her in the eye and shutting down here ‘webisodes’ seemed to be a practiced method.
As in, “Oh, John’s got another trollop hanging around. Let’s pull the chair out from under her with play A37″.
I wouldn’t be surprised if other women started to come out of the woodwork.
I wonder who else Fred Baron is making monthly payments to?
Reply
There are a many Robert Gordon’s in New York who are attorneys and Democratic donors.
A few of them are even Asbestos attorneys, like Fred Baron
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=NEW+YORK&st=NY&last=Gordon&first=Robert
Reply
GREAT job on this story since the very beginning. I hope you keep on it.
Reply
[...] DBKP continues to haunt Edwards’ nightmares. [...]
Thanks Dossier and Sam in CT:
Although there were plenty of clues to the cover-up back in December, one of the most scandalous episodes of this affair was the media blackout.
NOW the media scandal shifts to an on-going Soviet-style rewriting of history–and that “we need to move on” mentality among MSM types forced by Edwards himself to talk about it.
Thanks again for the kind words.
Reply
“Hunter is attention seeking by nature, an actress wannabe who craves the limelight,…”
Exactly. She’d rather die than face a return to anonymity. She’ll start singing just before the Democratic convention for maximum effect. And the MSM will have to report on it.
*delicious*
Reply
[...] As DBKP stated over the weekend [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview]: [...]
[...] John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview * John Edwards Scandal: The Many Faces of [...]
[...] did not come clean; in fact, hours after the “confession”, he was ridiculed by DBKP[John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Continues Deception in Interview and John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Admits Affair, Lies, to ABC [...]