vector art

Highly-Selective Nature of Edwards' Refunds is Questioned
NOT Their Legality

"I donated what I consider to be a significant sum of money to John Edwards, but I am not an lawyer. Is there a website address where I can apply for a refund?

Is there a deadline for applying for refunds? I would appreciate any help anyone can give me."
--Iowa Pensioner, in a comment to our earlier story, Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers




Who in the John Edwards' campaign speaks for Iowa Pensioner and her America?

Is Iowa Pensioner a lone voice crying in a wilderness full of Edwards' apologists and would-be FEC lawyers?

UPDATES, if any at DBKP: John Edwards Campaign Refunds: More Questions than Answers


Our stories earlier today [Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers & John Edwards Scandal: Many Big Edwards Donors Got Refunds in March] caused a bit of a stir.

PJ Gladnick at Newsbusters, immediately got our point and put it in his headline,[Web Scoops MSM: Edwards Refunds Contributions to One of His Americas]. So did Moonbattery's Van Helsing:

The disgraced John Edwards has proven himself right about there being two Americas: one is rich enough to get their campaign donations quietly refunded; the other is poor enough to ignore. Following Warren Buffet's warning that donors could give the ambulance-chasing Breck Girl a dose of his own medicine with a class action lawsuit, DBKP reports:

As well as Tom McGuire, at Just One Minute: "Wouldn't that buttress a class-action lawsuit? Why is Edwards taking care of his fat-cat bundlers but not reimbursing Joe Lunchbucket's $100? Troubling."

Paleo Pat puts it thus: "It seems that John Edwards is giving much of his money back to the “Big Bundlers” some of whom are convicted felons." Snoop, at Political Party Poop, saw the irony: "LOL!"

Everyone else, including Edwards' apologists and campaign ho-hummers: let's be clear and drop the word games. We're not (and weren't in our earlier stories) questioning the legality of the refunds, but the highly-selective nature of who received their money back.

One reader wrote: "This would have been a real scoop if big contributors were getting refunds but little contributors weren’t after Edwards confessed to his affair. The true explanation appears to be pretty mundane."

If there is truly "mundane", then why did only ONE CLASS of contributors receive their money back? We have our doubts about how "mundane" the explanation is to small Edwards' contributors.

Of the 2247 contributions returned as of July 31, 2008: only 125 of these were for UNDER $100 dollars (discounting multiple donations that may have included a donation for under $100). Most of these smaller donations went to lawyers, doctors and others with substantial incomes.

Why did only contributors from One of Edwards' Two Americas get their money back?

We will wait for an answer.

We spoke with the FEC and the Center for Responsive Politics this afternoon. Again, nothing illegal (we're sorry if we left that impression, but upon re-checking our stories, the word "illegal" does not appear in either.) was implied. What was not implied, but asked quite directly: WHY did the multi-millionaires--mostly trial lawyers--get their money back in such a timely manner?

We appeal to former Edwards' supporters: did you know that you could apply to the campaign for a refund? Did you know that if you designated your contribution for the general election, you would get a refund? Were you, as an Edwards' contributor, informed by the campaign at any time--especially after Edwards' August 8 Nightline appearance--that you could ask for your money back?

At the Edwards' campaign website, there are no instructions whatsoever to help the little guys in obtaining a refund.

The person at the FEC that we spoke to was somewhat helpful:

"If the candidate drops out after the primaries, then all contributions designated for the general election--not the primary election--then the contributions, by law, have to be refunded to the contributors. If the individual contributor wants a refund of his/her donation made for the primary election, it's up to the discretion of the campaign whether to make the refund."

We were directed to this FEC document for further questions. Although it's labeled for "Congressional campaigns", we were told the "same rules apply to presidential campaigns." The only item concerning "refunds" was found on page 182 of the pdf document:

Refunded Contribution—A contribution is refunded when the recipient committee first deposits the contribution and later sends the contributor a check for the entire amount (or a portion) of the contribution. 103.3(b). Compare with definition of returned contribution.

Returned Contribution—A contribution is returned when the recipient committee sends the original check (or other negotiable instrument) back to the contributor, without depositing it. 103.3(a). Compare with definition of refunded contribution.

It seems we're back to our original question: if it's largely up to the discretion of the campaign, then why did the Edwards' campaign's discretion favor the large contributors?

Again, why did some of the biggest contributors receive money back for both the primary and general election?

Massie Ritsch, of the Center for Responsive Politics, was very helpful both in a phone conversation and in emails he sent from Denver, where he's attending the Democrat convention. CRP is looking into the refund process also, as there seems to be not much written on it (as we discovered while writing our original stories).

But Massie was very clear on a possible remedy for disaffected Edwards' donors:

"There might be plenty of trial lawyers that supported John Edwards willing to take that [class action] case."

"It's like a corporation," Massie continued, "that takes money from investors and doesn't inform them of all they know."

1 How many non-lawyers were aware that they had to designate their contributions for use in the general election to get them back by law?

2 Why were the overwhelming majority of people who received refunds big donors? Some of these donors apparently received back their contributions from both the primary and general elections: if this was at the discretion of the campaign, why were only large contributors from One of the Two Americas considered?

There is some redundancy in the above paragraphs, but it's there for a reason: it's not the illegality of the refunds that interest us; it's the highly-selective nature of who received them.

Why did Fred Baron receive his money back and not Iowa Pensioner? Why did Michael Eisner get a refund and not "emma" who wrote: "“…and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!”?

Why did Dean Hanley, of Berkeley CA, get his $6900 back in two separate refunds, while GA Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield ($750) didn't?


Our earlier stories also piqued the interest of Walter Olsen, Overlawyered:

Ted must be feeling prescient regarding his speculations about an Edwards-contributor refund class action now that Warren Buffett has weighed in on the idea [Kaus]. And in fact the Edwards campaign does seem to be refunding some contributions in interesting ways, if one account pans out (bundlers! Thomas Girardi! John O’Quinn!) [DBKP, more, yet more]

John Edwards spoke on the campaign trail of the Two Americas, poverty and helping the poor vs. the rich.

When it came time for his campaign to put its money where his mouth was, it was clear which of his Two America got their money back.

Who speaks for those people now?

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file

John Edwards' Two Americas:
The Fat Cats and Bundlers Who Got their Money Refunded;
The Working Stiffs Who Stayed in the Dark



* The John Edwards' campaign has already refunded $3,831,398 to contributors--many who contributed the maximum of $2300.
* 2,247 donors have already received money back from the John Edwards--many who are trial attorneys and political "bundlers"--and most received it back on March 24.
* Refunds to small donors under $100 have accounted for only 1/5th of one percent, so far, according to Open Secrets.com.
* The Edwards campaign still has $4,791,200 cash on hand, according to its July 31, 2008 filing.
* There are no instructions on the Edwards' campaign website for applying for a refund, though the campaign is still taking donations on the same site. It may be that refunds will be issued on a "first come, first serve" basis, but that is speculation. More on the refund process in a DBKP story to be published later Monday.

For any readers who gave money to the John Edwards' campaign and are now upset that perhaps that hard-earned $50 or $100 (or more) went to pay for Rielle Hunter's stay in the tony Governor's Club or Andrew Young's BWM that Hunter drove for awhile, there's hope yet to recover that money.

While searching for info on another John Edwards' story, DBKP's LBG uncovered something previously unreported in the media: the Edwards' campaign made a number of refunds to campaign contributors on March 24. Most were large contributors--trial attorneys and political contribution bundlers--and many received $2300, or more, back from the Edwards' campaign. Many not only received refunds themselves, but members of their families who had contributed also received checks from the campaign in March.

For a candidate that ran on a "Two Americas" theme, when it came time for refunds, only One America got campaign refund checks, while the other America was kept in the dark.

Until now.




Warren Buffet told CNBC last week: "I've seen a lot of class-action suits with less to it than this particular case. The facts are clear. I mean, he [John Edwards] solicited money and he wasn't telling the truth to the people he was soliciting it from."

Buffet was talking class action, but DBKP has learned that the Edwards' campaign has refunded $3,831,398--the bulk of it back on March 24, when the campaign quietly issued refunds to the vast majority of the 2,247 who've received their money back.

Many of those receiving refunds were big trial attorneys and bundlers--those political money men/women who round up boatloads of cash for a candidate's campaign.

One such bundler was Atlanta attorney, Stephen Leeds. He received $2300 back on March 24. Apparently, at least one of the contributors, who gave Leeds $750 of her money for Edwards, has not.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a story Sunday of one such former Edwards' backer who wants her money back.

“That’s money I could have put in my children’s college fund,” state Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said of her contributions to Edwards.

Stuckey said she donated a total of $750 to Edwards and has contacted former Edwards backer Stephen Leeds trying to find out how to get a refund.

Leeds, an Atlanta attorney, has been an Edwards supporter since 2002 and was considered Edwards’ point man in metro Atlanta. Leeds said he now backs presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and has no idea if there is any money in Edwards’ campaign coffers to return to disgruntled former supporters. He said he has not talked with Edwards since the scandal broke.

“John ended up dishonoring an awful lot of people in this process, from his family to a lot of his supporters,” said Leeds, who gave Edwards $2,300 for his primary run and $2,300 for the general election.

The Journal-Constitution reported that Leeds stated, "Any general fund campaign contributions will be returned to donors because he [Edwards] is not running in November".

Leeds should be able to help Benfield get her money back: Leeds received $2300 back from the campaign in March, according to Open Secrets.com.

Lee Stranahan predicted last week, in a Huffington Post article, that Democrats might want their money back from Edwards:

Some Democrats Will Want Their Money Back : It's already becoming something people are talking about informally but it's just a matter of time before lawsuits start because it's becoming clear that Edwards used campaign money to take his girlfriend on the road with him. Times are hard and this could become a new and innovative economic stimulus plan for Democrats.

Again, for the first lucky applicants, no lawsuits are necessary: just be at the front of the line and be the first on your block to get your John Edwards' stimulus check!

At least that's the speculation until later today, when a few experts in the field will give their views in a yet-to-be-published DBKP article.




More from Warren Buffett on the class-action matter:

CNBC: Did you ever give money to John Edwards along the way?

BUFFETT: No, I didn't--I didn't give money to John Edwards. And, in fact, I think if I'd given money to him, I'd probably be asking for it back now. It's an interesting situation because John Edwards essentially was soliciting money from people to further his ambitions for the presidency, and, you know, people sent him 50, $100, $200, and I would say that they sent it in while they were being misled by the person who was soliciting the money from them. And, you know, I think if I were Edwards, I might give up a haircut or two and refund at least, you know, the people that gave the 50 or $100, $200 items, because they-- if they had known the facts, they wouldn't have sent him the money, and he is the guy that didn't give them the facts. I mean, he knew that, in effect, he wouldn't be elected president. I mean, the story was out there during the campaign. He denied it, but it was out there. And, in fact, I've never heard of it, but it might be kind of interesting if somebody, some contributor, would bring a class-action suit on behalf of all these people who essentially were led to send money to a man under totally false circumstances, false pretenses, and where he knew it and didn't tell them the truth.

Mickey Kaus commented on the Buffett class-action idea:

Heh! ... I would think this would be a difficult precedent to contain--can donors sue McCain because he didn't, in fact, get "the message" from the defeat of his immigration semi-amnesty bill--and he knew it? Maybe businesses have to live with this sort of uncertain class-action threat when they dissemble. Politicians will never stand for it.

But again, why go the legal route--that seems more make-work for the bundler-types, many who've already received their refund checks--when you can apply to the Edwards campaign directly for your money back?

Time may be of the essence here: the campaign reported $4,791,200 cash on hand in its July 31 filing. Because there is no information on the Edwards' campaign website about a refund process--but one whole page dedicated to collecting donations is still active--contacting the campaign would seem to be a must.

And, "first come, first served" might be something for disgruntled Edwards' contributors to keep in mind. DBKP is still probing the matter and will have more on the process, as well as a story on who received their cash back in March, only seven weeks after the former NC senator called it quits.

One such contributor left a comment on one of our Edwards' stories just last week. Identified only as "emma", the comment may ring a bell with some former Edwards' contributors:

"...and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But, there may be hope yet for emma.

She may not be a big campaign cash bundler--42% of all Edwards' bundlers received refunds so far, most on March 24--but 125 contributors who gave under $100 have gotten refunds back from the Edwards' campaign thus far.

In a story to be published later today, more facts about the March refunds:

* Who got their money back early?

Fred Baron was one, ex-NBA player Eric Montross--who rented his Governor's Club house to Andrew Young for awhile--was another. Many trial lawyers, such as John O'Quinn, William Lerach and Thomas Girardi, were in on the Edwards' early refund program.

* Who in Hollywood got back money already from the campaign?

* What small contributors--who earned big bucks--have already gotten their money back?

Also, later today: How to apply for refunds.

As J.G. Wentworth says in his TV commercials, "It's your money."


by Mondoreb
notes: LBG
images:
New sox
Confessions of a Wannabe Adman
Hiphop Republican

Another in a String of "Curious Coincidences"?



Click images to enlarge.

[BIG Hat Tip: DP]

The above image is a reproduction of the flight log of a private plane, N178AX, registered to Baron & Budd PC from Dallas' Love Field to Providenciales International Airport in the Caribbean on August 14.

More on this in a few paragraphs.

The National Enquirer reported that Rielle Hunter and baby daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, flew out of the U.S. on August 7 to the St. Croix in the Virgin Islands to stay at the home of John Edwards' acquaintance, Lee Rohn.

Rohn is "controversial" in the words of the Enquirer. The Enquirer also reported that the Hunters later moved out of Rohn's house and into other accommodations. Rielle and Frances Hunter, stayed in St. Croix from August 7 until August 17, when they returned to Santa Barbara, CA.

During their stay in the sunny Caribbean, the above-mentioned Raytheon Hawker 800 twin jet, registered to Baron & Budd PC landed a short distance away at Providenciales International Airport on August 14. We have no word--as yet--how many passengers this plane carried, who they were or whether the passenger(s) found their way to other points in the Caribbean.

[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]




The information turned up at DBKP in an email titled "Interesting Flight". We thought so, too.

It may turn out that nothing about this flight is out of the ordinary. The rich who own such jets regularly visit the Caribbean for both the fun and the sun it provides. At least, so we've heard.

We only mentioned it in passing for a couple of reasons.

1 - By publishing the information of the flight, we may receive an email with additional information about the flight's passenger(s) and purpose(s)--either by the parties involved or another reader as curious as we are.

2 - By publishing the information, we receive no additional info.

In the event of (2), the August 14 flight of N178AX to Providenciales International Airport will join the stack of curious coincidences that have surrounded the affair of John Edwards and his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Lately, those curious coincidences have included Frances Quinn, purported to be the daughter of Edwards and Rielle Hunter; as well as Fred Baron, the finance chair of Edwards' run for president earlier this year.

How about it?

Are there any out there that can shed further light on the particulars of N178AX? Is the flight's timing/destination just a coincidence?

We're just asking.

In a later post today, DBKP will ask additional questions concerning the flights and travel arrangements between the John Edwards campaign and its finance chair, Fred Baron. We also have some additional questions for Julian Chambers, the campaign treasurer, concerning certain--some might say "curious"--campaign travel arrangements.

And in yet another post later today, we hope to provide a few answers to some of those questions.

As was previously stated, this flight--taken during the Hunters' stay in the nearby Virgin Islands--may be nothing about which to ask any questions.

On the other hand, curious coincidences--and the questions concerning them--have a habit of following the main actors in this story.

It makes no difference to DBKP either way.

But, we'll continue to keep asking questions.


by Mondoreb
[hat tip: DP]

Stirring the John Edwards Cover-up Pot

"Hi, John! Hi, Fred!"


DBKP is not the only one stirring the John Edwards affair and cover-up pot. Others are adding in tasty bits which have all the makings of a rich, filling scandal stew.

Deceiver has not only a complete coverage of who's saying what, it also is adding to the impressive collection its own "Rielle Hunter Film Library".

You’ve seen her star turn opposite Denzel Washington in Ricochet. You’ve thrilled to her bikini-clad dancin’ in Overboard. Now TMZ has unearthed what may be Rielle’s finest moment onscreen: Her 2002 appearance on the Game Show Network’s Lingo! (If only To Tell the Truth hadn’t gone off the air…) Introducing herself to host Chuck Woolery, Rielle claimed to be “a writer” and added, “I also do a lot of yoga and chant. Mostly about how Elizabeth Edwards is a total bitch.” Okay, I might have thrown in that last part. No word yet on how much she won, but it couldn’t be nearly as much as she’s getting from this latest game.

Rush Limbaugh gave DBKP a shout out Wednesday on his show!

LBG's "John Edwards Affair: Dr. Strangelove, the “Favorite” Film Edwards Never Saw" caught the attention of El Rushbo and he used it as a modern-day parable. From Rush Limbaugh.com: Story #2: A Shining Example of the Breck Girl's Phoniness

RUSH: A fascinating story today on a blog called Death by 1,000 Paper Cuts. This story, I think, is a microcosm by the Democrat Party and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media. Let me just share the details with you. In August of 2004, John Edwards, the Breck Girl, participated on a program the Turner Classics Movie channel, and they are doing a series, Party Political and the Movies. This aired in 2004. And what these political personalities, people, were asked to do by Turner Classic Movies was to pick their all-time favorite movie and explain why. So Edwards picked Dr. Strangelove. "I believe that one of the messages Stanley Kubrick was trying to send was putting this kind of power and this potential Holocaust in the hands of human beings no matter who they are is an extraordinarily dangerous thing."

Well, here's the thing. Edwards had never seen the movie. Edwards had never seen Dr. Strangelove when he picked it, and the next element of the story is that he didn't even pick it, is his wife Elizabeth did.

Rush then quotes from LBG's story and emails started coming into the mailbox from well-wishers alerting us to the EIB notice. [Note: Thanksx100 to IC at KG3 and Snoop at PPP for the audio clips of the broadcast. We were busy on a story and missed it live!]

PJ Gladnick, of NewsBusters, lauded our coverage of the John Edwards-Fred Baron travel records in Edwards Scandal: Blogosphere Leads Investigation That MSM Neglects.

As NewsBusters editor Matthew Sheffield recently wrote, the John Edwards scandal demonstrates why the public is moving to the Web for news. A big reason for the public relying more and more on the Web for news is that the blogosphere is willing to do the investigative footwork that the mainstream media often neglects. A perfect illustration of this are the revelations made today by the DBKP blog about the suspicious aircraft leasing arrangements made by John Edwards' moneyman, Fred Baron:

The entire article is worth the price of admission, but some of the comments that follow the article could have very well been written by sheepish MSM reporters trying out spin at NewsBusters what they practiced around the water cooler--when they should have been out investigating the myriad threads of what's turning into the madcap cover-up of Edwards, et.al. (Yeah, I know it's a long sentence--but it's late, or early.)

A thousand thanks to Gladnick and NewsBusters: sometimes you feel like you write in a vacuum. Pieces, such as PJ Gladnick's, (as well as the response of readers) assure you that that vacuum only has power around the MSM.


Frank Nedelkoff, The New Nixon, notices another of the ever-growing collection of coincidences that have popped up in the John Edwards scandal(which Nedelkoff labels "Riellegate") at almost every turn.

I’ll point out once again that, when it comes to coincidences, I’m still intrigued by the fact that the Center For Promise And Opportunity, the well-funded nonprofit foundation set up by Edwards ostensibly to fund a mammoth scholarship program for poor students across the nation, abruptly went out of business (along with the scholarships it sponsored at the single high school where it manifested concrete results) a week or so before Rielle Hunter fled to St. Croix (a place with easy air access to various discreet financial institutions) and the former vice-presidential nominee went on ABC to confess his “liason.” Whither went its assets?

While Fred Baron may not exactly be an idiot savant in the memory department (if readers remember Baron responding to the questions of the NY Times), Nedelkoff reports that Baron will likely remember where he's to be next week: the Democrat Convention in Denver.

Update: the blog of the Dallas Morning News reports that although John Edwards seems to be skipping the Democratic convention next week, Fred Baron will continue his 20-year tradition of attending it. The post also quotes an Obama campaign source as denying that Baron is involved with planning events for the campaign in Colorado, as had been previously reported.

Need a quick non-Edwards break? The Morning Scramble goes around the Net in five minutes--or less.

AND

Political Party Poop has the scoop on Obama: Obama the same today as yesterday (1995, that is) and The Incredible Disappearing Candidate.

Back to the Edwards scandal.

Doug Ross has an "Exclusive Photo: Denver offers haircuts for the homeless" that proves guess that "There's a John Edwards joke lurking somewhere in that story."


Radar reports that the "NYT Hot On Story Of John Edwards And The Mysterious Duke Graduate".

New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski is on a story. Serge, you'll remember, is the reporter who brought us the tale of Ashley Alexandra Dupré, the young working lady who consorted with former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. What's Serge up to?

Since December, DBKP heard plenty of whispers, buzz and other talk on this subject. When it came time to "name names", however, the only thing we (mostly) heard was [crickets].

Apparently, the NY Times is trying to out-hustle the National Enquirer--for once.

From Williamson Republic (TX), comes the story of "Maldonado Refuses to Give Up Money Associated With John Edwards Scandal's "Hush Money Man".

After a request by Williamson County Republican Party Chairman Bill Fairborther that HD 52 candidate democrat Diana Maldonado return money associated with John Edward’s “hush money man” Frederick Baron her campaign said that they will not be returning the money.
Baron has been at the center of controversy for paying what has been characterized as “hush money” to Edwards’ mistress and he has admitted to moving her into hiding.

There's more to this story at WR.

There's a LOT more, but two big developments await before 0600 EDT.

Stay tuned for more curious circumstances.

by Mondoreb
image: DBKP

Questions for John Edwards and Fred Baron When Next Either Surfaces to Confront the Press
A "Thank You" to our Network of Readers, Comment-writers and Tipsters!


[Click image to enlarge.]

John Edwards and Fred Baron have had a close relationship over the last ten years. Both Edwards and Baron are successful trial attorneys and both shared the dream of seeing John Edwards elected President.

Baron, however, alleges that he never shared his knowledge of helping Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, and Edwards' operative, Andrew Young, with expenses totaling thousands of dollars. He recently stated that although he admits talking to Elizabeth Edwards about the subject, he more recently stated he never mentioned Rielle Hunter's arrangements to Elizabeth Edwards.

A DBKP reader, known only as "Phil Ander", did some independent research into the Edwards' campaign's use of Fred Baron's private jet and turned up some interesting information--and a LOT of questions about the connection. The research must have taken some time to compile--it took two of us some time just to confirm and follow its weaving, winding trail.

Readers can ask their own questions after reading.

Or, perhaps they will have additional questions of their own.

[Background information: Access almost 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards affair and cover-up since December: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library. Updated daily.]

The information on the Internet does not jibe. There is probably a logical explanation but it is not apparent.

1. Reports filed by the Edwards campaign show many (apparently 128) payments for "airfare" to Frederick Baron (Federal Election Commission, fec.gov; opensecrets.org). There are more airfare payments to Frederick Baron than any other airfare payee.

2. There appears to be only one entry for airfare payment to Baron & Budd, of $2,517, according to the Open Secrets website.

3. Baron's full name is Frederick Martin Baron. He lives in Dallas, TX (Wikipedia entry for Fred Baron, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Baron; website for Baron's charitable foundation, Baron & Blue Foundation, baronandbluefdn.org).

4. Baron's Wikipedia page and many news items on the internet state the campaign paid Fred Baron $1.1 million (or other substantial figures, depending on the date reported) to rent his Hawker 800 private jet.

5. FAA records and other sites, such as aircraftdata.net, do not show any aircraft - - whether a Hawker 800 or other aircraft - - registered in the name of Fred or Frederick M. Baron. Two planes are registered to a Fred N. Baron in Garberville, CA. Neither is a Hawker 800. Fred N. Baron seems to be unconnected to Fred/Frederick M. Baron of Dallas, TX.

6 The Hawker 800, formerly manufactured by Raytheon, is now the BAE 125 Series 800, manufactured by British Aerospace and assembled by Hawker Beechcraft, according to the Wikipedia page, Hawker 800 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_800).

7. A BAE 125 800, N-number 178AX, has been registered to Baron & Budd since January 2006, FAA online aircraft registration data shows.

8. Fred Baron and his wife, Lisa Blue, sometimes known as Lisa Baron, left Baron & Budd in 2002 and litigation ensued between the Barons and the firm. Neither Fred Baron nor Lisa Blue are listed as lawyers at Baron & Budd's website, baronandbudd.com. It seems unlikely the firm's BAE 125 a/k/a Hawker 800 is leased to or actually owned by the Barons.


Some Additional Questions to Ponder



If there are no registration records for an aircraft in Fred Baron's name, why is the campaign paying Frederick Baron for airfare?

If Fred Baron's ownership is through a corporation, why were the payments listed repeatedly to him instead of the corporation?

Assuming there is error, and Fred Baron does, in fact, own a Hawker 800 (or BAE 125 800), why would he engage in the business of leasing it and receiving substantial income in his individual name rather than doing business through a corporation for liability and tax reasons? He is a lawyer and would know to consider a corporation for doing business. He set up a not-for-profit corporation for his charitable foundation, Baron & Blue, so it seems like he would also set up a corporate entity for his aircraft leasing business and require all payments to be made to it.

If a payment were made erroneously to the individual rather to the business once or twice, it could be a simple error, but it seems unusual that dozens of payments would be paid to Baron individually.

Would there not be a difference in accounting for income and being able to deduct expenses for an individual and a corporation?

Would it be possible, if payments were made to an individual for jet leasing, that excess funds could be paid without easy detection and then passed on to other parties?

On the other hand, it seems such an obvious mistake that surely there is some mistake by the campaign in reporting or by Edwards and Baron, both lawyers.

Did Fred Baron personally pay income on the $1.1 million jet lease payments?

Is it possible to obtain flight records to determine how payments were applied to flights?

Can the campaign provide a copy of the contract with Fred Baron for jet leasing and cancelled checks made in payment?

Is it possible to compare flight expense data of Edwards' campaign with other candidates to see if the expenses are in the ballpark?

Does anyone have information on a Hawker 800 or other aircraft owned by Fred/Frederick M. Baron, including registration, N-number (the tail number?) and photos?

On a different topic, if Midline Groove was paid in excess of $114,000 for video production pursuant to a contract, did Midline Groove or the campaign pay Rielle Hunter’s hotel and meals expenses on the road?

Can the campaign provide a contract to make clear how those expenses were paid and to clear up other questions about the services provided?

These questions might be the starting point for the enterprising MSM reporter, when next Fred Baron or John Edwards surfaces to face the press.

If John Edwards continues in seclusion and Fred Baron is hard to reach on the matter, perhaps someone might talk to Julian Chambers, the Edwards' campaign treasurer.

It may just be a mistake or a misunderstanding, but it might take a burden off the shoulders of both John Edwards and/or Fred Baron, if they would clear up a few of these questions.

Or not.

[A BIG hat tip/credit to the intrepid researcher and DBKP reader--you know who you are--known in the comments only as Phil Anderder.]

NOTE: This might be the place to express heartfelt thanks to the many readers who have left interesting information to investigate further or information that is ready to publish. Since December, DBKP readers have provided tips, research, answers and places to for us to dig for more information.

These many readers--and again, you all know who you are--sometimes leave their information in the comments sections of our stories. A few of these comments have excited the curiosity of MSM reporters trying to get up to speed on the Edwards' scandal and it many threads. Several have emailed us with information--some that we can't publish as of yet. We've spoken to several who have emailed us over the phone, as they felt the information was 'too sensitive to put down on paper' and wished to convey it orally.

These readers make DBKP appear to be very smart and well-informed. And so we are--thanks, in large part, to these interested, hard-working readers. As well as to our crack research department.

THANK YOU ALL!

by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file; Fred Baron

Lawyers on Lawyers, Closing Statement, MSM Cooties, Birds of a Feather and Clear-Eyed Liberals



John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Fred Baron: Items of interest, gleaned over the weekend concerning the John Edwards scandal, not to be addressed in any of the stories DBKP has in the works for the next 36 hours.


The Closer

Doug Ross sums up John Edwards' Closing Statement to the public. Doug sprinkles serious comments and questions couched in droll commentary. A sample:

And I certainly had no idea that my friend and patron Fred Baron had relocated Ms. Hunter from North Carolina to California. And paid for Andrew Young to move too.



Or that he paid her $14 grand for her video footage after the campaign had already paid her $100,000 for the same videotapes.

[Background information: Access over 90 DBKP stories from December on the John Edwards scandal: DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]



Questions from lawyers (Overlawyered) to lawyers (John Edwards & Fred Baron)


Overlawyered's Walter Olsen does the useful service of Coordinating the Edwards Story.

Overlawyered's been asking questions that the MSM should have been asking of lawyers--not associated with the Edwards' campaign--for the last nine months and longer. One such article: Fred Baron’s version of the Rielle Hunter payments
. In it, Ted Frank asks two reasonable questions:

* When did Andrew Young stop working for Edwards, and why?
* How did Young and Hunter afford those nice homes in North Carolina to begin with?

There's ever so much more: just go to Overlawyered and search under "John Edwards" and "Fred Baron". That will be enough to keep readers occupied for awhile.

And while we're on the subject, here's a question for Overlawyered; it comes from DBKP reader, liamd:

Lawyers for Hunter and Young both claimed Young was the father. If it turns out …. surely it will…that Edwards is the dad, any consequence for the lying lawyers? Or can they just lie as long as they are not under oath? Anyone know?

Interesting question, liamd.


Enquirer Gave the MSM "Cooties"

Now that it's okay for the MSM to discuss the John Edwards scandal, Kelly Corbiella, of CBS News, asks, "How Did A Supermarket Paper Beat Other News Media To The Biggest Political Scandal Of The Day?"


"...Cobiella asked, if this is such scoop, and this was first out several [ED NOTE: nine] months ago, why didn't others pick up on it?"

Kurt Anderson, a media analyst and contributing editor at New York Magazine, said, "That is the sixty-four thousand million dollar question, isn't it?

"The National Enquirer gives the story cooties for all the Times and Boston Globes, the Washington Posts of the world. That is partly because thirty years, forty, fifty years ago, the National Enquirer was very different than today. It is this low-brow celebrity scandal-mongering thing."

Corbiella also quotes David Perel, of the Enquirer, on Elizabeth Edwards' involvement:

"Stop, stop. I don't want to go there. I do not like it," Perel said to a reporter's suggestion about the Elizabeth Edwards angle. "She's been hurt, she's lashed out."

"So there is such a thing as 'untouchable'?" Cobiella asked.

"Just some places you don't go," Perel told her. "And there's some places I don't want to go. And in this case we really have tried to stay away from that aspect of the story.

"I want to hit the news element of the story. I want to hit the fact that a man running for president had an affair and then lied about it to the American public and, you know, darn near blew up his own political party while doing it."

Of course, the Enquirer's been busy enough with tracking mistress, Rielle Hunter's movements, money trails and every other aspect of the scandal--months ahead of everyone else in Big Media.




My Little Chickadee Pigeon

Big Media source, Pigeon O'Brien, emails Deceiver with a complaint and an offer of a conditional pastry treat.

Included in the above post: What does RoseAnne Barr thinks about John Edwards--and oh, by the way, Bush? Let's just say she set up a whole round of a******s and F***s on the house for everyone.


Sally Kalson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, starts to ask some uncomfortable questions and make a few equally-uncomfortable observations, What were the Edwards thinking? John Edwards was courting public suicide -- and his wife helped him.

People's marriages are their own business. If Mr. Edwards in 2006 had an extramarital affair, or worse, with a younger woman who made videos for his campaign and if his wife forgave him, that's for their family to deal with. But what in blazes was the man doing running for president with this time bomb in his hip pocket? And what was Elizabeth Edwards thinking when she encouraged him, made speeches for him, touted the strength of their marriage in the face of adversity as an indicator of his fitness for office, knowing that he'd cheated on her?

It may seem mean-spirited to pose that question about a wronged woman fighting cancer, especially one who was so brave and determined on the campaign trail. But as a fellow survivor, I claim a little leeway.

The disease may give you a pass in some areas. Chemo-brain is a legitimate excuse for forgetting things and making mistakes. Thoughts of your own mortality may cloud your judgment and crowd out other concerns. They also might make you desperate to achieve a long-held dream while there's still time.

This last point may explain how Mrs. Edwards could have gone out on the campaign trail on her husband's behalf, knowing what she knew, exhorting voters to believe in him as she believed in him. But even in separating his infidelity from his fitness for office -- and she's certainly not the first wife to have done that, as Hillary Clinton can attest -- she must have known they were playing with fire.

We wondered about a few those questions at DBKP, especially LBG's John and Elizabeth Edwards: New Info Casts Doubt on Couple’s Claim Affair Ended in 2006 and John Edwards Affair: When Private Lives Become Public Lies
, as well as Friday's John Edwards Scandal Photo: John and Elizabeth Edwards with Rielle Hunter Dec 30, 2006 - Exclusive DBKP Photo!.

Kalson wraps up her excellent story with:

Early in the primary, when the couple announced that Mrs. Edwards' cancer had returned, some in the media pressed hard on how they could forge ahead with such an all-consuming undertaking. Turns out it was the right question, but based on the wrong premise.

This isn't the first time the media missed an essential part of the story, and it won't be the last time a politician self-destructs this way. More's the pity on both counts.

Exponentially exact.


Words from a Clear-Eyed Liberal Mouth


Self-confessed "gossipophile", "Proud Bleeding Heart Liberal" and DBKP reader, PJ McIlvaine, sums up the John Edwards Scandal in one headline. [Sex, Lies, Money, Videotape and Pampers] The MSM's complete non-coverage--prior to Edwards' signing Big Media's permission slip on August 8--is dealt with in her post:

Sad to say, it SHOULD BE a journalist's wet dream...because it appears that, yet again, the MSM is letting bloggers like Deceiver and Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts do the leg work. Even more appalling is when MSM writes about it, and then fails to properly attribute their sources. Come on guys, you know better than that. You're not some rinky dink operation like Newsday (which, by the way, except for one headline story, has pretty much stayed away from the JE mess like Christie Brinkley from her snake of an ex). I like Christie, I'm glad she stood up to that jerk, but that's another blog.

And the Progressive defense about "we have other issues, and besides he denied it and we swallowed it"? McIlvaine minces few words:

And some of these progressive sites I go to, well, after a burst of righteous indignation, they seem to have fallen back to their sloppy ways of blaming everyone but JE and EE. He lied, he's still lying, everyone is lying...but let's not talk about it because, you know...we bought those lies. And since JE isn't going to be at the convention, hey, it's over with. Not important. Move along. We have to keep our eye on the prize.

Uh-uh. I'm not buying that shit.

Sounds like PJ might be liberal, but nobody's gonna tell her to get in (the party) line and shut up.

by Mondoreb
images:
* ABC via DBKP
* Doug Ross
* Wikipedia

John Edwards Scandal News
TV Movie Parts, Gary Pearce, 3 Stooges, Fred Baron Blurbs, Mickey Kaus, Kathy G, and Faith

"This is NOT my baby!" [photo: DougRoss@Journal]


"All work and no play make Jack a dull boy."


It's going to get serious in the immediate future for all involved in the John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Rielle Hunter, Andrew Young, Fred Baron, and of course, John Edwards himself. So, before it does, we thought we'd present this collection of odd and ends in the John Edwards Scandal.


Deceptive Nuggets


Deceiver has bits and pieces--but what nuggets they are!

That Moneyed Fred Baron Is in a Fix* contains a quick view of Edwards' Big Wallet, Fred Baron.

The New York Times has a story just out that has Baron bobbing and weaving, while spewing words that would make Bill Murray in Wild Orchids proud. (It's after this item.)



We bring this up because tagged onto the end of the Deceiver piece, Simon Scowl posed the question of who might play the role of Edwards' sacrificial lamb friend and former campaign worker, Andrew Young in the movie. Young is above left--a likely candidate for the movie is on the right.

Gob!


[Background information: Access almost 90 DBKP John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Scandal stories since December: John Edwards Love Child Scandal library.]


Fred Baron Forgets to Order Memorite

Fred Baron is asked more questions about the money trail in the Edwards scandal and seems to remember something about about someone sometime. And just exactly how did Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young procure the high-priced legal help that issued their infamous December denials claiming Frances Quinn Hunter was a joint effort between the two? From Lawyers' Ties in Edwards Case Suggest Extent of Hiding Affair:

On Wednesday, Mr. Baron said he might have directed Ms. Hunter to Mr. Gordon.

"I have this recollection of somebody asking me for lawyers in New York, and I remember naming three or four, and he must have been one of them," Mr. Baron said. Referring to Ms. Hunter, he added, "It was either her who called or somebody on her behalf."

And how did Andrew Young's legal representation in December come about?

"I remember getting a call from Pam and her telling me that she was representing him," Mr. Baron said. "I may have sent him over there, but on the other hand I may not have. I don't have an accurate recollection."

Sounds like Baron forgot something else--like his Memorite.


The Scoop From Snoop at Political Party Poop

Snoop at Political Party Poop has resurrected a post from April 2007: John Edwards Cynically Exploits His Wife’s Cancer To Get Fund Raising Emails.

Short and sweet and a reminder all politicians have no shame--and Edwards was a politician. As anyone who's visited PPP knows, there's so many hilarious things there, you won't know where to begin. We'd suggest Obama...Fame... and Blog Watch: Time to Clean out the Gene Pool.


Gary Pearce Wants to Give Edwards the 'Niagara Falls' Treatment





Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran John Edwards 1998 Senate race, isn't at all pleased with his former client. Pearce most probably believed Edwards--before a crush of Enquirer facts forced Edwards to a new defensive perimeter.

One almost can hear him join the Three Stooges as they performed their "Niagara Falls, slowly I turned..." routine.

Edwards even continued disparaging “supermarket tabloids.”

Earth to John: The National Enquirer now officially has more credibility than you do.

He said we can’t beat him up more than he’s beat himself up. Well, we’ll sure try.

By comparison, Richard Nixon’s Checkers speech was Churchillian in its dignity and honesty.

It’s not clear who gets the gold medal for biggest phony Friday night: Edwards or the Chinese who organized the Olympics’ opening ceremony.

Edwards’ performance in the interview was a disaster from the start. Woodruff hit him head-on: Did you have an affair?

Instead of saying “yes,” Edwards smiled and thanked Bob for coming by. He did everything but welcome Bob to his lovely home.

But wait! There's more... at the The Verdict is In].


We Made the Headlines!

And it was at Ace of Spades HQ, not the MSM!

On the left sidebar, under "Headlines", Hmmm...; Pseudonymous Wikipedia Editor with Great Interest in Rielle Hunter's Bio Seems to Know a Lot about the Limited Movie Career of Rielle Hunter, as Well as Unpublicized Facts about Hunter's Family



John Edwards, You Gotta Have Faith

Doug Ross: Faith Guiding our Votes


More Like The B-spot

Kathy G. sounded a bit bitter about Mickey Kaus bringing up the John Edwards scandal--at any point.

A Gentle Reader asks:

So when's Kathy going to apologize to Mickey Kaus?

Here's what I say to that: Mickey Kaus can kiss my royal Irish ass.

I said that the story about Edwards was dubious, but I never said that it wasn't or couldn't be true. However, I did argue that Kaus's obsession with it was bizarre and unseemly, which it was and is.

Kathy G. ends up with this observation: "The only thing it could do was to hurt and publicly humiliate Elizabeth Edwards and her two young children -- and I think you'll agree that that family has enough on its plate as it is. The only people clamoring for this to go public were heartless, vicious assholes like Kaus."

She then invites Kaus to partake of her left one.

Kathy G's really gonna be bitter with all the speculation that Elizabeth Edwards may have been an accomplice.

Guess Kathy G will get the right one ready at that point.

And when we publish a photo that we just received from a reader [and one would guess former Edwards supporter] later this morning?

Well...

I guess we'll get ready for the double whammy?

by Mondoreb
images: deceiver; michelemiller

DougRoss@Journal, DBKP December stories Confirmed:

Eric Montross Angle Valid


"Come on, guys! I told you it was OK to write about it, but this is too much!"

[The following is published not to toot our own horn. Okay, okay--maybe a little. The impetus is to record where this information was first published; as well as how much time elapsed before a member of the traditional media confirmed it.]


Another part of the John Edwards story uncovered by bloggers was confirmed--almost eight months after it was first reported at DBKP and DougRoss@Journal.

The Raleigh Telegram--which didn't let readers in on the scandal until days ago, and which ran an editorial citing Edwards' "continuous denials" as a reason for its non-coverage--confirmed, in a pair of stories yesterday, that ex-NBA star, Eric Montross was indeed involved in the scandal--most likely, unknowingly.

Rielle Hunter Stayed In Chapel Hill Last Year and UNC's Montross Rented House To Edwards Worker both confirm that Andrew Young was staying in Montross' house--in the same Governor's Club gated community that the Enquirer reported that Rielle Hunter was staying.

Although it is not known by this newspaper who owned the house that Rielle was living in, it has been confirmed that Young was renting his house from former UNC basketball star Eric Montross.

Montross is well-known to Tarheel fans for being the star center of the UNC NCAA Championship team in 1993, before going on to a ten year professional career in the NBA.

[The Telegram's earlier "continuous denial" quote was one, among others, that prompted DBKP to write John Edwards Scandal: The Myth of the Edwards’ Denials on August 7--one day before John Edwards quit denying the affair. It seems that the Telegram was stung by taking Edwards' October denial of the affair--when it was deniable, since the Enquirer had published, at that point, only some unnamed sources about an unnamed "other woman"--at face value and has been busy making up for lost time.]

On December 27, DBKP published "John Edwards Scandal: Rielle Hunter Housed by Former NBA Player". It left details of a tip we'd received from someone describing themselves as, "someone who partied with Rielle in LA".

We'd hoped that by publishing the info, that it would excite the curiosity of just one reporter in the MSM--maybe who was also a sports fan.

But, it was a blogger, Doug Ross, who responded to our article within minutes [John Edwards Love Child Saga, the NBA and the MSM] with the name of Eric Montross.

Doug did some detective work--work that any MSM reporter could have done in December, as The Telegram proved just yesterday--and ran down Montross. As Ross related:

"Okay, so I was curious. Went to OpenSecrets and did a donor lookup."

The only ex-NBA player and heavy Edwards donor I found is Eric Montross, who is listed in Chapel Hill. That's not to say Montross is hosting Rielle, but if the DBKP story is accurate, he's someone for the MSM to check into.

As Doug Ross, DBKP and the rest of the world was to discover: no one in the MSM did check it--until The Telegram did.

Now, for the first time, we can tell a bit of the story behind our December 27 story.

We received a credible tip about Rielle Hunter living in Eric Montross' house at the Governor's Club. LBG, after about 10 hours digging, discovered in December much of what The Telegram published yesterday, and from many of the same sources. From yesterday's Telegram:

Young and his family rented the substantially large house at 32340 Archdale Drive owned by Montross and his wife in the Governor's Club subdivision. Montross actually lives in another house over the county line in Orange County, according to tax records.

An online newsletter for the Governor's Club community called "Ginny's Community" welcomed the Young family to the neighborhood and mentioned them by name along with their new address.

According to a real estate listing on the Chapel Hill Realty Group's website, Montross' house at 32340 Archdale Drive that Young rented was formerly up for sale at an asking price of $1,425,000, although according to Chatham County, the assessed tax value is $1,658,822. Although the property is listed as "sold" on the real estate website, the Chatham County records do not indicate that a sale took place and Montross has owned the house since 1993.

DBKP's efforts were redoubled on December 26-27 in an effort to locate exactly which house Rielle Hunter was living in. It wasn't known if the Youngs had relocated to another nearby house when Hunter appeared in the Governor's Club, or if, more likely, our tipster had some of the info right.

We just could not tell.

So, we left messages in the comments sections of several NC blogs--including one in the Chapel Hill, NC area--appealing for someone nearby to do some legwork. The comments and emails went largely unanswered.

The decision was made to publish our story the way we did. We knew from the Enquirer's December reports and LBG's digging that Hunter had been in the house at 32340 Archdale, but we couldn't say for sure she was living there. It was hoped that by posting something, it might excite a reporter in the Raleigh area to check the information out.

As it happens, that occurred--over eight months after our story and Doug Ross'--was published; after John Edwards' Nightline appearance green-lighted the Edwards scandal for the major press organizations. to cover.

ENTER RADAR



Several weeks ago, in the wake of the Enquirer's reporters' confrontation with Edwards at the Beverly Hilton, interest in the Montross angle was renewed. On July 31, Radar published John Edwards’ Money Man: Fellow Tar Heel Eric Montross?. In the story, Radar took a look back at Ross' and DBKP's stories seven months earlier:

In a follow-up story published on December 19, the Enquirer reported that after word of the affair got out, Hunter moved into a home owned by an Edwards supporter in the exclusive Governors Club, a gated community less than five miles away from the Edwards HQ in Chapel Hill and only a few blocks away from the Young residence.

Here's where things get weird: five days later, a right-wing blog called Death By 100 Papercuts received a tip that the house Hunter had moved into was owned by a former NBA player who had contributed money to the Edwards campaign. Doing some digging, Doug Ross reported that the only former NBA player who had donated money to Edwards was Eric Montross, a UNC graduate who was drafted by the Boston Celtics back in 1994 and ended his NBA career in 2003. Montross gave $4,600 to Edwards during the 2008 election cycle; he was described as a "big backer of John Edwards' White House bid" by CNN. (Edwards went to UNC law school.)

We took note of the Radar reference in John Edwards Scandal: Birth Certificates, NBA Players and the Waking of the MSM the same day.

Less than a week later, Radar seemed to be backpedaling, however [Eric Montross Would Like You to Know He's Never Met Rielle Hunter, Thank You Very Much]. Radar then said:

Last week, we culled together some thinly sourced material from around the Internet and posted an (admittedly) wildly speculative theory about how Tar Heel and former professional basketball player Eric Montross was the guy paying off both John Edwards' alleged mistress Rielle Hunter as well as Andrew Young, the professed father of Hunter's (Edwards?) kid. Which would be news to Eric Montross! "I don't have anything to do with this," Montross told Radar by phone. "Whatever is going on with Edwards, I can tell you unequivocally that I am uninvolved."

Both Doug Ross and DBKP were relegated to the ranks of the "thinly-sourced". A letter was dispatched to Radar detailing how Montross' name had come to be connected with the scandal, along with the observation that DBKP "believed Montross didn't know Rielle Hunter".

Today, Radar commented on the Raleigh Telegram story with some interesting observations: [Eric Montross Back in the Picture!]

A little while ago, we floated an admittedly crazy theory that former NBA player, UNC alum, and John Edwards supporter Eric Montross not only owned the Chapel Hill house Rielle Hunter was reportedly staying in after Edwards knocked her up, but also that Montross might have been the mystery man paying off both Hunter and professed baby daddy Andrew Young. Montross vehemently denied having anything to do with anyone involved in the scandal ("I am 100 percent detached," he said), and soon after Texas lawyer Fred Baron was outed as the money man, and we assumed that was that. But it turns out Montross isn't totally insulated from the whole scandal: the Raleigh Telegram is now reporting that Montross rented a house he owned in the exclusive Governor's Club development to none other than Andrew Young—and that the house was just a few blocks away from a home Hunter herself was living in.

Granted, that doesn't mean Montross knew anything other than that his tenant had a crazy chick for a neighbor (it's still unclear who rented Hunter her home), but it's not like Young found him off of Craigslist. How much John Edwards actually told him is anyone's guess. The Telegram also corroborates an earlier story from the Enquirer in which it was reported that Hunter was an occasional dinner guest at her neighbor Young's house. (Young is married with kids.) Given that it's not exactly common practice to have the woman you've supposedly had an out-of-wedlock child with over for supper, the most logical conclusion to draw is that Young—surprise!—isn't the father of Hunter's kid.

We're just hoping all this gets us out of that "thinly-sourced" category.


[This past Thursday, DBKP and Doug Ross again collaborated to beat the MSM to the punch on the Fred Baron story: John Edwards Scandal: Is Fred Baron the Enquirer ‘Hush Money Man’? and [Rumors Run Wild: Is Fred Baron the Wallet for John Edwards Scandal. The next day, Fred Baron began releasing his statements that he was involved in moving Rielle Hunter around the country.

Doug Ross was emailed in the early afternoon with our info; but was away at the time. In the meantime, a Radar commenter had posited the names of both Baron and ex-Dallas Mavericks coach, Don Nelson.]


DBKP knew Rielle Hunter had been in Eric Montross' house back in December: either as a guest or a lodger. Then, there was no way of knowing the particulars. Today, it's still not known if Eric Montross knew about it; in all probability, he didn't.

We're only happy that aspects of our stories were finally confirmed.

We just wonder what took so long for someone else to "get some feet on the ground" to check them out.


by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file; Radar

Who in the John Edwards Campaign Started the Rielle Hunter Cover Up?

Who Began the Attempt to Scrub the Web Clean of Rielle Hunter References?



Another Mystery for the Late-charging Media


Who in the John Edwards' campaign started the cover up of Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter? It was an operation that costs millions and involved a web of schemes that are still unraveling. It's a question the Mainstream Media hasn't asked yet, but it has to be on the agenda, now that they're finally covering the story.

The cover up began with erasing information about Hunter from the Internet; progressed later to moving Hunter from the NYC area to North Carolina within five miles of the Edwards campaign headquarters and setting her up in houses owned by Edwards' backers; and, at one point involved millionaire trial lawyer, Fred Baron, and the revelations that millions were spent jetting Hunter and Edwards' campaign operative--and fall guy--across the country to reside in multi-million dollar houses.

Hunter and Young, according to reports, have also been receiving hush money payments to keep their mouths shut.

Who initiated all of this? Where did that money come from?

[More background and Edwards scandal information: Over 80 stories since December on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Scandal and Cover up at DBKP in the John Edwards Love Child Library.]

John Edwards said he was unaware of any attempts to hide his affair with Hunter.

So did friend and big backer, Fred Baron, according to his statement: Baron was just helping out old friend friends and John Edwards didn't know about it. In light of the flood of information now coming out, Edwards' claims haven't held up very well. It's likely that Baron's statements will also have a hard time standing up under the increased scrutiny.

Hunter and Young aren't talking--yet.

Prediction: Andrew Young will be the first to crack. As a one-time Edwards campaign Director of Finance, he's on the hook for many of the improprieties--and he's likely, at some point, to be reminded of this unpleasant fact. In fact, the Equirer reported in December that Young vehemently denied that campaign money was being used for Hunter expenses. Doug Ross pointed out at the time, "What an odd denial! Who accused Young of funneling campaign funds to support Rielle in the first place? I wonder if any member of our crack mainstream media will bother to check into this interesting thread?"

Ross asked that question on December 27. It remained rhetorical in nature until eight months later.

DBKP's crack research department turned in a memo which made us drop all other items and get cracking on this story.

...went back and read Sam Stein's piece in the HuffPo about the missing campaign videos from Sep 27th of last year. Nobody in the MSM seems to be questioning the timeline on this aspect of the coverup. Stein published his piece reporting that the videos had been pulled two weeks before the Enquirer broke the affair story, and was getting the runaround from Jonathan Prince at the Edwards campaign with some bullshit about campaign finance law. Plus other people from the Edwards campaign were telling the worker bees at Midline Groove Productions to shut the hell up about the Hunter videos, according to Stein.

I guess one possible explanation is that the Enquirer was maybe already asking the campaign questions about Hunter before Stein published his story on 27 Sept, which got them antsy about the whole thing.

Which started a search through DBKP's John Edwards archives. We've been reporting since December on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair and the twin real scandals: the Edwards' campaign cover up and the Mainstream Media blackout, which included a failure to investigate hard facts unearthed by the National Enquirer.

We'll deal with the media scandal another day.

References to Make Any Campaign Nervous



The scrubbing clean of all references to Rielle Hunter obviously began before Stein's piece, which came out at Huffington Post on September 26, 2007. Her "webisode" videos disappeared before the Stein story appeared. Stein relates some of the difficulties he'd encountered tracking down these videos from the people involved in making them.

Who else was involved? Credits from the webisode still on the Business Week site listed three additional production assistants. One of them, Sam Cullman, said he could not talk to me but lauded Edwards for his openness. Another assistant, Nick Chatfield, said on the first call to my editor that he wished the movies were available because he could use the publicity. On the second call (having evidently checked back with Hunter or the Edwards campaign), Chatfield said, "Don't call me again."

He also wrote about the stonewall he'd run into with the Edwards campaign.

Jonathan Prince offered to let me and my editor, Tom Edsall, watch the videos - apparently unaware that at one point his campaign claimed not to have access to them. But there was a proviso: we could only view the videos in Prince's presence.

When did the Rielle Hunter web cover up begin? The Edwards' campaign had to be as nervous as Don King in a barber shop when they saw the New York Post's now-famous blind item on August 27, 2007: [Last reported in John Edwards Scandal: Sister Asks Edwards to Stop Bad-mouthing Rielle Hunter - UPDATED"]

"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."

DBKP speculated months ago--correctly, it turns out--that the Post could have only been referring to John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. The Post confirmed this on August 9, 2008 in 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...

Our best guess is that the Edwards campaign then got busy and was just one step ahead of Sam Stein. The webisodes disappeared, as did other Hunter info at the NY Screen Actors Guild.

But, in July, the Enquirer Editor-in-Chief, David Perel, referred to the Enquirer's "one-year" investigation [John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer, among others]. So, the Edwards camp most likely knew that questions were being asked about Hunter and her involvement with the campaign, before the Post piece appeared on August 27, 2007.

The Helpful Hand of the Disgruntled Employee

The DBKP Research Dept. weighs in again:

I'm also curious about who the YouTube user "MissingVideos" is. As you may have seen, HuffPo reported that, on Sep 27, the same day that Stein published his HuffPo piece [Note: actually a day later], a user named "MissingVideos" reposted the videos with the description "Before he was running for President, John Edwards made a series of awesome short documetaries (sic) that later vanished from the internet...until now." My gut tells me it was likely a disgruntled employee of Midline Groove.

Though the Edwards campaign was hustling to cover up, someone was helping thwart their efforts. Might that helping hand have come from Midline Groove's Nick Chatfield? Chatfield had at first wanted to talk to Stein--"he could use the publicity", remember?--and later, mysteriously at the time, clammed up.

NOTE to aspiring investigative MSM reporters: find Nick Chatfield before the campaign does and explore this possibility.

Oh, and remember where you heard it first.

Perhaps it was Nick Chatfield who also alerted Gawker in September 2007 with an email:

John Edwards is cheating on his wife.

This news must be revealed.

There was a blind item in Page Six recently… however:

My sources come from inside J.E’s little production group that was following him around to create “webisodes.”

There is a producer girl in that group (who lives in NYC) who John E. was - obvious to all - “close to.”

Mrs. Edwards was calling around in the group of production types - to try to get the number of this girl. (Perhaps to try to put a stop to the shenanigans.)

I could tell you my source but I don’t want to rat her out. She’s in that circle. She was there two times when Mrs. Edwards called.

I knew of this long before I saw the recent blind item in the post. (Page 6).

Therefore people know about it, and therefore you have a story to expose…

To those who point out that the email above refers to "her" as the source, Chatfield might have taken the elementary effort to conceal who he was. After all, he didn't know whether Gawker would print the email or not. CYA was in effect for more than just the Edwards' campaign.

Gawker apparently didn't print the email at that time--it was published a few days ago by ex-Gawker writer, Doree Shafrir, in "How Rumors Get Started".

The Edwards campaign had to be feeling the heat at that point and picked up their cover up activities. At about the same time, Hunter's "Being is Free" website disappeared.



In late July, Simon Scowl, of Deceiver, discovered a mirror site for the lost Hunter info.

(Note: As of 8/2, the site I discuss in this post has been replaced with a page that simply says “Blocked Site Error.” As for who’s blocking it, we can only guess.)

Looks like there are two Americas: the America where not-John-Edwards’-babymama Rielle Hunter has erased her web site from existence, and the America where someone else has put it right back up.*

The information on the mirror site later disappeared, as recounted by Deceiver.


WHODUNNIT?

Who oversaw the cover up, which was initiated by a disappearance of Rielle Hunter info from the web?

Was it Rielle Hunter, trying to "help out" the Edwards' campaign?

Was it Edwards campaign strategist, Joe Trippi?

Or, was it Jonathan Prince, Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager, who told Stein that the he didn't have access to the Hunter videos, only to unwittingly admit later that he did?

Again, we asked our research department for opinions--in light of their intrepid digging.

Was it Prince?

Prince, the deputy campaign manager, already knew something wasn't right with Edwards and Hunter, and was actively covering up her involvement with the campaign before the Enquirer published anything. And I doubt that he personally was maintaining the campaign website, so other people knew something was going on.

Or Trippi?

I read the transcript of Joe Trippi's interview with Larry King. The transcript is here, and here is the video. Trippi came on board with the Edwards campaign in April 2007. He said he was "stunned" when Edwards confessed to the affair. I think Trippi is full of shit - there's no way, as campaign manager, that he didn't know about this when there was an active cover-up going on with the Hunter videos and Prince, his deputy, was giving the runaround to the press. If he had no idea about this, he would have to be the most incompetent figurehead of a campaign manager that ever lived - and he's not, Trippi is a professional, no matter what you think of his politics - he made Howard Dean.

Along the way, this interesting item, was uncovered:

"Interesting bit of trivia - did you know Trippi also worked for the Gary Hart campaign as deputy political director? After Hart got busted with Donna Rice, he became chief of staff to Hart's wife. Now he's out defending Elizabeth Edwards."

DBKP doesn't know who in the Edwards' campaign started a cover up operation that started with info disappearing on the Net and ended with Hunter and campaign operative, Andrew Young and his family, being jetted around the country on Fred Baron's jet, one step ahead of the Enquirer.

Since December, we've just been making observations and asking the questions no one in the MSM wouldn't.

Stein made a keen observation back in September 07:

"Not lost in the matter is the irony of Edwards' stance. After all, the videos were made with the apparent goal of bringing transparency to the political process."

We've said it before:

"It's ironic that the Edwards campaign webisodes made by Rielle Hunter, initially produced to bring the campaign publicity, made their biggest splash when the campaign attempted to hide them."



DBKP will be coming out with a story later today that began in December and was just confirmed by the MSM yesterday.


The Buzz

Media Matters: FLASH! Rush Limbaugh has an opinion on the Edwards' affair!

Media Matters is upset that Rush Limbaugh voices an opinion on his opinion/talk show.

On the August 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of former Sen. John Edwards' recent disclosure of an extramarital affair: "I've got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don't know that I could -- I don't know that I can put this one on the air." Discussing his "theory," Limbaugh said, "We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go." Limbaugh later added, "It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk."

MM also provided a link to Limbaugh's website--which arguably, is the biggest service they've provided their readers since the Clinton "media watchdog" began operations.

It would be an interesting--though one suspects, fruitless--trip through the Media Matters archives to see what the "watchdogs" were watching while the Mainstream Media was blacking out the Edwards scandal for nine months. But, that's a job for another day at DBKP.

Meanwhile, we'll make an observation: the Media Matters "watchdogs" weren't barking about the Edwards scandal and the media non-coverage. All their barking is reserved for Limbaugh--whom they've targeted--when he comments on what they wouldn't for nine months.

by Mondoreb
images:
* pro corbis
* deceiver
* dbkp file