vector art

Fly the Friendly Skies of Fred

An Appeal for Tail Number from Fred Baron's Plane



John Edwards is embroiled in a Chinese water torture-like hell of his own making and Fred Baron is apparently along for the (plane) ride.

DBKP wrote yesterday of some odd arrangements between Fred Baron and the John Edwards campaign. More is planned for later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, we were sent notice of some related news.

[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards affair, scandal and cover-up in the John Edwards Love Child Scandal library.]

Laura Leslie, of WNCU North Carolina Public Radio, is perplexed about the odd arrangements between the John Edwards campaign and finance chairman, Fred Baron.

Last but not least…

Last night, I asked why Edwards’ campaign was paying its campaign finance chairman hundreds of thousands of dollars. (For the record, they usually don't get paid at all.) I got an answer today.

FEC records show the Edwards campaign actually paid “Frederick Baron” a lot more - about $1,024,000 over the course of 2007. According to OpenSecrets.org, it was reimbursement for airfare. In the last and current campaign cycles, Edwards frequently used a small private plane that Baron says he “has control of.” But Sept 2007 changes in election law require campaigns to report and pay for loaner planes at market rates.

Leslie goes on to say all's according to Hoyle and that Clinton and Obama spent more on airfare. But then this: "But some insider folks I talked to today raised a couple of red flags."

Red flags?

Who would've thought we'd be using "the Edwards Affair" and the subsequent cover-up and "red flags" in the same sentence? Not anyone in the MSM until late July.

Back to the Laura Leslie's red flags.

• When a candidate’s traveling to multiple destinations in a short time, private planes make more sense. But when it’s a simple itinerary, commercial airline travel is usually cheaper. Relatively speaking, Edwards’ folks spent a lot of time on his friend’s private plane, regardless of the price – especially surprising, given his tight fundraising battle with Clinton and Obama.


• Charter planes, no matter who owns them, are usually operated by some type of company. The campaign usually pays the operating business, not the owner. But in this case, records show the campaign wrote the checks directly to Frederick Baron. That's not illegal, but it's pretty unusual.


• Most nebulous but most interesting: one reputable source told me, “You know, if you wanted to move some money out of a campaign without too many questions, private airplane bills would be a really good way to do it.” Why? Even if you can crosscheck manifests and destinations (no small job, BTW – 122 billings in 2007 alone), the pricing itself can be tough to verify.

The day before, August 10, Patterico's noticed something at a "website called “Web of Deception” has the following interesting observation, complete with links supporting the allegations:"

Fred Baron provided money to Hunter and Young because he stated he liked them and during that exact period of time he was given $389,698.45 from the “John Edwards for President” campaign and received another $57,428.00 the month Hunter went into the hospital to give birth.

Patterico was so interested by all this that he sent Fred Baron an email to inquire into the curious nature of all of this. Mr. Baron responded:

The payments you reference were made to an aviation company that I control to reimburse travel expense from the campaign — the FEC mandates these charges to be paid by the campaign and they have been reported in our FEC public filings — I hope this answers your question.

Patterico noted that he "sent Mr. Baron a few follow-up questions," and "hoped he would respond".

It's our hope, too.

Laura Leslie finished her segment of John Edwards' travel musings with a mention of an "interesting coincidence".

Interesting coincidence: The day in 2007 that Edwards’ campaign spent the most on Baron’s jet – $89,562 – was October 9th, one day before the National Enquirer published allegations that Edwards was having an affair with an unnamed campaign staffer. (Edwards, for the record, was apparently on the ground in Iowa that day.)

Anyone following this story since December will notice that this is not the only "interesting coincidence" that has occurred. The John Edwards scandal is replete with such coincidences.

Did the Edwards campaign use travel billings to transfer money back to Fred Baron to transfer to Rielle Hunter? We can only speculate--for now.

While in December, the many, many coincidences in the Edwards-Hunter story excited no curiosity outside the offices of the National Enquirer and a few blogs, today they attract the attention of a much wider audience.

Which partially explains the "drip, drip, drip" that John Edwards and Fred Baron are currently feeling.

[NOTE: Any readers who can lay hands on a picture or registration number of Fred Baron's "mystery plane", might email DBKP (mondoreb@gmail.com). Any information which is used gets the lucky contributor an all-expenses paid, luxury hat tip.]

by Mondoreb
images:
* pjs group
* no fenders

Edwards STILL Covering Up Affair and Money
* Rille Hunter and Frances Quinn Hunter Pix
* Team of Six Edwards Donor Lawyers Assisting
* Hunter and Baby Stayed in Virgin Islands with Edwards and Obama Donor, Attorney Lee Rohn
* Edwards and Hunter Slept Together the "First Night They Met"


[Click images to enlarge.]

More bombshells for John Edwards and associates to deal with: the National Enquirer's latest print issue has published even more damaging information on the John Edwards Scandal.

Included on their website, "JOHN EDWARDS BLOCKBUSTER NEW EXPOSE!", is information that will be sure to prompt new questions for the "99% man".




[Picture of the Lee Rohn's Virgin Islands' house where Rielle Hunter and Frances Quinn Hunter stayed while in the Caribbean getaway.]

In what the Enquirer labels as, "Destination: St. Croix in the Virgin Islands!"

THE ENQUIRER tracked Rielle to St. Croix where our reporters discovered Rielle and the baby stayed in a luxurious oceanfront home owned by controversial trial lawyer Lee Rohn, another close friend of Edwards.

When visited by an ENQUIRER reporter on August 15, Rohn snapped a terse “No comment!” when questioned about Hunter.

Former Virgin Island Senator Anne Golden confirmed to THE ENQUIRER that “within 24 hours of their arrival that they were here and staying with Lee Rohn.”

After the ENQUIRER discovered Rielle’s hideaway with Rohn, she was moved to a motel on the island before returning to Santa Barbara on August 17 according to another source.

An ENQUIRER reporter then saw Rielle back in her California home, which is being paid for by Edwards’ former finance chairman Fred Baron.

Rohn has a "controversial" history, according to the Enquirer--and so she does. The native Texan, who is now a resident of the Virgin Islands, is a campaign donor to both John Edwards and Barack Obama.

LBG tracked down more Lee Rohn info:


Edwards and Obama Donor, Lee Rohn

"On 2/4/2008 Rohn contributed $1300 to Obama For America. On 9/30/2007, Rohn contributed $2300 to John Edwards.

Rohn's a member of the State Bar of Texas; Virgin Islands Bar Association, The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Member, Leaders Forum), and Virgin Islands Trial Lawyers Association (Founder and Member).

According to a 2004 article in the Virgin Island Daily News, Rohn has had several complaints about her professional conduct including coercing clients to sign false documents, ignoring judge's orders, personal attacks on judges, and profanity in the courtroom."

Source - Virgin Island Daily News
Source - Rohn Law Firm
Source - Rohn Campaign Contributions

The money trail from John Edwards--or perhaps his campaign--continues to unravel as the Enquirer reveals that a team of six more lawyers are involved.

None of this is paid for by Rielle. The money continues to come from Edwards’s network of loyal supporters, with no explanation from Edwards why he is having his friends continue to support Rielle now that the affair has been made public.

Edwards is not only aware of the hush money payoffs but orchestrated it with his team of former campaign advisors and now The ENQUIRER has discovered that a team of six more lawyers have been involved in the coverup and are funneling payments to Hunter, who has no money and no means of support.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that Hunter's own lawyer advised her to allow Edwards to take a paternity test but she refused out of misguided belief that Edwards will marry her after the death of his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth.

The ENQUIRER’s continuing blockbuster investigation also reveals the disgraced ex-senator is still in constant communication with his mistress!

DBKP also has some financial questions for John Edwards and Fred Baron in a story to be published immediately following the publication of this story. They involve the Edwards' campaign's use of Fred Baron's aircraft and the details, which publicly don't add up.

DBKP will publish updates to this story throughout the early morning as more details become available. The Enquirer's print edition becomes available shortly after 8 am EDT.

by Mondoreb & LBG
images; Lawyers.com; designrelated

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

Three Press Releases
An Orchestra of Remarkable, Similarly-Worded Statements
* John Edwards * Elizabeth Edwards * Fred Baron



Who Discussed What with Whom When?

DBKP took a look at the statements released by John and Elizabeth Edwards, and Edwards' money man, Fred Baron. Their three statements never mention Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter. Instead, all three refer to her and her child as "mistakes".

We found some curious features in the press releases of the principals involved. In December, 2007, there were many curious features about the John Edwards' scandal that excited no curiosity among the Mainstream Media. [Curious Circumstances Excite No Curiosity in the Mainstream Media]

August 2008 is a completely different ballgame, however.

Let's take a look at these curious features.

[Background information: access over 90 DBKP stories on the John Edwards scandal and cover-up: DBKP John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]

JOHN EDWARDS, ELIZABETH EDWARDS

For convenience, the statements of John and Elizabeth Edwards will be examined first.

John Edwards went into seclusion after a July 30 speech in Washington, D.C., when reporters attempted to question Edwards about his confrontation with reporters from the National Enquirer. [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Bolts from Reporters Once Again]

He then had the better part of ten days to craft his statement, which he released on August 8 before his appearance on ABC's Nightline. Elizabeth Edwards also released a statement on August 8 on the website, DailyKos.

"2006" was prominent in the opening part of John Edwards' statement: he used it three times in the first eight sentences.

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 recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.

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.

"2006" played a key part in Elizabeth Edwards' statement, too. She referred to the year four times.

"John made a terrible mistake in 2006."

"And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007."

"The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed."

"But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue."

The Edwards don't say when in 2006; apparently, from the photo DBKP obtained on August 15, it had to have begun on December 31.



The picture is backstage at a rally in Chapel Hill, NC that ended on the evening of December 30. As LBG pointed out in John and Elizabeth Edwards: New Info Casts Doubt on Couple’s Claim Affair Ended in 2006:

It’s clear in the photo that Hunter is there in her “official” capacity, capturing the event for use in the documentaries she was allegedly producing for the Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign. Not only was Hunter there in Chapel Hill on the evening of December 30, but she was also along with Edwards at the end of 2006 on his “Presidential Announcement Tour” which culminated on the evening of December 30 in North Carolina.

According to the Washington Post, Hunter was along when Edwards filmed his Youtube announcement in New Orleans on December 28. Hunter was by no means, “hidden”, as she was photographed and seen by various people in the course of the “trip”.

On December 31, 2006 the Edwards also had a busy day.

The next morning, the last day of 2006, the Edwards were interviewed on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos“. Remember, the night before Rielle Hunter was still in the picture, captured in photos filming the Chapel Hill event. In one photo Hunter can be seen along with John and Elizabeth Edwards.

...

The discovery of Hunter’s appearance in Chapel Hill on the evening of December 30 raises some questions about the timeline posited by both John and Elizabeth Edwards as to when the affair truly ended, when Edwards confessed, and when the “repair” work began.

On the morning of December 31, Edwards described his wife to Stephanopoulus as someone who was not only “meek and mild” but “very strong-willed”. Hardly the sort of person, who, upon learning her husband had an affair, would allow the “other woman” to hang around her husband, even in an “official” capacity. Hunter was photographed filming the Chapel Hill event. Elizabeth was fully aware Hunter was there. In fact, Hunter was on the plane, along with other campaign staffers and various other people for the presidential “pre-announcement” trip that led up to the Chapel Hill event.

If Edwards hadn’t yet confessed to the “awful truth” that he was cheating on Elizabeth with Hunter by December 30, then the clock was ticking down to the end of 2006. By the time the Chapel Hill event ended, Edwards had less than 26 hours to tell his wife.

Besides the repetition of "2006", the word "mistake" is also repeated: thrice by Elizabeth ("terrible mistake", "mistake" and "mistakes") and twice by John Edwards ("serious error", "mistake", as well as "misconduct").

There seems little doubt about the careful coordination between the Edwards' two statements.

If it is learned, at some future date, that December 31, 2006, was indeed when John Edwards "first began revealing the truth", this is not the impression that the Edwards left after reading their statements.

Why?

Others will have to speculate at the present moment. DBKP may well do so later.


JOHN EDWARDS, FRED BARON

From John Edwards' statement:

I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

During John Edwards' appearance that same day on ABC's Nightline, he again repeated his denial of his knowledge of any money being paid.

Uh, this is what I can tell you. I've never paid a dime of money to any of the people that are involved. I've never asked anybody to pay a dime of money, never been told that any money's been paid. Nothing has been done at my request. So if the allegation is that somehow I participated in the payment of money -- that is a lie. An absolute lie, which is typical of these types of publications.

Later in the same interview, Edwards was insistent.

WOODRUFF: I do need to tell you though through ABC investigation there has been evidence, or we've been told that there, about $15,000 a month has been paid to Miss Hunter, so that she could actually live out in California. In fact that money was from Fred Baron, who was your national finance chair. Is that correct?

EDWARDS: I don't know. I told you just a moment ago, I know absolutely nothing about this.

WOODRUFF: You never even heard about that before?

EDWARDS: I've heard about it from reporters like you just in the last few days. It's the first I hear anything about it.

The next exchange between Edwards and ABC's Bob Woodruff is particularly curious.

WOODRUFF: So when you see this now and you see the reporting about it and you see the information about it, are you going to try to look into this? That this is somebody doing this to cover up what happened with your affair?

EDWARDS: If you're talking about Fred Baron, I do know Fred Baron. I also know that Fred Baron knows both of these people who are involved and has worked with them for years. So he has the relationship with them independent of me. So what he chose to do or not do, I can't explain, he'll have to explain. I don't know what he did or why he did it. And what his reasons for, were, for doing it. Is it possible that he wanted to help them because they were in a difficult time? Of course. Is it possible that he was worried that in fact something had happened with me, and he wanted to help? Of course that's possible. I think all these things are possible.

WOODRUFF: Do you think it's possible he was trying to protect you?

EDWARDS: Do I think it was possible he was trying to help me?

WOODRUFF: Yes.

EDWARDS: Yeah, of course I think it's possible.

[Note: We'll leave aside for the moment, Edwards' claim that Fred Baron worked with Hunter and Young "for years". Baron did work with Andrew Young for more than a year. Rielle Hunter's involvement with the campaign, by her own statement of October 2007, states that her work with the campaign ended at the end of 2006--a period of only six months that Baron could have "worked" with her.

Unless Baron hired her afterwards, which has not been reported--and which neither Baron nor Hunter have mentioned in any public statements.]

Woodruff lets Edwards change the question--without follow-up: from "protect" to "help". Edwards uses the word "help" three times in that short exchange. Why might he have done that?

Perhaps, Edwards was trying to help his finance chair, Fred Baron, with his statement, which would be delivered with minutes of John and Elizabeth Edwards' statements.

At that time, Baron stated spontaneously--and without consulting John Edwards-- that his magnanimous gestures toward Andrew Young and Rielle Hunter stemmed from his need to "help.

"I decided independently to help two friends and former colleagues rebuild their lives when harassment by supermarket tabloids made it impossible for them to conduct a normal life," Baron, a Dallas trial lawyer said in a statement, Rob Christensen reports.

"John Edwards was not aware that assistance was provided to anyone involved in this matter," Baron said. "I did it of my own voilition and without the knowledge, instruction, or suggestion of John Edwards or anyone else. The assistance was offered and accepted without condition."

Later the following day, August 9, it was reported that Baron stated, "I made a decision on my own, without talking to Edwards or anybody, to try to help them move to a community to try to get away from those folks."

"I feel sad because I know John Edwards so well," Mr. Baron said. "In life we all make mistakes. ... It breaks my heart if this is going to disqualify him from being a public servant, because he would be a great one."

Mr. Baron said he had also talked to Mrs. Edwards.

"It's a hard time," he said. "This has been a trying couple of weeks."

Baron also used the word "mistake" to refer to John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter, just as John and Elizabeth Edwards' both did.

Baron admitted talking to Elizabeth Edwards, but not John Edwards, who he knew "so well". John and Elizabeth Edwards were apparently talking, and consulting, with each other while preparing their statements. But, what were they all talking about?

Apparently, if John Edwards and Fred Baron are to be believed, they were discussing anything but the mistake which had them all preparing statements in the first place: Rielle Hunter and her living arrangements.

Oh, and the living arrangements of long-time Edwards' aide and operative, Andrew Young and his family. Nothing was discussed about him, either.

All three--the two Edwards and Fred Baron--were busy preparing carefully-worded statements which were all released within minutes of each other on August 8, concerning events extremely important to all three of them. Yet, one of the central subjects--the "hush money" the Enquirer reported on July 30 was being paid to both Hunter and Young--never came up.

Baron also apparently forgot to mention to the Edwards that an Enquirer reporter showed up asking questions at his Dallas estate four days earlier, on August 4.

Three lawyers, taking days to meticulously prepare statements about explosive events in their lives and the subjects of Rielle Hunter, where she was, where and how she was living, and the questions sure to asked about "hush money", were never broached.

Baron's help, and John Edwards suggestion to Woodruff that perhaps Baron was helping, were the product, not of consultation or conversations between seasoned attorneys, but were--like so many events in the Edwards' cover-up story--just another set of curiously-striking coincidences.


by Mondoreb
images: corbis; dbkp

John Edwards has released this statement to the press.

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 recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.

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. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.

It may not be too early to observe that John Edwards has, with this statement, given the National Enquirer--and the small part of the Blogosphere who wrote about this when no one else did--a huge story for the foreseeable future.

by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer
Source: Statement from Edwards on his affair

"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."
--David Perel, Editor-in-Chief, National Enquirer,
on the Mainstream Media failure to check out the John Edwards affair and cover-up


* David Perel on the National Enquirer's latest allegations in the John Edwards scandal [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS], which involve hush money being funneled to Rielle Hunter, their baby and former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young, who earlier claimed he was the father.

* When the pictures are coming out
* Whether there is a video of the whole Beverly Hilton episode
* Why the story is important




DBKP talked to David Perel today, and the National Enquirer's Editor-in-Chief had a little advice for slack-jawed competitors in the news biz who dismiss the story [John Edwards Love Child Scandal] because it appeared first in the Enquirer.

"Try doing a little basic reporting. Do the work. Prove us wrong."

A week after the National Enquirer's reporting team cornered John Edwards in a Beverly Hilton men's room, not a word about the growing scandal has appeared in the New York Times.

Nor on CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, or in the pages of Time or Newsweek.




Four days after Fox News confirmed the confrontation by interviewing a security guard at the Beverly Hilton, we're assured by the LA Times that their "Metro Desk is on it".

No word from the Times Metro Desk on what they've uncovered. To our knowledge, the memo that Times Blog Editor, Tony Pearce, circulated to his reporters not to mention the scandal on-line, hasn't been rescinded.

No Denial from Edwards

A trial lawyer--one who has built his fortune and spent his life suing others--is accused of fathering an illegitimate child while running for president. He's later caught in the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and their love child, then runs from the Enquirer's reporters.

All together: juicy lawsuit time.

If the story is false.

Yet, Edwards hasn't threatened to take action against the Enquirer. What does this say?

David Perel just chuckled at the question--then hinted at more to come.

"We have a little more up our sleeve."

Perez Hilton [Hu$h Little Mistre$$] , scooped the New York Times and CNN on this story--merely by mentioning it. He asks the same questions as DBKP:

Johnny boy has yet to make a comment about the shenanigans asserted by the Enquirer.

Why not?

What do y'all think????

The Photos

What about the lack of coverage by the respectable press, and one report that the Mainstream Media is waiting for photos from the Enquirer before they'll cover the story?

"I thought Gawker wrote it beautifully this morning."

He then read the following passage from Ryan Tate's piece, "Edwards Mistress' Hush Money: $15,000/Month"

Also via Radar (see prior link), the Washington Post and Huffington Post are anxiously awaiting pictures from the Enquirer's reporting, because it's not enough that Edwards isn't denying the affair or love child, Hunter isn't denying the affair or love child, a team of Enquirer reporters saw Edwards go in and out of the hotel to visit the love child and a security guard confirmed to Fox News that Edwards hid from the Enquirer team just like the tabloid said.

The publications are also hungry for photos even though pictures of Edwards in or near a hotel will prove precisely nothing scandalous, in and of themselves. Talk about missing the point.

As DBKP's LBG pointed out: "The MSM is waiting for the Enquirer to release photos to legitimize the story of an illegitimate baby."

We agree. The mainstream press wants the Enquirer to do all the heavy lifting on the story, then, after the photos are published, tag along for the ride.

Their reasoning seems to be: the story is in the Enquirer. The Enquirer's not credible, so the story's not credible. But, when the Enquirer publishes the photos (You mean, in the same Enquirer that's not credible?), then we'll decide that it's credible enough to run with.

Got that?

We asked Perel about the MSM's call for photos. How about it?

"We're on our schedule. Because we're the only ones that pursued the story, they can't get it anywhere else. We're on our schedule and no one else's. We've been leading the way on this. You want to see more? Go out and do your own reporting."

This was as Radar reported Perel saying yesterday [Where Are the John Edwards Photos?]

"But no one will dictate the time-table for when we release our unpublished material. We've been setting the agenda, and will continue doing so."

Today, he added, "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."

What about rumors that the Enquirer is in possession of video footage of Edwards running from the Enquirer's reporters and hiding in the bathroom at the Beverly Hilton?

Perel thought about it and chuckled again.

"Hmmmm. We...we're not done. That's all I'm saying. We'll see."

Which would provide the MSM with at least one other excuse for not covering the story.

Maybe they're waiting for the movie.

Why hasn't Edwards denied the Enquirer's allegations since December, when the tabloid named Rielle Hunter as the mother of their love child?

Perel didn't hesitate.

"He can't."

Finally, what do you say to those who say that Edwards is no longer running for public office, so this is "not news"?

"He's in the running for vice-president. He's been mentioned as a cabinet member in a possible Barack Obama administration. His name is floating around as a candidate for Attorney General. This isn't news?

"He's on the road, making speeches and appearances. He held three press conferences last week. He's in the public eye."

As Perel told us last week, "He's someone who could be first in line for the presidency."

That sounded like a good argument to us--but then, we're not part of the Mainstream Media.

David Perel told us to be be ready and promised "there's more to come."

The Buzz

Silence of the Damned

Even though viewers of NBC News have not heard a word of this story, Don Surber reminded us that certain NBC viewers have: those who watch Jay Leno. Leno has been referencing the Edwards scandal on the Tonight Show.

"About the same number of people watch the Tonight Show, 6 million, as watch NBC News."

One would think it newsworthy that Edwards has issued no denials at all since October 2007. Even then, his denial was 1 part denial, 3 parts deflection.

His latest reaction was no denial--he stopped himself in mid-denial to attack the Enquirer instead of answering a Houston reporter's question.

In this, the mainstream press has allowed John "Master of Deflection" Edwards not only a free pass, but also free popcorn and soda as well.

Tim Worstall asks the question, [John Edwards Hush Money] "Isn't this interesting?:

Rielle Hunter is apparently receiving $15,000 a month in hush money via a rich friend of John Edwards.

No, no, of course there's no connection with any story about an affair or a love child. Must be just delayed payments for those movies she made, yes?

Meanwhile the MSM scrambles for excuses of not only failing to investigate and report the Edwards affair, but why they won't let others write about it.

"Today, Simon from Bloggasm, reports that he spoke with Tony Pierce, the LA Times blog editor to ask him about that email [asking LATimes bloggers to refrain writing about the Edwards affair.]."

A nice summary of the Bloggasm piece is presented by Susan Duclos of Wake Up America! [Bloggasm, LA Times Blog Editor, the National Enquirer and John Edwards]

[Edwards Mistress Getting $15,000 a Month to Keep Quiet]

We still can't figure out why the photos are so important, since they won't confirm anything Fox News hasn't already, but the absurdity with which this scandal is playing out in the media is matched only by the absurdity of the scandal itself, so I guess the nonsensical nature of it all is kind of fitting.




Simon Scowl, at Deceiver [Wanna See Rielle Hunter’s Old Site?] has an interesting post of Hunter's old website.

I haven’t started exploring it yet, but in light of current alleged events, the main page alone is a gold mine. Is there any irony to be found in any of those link headers? Hmmmm, could be:

He then lists the link headers with comments on a site he notes disappeared, then was put back up: "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."

Finally, in the debate taking place at Wikipedia [Talk: Wikipedia] on when and how to include information of the scandal on the on-line encyclopedia's "John Edwards" entry, this point stood out:

Allowing the North Carolina local NBC affiliate and the state's own "paper of record," The Charlotte Observer, to break the story in this new way will allow for measured consent on the part of other MSM outlets to develop. When the "home town boys" run with a story that shames one of their own, the national media will follow.

by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer

It's a Girl!




The National Enquirer turned up the heat on a scandal the Mainstream press has refused to investigate.

The Enquirer's latest salvo in the on-going "John Edwards Love Child Scandal" will a report that Rielle Hunter, the mother of Edwards' love child, is being paid $15,000 a month in "hush money".

The money is being funneled to Hunter by a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign. This same man is also shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby.

And The ENQUIRER is also exclusively revealing that Rielle’s baby is a girl named Frances Quinn Hunter and was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.

“A super-rich pal – who was closely involved with the campaign finances – is helping John. It’s likely this man doesn’t know all the dirty details of John’s extramarital affair, but is acting out of loyalty and is not asking a lot of questions – only writing the checks,” revealed a source very close to the situation.

One other revelation in the latest update is that Edwards is also reportedly "shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby."

The results of the National Enquirer's year-long investigation, which had seven reporters assigned to the story, are revealed on the tabloid's website.

The Enquirer's latest update also reminds readers of last week's confrontation between Edwards and the Enquirer's reporters as he left the Beverly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning.

"Edwards, 55, was confronted by ENQUIRER reporters, but refused to answer questions and instead hid in a public men’s restroom until security escorted him off hotel grounds."

The mainstream press has maintained a remarkable 'cone of silence' around the Edwards' story. The excuses heard are usually along the lines of "It's the Enquirer"--which doesn't address the issue of why no Mainstream Media reporters have asked Edwards any questions about the affair.

It also doesn't address the issue of why major "news" organization didn't report the independent corroboration of FoxNews, who last week interviewed one of the security guards at the Beverly Hilton and confirmed Edwards' running from the Enquirer's reporters.

The news blackout began to be slowly lifted in the last week, as Slate, The Times, Independent, and a few American newspapers reported the Edwards-reporters standoff in the Beverly Hilton.

Hush money and back-channel payments made by political figures in any cover-up schemes usually get any reporter's blood hot for more info.

We'll see if the latest news excites any interest in the MSM.

by Mondoreb

UPDATE #1: 10:50 EDT July 30 2008:

Ryan Tate, of Gawker, makes several good points in Edwards Mistress' Hush Money: $15,000/Month:

There's been no confirmation of any of this yet from reputable newspapers, like the one that told us about the secret scientist who knew where Saddam Hussein hid his chemical and biological weapons, or from the one that said Puff Daddy was in on the plot to gun down Tupac Shakur. So, gosh, who knows if it can be trusted! But if you still want some salacious details on this hush money stuff — or word from Radar on how the mistress is trying to negotiate her share of this feeding frenzy — it's yours after the jump.

Exactly. The new MSM motto seems to be--at least on the John Edwards story: "We won't give our readers any scandal news on John Edwards or do any investigations, but if the Enquirer does it for us and publishes the pictures, then we'll tell you about it."

As Tate points out, "The publications are also hungry for photos even though pictures of Edwards in or near a hotel will prove precisely nothing scandalous, in and of themselves. Talk about missing the point."

It's a Girl!




The National Enquirer turned up the heat on a scandal the Mainstream press has refused to investigate.

The Enquirer's latest salvo in the on-going "John Edwards Love Child Scandal" will a report that Rielle Hunter, the mother of Edwards' love child, is being paid $15,000 a month in "hush money".

The money is being funneled to Hunter by a wealthy colleague who was closely tied to the Edwards’ campaign. This same man is also shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby.

And The ENQUIRER is also exclusively revealing that Rielle’s baby is a girl named Frances Quinn Hunter and was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.

“A super-rich pal – who was closely involved with the campaign finances – is helping John. It’s likely this man doesn’t know all the dirty details of John’s extramarital affair, but is acting out of loyalty and is not asking a lot of questions – only writing the checks,” revealed a source very close to the situation.

One other revelation in the latest update is that Edwards is also reportedly "shoveling cash to Edwards’ pal and former aide Andrew Young – who tried to take the heat off the ex-Senator by claiming he is the father of Rielle’s baby."

The results of the National Enquirer's year-long investigation, which had seven reporters assigned to the story, are revealed on the tabloid's website.

The Enquirer's latest update also reminds readers of last week's confrontation between Edwards and the Enquirer's reporters as he left the Beverly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning.

"Edwards, 55, was confronted by ENQUIRER reporters, but refused to answer questions and instead hid in a public men’s restroom until security escorted him off hotel grounds."

The mainstream press has maintained a remarkable 'cone of silence' around the Edwards' story. The excuses heard are usually along the lines of "It's the Enquirer"--which doesn't address the issue of why no Mainstream Media reporters have asked Edwards any questions about the affair.

It also doesn't address the issue of why major "news" organization didn't report the independent corroboration of FoxNews, who last week interviewed one of the security guards at the Beverly Hilton and confirmed Edwards' running from the Enquirer's reporters.

The news blackout began to be slowly lifted in the last week, as Slate, The Times, Independent, and a few American newspapers reported the Edwards-reporters standoff in the Beverly Hilton.

Hush money and back-channel payments made by political figures in any cover-up schemes usually get any reporter's blood hot for more info.

We'll see if the latest news excites any interest in the MSM.

by Mondoreb

UPDATE #1: 10:50 EDT July 30 2008:

Ryan Tate, of Gawker, makes several good points in Edwards Mistress' Hush Money: $15,000/Month:

There's been no confirmation of any of this yet from reputable newspapers, like the one that told us about the secret scientist who knew where Saddam Hussein hid his chemical and biological weapons, or from the one that said Puff Daddy was in on the plot to gun down Tupac Shakur. So, gosh, who knows if it can be trusted! But if you still want some salacious details on this hush money stuff — or word from Radar on how the mistress is trying to negotiate her share of this feeding frenzy — it's yours after the jump.

Exactly. The new MSM motto seems to be--at least on the John Edwards story: "We won't give our readers any scandal news on John Edwards or do any investigations, but if the Enquirer does it for us and publishes the pictures, then we'll tell you about it."

As Tate points out, "The publications are also hungry for photos even though pictures of Edwards in or near a hotel will prove precisely nothing scandalous, in and of themselves. Talk about missing the point."

Liberal media?... What liberal media?
The The National Enquirer has scooped the liberal media... again.

Verily, verily: it is that bad and it's so sad.

UPDATE #4: 13:00 EDT July 30 2008:

Gawker's Alex Pareene--who's written several good commentaries on the convoluted contortions of most of the major news outlets in the story have underwent--in email yesterday called the non-coverage by the mainstream press, "bizarre".

"..it's bizarre and also not too surprising to see everyone remain so quiet on a story just because they don't want it to be true."

Pareene also made a prediction of sorts--with a sigh:

"That'll change soon, I'm sure. Once GMA or Today pays Rielle enough for an on-screen interview (or someone tracks down John's child support money) we'll get some coverage and a LOT of self-flagellating media "oh no culture of scandal" moaning."

by Mondoreb