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

John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Andrew Young, Fred Baron:

"They're all still hiding, but they're hiding in plain sight. We can see them! Don't they know we can all see them hiding?"
--DBKP's LBG on the continued subterfuge in the John Edwards Scandal





Why is everyone in the John Edwards' scandal still hiding?

As LBG emailed recently, "They're all still hiding, but they're hiding in plain sight. We can see them! Don't they know we can all see them hiding?"

In what's likely to be the last story, before the National Enquirer publishs more baby pix to nail John Edwards' confessional lies to the barn door, a few observations and questions about the "99% honest" man:

*** Rielle Hunter continues to be jetted around the country, in an attempt to be kept out of sight of a suddenly-awakened MSM.

Why?

After the Edwards PR appearance on ABC's Nighline on August 8, the Enquirer released this information a week afterwards:

And now The ENQUIRER has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

Again, we ask, "Why?"

Are these the actions of a "99% man"? Perhaps Edwards, who offered gallantly to submit to a paternity test, doesn't know anything about this? Perhaps it is just the actions of Edwards' finance chair, the equally-gallant Fred Baron?

The Enquirer's latest print edition reported, however, that "Trapped like a rat, John Edwards spoke those soothing words to his mistress Rielle Hunter after admitting to their illicit affair." The "soothing words Edwards spoke?

"Of course, I still love you. Don't worry, we'll get through this."

This was not widely--if at all--reported in a MSM that is now chasing the Enquirer's leads in the story after building an impressive wall of silence for months. Perhaps the MSM still handles the Enquirer's leads like days-old garbage?

The Enquirer is good enough to investigate the story, report the story, stay with the story for months and continues to be light-years ahead of the MSM in the quest for the "truth".

Big Media can now report the story of John Edwards, Fred Baron, Rielle Hunter, Andrew Young and details of the cover-up, not because the story was under their noses for the better part of a year: but because John Edwards gave them permission to investigate and report it when he went on ABC's Nightline August 8 and admitted his affair. BM (Big Media, though other, more earthy thoughts are brought to mind by the initials) will be taking its investigative marching orders from the National Enquirer for a while yet.

And likely seething the entire time.

*** John Edwards and Fred Baron's statements belie their actions. If the affair was over and John Edwards is not the father, then why are all the principals in the matter still acting like they have something to hide?

Andrew Young, the man who fell halfway on his sword for Edwards--he claimed in December he was the father, but didn't put his name on the birth certificate--has scooted back to North Carolina with his family.

Why doesn't Andrew Young issue another statement declaring his paternity of Frances Quinn Hunter? That wouldn't settle any questions, just as his December statement failed to settle any--except for decidedly un-curious MSM editors and reporters, most notably, CBS's Bob Scheiffer.

Scheiffer was rewarded for his infamously un-curious nature by getting a phone call from John Edwards shortly after his statement was released for the press on August 8. Edwards apparently knew he could count on good, ole Bob not to ask any unpleasant questions during that phone conversation.

In his statements, Baron is still treating the press like he's on trial with his carefully-parsed sentences. Who know? Perhaps Baron can see into the future?

John Edwards' carefully-crafted statement and interview answers are his last comments on the affair. It's hard to see how he can say anything at this point that would improve his situation.

Perhaps that's why John Edwards has been hard to see during the last 11 days: Edwards is still in the self-imposed seclusion he entered on July 30, after reporters attempted to question him about his "incident" at the Beverly Hilton on July 21.


*** Rielle Hunter is keeping mum, except to issue a statement through her Baron-suggested attorney that she's not willing to call for Edwards to take a paternity test. Hunter's sister, however, was not as close-lipped and did ask for Edwards to step up to the paternity plate.

Apparently, Melissa and Rielle did not consult on that point. Edwards and Baron did not consult about Rielle Hunter and her living arrangements and numerous private jet trips--according to their statements. [John Edwards Cover-up: Press Releases a Carefully-Orchestrated Affair?]

So, John Edwards, Andrew Young and Rielle Hunter have remained inaccessible to the pleadings of the press for more information.

*** Fred Baron has clarified, but hasn't exactly been a Pigeon O'Brien about appearing before the press to clear up matters, in the last few days.

"The bottom line to it is John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards had no knowledge of anything I did," Mr. Baron said. "I did it as a friend."

That was Fred Baron's last known utterance on the matter, reported by the Dallas Morning News.

It may be the last for awhile. The Enquirer is expected to publish this week more baby pictures, including, it is supposed, some that also feature John Edwards.

Which may force everyone involved to continue hiding in plain sight.


Deceiver channels the spirit of 19th-century French psychotherapist, Emile Coue: Every Day, in Every Way, the John Edwards Story Gets Better and Better. If you're short of time, a better John Edwards' go-to source is hard to find.


Oh and a shout out to Doc Sanity's latest edition of Carnival of the Insanities: she included pat's Christians in Muslim Countries: Saudi Girl Burned Alive for Being Christian in her weekly roundup of the bizarre and insane.


by Mondoreb
image: Amazon.com

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

Blogosphere: Doing the Research the Mainstream Press Won't Do

MSM: Trying to improve the Bottom Line?



Simon Scowl at Deceiver is upset.

He's discovered that the blogosphere, which was the only place--besides, of course, the National Enquirer--doing any digging into John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter and his cover up operation--is serving as the Mainstream Media's unpaid and uncredited Research Division.

Weird, huh? Deceiver was the only place talking about this stuff for at least a week and a half, and all of a sudden everybody else has been doing original research on it the whole time? Or maybe it doesn’t count as research when we do it, since we’re just a silly gossip blog with a hot-pink logo. Maybe that’s it.

Dear Serge F. Koveleski, Patrick Healy, Toby Lyles, and everybody else at the New York Times:

You know the blogs and tabloids beat you to this story. Everybody knows. It wasn’t exactly difficult, considering you guys waited almost three weeks for John Edwards to give you permission. You’re not going to salvage your reputation by pretending otherwise.

Also, somebody should talk to whoever writes your headlines. “Behind a Meeting That Exposed Edwards’s Affair”? Why not just type out an equivalent number of Z’s?

Signed,
Your uncredited researcher

Updates to story at DBKP.com: Mainstream Media Uses Blogosphere as Unpaid Research Wing in Edwards Scandal

DBKP also has been affected. A few weeks ago, the Times of London's SARAH BAXTER, inserted material from our July 23 John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer into her Times' story--without a word about the source where she stole the material.

We wrote about the plagiarism after being alerted by blogger, Doug Ross in MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?. Baxter's article (readers will have to do their own Googling--the Times gets no link here) gives the impression that she contacted National Enquirer's Editor-in-chief, David Perel and talked to him.

Our three letters to the Times remain unanswered. The Times Online still carries Baxter's story with our material, without attribution.

These two cases are not the only ones: one reader alerted DBKP yesterday that portions of a story posted on one network's website "sounded suspiciously like something you wrote about a few days ago".

We read the article and suspected a little--okay, a lot--rewriting may have occurred. But, what the hell? At least, some effort was expended by a Mainstream Media reporter furiously trying to get up to speed on a story Big Media blacked out for nine months with all the fervor of a religious zealot.

Of course, the MSM wouldn't have had to resort to these shady practices if just one of the members of their clubby community had investigated allegations surrounding John Edwards nine months ago: but that would've put a dent in the invitations to the wine-and-cheese parties.

The only investigation came from the National Enquirer and a few bloggers. But, you wouldn't know it if you watched the Big Media frenzy of this past weekend. Some stories didn't even mention the National Enquirer by name--it became an unnamed "tabloid".

John Edwards' "confession"--forced on him by the "tabloid trash" National Enquirer-- transformed the MSM from an early-July Rip Van Winkle into August 8 Woodward and Bernsteins. Don't believe that? Readers only have to stifle their gag reflex and tune in to the MSM coverage.

Readers--and writers--of the blogosphere can expect more of the same. With MSM "news" organizations cutting staff in an effort to stay afloat, stealing from the blogosphere serves as a profitable way to "cover" stories previously denied to readers.

The John Edwards scandal is only the latest battle between citizen journalists and a MSM in a death spiral. It won't be the last. Big Media has proved incredibly resistant to changing editorial policies that have driven readers and viewers to find other, less left-leaning content.

Polls show that the percentage of people who trust what the MSM writes hovers somewhere between carnival barkers and used car salesmen. More Americans believe in UFOs than believe the Mainstream Media is unbiased.

The media reaction: attack citizen journalists and hunker down behind excuses of "standards" that drove ex-customers away with the highly-selective nature those standards were applied. Oh, and practice a code of denial that would make John Edwards proud.

The Mainstream Media wants to improve their bottom line?

Clean house of editors intent on serving up the same cheesy gruel of socialist opinion masquerading as news. The public's been onto that scam for years: falling stock prices and ad revenues confirm it.

Or CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times could try billing the Democrat National Committee for PR services rendered.

P.S. Welcome to the club, Simon.

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp reference file

Let me tell you about a story I didn't want to write about back in December...

Left bloggers--who didn't want to report any of the John Edwards allegations back in December, never mind investigate them--are up in arms because John Edwards is being reported by Fox in August.

To be fair, the left side of the Blogosphere did
comment on the National Enquirer's allegations back in December: mostly, they hurled invective at those who did write about it.

Satyam, Think Progress [Fox News Host Refuses To Talk About Russia-Georgia War, Insists On Covering Edwards’ Affair, like a magician, wants readers to look at the war in his one hand while whisking away the Edwards scandal in his other.

Yesterday, Russia launched a major military offensive against Georgia, which Georgia has called “a state of war.” Nearly two thousand people have died and the conflict risks sparking a wider war. Also yesterday, former senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006.

Of course, a look back at a July 11, 2005 Think Progress post, It’s Not the Crime, It’s The Cover-Up, showed a completely different standard.

Hello, Washington Press Corps. What is the thirty year rule that has defined every White House scandal since Watergate? It is not the crime, it’s the cover-up that gets you in trouble.

What a difference three years--and party affiliation--make: TP was referring to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair.

Steve Benen, Carpetbagger's Report, [War, schmar, there’s Edwards gossip to obsess over], has a headline just as strident. However, the tone of the post is more reasoned.

Media interest in John Edwards’ adultery controversy is probably inevitable. He’s not a sitting lawmaker or candidate for anything anymore, but he’s a well-known political figure caught up in a sex scandal. News outlets are going to cover this; it’s unavoidable.

My Left Wing, [Curmudgette :: Fair, Balanced, All Edwards, All the Time] posts the following--with which we heartily agree:

Now I would be the last person to say that the Edwards affair is not news. In fact, I've pretty consistently argued that it is news. But this is positively surreal.

The major media didn't breathe a word about Edwards while he was running for president. No effort was made to check out the places, dates, license numbers and other hard facts reported by the Enquirer back in December.

As has been noted countless times at DBKP, not one reporter even asked him about the Enquirer's allegations in December. Thus, Edwards--contrary to MSM reports that cite his "continuous denials" and "Edwards denied it December" angles to explain their non-coverage--did not address the issue of Rielle Hunter after November 29, 2007.

Edwards never had to address the Enquirer's allegations once they became specific in December. He could easily deny the October Enquirer story, which was general in nature at that point. The tabloid did not even name Rielle Hunter at that point--even though Hunter issued a denial then. [Why Did Rielle Hunter Denounce the National Enquirer NINE WEEKS Before the Paper Would Name Her as the “Other Woman?]

DBKP, though it has almost 80 stories on the Edwards scandal since December, didn't even write about the October Enquirer allegations. We felt there really wasn't anything to write about at that point: it fell totally in the realm of gossip--though who doesn't like gossip?

However, the December Enquirer allegations were a completely different animal. Anyone giving them a fair reading in August 2008 wonders that not one MSM reporter thought they were "curious", to say the least.

On December 23, 2007, we introduced one story with [The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]:

The story so far of John Edwards, his campaign and Rielle Hunter, the uncovering of hard facts by the National Enquirer, the Mainstream Media’s non-reaction, and the blogosphere’s fondness for the comfort that only sitting on one’s ass brings.

We observed then how the other half of the blogosphere operates.

DBKP has previously written about Sam Stein, a writer doing a fairly routine piece for Huffington Post about the new ways candidates were trying to reach Internet readers.

One of those new methods was something called a webisode, a short video for letting Internet users see a candidate in a more personal way. John Edwards wanted users to see “the real John Edwards”, as he says in his recently-rediscovered video.

Stein recounted his surprising adventures with seeing the Edwards video. That Stein was having a tough time running down something that should have been screaming for publicity interested him.

When he wrote about his adventures, a certain section of the blogosphere pilloried Stein and his musings on the subject. At that point, Rielle Hunter was not as well-known as she is today. Running down information on her required a little digging.

Sam Stein did that digging and was rewarded for his efforts with a mound of vitriol.

A reporter who had done actual work on a story was ridiculed by writers who had sat on their asses.

“Sam Stein and the Enquirer are nothing but lazy, no-good trashy gossips”

The Think Progress piece mentions a Fox interview with PBS’s Bonnie Erbe. Ms. Erbe is quoted as saying that the Edwards affair is “not the stuff the American public wants to hear about in this election cycle.”

Au contrair, Bonnie.

"Rielle Hunter", "John Edwards", "John Edwards affair" and "John Edwards scandal" were four of the top seven search terms on July 22 at one point. They have remained, to one degree or another, in the Top 100 Most Searched at Google since then. So, Ms. Erbe, there have been plenty of Americans searching for information on this topic. They had to: PBS joined the other MSM in not mentioning it, prior to August 8.

PBS didn't discuss it back in December; they didn't discuss it prior to July 21 either. Bonnie Erbe didn't want to discuss it today, though one would suppose that Bonnie knew the topic to be discussed when invited to appear on Fox News. Just exactly when would Erbe's PBS like to discuss this topic?

All readers who said, "never" or "seldom" get a cookie.

The same portion of the blogosphere who only wanted to discuss how vulgar those that did discuss it in December are back to their same arguments in August. Most Americans are vulgar, it must be supposed.

We agree that the zero-to-media-circus coverage now is a little much. However, a little discussion during the last eight months might have prevented the 24/7 news status the Leftblogosphere is complaining about today.

Some blogs have mostly remained silent or made a few comments and let it stand at that. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take: there is other news to discuss. But it's not reasonable to attack those who do discuss it.

That's the job of Big Media.

by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file

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

In a coldly-calculated political move, John Edwards has now admitted that he had an affair, but did not father Rielle Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.

In an interview with ABC News Nightline admitted that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter and lied about it while campaigning for President.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Just a few days after leading Democrats called for Edwards to deny the affair or risk losing a prime speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention, Edwards did not deny the affair--something he has not done since a November 29, 2007 interview.

The political calculus is: Edwards hopes that his admission of having an affair will allow the incident to blow over, allowing him to procede with his political career.

According to ABC News, which has refused to report on the event previously, "Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father."

The announcement may prove to raise more questions than it answered.

One question which immediately comes to mind: What was Edwards doing leaving the Bevrly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning, visiting a woman he says he did not love and her baby, which he says he did not father?

UPDATES to follow at DBKP.com

by Mondoreb

John Edwards Gets "Kid Gloves" Mainstream Media Treatment




Tom Bemis, at the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch [Media's self censorship is a bigger scandal than Edwards
Commentary: Is it any wonder that nobody buys newspapers any more?] comments on the media's non-coverage of the John Edwards Scandal, after noticing that "no major network or national daily paper is doing anything with the story.":

In February, the New York Times spilled barrels of ink, and clear-cut a forest to tell the world that -- hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean? -- Sen. John McCain allegedly had had an affair. This was great stuff, until someone bothered to vet the story.

By those standards, the Enquirer's reporting on Edwards is Pulitzer grade stuff. (They have a picture.)

Although the Mainstream Media's non-coverage of Edwards has been described as a "kid gloves" treatment elsewhere*, Bemis's handling of the MSM is anything but.

The guy's up for a cabinet post at least, maybe even veep -- well, not any more.

But somehow, it's just not relevant that he won't answer questions about why he was hiding from a couple of trashy tabloid reporters in a bathroom at the Beverly Hills Hilton at 2:30 a.m.?

Enquiring minds want to know.

No wonder nobody bothers to buy newspapers anymore.

Exactly.

* Most recently by Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. "“The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out." Among others using the phrase:
The John Edwards Love-Child Non-Story - mediabistro.com: FishbowlNY, John Edwards Update: The Silky Pony And His Foal - Right Wing News ... and Patterico’s Pontifications » John Edwards’ Love Child (Updated)


by Mondoreb
image: dkimages

LA Times Lifts Gag Order

* LA Times' Reports Denial Canard
* Writer Gives Readers a "Backdoor" to More Information?

GAG ORDER LIFTED

The embargo on John Edwards Scandal news at the LA Times Blogs has apparently been lifted. The embargo on supplying accurate information, however, may not be.

Don Fredrick's "Might a John Edwards Dem convention role be in jeopardy?" on the LA Times' website is Exhibit A.

UPDATES throughout the day, at end of story at DBKP.com.
John Edwards Scandal: LA Times Lifts Embargo on Edwards Scandal News

LA Times' readers, who might wonder how a prime VP candidate of only a few weeks ago might now be persona non grata in Denver, are brought up to speed by the story.

The story reports, "Edwards has continued to deny the affair allegations". However, Edwards has not denied the story since November 29, when the allegations were very general.

ALSO at DBKP: Click on banner to access over 70 DBKP stories and videos on the John Edwards scandal.

Three weeks later, the National Enquirer published the photos of a pregnant Rielle Hunter and named her as Edwards' mistress. Since that time, Edwards has issued no denials. Prior to July 23, Edwards was never asked about the allegations by reporters.

Edwards statements on the matter since that time have ranged from, "tabloid trash," to "tabloids full of lies," to "sorry, I can't talk now".

It's not known if Fredricks, whose on-line bio states "served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984," was allowed to report that, however. The following paragraph did make it into the post:

Chris Lehane, a key Al Gore aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, added that "an appearance at the convention [by Edwards] would only highlight the unresolved story."

Unresolved, for those who know about it, that is.

The article is informative on how the LA Times will explain its previous participation in the media blackout on Edwards' scandal news.

"For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office."



INFORMATION BACKDOOR

Which may leave readers wondering, "What has changed about Edwards' status to now allow discussion of the scandal on August 8?"

The LA Times' story references Alan Mutter's Reflections of a Newsosaur blog, "Where’s the Edwards love-child story?", which directly contradicts the LAT's non-coverage thesis above--though the LAT's article, obviously, doesn't quote the contradictory material. Mutter observes,

"Even though his presidential campaign is over, John Edwards has sought to be a major public figure for a decade. As such, he long since has forfeited any claim to privacy for his family or himself."

Might this be an instance of guerrilla journalism? By directing LAT readers to Mutter, who is freer to speak on the subject, a backdoor to information on the scandal that the LAT doesn't feel comfortable discussing is opened. More Mutter:

The rest of the mainstream media need to start writing and talking about the story, too. If not, their silence will be viewed as complicity in a suspected cover-up and their already fragile credibility will slip still further.

Has Don Fredrick learned the Rule of Information in the Internet age?

When one door shuts, another opens.

EDWARDS SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA?

"John Edwards love child rumours threaten the Barack Obama presidential campaign" is the headline of a story in yesterday's The Daily Mail (U.K.).

"Barack Obama's supporters yesterday tried to distance him from a potentially damaging sex scandal."

Annette Witheridge, the Daily Mail's reporter on the story, has a firm grip on how the U.S. Mainstream Media operates.

Rumours that Mr Edwards, whose wife Elizabeth is battling breast cancer, fathered the child were ignored by the mainstream media until yesterday when the National Enquirer printed a grainy photograph allegedly showing Mr Edwards cradling the baby in a Los Angeles hotel room last month.

Witheridge avoids the MSM urban legend of Edwards' denying an affair with Rielle Hunter and fathering her daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter.

Until the photograph emerged Mr Edwards, who was John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 presidential election, had managed to avoid questions about the affair.

DID RIELLE HUNTER TIP THE ENQUIRER?

The Daily Mail's article also observes, "Last night it was not clear how the Enquirer had obtained a photo that appeared to have been taken inside the room when the curtains were closed."

The Enquirer's latest edition reports a "Blow Up with Mistress" and recounts a telephone conversation in which Edwards, "hurled angry accusations at Rielle for at least 10 minutes, demanding that she keep her mouth shut and not trust anyone, according to the source."

Once again, the question becomes, "Was John Edwards's meeting at the Beverly Hilton with his mistress and daughter tipped to the National Enquirer by Rielle Hunter?"

Which might answer questions of why the pictures, which are described as "grainy" and "blurred" by some news outlets, were not clearer. Hard to take an unnoticed, clear picture of the man holding your baby, when they're both only a few feet away.

by Mondoreb
image: Daily Mail; National Enquirer

Mystery Man Resides in Dallas, TX



The National Enquirer released more than just the photos of John Edwards holding Frances Quinn Hunter yesterday [: it also revealed more clues to the identity of the man who, the Enquirer claims, funneled the hush money to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young.

But, the Enquirer released the details in their print edition only, which hit parts of the country yesterday. One area of the country which doesn't have the new Enquirer yet is our own. But through the efforts of one reader--who wishes remain anonymous and who purchased a copy of the newest Enquirer for us!--that went beyond and above the call of duty, we did obtain some details about the Edwards "hush money man".

We won't spill all the Enquirer's beans here; after all, David Perel, the Enquirer's Editor-in-Chief, has to recoup the investment of a year's worth of reporting on the story.

It ain't cheap chasing around people who don't want to be found.

However, we will report a few of the Enquirer's findings about a man, about whom an earlier Enquirer story would only refer to as, "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."



The Enquirer also wrote last week on its website [EDWARDS' HU$H MONEY TO MISTRESS]: “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."

The newest Enquirer reveals more clues to the man's identity--to entice MSM reporters who have thus far proved resistant to investigating and reporting on the story, perhaps?

A "wealthy Democratic fundraiser" from "Dallas, TX" is part of what the Enquirer reveals.

The story also states that besides the $15,000/month payments to Rielle Hunter and daughter, F.Q. Hunter, that $20,000 is being given to former Edwards' operative, Andrew Young and his family.

The details of the Enquirer's attempt to question the man, when and how much money the wealthy Edwards' backer raised?

Go buy your own copy of the Enquirer.

Any MSM reporter with an Enquirer and an Internet connection ought to be able to run down the identity of the man in a heartbeat.

Doug Ross?

by Mondoreb
image: National Enquirer

Peter replied, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about!"
--Famous denial, Luke 22:60

Media Circulates False Story that Edwards Denied Affair in December



National Enquirer's December Allegations NEVER Denied

The Media's "Don't Ask Edwards, He Won't Tell" Policy

Edwards' Denials After November 29: A MSM Urban Legend

Perhaps history's three most famous denials were issued by the apostle Peter on the night that Jesus was arrested. Thus, Peter issued three more denials in one night than John Edwards has made after November 29, 2007; i.e., none.

One recurring theme turning up for Mainstream Media apologists in the last several days goes something on the order of, "Edwards denied this story in December". Variations range from yesterday's Raleigh Telegram's insistent "Edwards continuously denied the accusations," [Enquirer Publishes Blurry 'Photo' Of John Edwards] to Deceiver's July 28 "The John Edwards Non-Scandal Keeps Getting Not-Weirder":

Then, last December, Edwards denied having an affair and an illegitimate child with Hunter after the National Enquirer spotted her, visibly pregnant, living in North Carolina.

One British newspaper repeated the "Edwards' December Denial" recently. Yesterday, at NRO, Byron York cited--inadvertently, no doubt--the EDD meme. From "John Edwards: The Picture of a Scandal" (emphasis added):

Last December, when the Enquirer first named Hunter, Edwards did deny it. A couple of months earlier, when the Enquirer published a thinly-sourced story claiming that Edwards was "caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign," Edwards quite emphatically denied it. "The story is false," he said then. "It's completely untrue, ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years."

As our own LBG put it, in "John Edwards Scandal: Where in the World is John Edwards?":

The MSM turned a blind eye to the alleged Edwards' affair so it was a surprise when the story resurfaced in November in the Daily News. On November 29, the Daily News' Rush and Molloy published "Tabloid's affair rumor dispelled, says John Edwards". The article wrote that "John Edwards believes he's stared down the National Enquirer".

The article mentioned the Enquirer's promise to follow-up the initial Edwards affair story on October 10. The Daily News cited an Enquirer insider who admitted "there's a lot of smoke, but no smoking gun". The Daily News also quoted Edwards who claimed the story "disappeared because it's made up".

In December, a two-line item was tagged onto the end of one report that "an unnamed reporter in South Carolina" asked Edwards about it and he responded with the deflection, "Tabloid gossip" and "trashy lies". DBKP believes this occurred during Edwards' Christmas campaigning break, when he was back in North Carolina

Is this hair-splitting? Maybe, but that incident was no denial.

This point is important: it allows the those in the major media to excuse what was their complete failure to fulfill their adversarial duties for nearly eight months. Once the Enquirer allegations went from the general (October Enquirer story) to the specific (December), the press didn't ask, Edwards didn't tell--at least until July 23.

The Democrats could have save a pound of August headaches with just an ounce of December MSM investigative legwork.

As we stated earlier today in "John Edwards Scandal: Dems Worry, Call on Edwards To Come Forward":

It may be noted that Democrats could have avoided all of this–if just one major news organization would have investigated the easily-checked facts of the National Enquirer’s December edition of the scandal. [Curious Circumstances Excite No Curiosity in the Mainstream Media and The Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere]

Back in December, in the above stories DBKP wondered why not one reporter had asked Edwards, “Do you deny you’ve been in telephone contact with Rielle Hunter since she found out she was pregnant?” Hunter, at that time, was living within five miles of the Edwards campaign HQ in Chapel Hill, NC, in the house of an Edwards’ backer, driving a BMW registered to former Edwards Director of Finance, Andrew Young–all checkable facts.

But not one reporter thought it curious enough to investigate then.

In doing the research for this article, we found several "December denials" sprinkled throughout the sparse MSM coverage of the last few days. We can find no such proof that Edwards was even asked about the Rielle Hunter affair in December.

We waited, in vain in December for that one brave MSM reporter to ask Edwards about the National Enquirer's allegations. Astonished that none did not, we wrote about it in December several times.

The waiting continued, though Edwards was in the news as a possible VP pick or cabinet selection.

Our waiting was over July 23, when Edwards gave his now-infamous video "non-denial".
[Edwards Love Child: Worst Denial Video Ever]

Edwards denials came in October, with the last one on November 29, when he felt he had covered his tracks and that the Enquirer was bluffing about the affair.

The "continuous denials" and "December denials" that are being bandied about in the press as reasons they didn't investigate Edwards eight month ago?

They have all the making of a Mainstream Media urban legend: they sound good, but they simply aren't true.

It's a matter of record--for any reporter wanting to investigate.


THE BUZZ

Speaking of denial...

A few days ago, Mickey Kaus, Slate, wrote a handy "Why write about the Edwards scandal?

Here's a short clip-'n'-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn't be pursued--or at least pursued too vigorously-- even if it is true:**

In the ** footnote to the above, Kaus outlines what might be the "Six Stages of MSM/Dem/Edwards' Supporter Denial".

**--For purposes of this item, I'm assuming we're reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it can't possibly be true; 2) It's not true; 3) You can't prove it's true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it's true? 5) It's disgusting that you've proved it's true; 6) What's the big deal anyway? ...

A check of the comments section, on any Internet locale that has written about the Edwards scandal since December, will quickly confirm Kaus' six stages. In fact, you can tell when pro-Edwards readers learned about the story by which stage of denial they were in when they penned their outraged comments.

Don Surber, in "Dems do what MSM won’t", wonders--most reasonably, we think:

When Edwards is not in Denver later this month, I wonder how ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS will explain his absence.

Oh yeah: John Who?

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer