John Edwards Refunds: Campaign Placated Large Donors?

Money Talks, Suckers Walk




In regard to the stories about refunds of contributions to Big Wheels, I don't have strong feelings either way, and a couple of Devil's Advocates could argue both sides.

I do note, however, that even though the latest, baddest story was not broken until August 8 or thereabouts, the stories, both National Enquirer and blind items in the New York (Daily News or Post, I forget which), go back to at least August, 2007, and the bizarre stories regarding Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young developed months ago, so the campaign has been on notice that a big storm was on the horizon for much longer than August 8, 2008.

There were reasons a long time ago for the campaign to start placating big supporters in some way. Those are the supporters who probably have access to the candidate and campaign leaders, and who could influence action from general pressure and explicit statements of chagrin, whether there were specific questions as to why the candidate had not thought with his brain, and "what the heck is going on and I spent all my time bundling for you for this mess to develop?"

It is probable that most regular Jills and Joes who sent small donations would not have such access and implicit, if not explicit, influence. The regular Jills and Joes would get their info and ability - - or lack of ability - - to exert influence as a group from the MSM - - - and now back to square one re the MSM. When the recent explosive story came out and the MSM covered it - - or covered their failure to cover it - - Andrea Mitchell said on a cable news show that the journalist community had known about the stories for a long time. It sounds as if journalists knew and sat on it, and those in the inner circle knew, or knew something was stinky, and said, "I'm disappointed with you. I am taking your allowance away this year."

Most scenarios don't unfold all neat and tidy like on "Matlock," where the evidence is so obvious the lawyer just explains it in a five minute narrative and then asks the stunned and cowering witness, merely, "Isn't that true?" It is a mistake to assume after the fact, with enhanced hindsight, that all actions in any scenario took place with perfect knowledge on behalf of the actor. It may simply be a case of the squeaky wheel got the grease.

Big supporters may have been harrumphing because they knew something was up, whereas regular Jills and Joes may have had to choose between the National Enquirer and John Edwards, their hero, who said it was all a pack of lies.

To be fair to all donors, big and small, if there was not enough money to repay all contributions, then the campaign should have issued pro rata refunds to all donors in both Americas, without waiting to be asked.


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

by Phil Ander
image: learnsomethingnewtoday

John Edwards Campaign Refunds: More Questions

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will wait for an answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Who speaks for those people now?

by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file

John Edwards Affair: Many Big Campaign Donors Got Refunds in March

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



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

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

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

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

Until now.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




More from Warren Buffett on the class-action matter:

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

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

Mickey Kaus commented on the Buffett class-action idea:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, there may be hope yet for emma.

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

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

* Who got their money back early?

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

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

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

Also, later today: How to apply for refunds.

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


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

John Edwards Affair: Lawyers, Clergy, Hubris and Breaking Trust

SCREW UNTO OTHERS AS THEY . . .
TRUST YOU





Counselors. Counsel. Advice and Counsel. Those in the exalted position of offering counsel possess a power which must be exercised prudently. Where a conflict between personal and public interest arises, the counselor must act for the good of all, not for selfish, debased reasons.

Doctors, lawyers, and clergy are three professions that carry a special obligation of trust and responsibility, not only to their clients, but to society; three professions that require, as a condition to admittance into the chamber of secret knowledge, oaths vowing to act for the good of others. People turn to doctors, lawyers and clergy at vulnerable times, with problems that go beyond a mere human's capabilities to handle and require the advice and counsel of someone who has vowed to act honorably, help others and rise above corrupting influences.

Doctors, you are off the hot seat today. But lawyers and clergy, Oh My!

Lawyers and clergy can really mess with the mind. They can cause society to lose faith in what is the right thing to do, and the right thing to expect of others. "Everbody's doin' it, doin' it" might work for adolescents, but not for those wearing the mantle of counselor. We hate it when the bad behaviors of clergy, whether Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart or predatory priests, are uncloaked. We hate it when the lies of lawyers who have taken upon themselves the mantle of public trust, whether Nixon, the Clintons or Edwards, are uncloaked.

True, it means they are just people - - just like us - - but these phonies have preached to us about the right thing for us to do, used their perfect lives as a template on which to pattern our own mean existence, and we have trusted them to handle our problems and help us to cope with our vulnerabilities. By circumstance and necessity they must be held to the highest standard.





Clergy and lawyers are both admired and despised because we need them in the worst times of our lives, and they have to be trusted at those most vulnerable times. They can be honorable, protecting and helping us, at which times we admire them, and hope our children go to law school or seminary and gain admittance into the chamber of secret knowledge. Or they can use their power for their own selfish reasons, deceiving and hurting us.

The only people who benefit no matter which end of the spectrum the behavior occupies are John Grisham and journalists. They can spin a good tale from either extreme of behavior, and an excellent tale when an esteemed counselor's behavior takes a roundtrip between the extreme poles. The tale can run from north to south - - "Whee, I just fell from Grace!" (or "I just fell off Grace!") It can travel from south to north by a number of routes, guided by one's moral compass - - the blue highways routes of responsibility, reflection and quiet work to rehabilitate one's self, or the express route of confession, immediately followed by turning the wheel over to God.

"Men think with their pants, not their brains" and "it's a private family matter" are illogical, patently silly excuses. If the brains - pants dichotomy was a logical excuse, predatory priests would be off the hook because they don't think with their brains. In the Edwards case, neither excuse is applicable because the culpable acts are not the sex or the affair. Rather, the bad acts are the months of lying to the public and supporters, and the sin of hubris exercised by all involved in the matter and the cover up.

Hubris is one of those hard, not-used-every-day words, so it is tempting to say, "Sin of Hubris? Okay, take the express route. Confess just far enough to squeak through, and then turn the whole problem over to God. You'll see absolution straight ahead in about 10 minutes."





But it isn't that easy. Hubris is a serious personality flaw. It has made these people untrustworthy. They have a chronic case of bad judgment, both over the prolonged period of the cover-up and the intense, panicky period at the end, which birthed the confession (with limited warranty where applicable) and started Chapter Two of the cover-up chronicles. Shouldn't these people have refrained from dumping this hubris mess on the heads of the unknowing public and supporters (unknowing except for supporters with jets and moola)?

They intentionally suckered the public and supporters. What they were "reille-y" saying was, "Please donate so I can pay a sultry videographer/roadie and her hotel bills on the road. Please donate so We can reign in photogenic marital harmony and "most admired" status over all the Land. Please donate so our special interest squad of air-borne lawyers can exert big influence and bomb any tort reformers. Just please, please donate, and p.s. judge us by our empty words, not our actions."

In the next national crisis, would you want a president with great hair and hubris galore, who would be in denial, and lie and stall, then panic and fall apart at the critical moment? A president whose friends and family were enablers? Sounds like a good story line for "24," both Nixonian (except the hair part) and Clintonesque to keep it non-partisan.


by Phil Ander
images: jungbauer

John Edwards: New York Times State of Mind

New York Times John Edwards Coverage:
Let Sleeping Dog Lie


Our Watchdog Press


Exhibiting that "New York Times state of mind" that has characterized the paper's (lack of) investigative effort in the Edwards story, Times' columnists, David Brooks and Gail Collins, argue that, after the Times' 11-day coverage of the affair, the John Edwards affair is ready to "recede[s] into history".

From State of Affairs

Gail Collins:David, we’re about to embark on back-to-back conventions, so let’s find something else to talk about besides the presidential race. Before the John Edwards affair recedes into history, should we discuss Lessons Learned?

Lessons Learned?

One of the lessons DBKP has learned thus far: Don't depend on the New York Times to break anything of consequence on politically-sensitive news that affects Dem pols. Subtract from the Times' John Edwards' coverage the stories:
A. the Times stole from bloggers;
B. the Times covers itself for not covering the Edwards story; and,
C. that either furiously spun why it didn't investigate Edwards or conversational pieces like the Collins-Brooks gabfest.

What's left? Not much.

If forced, The NYT may comment only as much as is necessary on the National Enquirer's investigative work--before it assigns another reporter on its possible story about Edwards' possible past dalliance with a Duke co-ed.

Collins continues to echo the "Edwards scandal was a sex story" MSM meme--demonstrating that the Times is perfectly willing to let others beat it to the bigger story of the cover-up and the money trails that even now have our "crack research department" reaching for the Dramamine.

I hope the mainstream media doesn’t decide that this means they should commit their limited investigative resources to trailing every allegation of political adultery The National Enquirer uncovers. We all have specialties in life — I’m good with letting The National Enquirer folks hang onto their niche.

Could Collins be referring to the niche known as "news"?

As voters, our interest in which big names are sleeping around is real but limited. One limit is that you don’t torture also-rans. If Edwards had ever had a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee, this would have been a huge matter. He’d made his marriage a major part of his campaign — by the end, it was really the main thing he had going. Imagine the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he had the nomination locked up.

"Imagine the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he had the nomination locked up."

Actually, the REAL mental exercise would be imagining the chaos right now in the Times' editorial office. How would they go about reporting on a Dem nominee's scandal and cover-up that they had never written about?

Collins and the Times still don't get it: this was an affair--big deal. But it was, and is, an elaborate cover-up undertaken at precisely the time when the Times, and others in the MSM, failed to perform their traditional duties vetting and investigating candidates running for president.

Collins would have been spared the mental gymnastics of "the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he [Edwards] had the nomination locked up", if the Times had assigned a mail room worker to do even the most elementary investigation on a home PC.

Regardless of their opinions of the National Enquirer, the tabloid presented the MSM with a gift-wrapped box of facts to check out in December on John Edwards, when he was very much in the running for the Democratic nomination.

What's more important than what media watchdogs, Gail Collins or DBKP think about the Times, are what readers, advertisers and stock buyers think about the decrepit Grey Lady. From a few months ago;

THE New York Times once epitomised all that was great about American newspapers; now it symbolises its industry’s deep malaise. The Grey Lady’s circulation is tumbling, down another 3.9% in the latest data from America’s Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC). Its advertising revenues are down, too (12.5% lower in March than a year earlier), as is the share price of its owner, the New York Times Company, up from its January low but still over 20% below what it was last July. On Tuesday April 29th Standard & Poor’s cut the firm’s debt rating to one notch above junk.

At the company’s annual meeting a week earlier, its embattled publisher, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, attempted to quash rumours that his family is preparing to jettison the firm it has owned since 1896. Carnage is expected soon as dozens of what were once the safest jobs in journalism are axed, since too few of the staff have accepted a generous offer of voluntary redundancy.

Note to Colins, et.al.:
New York Times stock price (Aug 22 2008) - $13.21, down from the $23.65 of a year ago.

Might be time for the New York Times to change that "All the News That our Hopeless Editorial Staff Decides is Fit to Print" slogan to something a little catchier.

Like maybe, "We read the Enquirer, too"?


by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file

John Edwards Affair: How the Enquirer Beat Edwards in His Biggest Trial

Court of Public Opinion:
How the National Enquirer beat John Edwards in the biggest trial of his life





NE vs. JE


Clinton resurrectionist and spin doctor, Lanny Davis, wrote a book on resurrecting Bill Clinton, subtitled "Tell it early, Tell it all, Tell it yourself".

That Davis subtitle is an effective blueprint for dealing with public scandal.

John Edwards could've used that book two weeks ago, as his fifteen-minute confession to ABC's Bob Woodruff was debunked almost before it even aired, and may go down in history as the benchmark for insincere attempts at avoiding consequences of one's actions.

"What a strange and insincere admission," mused some.

"The timeline's doesn't match known events," said others.

Still others claimed Edwards had injected Botox into his face to prevent him from telegraphing true emotion that could be analyzed by experts.

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

John Edwards had been beaten by an opponent that had read his playbook and had analyzed every game he ever played. Not only had the Enquirer set the trap to collect evidence on Edwards, they laid the groundwork for Edwards to paint himself into a corner from which his political career and public image could never escape intact.

Edwards constructed an elaborate cover up, based on classic Prisoner's Dilemma game theoryif everyone kept their mouth shut and denied the facts until the end of time, nothing could be proven, and minimum penalties would accrue.

But there were too many players for Edwards to control, and in the end his website-scrubbing team of political cleanup hitters vastly underestimated both the sheer volume of evidence connecting Edwards to Rielle Hunter, and the sheer flakiness of his girlfriend and her network of yoga-loving, Hollywood wannabes.

But, there were two masterstrokes on the part of the National Enquirer: the first being the strategic underrepresentation of collected evidence; and the second being the blurred presentation of the "spy photo" of "former presidential contender holding his infant daughter, Frances Quinn Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton hotel".

The Enquirer resurrected its Edwards Lovechild story on July 21 with eight-month-old stock photography and vague references of confirming sources. Edwards probably knew he'd left some evidence behind. Had he wiped all his fingerprints clean from the inside of the basement restroom door of the Beverly Hills Hilton? He left the restroom under guard with his coat covering his head… was there a telltale watch, freckle or scar? Had Enquirer photographers managed to take his picture in the brief moment before he'd run to the restroom?

Edwards needed more information before he made his next move and he curtailed public appearances, and refused comment other than to decry the "lies told by tabloid trash", a move cited widely by his supporters as a denial.

Then the other shoe fell.




The Enquirer ran the blurry "spy photo" of John Edwards holding the baby. Was it real? Was it fake?

Many Scandal followers cried "fake" in unison at a photo with the potential to be anyone from Bronson Pinchot to Janet Reno cradling, what was not necessarily, a human baby.

But John Edwards' heart had stopped.

He knew the photo was one of him holding the baby at the same hotel--only it had been taken five months earlier. Most likely it had been snapped on March 20, 2008, when Edwards had filmed a late night television appearance for The Tonight Show in California.

Edwards was exposed--or was he?

Was this the best evidence the Enquirer had to offer? Apparently, their July 21 pictures had been useless and this photo… Well, this photo could be anything that John claimed it was.

Maybe this fight wasn't over.

An image professional I consulted was able to quickly approximate the "John Edwards love child" effect using Adobe Photoshop and a three step combination (1. Smart Blur, 2. Pixellate Mosaic, and 3. Sharpen/Unsharpen mask) turning a crystal clear and good photo into a inconclusive 'spy photo'. Watching him repeat the effect in seconds on three separate photos immediately convinced me that the Enquirer was playing possum.

But Edwards' inner circle had either given him bad analysis of the March 20 photos, or he chose to ignore it, relying on his courtroom instincts. Anyone who's ever set up a video camera system can tell you how hard it is to capture a license plate, and Edwards apparently concluded that the Enquirer's photos of him holding Frances Quinn were either poorly lit or somehow corrupted.

And so Edwards laid out his confessional strategy based on the assumption that he had a leak that was not Rielle Hunter, but the Enquirer probably had nothing other than a blurry picture.

The "Confession"



There were three important parts to the confession.

1. The affair was over before he announced his run for the 2008 presidency;

2. His wife, Elizabeth, was at peace with the turn of events and had full knowledge of the event during his 2008 campaign; and,

3. He'd admit he had a 'liason' with that woman, but he wouldn't admit a sexual relationship, paternity, or anything that could possibly bite him in the buttocks later in court.

The rest is history.

One of the least-sincere and least-believable confessions in public memory, newsmen everywhere retrieving Rielle Hunter photos that busted the timeline, plus a widespread public revulsion at the realization that, not only had Elizabeth Edwards' illness been exploited for political gain, she had been a willing co-conspirator in the cover-up.


John Edwards has a final chance at redemption, but time is of the essence.

Edwards has to come forth immediately, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

He must then immediately enter a legitimate private rehabilitation center for either drug abuse or sexual addiction (doesn't matter which). Over time, he can gradually resume public life, maybe even starting a foundation to help deadbeat dads make amends.

Eventually Elizabeth and Rielle can even learn to be family. Would Jack and Emma love to have a little sister?

Let the healing begin.

Again.

by dossier
images: dbkp file; unbossed; National Enquirer

Lee Rohn: Cocaine, Controversy and Dropping the F-Bomb

There’s Something About Lee




Richard Nixon once said that if it hadn’t been for her, there wouldn’t have been a Watergate.

He wasn’t referring to the ubiquitous Deep Throat; he meant Martha Mitchell. The “Mouth of the South” wife of then-Attorney General John Mitchell who went down in flames for his role in the Watergate saga.

Martha Mitchell was a tragic figure whose infamous, midnight phone calls to reporters became the talk of Washington. Back then, she was widely derided as delusional and a lush; she provided the comic relief in an otherwise tawdry tale.

Yet poor, befuddled Martha had the last laugh when many of her allegations were subsequently proved true. Martha had long been known for her scissor like tongue, and this poem was written in her high school yearbook. Who could have guessed how prescient it would prove to be:

“I love its gentle warble,
I love its gentle flow,
I love to wind my tongue up
And I love to let it go.”

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

In the bizarre story of John Edwards and Rielle Hunter and its peripheral players, trial attorney Lee Rohn of St. Croix may turn out to be the Martha Mitchell in this curious tale. The National Enquirer reported (and Rohn vehemently denied) that Hunter initially stayed at Rohn’s oceanfront manse.

The selection of Hunter's hideaway is an odd choice, considering that Rohn is currently on trial--after many appeals and delays--for felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

In March of 2003, airport drug scanners found marijuana in her tennis shoe. When apprised of this discovery, officials testified that Rohn asked them to “look the other way”. She finally admitted that the drug was for her boyfriend’s sick father (the Good Samaritan defense?).


Still, it’s curious that Rohn would pop up in this story. Or maybe not, given her connection to Edwards (more about that later).

Rohn and controversy seem to go hand in hand. Back in 1982, in Austin, Texas, Rohn was arrested for cocaine possession, but a grand jury declined to indict due to “insufficient evidence”. Litigious by nature and not merely by profession, records show that while representing a client in a slip and fall case against Wal-Mart, the opposing counsel asked the court to sanction Rohn for using the F-bomb and other unseemly, injudicious conduct.


Now housed and practicing in St. Croix, Rohn’s critics have alleged “a wide spectrum of professional conduct violations” such as “judge shopping”. Rohn has sued one company (Innovative Communications Corp. and its subsidiaries, which include the local newspaper) over 25 times. In turn, Rohn has become a gadfly in the judicial ointment, going so far as to accuse one district judge, Thomas Moore, of “inappropriate behavior on the bench.” Rohn and Moore have a long history; in 1999, Moore sanctioned Rohn for her use of profanity and improper behavior toward other attorneys and expert witnesses. (Guess he won’t be inviting her to his next birthday gala).

So, how in the heck did Rielle Hunter supposedly come to stay at Lee Rohn’s pad?

Apparently Lee Rohn is a “very good friend” and colleague of--you don’t say?--John Edwards.

Poverty Champ Edwards & Corruption Fighter Spitzer

Talk about six degrees of separation. In the summer of 2006, Lee Rohn received an award from the American Association for Justice (Rohn is also a former and present Board of Governor). The keynote speaker for the event was John Edwards.

In a double play for the ages, then-New York Attorney General--and now disgraced Ex-Governor--Eliot Spitzer received the Community Champion Award “for his leadership fight against those who commit consumer fraud, as well as his battle against corruption on behalf of all the citizens of the United States.”

I bet that must have made for some interesting…small talk?

by CB
images: lawyers.com; AP; dbkp file

John Edwards Affair: The August 14 Flight of N179AX

Another in a String of "Curious Coincidences"?



Click images to enlarge.

[BIG Hat Tip: DP]

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

More on this in a few paragraphs.

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about it?

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

We're just asking.

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

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

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

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

It makes no difference to DBKP either way.

But, we'll continue to keep asking questions.


by Mondoreb
[hat tip: DP]

John Edwards Affair: Blogs Cover Edwards, Hunter, Baron

Stirring the John Edwards Cover-up Pot

"Hi, John! Hi, Fred!"


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

Back to the Edwards scandal.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

There's more to this story at WR.

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

Stay tuned for more curious circumstances.

by Mondoreb
image: DBKP

Rielle Hunter: Letter to Rielle from Rielluver

Rielle Love





I am captivated by you, Rielle Hunter.

I stare at your high school picture wondering if you were voted prom queen or most likely to succeed.

I rewind clips from your movies, trying to glean a sense of the spunky, smart, and streetwise girl who made her chops as an actress. I listen to the same five sentences over and over, memorizing the sound of your voice, replaying it in my mind.

You worked so hard to make things happen on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams and they fell short only because you were pretty girl with no connections in a town full of pretty girls with connections.

Now, you're more famous than most directors! Your star power is at an all time high, and you've got a beautiful baby that's not only going to open doors to big studio meetings, she'd blow those doors right off their hinges.

Night and day, the biggest studios in the world ink deals bigger than the gross national products of small countries all around you. Without you.

Instead, you're under virtual house arrest. A bird in a gilded cage.
Your ever move is monitored, and for the rest of your life, everywhere you go people will be trying to steal your DNA like you're real-life version of the last mother on earth in Children of Men. Is that any way to live? You're practically a prisoner.

Why put up with it? What good are all the riches in the world if you can't even leave your living room with them? You can do so much more. You could serve your guru.


And why wait for John Edwards? His star and credibility are only falling, and he said some pretty scathing things about you in his interviews. The world saw it as a stunning rebuke.

What happened to the John Edwards that wanted to correct the untrue stories and fight for the little guy?

Wouldn't that John Edwards want you to fight for your honor and public respect?

The press' interpretation of your free spirit has been cruel, and John's words only reinforced a misleading image of you.
Wouldn't your dad, the late Florida attorney James Druck, want you to fight for your family's honor?

Why not have some trusted, articulate friends speak out on your behalf?
Set the record straight, and list your accomplishments. Everyone else has a public bio, why can't you? If its all going to trickle, why not correct it early?

And how does the rest of John's family fit in here? If you and John are meant to be together, what happens if Elizabeth Edwards survives another twenty years? What happens If his kids live for ten years not knowing they have a sister? What if he secretly maneuvering to neutralize Francis Quinn's rights? Would you really put that past him? Is he really still operating with your well being in mind?

This is the prime of your life, and your star power is at an all time high in an industry with a five minute attention span. Why do you have to play a supporting role? Why can't you finally be the star?

The day will come when you'll have to look back on your life and wonder.

Did I honor my dad with my life? Did I serve my guru with my life's work?

Did I tell the truth?
Good luck Rielle and Francis Quinn.


Rielluver

John Edwards Affair: Fly the Friendly Skies of Fred Baron

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

John Edwards Affair: Hunter was in Obama, Edwards Donor's House in Virgin Islands

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