John Edwards Scandal: Wealthy Democratic Fundraiser is Edwards Money Man

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

John Edwards Affair: Media Myth of Edwards December Denials

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

John Edwards Scandal: Dems Want Denials from Edwards

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."
--Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair, as reported in Tabloid's claims threaten Edwards' role at party's convention

Distress Could Have Been Avoided if Press Had Done Their Job

The meter is running for John Edwards to answer the National Enquirer's allegations that he fathered an illegitimate daughter, lied about it and orchestrated an "elaborate coverup".

And, with the Democrat National Convention less than three weeks away, it was prominent Democrats who started that meter running yesterday.

According to the Raleigh News & Observer, Gary Pearce, the strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race, was blunt:

“He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. ... The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash.’ ”

Former DNC Chair, Don Fowler was succinct on whether Edwards would be accorded a prime speaker's spot at the convention--which according to reports he was promised when he endorsed Barack Obama.

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."

What's changed the media picture in the last several days? Why is the Mainstream Media suddenly interested in reporting on the scandal now, just a few weeks away from the Democrat National Convention, when they wouldn't touch it for seven months ago?

Ryan Tate, at Gawker, sizes up the changed media scenery as though he were using X-Ray Specs [Exploding The Edwards Mistress Scandal]:

See, previously the Edwards scandal was just an irrelevant trifle about how the maybe next U.S. attorney general or even vice president had a baby with another woman while his wife died of cancer and possibly paid the mistress hush money and lied to everyone about it. But now it's about how a speaker at a meaningless convention might distract the media from covering the media event in the way media handlers prefer. In other words, a REAL story.

What's up for grabs now is a prime prime-time speaking spot and, as Tate explained, a distraction-less Denver convention. But where is Edwards?

LBG points out that Edwards has disappeared from public view since July 30. [John Edwards Scandal: Where in the World is John Edwards?]:

Despite the fact that Edwards was in the midst of promoting his Half in Ten national poverty tour, the July 30th appearance at the AARP symposium in Washington, D.C. was Edwards’ last known public appearance.

As she points out, Edwards' Washington sighting was only his third appearance since the morning of July 22, when he was cornered by the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton.

A story on the McClatchy Newspapers wire listed several details sure to unsettle Democrats planning for Denver, "Tabloid's claims threaten Edwards' role at party's convention":

* Edwards evaded (The McClatchy story calls it "brushing off") reporters after a July 30 speech in Washington, D.C.--including at least two from McClatchy papers in North Carolina--by exiting through a side entrance normally reserved for kitchen help. [John Edwards Scandal: Edwards Bolts from Reporters Once Again]. Edwards reportedly answered journalists' questions at the time with "Sorry," and "I don't have time for that now."

* A reporter at the Edwards estate in North Carolina got no response Wednesday when he rang the buzzer.

* McClatchy reports Edwards' designated staffer for the press has yet to respond to email requests for an interview.

* The story also reports that "Friends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing an October story in the Enquirer of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke."

* The Raleigh News & Observer reported that: "Sorry cannot help you on this one," wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a former top Edwards aide, in an e-mail Wednesday."

On July 26, The Politico reported [Everybody wants a piece of Obama] that "Edwards told others he was promised a prime time speaking slot when he endorsed Sen. Barack Obama". Traditionally, also-rans in the primaries are offered opportunities to speak to the convention.

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 May, we revisited the Edwards story [John Edwards: Looking for Rielle Hunter’s Baby News, VP Love, After Obama Endorsement] and asked a few questions:

Mark, a commenter at New York Nerd, sounded absolutely like a fortune teller when, back on January 6 2008, he predicted that the MSM, which imposed a blackout on any news concerning the Hunter-Edwards affair, would only become interested in the affair IF Edwards won the Democrat nomination.
...
Might that not still hold true, if Edwards is the VP candidate again?

We’ll see.

The Mainstream Media has proved unusually resistant to any and all curiosity where the curiously “coincidental” happenings of the Rielle Hunter-John Edwards story is concerned. Maybe the “Two Americas” Edwards referred to meant the ordinary curiosity that most folks exhibit upon reading about the circumstances surrounding Rielle Hunter and John Edwards–and the Mainstream Media brand of decidedly selective curiosity about all things involving the Democrat Party.

Democrats will be right to wonder what might have been, if the press had fulfilled their adversarial duties back in December, when the Enquirer's Edwards allegations went from the general, featuring unnamed sources, to the specific, with dates, names and locations?

If only.

NOTES

* Byron York, NRO, talked to David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer [John Edwards: Picture of a Scandal]. One topic was the Denver convention.

But is there anything else? Maybe the Democratic National Convention, coming up a little more than two weeks? “Obviously, the convention has not been our driving force behind the story,” Perel says. “The reporting takes however long it takes. It took seven months to go from the December story to the [Beverly Hilton] meeting….But if it happens to be a happy coincidence — if the story just happens to be breaking around that time, in terms of maximum exposure — “ Perel pauses. If the convention wasn’t part of the timetable before, it is now. The Edwards pictures might make a nice splash with the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver.

* A comment from Ping2007 on the News & Observer website to the story cited above:
"Diaper Change We Can Believe In"!


* Ann Coulter's response to the Washington Post reporter, who defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." [Only His Hair Dresser Knows for Sure]

"Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?"

More Coulter licks against the MSM; among which was this gem:

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

At this point, it's a dead heat.


by Mondoreb
images: dncc; thumbs; National Enquirer; Technology360

Baby Grace, Riley Sawyers, Madeline McCann: Complete DBKP Story and Video Listing

COMPLETE LISTING:
Baby Grace stories by Death By 1000 Papercuts
[updated: December 11, 2007]

The story of "Baby Grace", whose body was discovered on a sandbar in a cooler, near Galveston TX on October 29, 2007. The body turned out to be that of 2-year-old Riley Sawyers.

Madeline McCann's story is that of a 4-year-old girl, abducted from her parents' resort room while the family was on vacation in Portugal.

Some speculated for awhile that Baby Grace may have been the missing Madeline. Her whereabouts is still unknown.

Baby Grace, Riley Sawyers, Madeline McCann:

He Says, She Says Battle Begins

Grand Jury Bring Capital Charges

Capital Murder Charges and Probable Cause

Riley Sawyers' Pregnant Mother: Riley Needed Some "Manners"

Case Has Had False Leads and Alarms

Additional Charges, Additional Questions

Mother's Grim Tale of Abuse and Death

Madeline McCann:"Killed by a Pedophile"

Mother Beat, Tortured Toddler

22 Other Little Girls to be Investigated

Baby Grace, Riley Sawyers: Our Deepest Sympathy

Baby Grace, Riley Sawyers: Couple Arrested

Riley Sawyers: Where is She? What's Happened to Her?

Baby Grace and the Little Lost Girl, Riley Sawyers

Grandmother Believes Baby Grace is Granddaughter

Baby Grace and Riley Sawyers Possible Match

Baby Grace: FBI Reward Comparison

Police Follow Tip to Dead End; Missing Girl

FBI Now to Announce $20,000 Reward

FBI Offers $20,000 Reward But No Press Release; The Madeline McCann Connection

VIDEO Who Is Baby Grace: A Video Timeline

Baby Grace: A Timeline - "She Could Be From Any Place in the World"

VIDEO Hundreds of Tips Flood Police

Baby Grace, Madeline McCann and the Little Lost Girls

Three Possible Matches Found

Baby Grace Not Only Missing Little Girl

Is Baby Grace Madeline McCann?

The Heartbreaking Story of Baby Grace


MADELINE McCANN

Case Has Had False Leads and Alarms

Madeline McCann:"Killed by a Pedophile"

by Little Baby Ginn & Mondoreb

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page

Madeline McCann: Case Has Had False Leads and Alarms

Was the news in the Madeline McCann case a hoax, cruel trick or the work of an attention-starved news junkie?

Back in June, a letter was sent to a Dutch newspaper; supposedly it contained news of Madeline's death and the whereabouts of her body.

The letter set off a police investigation of the site mentioned in the letter. Police discovered no body at the location.

It started with the following revelation.

IS Madeleine McCann dead? A letter to a Dutch newspaper. And a map showing where her body can be found. It’s credible:

Police in Portugal are investigating an anonymous letter and a map claiming to show where missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann’s body is buried.

The letter, sent to Dutch paper De Telegraaf, identifies an area 15km (9.3 miles) from where Madeleine vanished.

Authorities naturally had to treat the letter as containing genuine information and dispatched police to the site to follow up.

Portuguese police say they have not found anything in a search of scrubland nine miles from where four-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing.

The search was carried out after a Dutch newspaper published details of an anonymous letter it received alleging Madeleine’s body was under rocks.

Officers said the line of inquiry had now been “discarded”.

Why was the letter considered a lead? The British press had plenty of theories on both the letter, its contents and its author.

It strongly resembles another letter sent to the same newspaper last year, accurately pinpointing where two missing Belgian girls were buried.

Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa said officers were “checking the information”.

Next to a cross and two question marks, the sender writes “vermoedelijke vindplaats Madeleine” - this is the place where Madeleine can probably be found.

A murder investigation. And still only one suspect.

One day on and “BURIED UNDER ROCKS,” says the Mirror’s front –page headline.

The paper notes how the handwriting on the letter is the same as that on the paper giving the whereabouts of Stacey Lemmens and her sister Nathalie Mahy who went missing in Belgium last year.

As the Sun reports, the note says Madeleine is buried “north of the road under branches and rocks, around six to seven metres off the road” in an spot near Odiaxere, close to the Algarve resort from where the girl went missing 42 days ago.

The Mail says the author of this letter and, most likely, the one concerning the Belgian sisters, is unknown to police.

A certain Abdullah Ait-Oud, a convicted paedophile, has been charged with their murders. He denies any involvement. Although police believe he acted with an accomplice who has not been traced.

“MADELEINE IS BURIED HERE,” says the Express on its front page. Portuguese police are searching the area…

That letter proved to be a false alarm in the baffling, and still yet-unfolding, story of the disappearance of the little English girl.

The list of hoaxers and false alarms plagued the case. The letter was neither the first, nor the last.

While the McCanns seemed to be getting their message across, the story also attracted hoaxers and fraudsters. One call was received from a man on an unregistered pay-as-you-go phone in Argentina claiming to know the whereabouts of their daughter, but led to nothing, while an anonymous letter and map sent to an Amsterdam-based newspaper claimed Madeleine was buried in scrubland close to the holiday resort. Some 50 officers and police sniffer dogs were sent to search the area but found nothing.

An Italian man and a Portuguese woman were subsequently held on suspicion of trying to extort money from the McCanns, saying they had information on the whereabouts of their daughter. A man in Eindhoven, Holland, was also arrested for attempting to defraud the McCanns by demanding £1.35m in exchange for information on their daughter.

The first signs of a backlash against the McCanns appeared in mid-June. Chief Inspector Sousa said that the fact that so many people had crowded into the room from which Madeleine was taken was making it difficult for the forensic teams to make sense of DNA samples.

At the same time, thousands of yellow ribbons tied to trees and railings in the McCanns' home village were taken down amid concerns they were attracting "grief tourists". Villagers said that Rothley's main square had become a morbid visitor attraction after it was made the focal point for tributes.

Hopes of finding Maddie were once again raised at the beginning of August when a customer at a restaurant in the Flemish town of Tongeren, not far from the Dutch border, said she was "100% sure" she had seen the youngster. The glass from which the child was drinking was removed for DNA testing. It proved to be a false lead.

The case has had its share of false leads and alarms. One lead that seems to be dead now is the theory that the McCanns were responsible for the girl's abduction.

Still another theory, entertained for awhile, that the body of the little girl, discovered in a cooler on a sandbar, near Galveston, TX and named "Baby Grace" might be that of Madeline's. That theory was shelved after the mother last week confessed to beating and torturing 2-year-old Riley Sawyers.

Riley Sawyers was "Baby Grace", not Madeline McCann.

To be the parents of Madeline, kidnapped from her room while on vacation months ago, every bit of news--true or false--causes pulmonary reactions.

Holding their breath, a sigh of relief, an angry hiss, the sharp intake of breath: all were likely to have been the McCann's reactions to various bits of news over this long stretch of waiting and wondering.

The news of the Dutch letter and the subsequent investigation was a false alarm. Both the police and the parents sort through bits of news.

Both have their own questions. Most of the questions are the same.

Who removed her from their room? Where is Madeline now? Where will all lead?

Police and parents alike are still working on the answers.

At this point, all that can be offered to Madeline's long-suffering parents is speculation.

by Mondoreb

Sources:
Police Probing Madeline Letter
Finding Madeleine McCann’s Body - “Vermoedelijke Vindplaats”
Madeleine McCann: No Breaking News; No Body Found
Madeline: The story six months on
Baby Grace, Riley Sawyers: Mother's Grim Tale of Torture and Abuse



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.