by Mark Silva
John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who stood as the Democratic Party's candidate for vice president in 2004, acknowledged today that federal investigators are looking into the handling of his campaign and PAC funds in his second bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.
Edwards also maintained they won't find anything wrong in payments made to campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, with whom Edwards had an affair.
""I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in a statement reported by the Raleigh News and Observer, which also reported on the probe of the U.S. attorney in Raleigh, a Republican who has investigated some high-profile Democrats.
"However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true,'' Edwards said. "We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
Edwards' political action committee paid Hunter's firm $100,000 for video production over a four-month span in 2006, and then paid an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007. At the time, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
That same day, according to records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is listed as a "furniture purchase."
U.S. Attorney George Holding has declined to comment on the probe.
The furniture money was one of just five contributions to the PAC between April 1 to June 30, 2007. The other four occurred on June 30, the last day of the reporting period, including a $3,000 contribution from the wife of Edwards' finance chairman, Fred Baron, a wealthy Dallas trial lawyer who said last year that he quietly began sending money to Hunter to resettle in California. He said no campaign funds were used and that Hunter was not working for the campaign at the time.
Edwards has said that he was unaware of the payments.
Baron died of cancer in October.
Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, battling cancer, is publishing a memoir this month in which she writes of growing physically ill when she first learned of her husband's affair and believing that he should not have sought the 2008 nomination.
The Associated Press contributed.
Comments
Well...how come all you loons on the left aren't defending this guy! "It's Bush's fault...it's Cheney's fault" Come on guy's...Oh I get it, you decide to be quiet when it's one of your own! Hey Nancy Pelosi...is this part of the culture of corruption you were talking about? How about Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel? Let's have some hearings on these two sleazeballs. Will Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Shuster or Schultz even mention this on their shows?
Posted by: Joe | May 3, 2009 9:14 PM
Lock him up.
Posted by: Bluejeans | May 3, 2009 11:25 PM
What, moron, do you want us to state the obvious !! Anybody doing wrong should be punished, whether it is Cheney, outing a CIA agent or former Senator Edwards' misuse of funds !! Can it be stated any clearer !!? From Vetter to Craig, wrong doers should not go unpunished !! There, I said it. Now, I hope you will be able to agree with me, on this point !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BEING THEM, HOME ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | May 4, 2009 3:18 AM
Joe, of course the loons and their media buddies won't get into this one. Edwards was a useful tool for Obama to tear Hillary apart during the primaries. His transgressions were known to the media during this time, but they remained silent. That's because if they killed off Edwards too early, he wouldn't have been able to go after Hillary. Will the media evaluate its own silence about Edwards when he was a candidate? Do pigs fly? Oh, swine flu...
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 7:38 AM
Joe, of course the loons and their media buddies won't get into this one.
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 7:38 AM
Spot on...the media won't touch this.......oops....was this a story about the probe written in the media? I can see why the right calls Obama the "messiah", he obviously was able to make the stars, moon, and wind align to make people do his bidding. Who would have thought that he could use Edwards like that? Here I would have thought Edwards would have done and said things for his own benefit, but they certainly know better. Amazing!
Posted by: bill r. | May 4, 2009 9:33 AM
Posted by: Joe | May 3, 2009 9:14 PM
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 7:38 AM
.
Funny -- for all your insistence that there aren't enough Dems voicing outrage and insisting that Edwards is automatically guilty of unethical spending before there's any evidence one way or the other, for all your screeching about how much Dems blame Bush, I've seen VERY LITTLE from either of you voicing outrage over any of the Republican shenanigans, nor do either of you hesitate to blame Democrats for any and all that's wrong.
.
How about we get you our outrage over Edwards the day AFTER you start going after your OWN party for ITS ills?
.
By my calendar, that should be roughly two days after hell freezes over. Sound about right to you?
Posted by: Op109 | May 4, 2009 10:06 AM
Bill r., I don't quite get your point. Did the media fail to report Edwards' known philandering during when Edwards was a candidate or not? If not, why not? Are there objective analyses out now that illustrate the depth of the media positive coverage vs. negative for other candidates (except Edwards)? If so, why? Does the media have a track record of attempting to personally destroy anyone who may pose a threat to Obama's chances in an election? If yes, then why did they leave Edwards alone until after Edwards did his "job" to undermine Hillary in the primaries? It's patently obvious (even Chris Matthews acknowledged this on the radio this morning) that the Whtie House press corps is timid and fawning. I don't want to go back to Newt Gingrich's days of the politics of personal destruction, but this swing to unquestioning fealty by a once independent institution is exceptionally harmful to our democracy. You may like it because your hero is the one "benefitting" from this one-sided treatment. But do you really, really think that this is a good thing - especially if the media decides to give the same treatment to someone you don't like (e.g. G.W. Bush after 9-11)?
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 10:25 AM
Posted by: Joe | May 3, 2009 9:14 PM
We don't reflexively defend our politicians no matter what they do. We're not Republicans. If he did wrong and is found guilty, nail the guy. I have no need or desire to defend him.
Posted by: Nel | May 4, 2009 10:53 AM
Hey Bemused, why did Hillary help cover up Bill Clinton's filandering? Why didn't she march in front of the cameras and blow the lid off of either the Gennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinsky stories? Doesn't she have as much obligation to the country as the press does?
Posted by: Curious | May 4, 2009 11:29 AM
Op 109. I really don't know what you're talking about - I'm a Democrat. I actually just think the media should be consistent in doing its job - just as I am consistent in criticizing both Democrats and Republicans. Anyway, it's easy to say you're being tough on Edwards now that he's not a player in Democratic politics anymore. How about going after real Democratic shenanigans done by people in power. I'll keep up my criticism of bias as long as it exists. I did so when the press was too easy on Bush and his rush to war. And I'll do it now with Obama's unquestioning media support as well. So, please keep your silly personal attacks to yourself, OP, and try to be intellectually honest about what's going on here.
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 11:30 AM
Bemused......The story on Edwards didn't break until after Edwards decision to end his bid. I would believe that it did not come out earlier, as it was not yet a "fact". Certainly you don't see printing innuendo and suspicions as journalism do you? Quite frankly, I would like to see all journalism written on facts. Fact will beat partisanship every time. There was also a story out there that never made mainstream media about Palin having an affair. While it was untrue, imagine what you would be saying if it was front page without fact.
Posted by: bill r. | May 4, 2009 11:53 AM
I love how all of the right wingnuts from Planet Wingnuttia are jumping all over Edwards. Maybe if he asked her for a divorce while laying in her hospital bed like Newt Gingrich did to his wife, maybe Republicans and their enablers would go easy on him.
Posted by: BC | May 4, 2009 12:25 PM
Yes, bill r., no one ever mentioned that slur about Palin, which is why you're repeating it here. But ok, since this sick blog is posting rumors, I would agree that the mainstream media was correct in not reporting the story that Obama is a closeted bisexual. That he had an affair with his homosexual driver, who was the choir director for Trinity Church. And that this same man was found murdered in his apartment during the 2008 presidential primary campaign, and that the murder was never solved. But of course the media should never publish such stories, right bill r.?
Posted by: Bemused | May 4, 2009 2:19 PM
Well, it look like our little"ambulance chaser" is going to get his day in court,
Posted by: Paul | May 4, 2009 2:44 PM
Congratulations, " Bemused ", you have sure shown your Republican pedigree !! Keep up, your wonderful postings!! They are an inspiration to our nation !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, America | May 4, 2009 3:13 PM
Bemused - You obviously understand billr's M.O.
Posted by: Freddy | May 4, 2009 3:16 PM
I don't see the big deal about paying this woman for trim to trim his hair. So what?
Posted by: Brian C | May 4, 2009 3:29 PM
Don -
You are obviously a completely partisan, left=right / right=wrong sycophant to all things Dem. Further, we get your "troop message" already. Yeesh, do you ever have anything else to say, or are you just right all the time (pardon the pun, of course)?
All you seem to do each and every day is post numerous and always slanted responses to every blog subject that appears. Addtionally, your grammar is poor at best...repeatedly. Give it a rest already.
BTW - thanks for signing that you are from "America." Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have guessed.
Posted by: Freddy | May 4, 2009 4:14 PM
Bemused....What is all the anger over? There were rumors about Edwards but the mainstream media refused to pick it up because it was "rumor" at that time. Just as it was rumor of Palin. I'm only stating the facts. If you wish to spead any "rumor", help yourself. Great googly moogly girl, can't we have a discusion without all the garbage?
ps Freddie.....What in the world would be my motive to talk about a rumor already disproved? That makes no sense. The whole point of the statement is that rumor should not be considered journalism.
Posted by: bill r. | May 4, 2009 4:26 PM
Sep 26, 2008 ... In a world exclusive The NATIONAL ENQUIRER names GOP VP ... of Sarah Palin's affair pick up the latest issue of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER! ...
This is the rumor. By the way...the Inquirer was also the one who broke Edwards.
Posted by: bill r. | May 4, 2009 5:29 PM
Wife's book comes out. Then this comes out. Coincidence? I think not. I'm certainly not buying the book, and the Feds can send this germ to jail for all I care.
Posted by: Bluejeans | May 5, 2009 12:38 AM
billr - I can't speak to your motivations...it just seems you sometimes are more willing to lend credence to rumors that befit your own cause. In fact, by your own statement, you would have no motivation to mention a rumor already disproved.
In that case - why did you still feel the need to even mention it? Seems contradictory, at least on its surface.
"Rumor if I'm against it, fact if I'm for it."
Posted by: Freddy | May 5, 2009 2:20 PM