Rielle Hunter (and Baby ) Attend N.C. Grand Jury Session

John Edwards' former lover, Rielle Hunter, spent 9 hours at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, N.C. yeterday. She brought her daughter and was escorted into the courthouse by two F.B.I. agents.

Maybe she couldn't get a babysitter, but this seems a little over-the-top.

The grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign misused funds in paying Hunter for her video work. [More....]

Edwards' political action committee paid Hunter's firm $100,000 for video production in a four-month span in 2006 and then paid an additional $14,086 on April 1, 2007. At the time, the PAC had only $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

That same day, according to the records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034 for what is listed as a "furniture purchase." The furniture money was one of five contributions to the PAC between April 1 and 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.

Fred Baron is deceased. While he was alive, he insisted Edwards had no knowledge of the funds he paid Hunter:

Baron, a wealthy Dallas-based trial attorney who died of cancer last October, said last year that he quietly began sending money to Hunter to move to California. He said no campaign funds were used and that Hunter was not working for the campaign when he started giving her money.

Andrew Young, who is peddling a "tell-all" book on Edwards, and who originally claimed to be the father of Hunter's child, appeared before the grand jury last month.

The baby was born in Feb. 2008 and John Edwards says the affair ended long enough before then that he's sure he isn't the father. He offered to take a paternity test, but according to the WRAL article, Hunter has refused to allow her daughter to be tested.

< Springtime For Hitler: Part 2 | Cameron Douglas Facing 10 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Investigations into (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by eric on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    former Presidential Candidate Edwards relating to possible payments to a mistress, ongoing.

    Investigations into President Bush relating to possible torture of prisoners and warrant-less spying on Americans, not so much.

    So, (none / 0) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    Is your position that there should be no law enforcement activities of any type until a Bush investigation is launched? "I can't believe you pulled me over for speeding and Bush is getting away with murder"

    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by eric on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:07:05 PM EST
    Just talking about priorities.

    I believe that bocajeff... (none / 0) (#42)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    but I've always wanted to live in a country where all people are treated like equals...

    What does the baby have to do with (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    anything?  If Hunter gave birth in February, 2008, she didn't get pregnant until May of 2007 - after these alleged payments were made.

    Did Hunter have to bring the baby to court?  Probably not, and I guess there's an argument that if she didn't want the media to focus on the baby, she should have left her at home.

    As a distraction from the actual issue - misuse of campaign funds - it seems to be working like a charm.

    Baby as pawn. Probably marked (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    with an evidence tag.

    Just need her DNA (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:32:31 PM EST
    and a birth certificate.  (Am I allowed to mention birth certificates?)

    Based on other similar media-frenzy (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:23:48 AM EST
    targets, there are numerous reasons why she brought her daughter:

    1. She didn't want to read headlines asking who was babysitting, or

    2. She doesn't get any other opportunities to show the baby's father what an attentive mom she is, or

    3. She wants the father, and others, to actually not forget there is a baby, or

    4. The babysitter she had lined up cancelled at the last minute.

    Other high-profile single moms are tormented for so many reasons, not the least of which is being seen publicly without their child.

    I Confess (none / 0) (#41)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    I feel more concern and sympathy for the babies pulled into the high profile spotlight.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#1)
    by Tony on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 05:42:58 PM EST
    Seems as if this is just going to get uglier.

    Why won't (none / 0) (#2)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    she allow the tests?

    What's her reason?

    She Doesn't Need a Reason (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    It is her child and it is nobody's business who she was sleeping with or who the father of the child is.

    Unless she goes on welfare, in which case (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    the court has discretion to order a paternity test.

    Welfare? (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:50:06 PM EST
    Wow welfare? That seems way less probable than the incredibly improbable chance of her and her baby getting kidnapped by Russian mobsters who force a DNA test in order to extort money, engage in blackmail, etc

    Did you see the video her company (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    made for the Edwards' campaign?  Pathetic.

    lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:58:41 PM EST
    We were posting at the same time. I could have done a better job just loading them into my editor.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    No I did not see the video, as I do not have a teevee and was not folowing the videos unless they were linked to and discusse here at TL or if they made news.

    Going by your taste, didn't you also think that the Obama videos were pathetic?

    I am assuming that this is an aside, because I am not sure what this has to do with the charges, unless there is a law I am unaware of that adds extra penalties because the quality of the product is disputed.

    Unless you are implying that the poor quality of work, in your opinion, for which she was paid for, is evidence that she was only hired because she was Edwards lover, because she was not qualified to produce videos.

    Sort of like the people that BushCo hired, what was it, heck of a job Brownie..


    Actually, I saw one of the videos via (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    Talk Left.  Really poor and non-professional.  So I was implying/inferring (???) she may need AFDC to help support the child.  Nothing to do w/Obama and videos of him and nothing to do w/the grand jury.

    Oh (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    That explains your rather oblique reference to welfare and then your further hint suggesting that she is unsuited to be in the campaign video business.

    Certainly in keeping with your style of delivering extremely dry snark via oblique reference. The oculus martini special with a twist.. lol.

    Glad that we flushed it out this time, so at least I understand where you were coming from.


    Thank you for refraining from any insulting (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:22:20 PM EST

    How Innocent Sounding lol (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    But thank you too for refraining from any insulting comments.

    Obama's videos were professionally produced (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    what I saw of her's (linked here iirc) were not even art school worthy. Would have received a failing grade from me. If shown to me as part of a reel to be hired, not. a. chance.

    Wow (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    I have no recollection of them here. I was not so interested in him to begin with.

    Were they discussed as being worse than student work here? Or was there any discussion about their quality?


    Not sure if I compared them to student (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:32:38 PM EST
    work at the time, though I prob did {grin}. I was looking at the videos compared to what she got paid, since that seemed to be a bit of an issue (which is what they are still looking at I guess). You can find better video shooting on things like youtube and iReport etc and the "graphics" were just your low end very basics. I've been in the commercial art biz since before computers and everybody and their mother could "design" a website/produce a video/call themselves a designer and flood me with sub par work :) Self taught isn't all that's it's cracked up to be these days when aided by readily available computer programs and presets. I also lived in LA for a bit, OY.

    She wouldn't be the first to land (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:57:17 PM EST
    on welfare from a more visible position. Hopefully she has more going for her than the videos I saw and will have no money problems while raising her daughter . . .

    AFDC, aid for dependent children. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    The money is for the child's benefit.  But the county demands the mother reveal the name of the father and asks the court to order paternity test so the county can seek a support order, payable to the county, from the father.

    I forgot about them (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    Looks like  she feels she is able to and actually can support her daughter since she seems to not want to reveal the father. From where I'm sitting with my rusty memory, she doesn't seem to be out for cash.

    paternity test (none / 0) (#36)
    by lc on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    A judge would only order a paternity test if there was a dispute about paternity.  Andrew Young has said he's the father, so a court would have no reason to order a test.

    Not my blog, of course. But wouldn't this (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    post fit better on PopLeft?

    Huh? (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    The grand jury is investigating whether Edwards' campaign misused funds in paying Hunter for her video work.

    But you think Jeralyn used poor judgement putting it on TL and that instead she should have put it here:

    Welcome to PopLeft, an online magazine about current entertainment shows and news, published by TalkLeft: the Politics of Crime.

    After months of putting late-night TV posts on TalkLeft, which are far afield of its crime and politics theme, I decided to give the posts a home of their own. In addition to reality tv, there will be posts on the other shows I watch, music, films, and interesting news tidbits about them.

    Just in case you need a refresher here are a couple of apt graphs about TL's mission:

    TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.

    Talkleft is intended for the public, journalists covering crime-based news and politics, policy makers and of course, the criminal defense community.

    It is hard to tell whether you are sarcastically trying to insult Jeralyn, Edwards, or Rielle Hunter here, or perhaps someone else. Not sure why, though. Could be that I am missing something about this case that you know about.


    Commented deleted in response to this (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    A comment insulting Squeaky in response to this has been deleted.

    Jeralyn, I didn't see the comment in question (none / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    before it was deleted.

    But, generally speaking, what are the parameters, or what makes a comment rise to a level of insult worthy of deletion? Are there trigger words for example?


    the comment insulted (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    another poster. It was obvious reading it. You would have understood had you seen it.

    I think it was an attempt (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    at humor, but I agree it wasn't funny and missed the mark by miles.

    If you are referring to my comment, no, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    it wasn't an attempt at humor.  IMO the subject of Ms. Rielle bringing her baby along is kind of gossipy.  

    hardly (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    it's not entertainment, it's a grand jury investigation.

    Why now (none / 0) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 06:20:06 PM EST
    As much as I am disgusted with Edward's (He never should have run knowing all this was in the wind). I see no point in continuing to drag it on.

    Unless they have real evidence to connect him what will this serve? If they want to destroy him politically, they're too late. He managed to do that by his self.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    John Edwards is now a political non entity.  He may be fodder for the gossip rags and HuffPo, but he's certainly lost any clout he once had.  I'm sure he wasn't on the short list to run to North Korea!

    I'm be happy to let the courts sort the paternity/support disputes out.  That's what they are there for.  


    Sadly (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by eric on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    he was also the only serious candidate talking about  poverty, the scourge of our nation.  I grew up in poverty and it sucks.

    About 37 million people in this "rich" nation live in poverty.  That is about 12.6%.


    I was a supporter of John Edwards for this reason.  I saw him in a union hall in St. Paul the day before he dropped out of the race.  (We now know the major reason why he did this).  Anyway, the poverty discussion also seems to have dropped out of everyone's minds.


    I supported Edwards (none / 0) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:46:48 AM EST
    because of his emphasis and what that could lead to.  He was closer to an actual liberal than any other candidate with the exception of Kucinich.

    Of the survivors I couldn't possibly support Obama for the most part because he was the quintessential neo-liberal of the group.  I ranked him tied for last place with fellow neo-lib Richardson.

    I'm just amazed that high profile male politicians haven't learned that today it's almost impossible to get away with adulterous behavior.