Andrew Young Admits Funneling Funds For Own Use

Star witness Andrew Young today admitted in cross-examination he co-mingled and used funds received from Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron for his personal benefit -- the construction of his dream home. He even billed Baron for things Mellon had already paid.

Young testified Thursday he had sent Baron an invoice for many of the expenses the aide had already paid for with money from Mellon; he said Baron then wired another $325,000 to the builder constructing the Young's house.

He also got stung on his claim it was Edwards idea for him to claim paternity of Rielle Hunter's baby:

Lowell asked Young to recount his story of how Edwards had asked him to claim paternity of Hunter's child on December 13, 2007. Young had said the phone conversation occurred while he was sitting in his car and had looked over to the passenger seat to see a copy of Newsweek magazine with Edwards on the front.

The defense then flashed a photo of that magazine cover up on the screens visible to the jury. It was dated two weeks later.


Via Politico, the Government's trial exhibits in the John Edwards trial, including voicemails and transcripts, have been released by the Court and made available here.

Here's the haircut letter from Bunny Mello to Andrew Young. I can't quite make out her handwriting, but she does refer to her payments as a way to avoid government restrictions.

There's an Amex bill to Andrew Young that says at the top it is 18 pages. (Isn't that long for a credit card bill?) This would be the credit card Young used to pay the expenses for his family and Rielle Hunter. Hunter had charging privileges too, in the name of Jaya James.

Politico also reports today the Judge denied a request by Rielle Hunter's lawyer that unspecified trial exhibits be kept sealed. Her order is here. The judge said Hunter has to file a written request to limit access to each specific trial exhibit she thinks should not be released.

As to Hunter's objection on the public release of physical items (property) admitted at trial that she claims belong to her, the Judge said she can file a motion for the return of the property at the end of the trial. Politico writes:

A sex tape depicting Edwards and Hunter has been the subject of litigation in state courts, but Eagles indicated she wouldn't blindly follow state court orders about what should be public and what should be kept under seal.

I think it's highly unlikely there is any connection between the sex tape and any request for privacy Hunter made today. The state court ordered the tape destroyed at the end of the state case, and no one objected. Any order the federal judge was to later make about items the state court ruled should be public or private doesn't pertain to the sex tape, which had been ordered destroyed, not kept public or private.

I explained what happened here. In February, 2012, the state court in the Young-Hunter civil case ordered all copies of "the sex tape" in Young's possession destroyed within 30 days, as part of a 23 page order that divided some items between Young and Hunter and ordered other items destroyed. The order also directed Young to make good faith efforts to have the Government destroy any copy of the tape that it possessed.

The Court stayed its order as to everything but the destruction of the sex tape and directed notice be provided to the parties in Edwards' federal case, so they could object to the division or destruction of other items. Here's the relevant paragraph of the order excluding the sex tape from the stay order.

John Edwards, contrary to initial false media reports, did not contest the destruction of the sex tape, nor could he, since it wasn't covered by the stay order.

John Edwards did file a notice of his intent to seek a stay in both state and federal court, so he could object to the division or destructon of other items covered by the state court's order, but this did not pertain to the sex tape, the destruction of which was precluded from being challenged under the stay order.

Translation: Andrew Young's copies of the sex tape have been destroyed. If the government kept a copy of the sex tape, it has probably been destroyed, and if not, it is stored in some secure place. It's not coming into evidence as an exhibit -- relevance and prejudice issues aside, it isn't even on the Government's intended exhibit list.

Since today's court's order pertained to a request by Hunter concerning items admitted into evidence at this trial that Hunter wants kept from the public, and the sex tape isn't coming into evidence, her request did not relate to the sex tape. Nor did did any current or prior federal court order addressing the extent to which the federal court might follow state court orders on issues of public and private access to various items relate to today's order. The Judge today expressly referred only to Hunter's motion concerning public access to exhibits "received into evidence and that the Court indicates in open court will be available to the public for review."

For those more interested in the salacious aspects of the case than election law, here's a place to discuss them.

< John Edwards and Bunny's Honey Money | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "It was dated two weeks later" (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by scribe on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:10:00 PM EST

    Since it's already Thursday night as I write this, I'm thinking Abbe was most definitely not joking when he said the cross of Andrew Young would continue until "next week".

    That's what they all say... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:28:49 PM EST
    They all say D'oh.

    sometimes magazines (none / 0) (#5)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    come out earlier than the date stamped on the cover, but two weeks may be pushing it. A week would be plausible, though.

    Crossed my mind, too (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:21:24 AM EST
    I know I've received magazines (even in the mail) in advance of the cover date.  Apparently, it's a standard industry practice in the US, UK and Canada to "post-date" covers.

    In the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the standard practice is to display on magazine covers a date which is some weeks or months in the future from the actual publishing/release date. There are two reasons for this discrepancy: first, to allow magazines to continue appearing "current" to consumers even after they have been on sale for some time (since not all magazines will be sold immediately), and second, to inform newsstands when an unsold magazine can be removed from the stands and returned to the publisher or be destroyed (in this case, the cover date is also the pull date).

    Weeklies (such as Time and Newsweek) are generally dated a week ahead. Monthlies (such as National Geographic Magazine) are generally dated a month ahead, and quarterlies are generally dated three months ahead.

    Two weeks early isn't abnormal (none / 0) (#7)
    by sj on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    for a monthly publication, but it wouldn't happen for a weekly.  Plus I would hope that the defense would actually know for a fact when it actually hit the newstands.  To much blowback otherwise.

    Criminal Defense Book? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Belswyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    Several years ago there was a book that was recommended here that contained essays by notable modern criminal defense attorneys about what their mindsets were in defending people who were less than savory and the types of cases that they wouldn't take.

    I can't find that old post with the reference - can someone give me a reference to the book?

    I've been thinking about that book as I've followed the trial because it must feel like wading through a cesspool in that courtroom. The mental discipline required to focus on your job has to be enormous.

    sure (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:19:56 PM EST
    it's here. I highly recommend it.