Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 08/15/2008 8:23 am

$14K Payment to Edwards Mistress Explained, New Theories on Affair

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
John Edwards
© AP

Not only is the controversy over the $14,000 payment made to John Edwards’s former mistress still rearing its ugly head, but there is more information to suggest perhaps his affair lasted longer than he’s admitting.

An associate of Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Associated Press that the April 2007 payment from the then-presidential candidate’s political action committee (PAC) to Rielle Hunter — after she stopped working for it — was made in exchange for 100 hours of unused videotape she shot producing short Web movies for which she already had been paid $100,000. Hunter’s firm was paid as contracted for, the associate said.

The explanation is the first to justify the payment, which came months before Edwards’s chief fundraiser quietly began sending money himself to the pregnant woman. Hunter has since had the baby but has refused a paternity test to determine who the father is. Edwards emphatically denies he’s the baby’s daddy.

Edwards also has denied any knowledge of those payments to Hunter from his national-finance chairman and wealthy Dallas-based trial attorney Fred Baron. Baron also has described his payments to Hunter as a private transaction.

But the cash came from Edwards’ OneAmerica PAC, whose expenditures are governed by U.S. election laws. Using PAC money for personal use is a federal criminal violation.

Adding fuel to Edwards’ infidelity scandal, The New York Times reports today on a web of connections between several lawyers and Edwards that suggest they were part of an orchestrated effort to protect him that continues to this day.

The lawyers in question — who represented Hunter and Edwards campaign aide Andrew Young, who claims he’s actually the baby’s father — are linked through Baron, Edwards national finance chairman, who paid Hunter that $14,000. After scouring public records and interviews with people close to Edwards and Hunter, the Times found that Edwards’s PAC went to unusual lengths to make that final $14,000 payment to Hunter’s film company months after its contract ran out.

The Times’s findings also suggest it’s possible the affair went on longer than Edwards admitted and that the effort to conceal it by Edwards’ inner circle was much more extensive than has been reported.

The AP also suggests that, noting that Edwards and Hunter spent months traveling together in 2006, as he prepared for his second failed White House run. One of Hunter’s friends, Pigeon O’Brien, said that Hunter’s affair with "John from North Carolina," who was married to a woman who had been seriously ill, began in March 2006. That contradicts Edwards’s statement the affairs started only after he hired her to produce several videos for his website, the first payment for which came in July of that year.

O’Brien told the Times that Hunter had a hard time dealing with the fact that "John" was married.

"There were stormy moments for her, a lot of tears and a lot of struggle," O’Brien said.

16 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

K O
Could his admission of the affair have been any weirder? “I - and only I - am responsible.” As Jon Stewart replied, “Did you think we thought you did it because your kids double-dog-dared you?.” Then he said he wasn’t the only person guilty of this, brought up McCain, then added - “But this isn’t about him.” Forget his political career - how’s he ever going to be taken seriously in court?
By K O on 08/15/2008 10:21 am
Lorraine Bates
He should worry more about his kids, and how he’ll respond when they’re older, their mother has, sadly and unfortunately, passed, and they understand it.
By Lorraine Bates on 08/15/2008 10:28 am
No Way-No How -No McCain
Lorraine, Their daughter, Cate, is 26 and in Harvard Law School. So she understands plenty now. Her Dad must have gone to hero to zero pretty quickly in her eyes on some level with her mother terminally ill and his uber-Boy Scout self-created image shown to be a major lie. He is on tape earlier criticizing John McCain’s affair as proof of a character problem. Their other children are 9 and 6, and home-schooled so it’s easier to hide it from them now.
By No Way-No How -No McCain on 08/15/2008 10:46 am
Lady Gator
Winery L………Just a question that maybe only a woman can answer — let’s say it’s labeled under “Inquiring minds would like to know” ——Do you know ANY woman who would pay this amount of money - to ANY man for a piece of A—? It’s obvious ’ woman is definitely more intelligent than man’. After all, Eve did it with an apple! LOL
By Lady Gator on 08/15/2008 1:22 pm
No Way-No How -No McCain
Lady Gator….I don’t even know any women who pay for their own dinners, including me! God made men bigger and then evened it out by making women smarter. Hee-hee
By No Way-No How -No McCain on 08/15/2008 3:55 pm
Lorraine Bates
Now, yes. But what about 10 years from now? History never dissapears, in the Internet age.
By Lorraine Bates on 08/15/2008 2:20 pm
Frannie Em
Kitty ROTF LOL Of course he slips in there that it was a Republican’s fault. Got to bring up McCain’s first marriage, divorce and second marriage. Sorry John, that isn’t going to get you out of this one. This isn’t a matter for the voters to decide, you might be going in front of the judge. Can’t use your wife to get out of this one either. Tch Tch Tch.
By Frannie Em on 08/15/2008 3:02 pm
Diana T
Thank goodness I never contributed PAC $$ to the Edwards campaign, because if I found out that hush money went to the mistress because “a lot of tears and a lot of struggle” I would make a lot of tears and a lot of struggle for the committee. $114,000 total? Ridiculous!
By Diana T on 08/15/2008 1:01 pm
No Way-No How -No McCain
If John Edwards can afford a 28,000 sq. ft. new house and a Harvard eduation for his daughter, then he could have afforded to pay $114K or whatever for that women instead of ripping-off his supporters to pay for his ‘party time.’
By No Way-No How -No McCain on 08/15/2008 3:51 pm
Diana T
Winery, He can afford to find a new career near that fine new house and get outta politics.
By Diana T on 08/15/2008 5:04 pm
No Way-No How -No McCain
Hi Diana, Oh, he’s outta there alright. If former ardent supporters like me are sickened I think his chances of reviving his political career are nadda to squat.
By No Way-No How -No McCain on 08/15/2008 8:54 pm
Bonnie Oliver
The campaign apparently made two separate payments of $100k and $14k from a PAC account to Hunter’s film company. Okay, where are the invoices and where are the videos the film company produced? If the campaign can produce those items, this line of “following the money” is a wild goose chase, is it not?
By Bonnie Oliver on 08/15/2008 7:02 pm
Tick Pyne
Perhaps someone could accurately define the word “mistress” in this day and age. As I wrote in another thread here, the term calls to mind, at least for me, black-and-white movies with fat Sugar Daddys smoking big cigars, paying the rent for and supporting their platinum-blonde, fur-draped “Tootsies.” A mistress was “kept,” not merely a participant in an affair. He worked and had a family. She sat home all day eating bonbons, reading magazines and primping and preening for his visits. Today, if a woman is paid, presumably for work done, and they both engage in an extra-marital (on either side) sexual relationship, is she still a mistress? Seems awfully “Mad Men” to me.
By Tick Pyne on 08/17/2008 1:20 pm
Emma Pathey
What do you think we should call Rielle Hunter then? Do you think the term “mistress” is too good for her because she didn’t lounge about all day in her negligee, waiting for her lover to come to her so she could pleasure him? We can hardly call her a “kept woman” since her lover wasn’t keeping her; it was his PAC who paid her for her alleged services. Perhaps you think she had too much of a life of her own to offer him the normal expected services of a mistress: soothing relief from his sick wife, commiseration over his difficult marriage, and a sympathetic ear for his hard days of pursuing political advancement. How about calling her his “paramour”? Do you think this would be more descriptive of her function?
By Emma Pathey on 08/18/2008 1:38 am
P. R.
In addition to homewrecker, I think we should call her a prostitute - a person, usually a women, who engages in sexual intercouse for money, per Random House. What about predatoress; a money-grubbing, vile, scheming, irreverent (as it relates to sanctimony of marriage) predatoress. * A woman who uses charm and or physical means to get her man, no matter what the cost. Sexually insatiable and very * experienced, those in her sights will most likely never escape or be seen again once she’s had her way with them. * Especially true if she has been without for long periods of time. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=1&term=predator The oldest trap known to mankind, a seductress mixed with a little intoxicant has been known to weaken the strongest moral fiber. How does Hunter explain her pregnancy? Accident? Planned? And if planned, was Edwards included in the planning? And what do we really know about this femme fatale (a woman of seductive charm who leads men into compromising or dangerous situations)? My heart goes out to both John Edwards and his wife. In love and struggle… but mostly struggle.
By P. R. on 08/20/2008 1:11 pm