And the possible theory of prosecution if charges are sought:
According to people familiar with the grand jury investigation, prosecutors are considering a complicated and novel legal issue: whether payments to a candidate’s mistress to ensure her silence (and thus maintain the candidate’s viability) should be considered campaign donations and thus whether they should be reported.
When Mr. Edwards was running for president, and even later when he still held out hope of a senior cabinet position in the Obama administration, two of his wealthy patrons, through a once-trusted Edwards aide, quietly provided Ms. Hunter with large financial benefits, including a new BMW and lodging, that were used to keep her out of public view.
The remainder of the article is as trashy as an Enquirer article:
In the [book]proposal, which The New York Times examined, Mr. Young ... wrote that Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.
Then there are paragraphs like this one:
[A] few months ago, when the couple showed up for dinner at a Chapel Hill restaurant, diners averted their eyes and stared at their plates, according to a person who was there.
And this one:
Ms. Hunter gave her daughter the middle name Quinn, and people who have spoken with her said its resemblance to the Latin prefix for five was to proclaim that the baby was Mr. Edwards’s fifth child. (He had four with Mrs. Edwards, the oldest of whom was killed in a car accident).
What is being investigated? Payments made by Mr. Barron, who is deceased, and a 99 year old heiress:
Investigators are examining the benefits Ms. Hunter received from the two Edwards supporters, Fred Baron, a wealthy trial lawyer from Dallas who has since died, and Rachel Mellon, known as Bunny, a 99-year-old heiress to the Mellon fortune.
Barron insisted before he died Edwards didn't know he made the payments. And Ms. Mellon's payments were made at the behest of Mr. Young who told her Edwards needed some personal funds but didn't tell her why.
The article ends on the high note (/sarcasm) that Rielle Hunter's image could be restored if Edwards' acknowledges paternity of her daughter:
It could also shift Ms. Hunter’s image from that of a predatory celebrity stalker (Mrs. Edwards told Oprah Winfrey that Ms. Hunter met her husband after waiting for him to come out of a New York hotel and telling him, “You’re so hot.”) to that of a mother concerned about her child’s rights.
It seems Hunter is still planning to move to North Carolina near where the Edwards have a second home. I doubt that will help her image.
At least John Edwards and his lawyer knew better than to ask to have him testify before the grand jury. There's no case against him -- all he could have done was create one where it didn't exist if the prosecutors thought he wasn't being truthful.
The story in the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter saga is not that he broke the law or had an affair. It's that he put his political ambition above the welfare of the Democratic party whose nomination he was seeking by denying the allegations and trying to cover them up after the Enquirer found out about it.
Andrew Young is not a credible source. His background speaks volumes. Lewis' article is disappointing and reads like something written for a slow news Sunday.
