Records: Rielle Hunter got $9K monthly stipend

Former presidential candidate and Sen. John Edwards and his daughter Cate Edwards arrive at a federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., May 11, 2012. / AP Photo/Gerry Broome

(AP) GREENSBORO, North Carolina -- Records introduced Tuesday at John Edwards' corruption trial show his campaign finance chairman paid the former U.S. presidential candidate's mistress a $9,000 monthly cash allowance, on top of living and travel expenses.

Wealthy Texas lawyer Fred Baron is one of two political supporters who, combined, gave nearly $1 million to help hide Edwards' pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter as the politician sought the White House in 2008. Evidence introduced at the trial showed Baron, who died that year, was making regular deposits into Hunter's checking account, the sum totaling $74,000.

Money from the donors was also used for private jets, stays at luxury resorts and a $20,000-a-month California rental mansion.

Edwards has pleaded not guilty to campaign finance violations related to the money used to support his mistress. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

Edwards' oldest daughter, Cate, could take the stand as early as Tuesday afternoon. Two weeks ago, she ran out of the courtroom in tears during testimony about her cancer-stricken mother confronting her father about his affair.

"CBS This Morning:" John Edwards' daughter expected to testify

His attorneys have said Edwards did not know about the money from Baron and Mellon — and that even if he did, the cash was not a campaign contribution because it was intended to hide Hunter from Edwards' wife, not the public.

On Monday, Edwards' attorneys began his defense by attempting to shift the focus away from the sex scandal to the technical issue of whether Edwards' alleged behavior violated campaign finance laws.

Defense attorneys have not yet indicated if they will call Hunter or Edwards to testify.

Before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1998, Edwards made a fortune as a personal injury lawyer renowned for his ability to sway jurors. But his testimony would expose himself to a likely withering cross-examination.

[marychgo]

gwrigley below has the prosecution's argument down pat -- if Edwards was more concerned with hiding the affair from the public than hiding it from his wife, that turns gifts into "campaign funds" -- but, based on the testimony the judge oddly refused to let the jury hear, it's clear that the Federal Election Commission DIDN'T think the gifts constituted "campaign funds."

Given that the FEC is a bipartisan agency (3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, presumably most of the appointed by George Bush in 2008), it would seem to me the FEC's judgment is pretty relevant here....

[two-cats]

From the way this article was written, it looks like campaign contributors were making direct payments into Hunter's account. These people can give their money to whomever whenever they want to as far as I'm concerned, and it doesn't constitute a campaign contribution.

[Jaylah54]

But would they have chosen to give money to Edward's mistress if he wasn't running for President?

[jmn122736]

Assuming that each of you are correct in your assumptions; that campaign contributors are the ones directing the money to Hunter's account, and that it is an illegal act because Edwards was running for president, shouldn't the contributors be the ones being prosecuted?

[skeezix06]

$9,000 a month. Does that make her a prostitute or a mistress?

[baileycccc]

Elizabeth Edwards was all class, but this skank Hunter is in the class of the republican skank Ann Coulter.

[josephp5]

The trouble with the prosecution in this case is that they think that they only need to point out that Edwards is a slimeball, wave their hands, and somehow it means that Edwards is guilty of violating campaign finance law.

It's not that simple.

Cheating on your wife is not a crime. Trying to hide an affair from your wife or the public is not a crime. Edwards is not charged with those things---he is charged with campaign finance law violations.

The prosecution has simply not made its criminal case against Edwards.

[fedup12]

wow. being a ***** pays well.

[msay3]

Records introduced Tuesday at John Edwards' corruption trial show his campaign finance chairman paid the former U.S. presidential candidate's mistress a $9,000 monthly cash allowance, on top of living and travel expenses.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmmmm....Where did the campaign finance chairman get 9 grand a month? That, in addition to the $75,000.00 deposited into Hunter's bank account (from two wealthy donors) looks mighty suspicious to me!

[Jaylah54]

How do you hide a mistress from your wife without hiding her from the public? Particularly when you're such a high profile person as John Edwards was at that time.

And while he may be a low-life scum, he's not stupid. He knew that knocking up a hooker would sink his chances at the nomination, so don't insult my intelligence by asking me to believe that it was okay if the public knew as long as his wife didn't.

And how many people believe that Bunny Mellon would have given him all that money if he wasn't running?

[msay3]

Who knows??? Maybe he was banging Bunny Mellon on the side!

[RogerInHawaii]

Since this trial is supposedly about the misuse of campaign finances, why are they allowing all this testimony about the sex scandal. Edwards was clearly a doofus when it comes to his sexual exploits, but that has no bearing on whether finance laws were broken. I'm amazed the judge has allowed so much extraneous testimony. The only issue is whether the money provided by those people was actually campaign contributions.

[gwrigley]

It's really very simple. They are trying to prove that he was hiding the affair from the public which makes it campaign money. The worse the sex scandal is, the more it would seem that a candidate would be trying to hide it from the public. It's all up to who the jury believes. Edwards claims he was hiding the scandal from his wife which is not illegal, the prosecution claims he was hiding the scandal from the public which is illegal because the money given then becomes campaign money.