Dunn: "Chuck Edwards is toast" | Hour 1

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to dpeakclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. Joining me as he does every Tuesday at noon is Andrew Dunn. He is the publisher of the long Leaf Politics newsletter. Longleafpol dot com is that website. He's also a contributing columnist over at the Charlotte Observer. Welcome Andrew, how are you sir? I am fantastic, Thanks for having me. Back, of course. So first off, how's the book tour going? Are you doing a book tour? Yeah, yeah, it's going well. I've got an event up in Raleigh here in a couple of weeks, and might be going to Greenville and Beaufort as well if I can afford the guest to get all the way out. Well, well, are you doing anything in Charlotte, because I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not. I know you wrote a book about Pat McCrory, but he used to be the mayor here. He was, yeah, actually for fourteen years. But yeah, I have an event coming up at Park Road Books here weeks and you can still pick up the book there as well as on Amazon. Park Road Books, all right, because I got to get your book. I still haven't gotten your books. I got to get Oh and you know, Park Road Books. That's right near where Pat well. I don't know if he still lives there. Did he move out to Lake James. I know he's got the Yeah, he's out there now. So yeah, because that would have been right in his old neighborhood. So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that's home territory right. Alrighty, So, speaking of Pat McCrory, one of the things that when he became governor that he it was, he said, you know, making it his mission to take or try to minimize, at least if not take out the politics when it comes to road funding. And it's not it's not entirely based on the science and data, to quote Governor Cooper during COVID, but it is better than it used to be. And you're right about this over at the Charlotte Observer about the I seventy seven tolls project and this sweetener which I have in the stack of stuff. I've not gotten to this topic yet, but this one, this one gives me, as the kids would say, gives me the ick. I'm not yeah, I'm not terribly happy with this idea. So what is this idea of the sweeteners? Yeah? Yeah, So basically, you know I seventy seven South, You've we've talked about this before. I'm sure your listeners are familiar with it. But the state is trying to convince Charlotte to take back its take back on I seventy seven South. They want Charlotte to support the project again. So what the State Department of Transportation is doing is saying, hey, we'll we'll give you three hundred million dollars in goodies if you'll just get back on board with the project. Now, some of these goodies are are reasonable, and you might expect. Them in a transportation project. You know, some road beautifications, some caps, you know, some nice stuff like that. That is perfectly fine. But some of the other sweeteners are extremely bizarre, and I would say very troubling, Like for example, there's you know, they're offering to build a community center and also too, you know, semi publicly run grocery stores. Oh god, yeah, I mean that that's really the head scratcher. I don't know how anyone could justify three hundred million dollars in money that will ultimately come from the people in North Carolina to build public grocery stores for all of. The mockery that we have been engaged in a against New York City and that grocery store plan, And now you got the NCDOT or the Secretary of Transportation Daniel Johnson is now floating the same idea. Like so this has got to be just like a play for the more lefty voters. I gotta believe because people on the political right, they're going to see this and probably have the reaction that you and I just had. So I have to believe this is in order to kind of shore up some support maybe from voters on the Democrat side. Yeah, I mean, that's exactly what it is. And it's pretty blatant as well. Now, you know, the bigger problem that I have is, you know, like you alluded to at the beginning of the segment that we North Carolina has tried for decades upon decades to take the politics. Out of road building. I mean, you can see it all the way going back to the late nineteen fifties with Governor Luther Hodges was trying to take the politics out of road building. He didn't succeed. McCrory took the the biggest step towards that with the Strategic Transportation Initiative's law, and this threatens to bring us right back to where we started. And that you know, anytime that there's a big road project, you're going to have political groups trying to throw their weight around to get their their cut of the spoils. Right because this is now an incentive for opposition for like city councils, county commissions, the local planning boards, the neighborhood activist crowd. Right now they get to just like stomp their feet, yell and scream and oppose an NCDOT project with the hope of getting some extra money from the state to pay for things that are absolutely not part of transportation in any sense of the word. Right. Yeah, I mean that's exactly what's going to happen. And if you think three hundred million. Dollars as bad. If this goes through, just wait and see what different activist groups are going to demand next time. Oh yeah, they're going to try Reverend William Barber's old list during the Borol Monday. Remember that there was like seventy billion dollars or whatever it was worth of demands. Yeah, why not, because you know, just ask for the moon, you may get a slice of it. Yeah, exactly, this is not good. People can read that at the Charlotte Observer in the opinions section. All right, from roads to toast, let's talk Chuck Edwards. This has been building for a while and we covered this a couple of months ago when the stories first started circulating that he may have been involved in some you know, inappropriate relationship with some staffers or a staffer or something. There's just been rumors about him for like the last year, and now he's been officially referred to by the House Ethics Committee. They issued a report and they're recommending him for censure. Now, so first off, like, what what does that mean? What is censure? Yeah, I mean it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but honestly, it's really the most severe thing that the House really has the power to do. I mean, I guess they could technically expel him, but you're you're rarely. Going to get that recommendation from a report like this. But what the report actually showed, and I'm not going to go into all the lurid details here, is you know, some genuinely creepy behavior. Basically everything that has been rumored and talked about over the past year is true. And beyond that, well, accept the actual relations right, there's no proof that they actually had any sexual relationship. Yes, that is exactly true. However, you know, some of this behavior that the report outlines is just clearly over the. Top, right, yes, and unlike you, I will provide some of the details after we're done talking, just because, like when you hear like some of this, because Edwards is denying that there was any kind of like ulterior motives. There was no, there's nothing beyond he was just a personal friendship and that's just you know, the way he is a friend to people, sending them, you know, twenty flavors of ice cream and flowers and poems and singing telegrams and you know, taking them to Vegas and going to a strip club. No I don't know like all of this. It's just it is, like you said, creepy. But what can the Republican Party do Because this guy's up for reelection, He's in a pretty tight fight. I think the. District is now, this is out in western North Carolina. This was the seat that was held by Madison Cawthorn. Prior to Cawthorn, it was Mark Meadows seat. Before that it was Heath Schuler. So there is an ability for sort of a blue dog Democrat like candidate to win this race, especially now. I think it's rated as a toss up seat now. And Jamie Ager, son of John Ager, longtime lawmaker at the state level, and their farm, I forget the name of their farm out there. It's a very popular like farm to table kind of an operation. And so the Agger is out there, very well known family, and Jamie's running as a Democrat and kind of like a safe I don't want to say blue dog. He'll probably vote in line with all of the you know, national Democrat leadership. But this could be a loss now for Edwards. And you think, like you think he's done, he needs to step aside right now. Yeah, I mean, it sure looks like he's headed to defeat now. You know, Jamie ager has is kind. Of the star of the Democratic Party, at least from the national perspective. I mean this district, even before this scandal erupted, this was the number one target for National Democrats. They really saw some weakness here. And I think at this point, with everything that's come out, that Chuck Edwards is absolutely toast. I don't see that he has a pass to victory now we are getting closer to the election, but there are some options available in law. If Chuck Edwards were to bow out of the race. You know, the Republican Party in that congressional district would be able to appoint someone to fill his place on the ballot, and I think if Republicans want to hold onto this seat, that's their best chance. But he would have to be the one to step aside, or could the party try to oust him? No, I mean this is Congressman Edwards's decision. I don't think that the State Republican Party has any sort of mechanism to remove him from the ballot. And that's what worries me because Edwards's consultant put out a statement after the report saying that the report completely exonerated him, which I don't know what planet they're on if that's what they take away from the report. No. I read the report twice and it does not exonerate him at all. No, No, All right, so you threw out a couple of names as potential replacements. Let's do them both Kevin Corbin, and I admit I do not know Kevin Corbin. The other is he's a state senator, and also their state senator, Tim Moffatt, whom I do know. So let's start with Kevin Corbyn. So, well, do you think Corbyn is a better pick over moffittt? Or do you care like. Handicap that I don't have a strong opinion, And I. Don't know either state senator particularly well except by reputation, and they both have excellent reputations in western North Carolina. They've been really involved in a Hurricane Helen recovery, and I think they both have very strong followings in western North Carolina and either would be a good selection. I guess the big question is would one of them want to step up and take this on. I mean, they both have fairly safe seats in the North Carolina Senate and even if Chuck Edwards is off the ballot, this is far from a shoe in for any Republican candidate. Right because if they run for this seat, they cannot run for reelection in their seat. They can only run for one seat out of time. So, Corbin, you describe him as more ideologically, I guess unpredictable because he was supportive of medicaid expansion, so he has sometimes gone against conservatives in the state Senate. Yeah, I mean he has a little bit more of a maverick reputation, where you know, he very much is the type of the lawmaker who follows his conscience, and you know that could be appealing to the sort of swing voters that you're going to need to win this election. Right and soactly, I think you're exactly right because to that point. Tim Moffitt when he was the state representative, he eventually lost to Brian Turner. There was a big scandal back then. We had them both on the show and we talked about it. It was like, you know, Turner had secretly recorded Moffat trying to offer him some appointment to get out of the race and all of this, and Moffitt lost, and that was an anti moffat vote, but then he went over to the next district over and became I think a representative first and then maybe state senator. So there are a lot of people in the Asheville area, a lot of Democrats that really, really really don't like Tim Moffatt. They accused him of trying to steal the water system back in twenty eleven. Yeah, so like there was, there's a lot of bad blood with Tim Moffatt. And so if you're trying to like putting up Moffatt, I think would it would basically write off a lot of Democrats who have a bad taste in their mouth about him. Now, that may not matter in a district the size of the eleventh, with eight hundred and fifty thousand voters. They're just going to see the Republican. They're going to say, yeah, we like Tim Moffatt, and he fought against those Asheville crazy So. I don't know, Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't be overly concerned about losing Asheville Democrats in this district. I mean, we're in such a polarized environment that I would be hard pressed to see Democrats voting for the Republican anyway. Yeah, all right, we'll leave it there. We shall see as always, Andrew, I appreciate your time. Keep up the good work, sir, Thank you, all right, take care. That's Andrew Dunn. You can read his website longleafpol dot com, Longleadpolitics, and subscribe to the newsletter and the podcast. He does a podcast as well. He's got the new book Change Agent about Pat McCrory, and you can also read his work occasionally over at the Charlotte Observer, where he's a contributing columnist. All right, for over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create a Video. Great local company in mint Hill that has helped more than two million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now creative videos helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling. Introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student trips, senior adult groups, sports teams, I mean, any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents. Even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip, and family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads, it's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then after the trip we're gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out Group travel Videos dot com. That's group travel Videos dot com. Or call seven oh four eight four six seventy eight seventy extension two O six. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes you can. You can email Katie Katie at group travel videos dot com. Group travel videos from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. Got a text from Joey from Ashville who says Chuck Edwards will have to resign not because of scandal, but missing votes. Voters will overlook the scandal, but not missing work for fun time. We don't get to do that. So this is one of the things that was highlighted in the report from the Committee on Ethics. And by the way, the Ethics Committee in the US House evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and there are two North Carolina representatives on this committee, Brad Not a Republican, and Deborah Ross, a Democrat. Okay, I've read the report. I read through it twice. And the words, or I should say, the phrase that I keep coming back to in my head love bomb, love bomb. You know what love bomb is. You know what love bombing is usually and I'm. Not accusing anybody of being abusive, but like usually in abusive relationships, this is one of the things that's part of the cycle where there's some abuse and then there is. The love bomb. This over the top you know, I can't live without you. Here's like a billion flowers, and you know, I'll kill myself if I can't be with you, and all of this right like this just effusive, over the top expression of love. And then the cycle resets and then there's some other you know, abuse that occurs psychological or physical or whatever, and then another love bomb, and it just keeps repeating that's what this not the abuse part with the love bombing, that's what this sounds like Chuck. Edwards was doing to these two staffers. All right, So going over the House Ethics Report things, it's twenty five pages. I shall read to you the entirety of it. Footnotes included. I'm just kidding. The Committee has reviewed allegations against Representative Chuck Edwards and whether he created or fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment and violation of House rules, laws, or other standards of conduct. As discussed further below, the Committee found Representative Edwards violated the House Code of Official Conduct by failing to adhere to the spirit of rules prohibiting sexual harassment of and unwanted advances to House staffers. Okay, this is why I think Edwards' campus saying I've been exonerated. See, I didn't do anything. There was nothing, you know, I didn't break any laws. I wasn't sexually harassing anybody, because what the committee is saying is that you didn't adhere to the spirit of the rules about particularly unwanted advances. And look, when you read these things, and you couple the stuff when I go over some of the stuff that he was saying to these two staffers, a nineteen year old girl and a twenty one year old woman, like the stuff that he was saying and doing, and then the deletion of some four hundred text messages that he admits to the committee could be misinterpreted as. A little too. You know, on the line or maybe over the line, So he deleted them and he said that to the committee. It's like, well, well, is that not an admission that you were dancing all over that line? And to Joey's text before the uh the break there, he would miss votes because he was doing stuff like he went and helped one of these women decorate her Christmas tree, and so he missed a vote in the House, Like what, she's in town, she's in DC, Like you can't just like roll over there, cast your vote and come on back to I mean, like, how long does it take to decorate. A Christmas tree? But he really, really, really really wanted to spend a lot of time with both of these women. I have to say too, I feel terrible for his wife. He is married. He's been married I think since like nineteen eighty He's sixty five years old, and like this is this just incredibly destructive behavior, you know? So, the committee found that Representative Edwards engaged in persistent, keep that word in mind, persistent, unprofessional, and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers. While Edwards denied that any of his conduct was intended as a sexual or romantic advance, his pattern of behavior would lead a reasonable observer to interpret it as such, including providing the young women with lavish and recurring gifts, making comments regarding their appearance and dress, inviting them to intimate dinners and vacations, sending notes regarding his effusive affection, and inviting them to other activities as a way to spend time together. The committee found no evidence that Edwards engaged in sexual activity with or explicitly propositioned any individual under his employe. Edwards was aware, however, that his excessive attention towards the young women had led to rumors and innuendo in the office. Both women were uncomfortable with his behavior, which they attempted to communicate, but were put in an untenable position by virtue of his status as their boss and a member of Congress. Edwards was at a. Minimum blind to that reality and at worst dismissive of the impact that his inappropriate conduct had on the careers and well being of two women on his staff. His conduct was inappropriate and implicated the laws and rules prohibiting sexual harassment in unwanted advances by a member towards a subordinate employee. Later on, Edwards has acknowledged at least some of the behavior at issue could be viewed as inappropriate. However, he has not acknowledged or taken responsibility for any harm he caused. And by the way, at one point he told the Ethics Committee, He's like, look in the corporate work, like, I've done so many of these sexual harassment training seminars, and I've had to do these investigations, like I know. Where the lines are. I know what's not appropriate, which that's not actually exculpatory. It means you know where the line is, and you can walk right up to that line and you don't cross it. But if the girls want to cross it, well, like I've made my intentions clear without crossing any lines. They did sixteen witness interviews, they reviewed fifteen hundred pages of documentary evidence, and then the Committee voted to adopt the report. Edwards agreed to waive the otherwise necessary procedures for the committee to recommend a House floor sanction, so he's waived any other procedures, so it's going to go right to the House floor where they're going to vote on his censure. It talks about how when he transitioned from the North Carolina State Senate to the House of Representatives, Edwards delegated most of his hiring to his chief of staff, but he brought in three young women who had worked with him in the state Senate to continue working with him in the House up in DC, including a woman who was. Still in college. Staff for number one she was nineteen, staff for number two was in her early twenties. Both young women were subject to increasingly unusual attention from the congressman while they worked for him, creating an environment where both they and their coworkers felt uncomfortable. Remember when we talked about Alma Adams a couple of months ago, the Ethics Committee was looking into her because she had like a chief of staff, and other people in the office were like, we don't know why this chief of staff is staying at Alma Adams's apartment, leaving in the mornings, sleeping overnight, like what's going on and created this environment. Edwards described his relationship to those staffers as close but professional, specifically asserting that they had a quote deeper working relationship, a quote longstanding working friendly relationship, a close work relationship, and incredibly professional and truly platonic friendships that were built on trust and respect and a real concern for one another. That's how he described their relationships. While many witnesses, including the two female staffers themselves, also characterized the relationship as close, several felt though it was far from professional. So this is what he's saying, is all professional? Is this close working relationship incredibly professional? It was like, oh yeah, yeah, it was close, but far from professional. And then there were the gifts. He spent over one thousand dollars in gifts, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop, a cell phone, a KitchenAid mixer, a robotic vacuum, vacations, tickets to performances, and one on one dinner professional Going over some of the details of this House Ethics Committee report into Chuck Edwards, he has been recommended for censure by the full House. According to politico dot com, censure is the most severe punishment that the panel can recommend, short of expulsion, requiring targeted members to submit to a public shaming on the floor. The bipartisan panel said that it plans to bring a privileged resolution to a vote once the House returns to session later this month. A campaign spokesperson for Chuck Edwards blasted the panel, saying its staff had quote taken it upon themselves to write their own rules based upon an interpretation that is inconsistent with the written rule of law or House rules. Representative Edwards forward to having his name cleared and will work to ensure that the full light of day is brought on this process and that every member of Congress and the public can see the attempt to harm the congressman who has brought no harm to others. End quote that is. Attributed to a spokesperson who declined to be named. Okay, I think you need a different title. I don't think you can be a spokesperson and remain anonymous. I think that's part of the whole job description, is that you are the spokesperson. In a fifteen page rebuttal lawyers for Edwards said the Ethics Committee failed to demonstrate that either of the two staffers expressed discomfort to Representative Edwards regarding his conduct with them. They also rejected the need for censure, noting that it has been used sparingly in this context and directed only at matters of severe sexual misconduct, and because the panel and the investigators found no sexual activity occurred, therefore there's no violation of federal sexual harassment law. Okay, So just because he's showering them with gifts, taking them on trips, buying them all sorts of things, saying all sorts of things, writing them poetry, reading these poems aloud in front of their colleagues, Like, just because he's doing all of this stuff, because there was no sex, then there was no violation of the federal sexual harassment law. And he looks forward to having his name cleared. Okay. By the way, the alleged relationship and the rumors resulted in friction among abs and led to staff departures from his office, according to a piece that was published back in May at Notice dot com. We covered this originally when this story first broke because he was mentioned along with several others that were under investigation including Alma Adams at the time. So rumors like this swirl all the time around the swamp. So I don't report on rumors. I hear a bunch of this stuff and I don't ever report on it because they're just rumors, and a lot of times they're just being advanced to harm political opponents and that sort of thing. However, when you get an investigation, and you get sixteen witnesses under oath to give you their stories, and then you also invest or examine sixteen hundred pieces of documentary evidence, and you have the subject of the probe deleting hundreds of ten messages that are explicitly pertinent to the investigation like that, that leads me to now, as a reasonable person might assume that there's something more going on here than just simply rumors. Right. And these two women, who you know, were working for him at the state Legislative office, and then he brought to d C and one of them nineteen years old. She was still in college, and he hired her as his scheduler. And the chief of staff was like, wait, what, why she's still in college, how can she be doing this? Actually, you know what, that explains why I probably never was able to schedule an interview. But anyway, like like that, that's a problem, Like why are you bringing these people along? And he says, well, I made her a promise basically as part of my campaign that would bring her to DC. Okay, she graduated, I guess, and then she went full time at the DC office. But both of those staffers quit. They both left. After they were made aware that they are the subject of all of these rumors that they're having an affair with their boss, and that is very detrimental to their career. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecallanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.