top of page

Edwards drops out of NC11 Congressional Race.

  • 2 days ago
  • 9 min read



NC11 District Chair, Merry Guy, to pick his replacement. (So, will the GOP give us another RINO or a Patriot? Humm. We keep giving the folks great candidates and the GOP puts their fingers on the scale to give us compromised individuals. This is such an old story. So, now Chuck can go back to his globalist friends at the Chamber of Communists (aka Commerce). You will recognize their building with many offensive flags above their doorway. Only ONE flag counts but OUR flag is just one of many. Disgraceful.)


House ethics committee recommends censure of Edwards.



The House Committee on Ethics is recommending the censure of U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards for numerous instances of alleged sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior or unprofessional interactions with two young female staffers.


"Specifically, the Committee found that Representative Edwards engaged in persistentunprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers," the committee said Monday. "While Representative 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 recurrent 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."


In a 15-page response to the report, Edwards' attorneys argued that the committee's findings “exonerate” the congressman, pointing to the conclusion that he did not engage in sexual activity or explicitly proposition any staff member. His attorneys said the recommendation of censure was an “extraordinarily harsh and infrequent punishment” that is based on vague standards and adherence to the spirit of House rules, “not based on a direct violation of House rules addressing sexual misconduct.”


Edwards, 65, may now be heading for the most severe form of punishment the House can impose on one of its members short of expulsion at the same time he is fighting for re-election against the strongest Democratic nominee he has faced in his two terms. 


Here are excerpts from the committee report:


The Committee found no evidence that Representative Edwards engaged in sexual activity with or explicitly propositioned any individual under his employ. Representative Edwards was aware, however, that his excessive attention toward 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. Representative Edwards was at minimum blind to that reality, and at worst, dismissive of the impact his inappropriate conduct had on the careers and wellbeing of two women on his staff.


When he transitioned from the North Carolina Senate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Edwards delegated most of his hiring to his Chief of Staff but brought three young women who had worked with him in the State Senate to continue working with him in the House, including a woman who was still in college (Staffer 1), and another in her early 20s (Staffer 2). As discussed below, 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.

 

An example of Representative Edwards’ unprofessional conduct was commenting on thetwo women’s appearance in the congressional office, telling them when they looked “pretty” or “breathtaking,” and even remarking on one staffer’s weight. Representative Edwards acknowledged he made comments such as “that’s a great looking dress, I like that color, I like that texture” and that with the culture on Capitol Hill “it’s almost an insult if you don’t make some comment about [one another’s clothing].” He further testified, “I wrote sexual harassment policy [in the corporate world]. I investigated sexual harassment many, many times. I lived a very cautious life. I know that commenting on clothing without associating that with any other body part or feature is common acceptable practice inthe workplace.”

Edwards also went beyond norms of professional behavior by giving both women lavish gifts. Both women received numerous gifts from Representative Edwards, including jewelry totaling over $1,000, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop and cell phone, KitchenAid mixer, robotic vacuum, vacations, tickets to performances, and one-on-one dinners.10 Several gifts were for specific occasions, such as Christmas or birthdays, but others were not; for example, Representative Edwards paid for Staffer 2 and her friend to visit New York City, including tickets to Hamilton, after she had gone through a breakup. Staffer 1 said she did not feel obligated to wear the purse or jewelry Representative Edwards gave her, but Staffer 2 felt “obligated to wear” a necklace he bought her and when she stopped wearing it, “he made a comment about . . . how disappointed he is that I’m not willing to wear what he got me.”\While Representative Edwards testified that both Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 also purchased gifts for him “all the time,” the Committee found evidence of far fewer instances, but did find that they provided him with a custom Miami Dolphins jersey for Christmas.


The committee said it received evidence of 13 alleged instances of sexual harassment  inappropriate or unprofessional behavior, including:

  • Brought Staffer 1 to a holiday event at the White House, hid the details from other staffers, bought her flowers, and texted her in advance that he was “so excited about tonight” and wanted the evening to be “perfect.” Staffer 1 testified that Representative Edwards attempted to pressure her to continue the evening with him after the event and insisted on having her travel to and from the event in his car, with his driver. When asked about this, Representative Edwards said he could not recall suggesting they continue their evening, and that he accompanied her in the car out to her home in Virginia because he “felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.”

  • Brought Staffer on political trips, including a trip to New York City, where they stayed an extra day for the Congressman’s birthday, for which he had planned a helicopter ride, dinner, and Broadway show.17 Although Representative Edwards testified that Staffer 1 asked to go on the trip, the Committee received evidence that it was his idea for her to attend the trip and that he sought to “surprise” her with the personal activities during the extra day.

  • Left early from an event attended by congressional Members and staff and later told Staffer it was because she had brought a date. When asked about this, Representative Edwards testified to the Committee that he told Staffer 1 that he did not want to be “in the way or something to that effect.”

  • Talked to Staffer 1 and other staffers about going to strip clubs in Washington, D.C.

  • Invited Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 to private dinners, in at least one instance noting to Staffer 2 that she should not have the scheduler put it on his calendar.

  • Sent Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 personal texts late in the evenings, including messages planning or following activities together and expressing personal sentiments.

  • Went to Staffer 2’s house to perform chores like yardwork, pick her up and drop her off for events and activities with his driver, and decorate her Christmas tree together (for which he skipped votes in the House that evening).

  • Booked and paid for massages or other spa treatments for Staffer 2.

  • Took Staffer 2 to the casino, bought her drinks, and paid for her to gamble. Staffer 2 texted Representative Edwards after one such outing to thank him for a fun night; several months later, he printed the text message, drew a heart next to the message and hand-wrote “Perhaps my proudest personal moment!”

  • Wrote poems for Staffer 2, including one that he read at her going away party in the congressional office accompanied by a slideshow, during which he cried. Several staffers present testified that they felt uncomfortable, and Representative Edwards acknowledged in his own testimony that he could tell the staff felt uncomfortable.

  • Planned elaborate full-day outings with Staffer 1 and/or Staffer 2. On one occasion he suggested to Staffer 2 that they could “go to Annapolis for lunch, meditate by its water, stroll about town, find a day spa, see a movie, or wipe out the casino” and that he was “overthinking . . . but I really want you to enjoy our time together nearly as much as I know I will. The following day, he texted photographs to her with a note that he would “cherish every moment of our time these last couple of days."

  • Arranged for a singer to go to Staffer 2’s birthday party to sing Ed Sheeran’s Hills of Aberfeldy and say that it was “from a special someone.”29 The Committee received evidence that Staffer 2 told a friend this led her to believe that the Congressman did not view her as “just a daughter figure” and that she was “scared low-key."


The committee report said while Edwards voluntarily turned over some text messages between himself and the two staffers, investigators found that many they were aware of were missing or deleted. Both staffers ultimately left their jobs in Edwards's office.


The committee said:

Taken individually, many of Representative Edwards’ actions were at minimum inappropriate; a Member of Congress should not single out a staffer and isolate them from other staff, make frequent comments regarding that person’s appearance and weight, send messages in the middle of the night, text staff deeply personal and seemingly romantic thoughts, intrude on personal occasions without invitation, pay for personal vacations, and spend thousands of dollars on gifts for staffers. That Representative Edwards did all these things to two young staffers, repeatedly over a sustained period, was beyond inappropriate. In his interview with the Committee, the Congressman repeatedly asserted that he knows well what constitutes “sexual harassment,” and seemed to believe that by avoiding inappropriate physical touch, explicitly sexual comments, and occasionally telling the staffers that they were free to put up boundaries with him, he had immunized himself from such a charge. That is not the case. Despite the absence of an explicit proposition, a reasonable person could interpret Representative Edwards’ intimate and effusive attentions, where he prioritized the personal over the professional, as thinly veiled advances. There is also contemporaneous evidence and testimony that Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 perceived the conduct as abusive. Even under the exacting standards of federal employment law, Representative Edwards’ conduct at minimum exposed his office to the litigation risk of a viable sexual harassment lawsuit. ... 

Representative Edwards’ contention that he had “professional boss-subordinate relationships” and “friendships” with both women is undermined by his intentionally deleting messages to these women that were particularly inappropriate. Representative Edwards himself acknowledged that one reason he deleted messages was a concern they “might have been interpreted in a way that it wasn’t intended or that someone may be resentful of.” His decision to delete the messages identified by the Committee indicates he was aware that their content was cause for concern. Often, the text messages produced by Representative Edwards omitted messages in such a way to create the appearance that the women were initiating contact, he was not responding, or they were expressing greater interest in conversing with him than he was with them. While it is accurate that both Staffer 1 and Staffer 2 sent messages expressing gratitude and an interest in spending time with Representative Edwards outside of the office, their relationships with Representative Edwards evolved over time into something that made them uncomfortable but that they did not know how to handle. ... His conduct was also more than “overly-familiar”—it was deeply uncomfortable and led to widespread rumors he was sleeping with his staff.


The Committee is concerned that the House regrettably lost two staffers because of Representative Edwards’ conduct. In this environment, where Members of Congress hold substantial influence, many individuals are reluctant to report misconduct when balancing the fear of reprisal against the potential for accountability. The Committee is committed to providing a safe and respectful place where wrongdoing can be reported and duly examined and addressed.


Representative Edwards’ own account of his interactions with these women demonstrates a disregard for the higher level of decorum that should be expected in the offices of Members of the House. Nonetheless, Representative Edwards has continued to deny any wrongdoing publicly and to the Committee. He has also refused to acknowledge the reality of the power imbalance between a Member of Congress and young staffers, even as his former staffers have been put through this difficult and emotional process with serious repercussions on their personal and professional lives. This shows a lack of self-awareness and accountability. One of the staffers echoed this concern, testifying that Representative Edwards’ conduct gave the impression that “he was completely ignoring the fact that [the staffer was] a young female in politics and that [her] image is everything. And while he can navigate rumors like those that are circulating now without concern, because he is, I guess, a male in politics, he had no regard for how something like this could impact my career.”


The committee recommended that Edwards be censured, by presenting "himself in the well of the House for pronouncement of the censure and ... public reading of this resolution by the Speaker."


The full House will have to vote before any censure would occur. Lawmakers are back in their home districts for almost the rest of the month, so a vote on whether to censure Edwards won't occur for a few weeks at the earliest. ###

Comments

bottom of page