E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJohn Edwards' lawyers signaled Friday that they will vigorously contest the indictment charging the former presidential candidate with accepting more than $900,000 in illegal campaign contributions from two wealthy donors in order to cover up his extramarital affair while running for president.
But their case could be undercut by a "smoking gun" note obtained by prosecutors and cited in the indictment. That document suggests that one of the donors, heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, who is now 99 years old, was trying to protect Edwards' presidential campaign -- and circumvent federal campaign laws -- when she agreed to make more than $700,000 in payments that were used to pay the expenses of Rielle Hunter, a campaign videographer who was pregnant with Edwards' child.
After a public blow up over disclosures in April 2007 that Edwards had paid $400 apiece for two haircuts from a celebrity hairstylist in Beverly Hills, Calif., Mellon had written: "From now on, all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign -- please send the bills to me. ... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
Edwards' high powered legal team -- headed by former White House counsel Gregory Craig -- intends to argue that the payments that Mellon and another wealthy donor, Texas lawyer Fred Baron -- made for Hunter's benefit were not campaign expenses. Instead, they will say, they were designed to help their friend, Edwards, during an embarrassing personal crisis.
(Edwards pleaded not guilty to the charges Friday in Winston-Salem, N.C.)
Scott Thomas, a former Federal Election Commission chairman hired by Edwards lawyers, said in a statement on Friday that the indictment is "without precedent in federal election law" and is based on an "erroneous reading" of federal election law.
He said the payments charged in the indictment "would not support a finding that the conduct issue constituted a civil violation much less warranted a criminal prosecution."
Read more reporting by Michael Isikoff in 'The Isikoff Files'
Pat Fiori, who served as Edwards' top campaign lawyer, said in a separate statement that she was never consulted about the funds that Edwards solicited from Mellon and Baron for Hunter, who became pregnant with Edwards' child during his run for the White House.
But if she had been, Fiori said, "I would have advised that based upon" all FEC opinions at the time, "the payments for Ms. Hunter's expenses were not campaign contributions."
The two statements signal the focus of Edwards' lawyers' efforts will be on contesting the legal basis of the indictment, rather than contesting the basic facts outlined by the indictment.
But the indictment includes some evidence that could prove difficult for Edwards' lawyers to explain in their efforts to argue that the payments for Hunter were solicited for purposes that were unrelated to protecting his viability as a presidential candidate.
Most damning of all is the note that Mellon wrote to Andrew Young, Edwards’ longtime personal aide and a key witness for the government, after the furor over Edwards $400 haircuts -- a disclosure that embarrassed the candidate and put his campaign on the defensive.
"I was sitting alone in a grim mood-furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut,” she wrote, according to the indictment. “But it inspired me -- from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign-please send the bills to me…It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
After Mellon sent the note, Edwards and Young began soliciting additional payments from her in May 2007, when they learned that Hunter was pregnant with Edwards' child, according to the indictment.
Mellon -- who had already contributed $2,300, the maximum allowable under federal law to Edwards presidential campaign -- made payments between June 7, 2007 and Jan. 23, 2008 that totaled $725,000 in ways that the indictment alleges were designed to hide their true purpose.
Mellon wrote personal checks to a friend, falsely stating they were intended to buy items of furniture, according to the indictment. These checks were then forwarded to Young's wife, who endorsed them in her maiden name and deposited them into the Youngs' bank account so they could be used for Hunter's rent, furniture, car living expenses and prenatal care, the indictment states.
Separately, the indictment charges, Baron – who was the Edwards campaign finance chair -- later arranged to spend $200,000 for Hunter's benefit, flying her on chartered air flights to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Aspen, Colo., and San Diego and paying her bills at luxury hotels such as the Loews Coronado Bay in San Diego and the Four Seasons in Santa Barbara. These flights and hotel stays took place while Edwards was campaigning in Iowa during the Iowa caucuses and was still considered a viable contended for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Baron also provided cash directly to Young for Hunter's benefit, giving him $1,000 in an envelope in December 2007 that included a note that read, "Old Chinese saying: use cash, not credit cards!" according to the indictment.
The purpose of these payments, according to the indictment, was to preserve "a centerpiece of Edwards' candidacy": his "public image as a devoted family man." It further states that "the communication strategy developed by Edwards' campaign stressed the importance of publicizing, among other things, “that (Edwards') family comes first."
The key issue, according to campaign lawyers, is whether the federal judge who is assigned the case accepts the Justice Department's theory that such expenditures should have been reported as campaign contributions and were not primarily personal expenses designed to hide Edwards' extramarital affair from his wife, Elizabeth.
Justice Department officials signaled they are planning to push the issue hard. They also moved to undermine another expected line of attack on the indictment from Edwards' legal team -- that the investigation and prosecution was being pushed by the U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, George E.B. Holding. Holding, a Republican holdover appointed by President George W. Bush, had a political vendetta against Edwards, sources close to Edwards’ legal team have argued. (The indictment was co-signed by Robert J. Higdon, a veteran career prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's office in North Carolina, and David. V Harbach, a trial lawyer in the public integrity section in Washington, D.C.)
In the Justice Department press release announcing the indictment, Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division and an appointee of President Barack Obama, is prominently quoted first.
"As the indictment shows, we will not permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our elections laws," Breuer said.
Leave a Comment:
Edwards, you dork! In the court of Public Opinion, you've already lost. What a scumbag.
Peaches, other than the scumbag part, you called it exactly right, in the court of public opinion he has already lost. another instance of people being found guilty before the trial even starts.
Personally from what I have read I do not think he violated election laws, the money was not donated to his campaign therefore campaign money was not used for this.
How can they prove intent? How can they prove that it was to protect his campaign and not just to protect his wife? And even if it was the intent to protect his campaign it was not done with campaign money.
I wonder if Ensign's parents money are being considered campaign money? Although there is a difference there, Ensign was a sitting congressman and Edwards was basically nothing, a candidate only.
You do not know how to read;
from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign-please send the bills to me…It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
Read the rest of the article.
If you take the prosecution's claim just a bit further you could claim any money he spent on food was a campaign contribution because it maintained his healthy campaign image, otherwise he would look like a wasted away sickly person and nobody would vote for him! This is a complete misconstruing of the election financing laws. Yeah he was a despicable sleazebag but I don't think he broke any campaign financing laws. It doesn't matter what his 99 year old friend thought she was doing.
He should be hung by his gonads then used as a piata.
"from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign-please send the bills to me…It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
If Edwards read this memo, he did break the law. This memo clearly states that the bills being paid was "important for his campaign." The limit an indivudual can contribute to his campaign is $2,300. If she was paying $400 per haircut or for anything else that is more than total $2,300 and Edwards knew about it, then he broke campaingn finance laws.
Wish someone would just give me $700k... It amazes me that that sort of money just is slung around like no big deal.
Ahh, the life of the proletariat. lol
John boy was the poster child of the left! The libbies hero..... their silence in these blogs is deafening!
He might very well have been elected President if Obama didn't get so much 'help' from Acorn!
Nah, I'm not sure if he was ever a really viable candidate.
One look at that smarmy smile, and people from all parties kind of collectively shuddered...
I pegged him for a game show host from Day 1....
miked... I'm a lefti... never EVER thought he was a hero... little too slick... when all this came out, he totally disgusts me. There are terrible people on BOTH sides of the aisle. I don't approve of this behavior from either party. Again, why I detest Newtie as well. Both parties have a long list of men who screw around on wives.. but I'll have to say the one that took the cake for me... was the fat slob Henry Hyde who oversaw the House hearings of Clinton. AFTER all was said and done, it turned out he had a little chippie on the side as well and was paying her rent, etc. Pretty much the ultimate in balls... In addition you had Bob Livingston, Dan Burton and Helen Chenowith... ALL having affairs at the time of the hearing.
The note is interesting, it will be interesting to see if there are other notes with any intent detailed.
What I continue to wonder is who paid the taxes on this income? If it wasn't a contribution, it would need to be listed on someone's income tax form with the associated taxes paid - you cannot gift that amount without taxes of some sort being paid.
That it was used for a cover-up that only benefited the John Edwards campaign does create some potential legal issues, but as others have said, was this simply to keep this all from his sick wife, or to help the campaign as the one note makes clear?
Paul, like you, I reserved judgment just based upon Bunny Mellon's note. I believed just because she offerred did not mean the campaign was foolish enough to take her up on that offer. However, upon reading more of the indictment and charges, it seems that after the note there did indeed appear to be the proverbial "paper trial" and that Ms. Mellon was permitted to provide some 3/4 million bucks over and above the legal limits. It also appears that those monies went to "cash" payments (the old Chinese proverb thing!) for Hunter and child, the houses, travel, etc.
I will remain open to Johnny's defense and explanation--but it doesn't look good at this point. Our personal opinion of his personal integrity and character and whether he's a "scumbag" etc is not what is currently before the courts--although I share some of those opinions based upon his hypocritical personal conduct and behavior. Nonetheless, I want to see the money trail before I agree he should go to prison. Let's all just stay tuned.
It's going to be a tough call by the judge. While they 'helped' his campaign, they were not specifically 'for' his campaign.
I wonder if Obama had similar 'contributions'.
Miked: What silence from the left. Unlike the right that circles the wagons (how many excuses do we hear when one of theirs is caught picking up men in airport bathrooms)we are disgusted by his actions and angered that he apparently tried to circumvent campaign finance laws,whether or not we think it rises to the level of a crime. For the record,I do think it was a crime. If it was coordinated with the campaign then it was illegal. For instance,it would be illegal to have a donor print up mailers and mail them out for his campaign. A donor could do it on his own,but if hes doing it at the request of the campaign its a campaign contribution and must follow all applicable laws.
Roy,thats not that true. They helped his campaign by coordinating with him what sort of help was needed. You are correct,PACs help campaigns all the time but because they are completely independent, they are legal. In fact,politicians take great pains not to have contact with those PACs for that very reason. For instance,if a conservative PAC starts running ads saying that Obama is closet Muslim and not a US citizen and showing racist imagery,the Republican nominees campaign may very much wish they could shut them up as they are doing more harm than good to their campaign. They can condemn the message publicly and say that its way out of line,but they cant call the PAC up and say "This is doing more damage to our campaign with good,please redirect your efforts to our talking points". That would be illegal.
Similarly,if were a wealthy donor who suspected he was having an affair with Edwards,and when she turned up pregnant asked her if it was his,and when she told me that it was,I asked her if there was anything I could do monetarily to keep it quiet so that it wont affect the campaign,that MIGHT be OK. On the other hand,if Im meeting with Edwards and I mention,I spoke with your girlfriend,she says the baby is yours,we have to keep it quiet or there is no hope of winning the election,what do you need me to do to keep it hushed up." ,then its probably illegal.
The third possibility is the one that they are trying to portray,is that Edwards calls me (the hypothetical wealthy donor) one night saying "OMG,my mistress is pregnant,if my wife finds out it will devastate her,she does not need to deal with my stupid mistake while fighting for her life from cancer,please,for her sake we have to keep this quiet. I cant pay out our accounts or she will know"
Its hard to believe however that there would be no desire to protect his campaign. For that matter,he probably could have protected his wife and his reputation by simply pulling out of the election with the excuse that he felt that it would be better to spend time with his sick wife.
As for whether Obama had similar "contributions",I doubt it. There is no evidence to support that he does. There is no reason to think he cheats on his wife,unless your one of those people that think "everyone does it" In fact,that's one of the reasons the Democrats felt early on that he had a lot of potential. As far as anyone can tell,he seems not to have any major skeletons. (Although he did have a crazy friend,but then again,alot of people have to crazy friend that says stupid things and you wish would just shut up)
I wonder if Mitt Romney has taken "contributions" to hide affairs. I wonder if Ron Paul has? As far as I know neither of them have either. I wonder if McCain has? Again,I have no reason to think they do. The only reason you ask this about Obama is because you don't like him and are hoping there is some skeleton in the closet.
I think John Edwards was a complete dirtbag for cheating on his terminally ill wife.
That being said, I can see John Edwards' point about these payments made. They were for a personal crisis. If taxes were paid by Rielle, Andrew Young and his wife, John Edwards may not be in trouble, as the funds were not used with anything like campaign posters/campaign trips, etc. They were used to hide a mistress from his wife. That's private.
But I guess the results of this trial will show us what the gray area really is as far as what's campaign funds, and what's private transactions between friends...
Very well stated, Sonya. No excusing the action obviously, but the "legality" of it is what matters from a prosecutorial standpoint, and with regard to that, I'm not sure this is convict-able. I still find it amazing that an individual (Rachel Mellon) has so much money that spending $725,000 of it to protect someone and help them get elected is, I guess, no big deal.
John Edwards solicited the funds to support his campaign from a wealthy and sympathetic campaign donor. The "grey area" is that the supporter was solicited for the benefit of the campaign, not for personal reasons. Had Edwards not have been running for President, the supporter would not have made the "donations". The funds were utilized as part of the marketing of Edwards public image for the sole purpose of campaigning. There was nothing "personal" about the donations other than the money filtering through personal bank accounts.
For all we know he was trying to prevent his wife from finding out. As despicable as John Edwards may be, and as immoral and horrendous as his attempt to cover-up the love child is, the government from what I can see has no case against him. Unless they are planning to prove Edwards' state of mind on why he wanted to hide the funds, I think this is all a complete waste of money and time.
Not just his wife finding out, the whole USA. His campaign slogan was "Family First".
I think that John Edwards was once a decent and good man. That was the man that Elizabeth chose to love, marry and share a family. The rise to power and wealth has destroyed many good men. I think that describes 95% of our state and federal officials today.
Most of the electorate are at fault for defending partisan ideals instead of demanding our officials do the jobs they promised to do. We can't deny that the hope and change of 2008 turned out to be much more of the same. We can't deny that the promise of jobs, jobs and jobs of 2010 was a lie that filled the halls of Congress with even more attempts of destroying the competition with no regard for the well-being of the nation or her people.
Poor Elizabeth died with much disappointment and disillusion. Her love for John Edwards and his despicable betrayal led to her fate. Can we make the same claim? No! We have only our partisan foolishness and silly pride that allows such scoundrels to divide and conquer a once proud and brave people. Our fate will be well deserved with no fault but our own.
Well, it's that "Mellon" part of the name that holds the money. Richard Mellon Scaife personally put down $300 million dollars of his own money to get Bill Clinton. With all that cash looking for dirt, all they could nail him on was lying about sex. I can't imagine any other politician being that clean.
We only think we live in a post aristocratic world. The monied do what they want. the rest of us work for scraps, except in America, there is no concept of noblesse oblige.
The real point here is the name "Mellon". The Mellon family has bought and sold politicians for well over one-hundred years; just like the Chase "Family", the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, Whitneys etc. This 900,000 dollars was a mere pittance to this family. This is how our government has always "worked" ...and there are people who actually think we don't have "royals" here in the U.S.
It is a shame that such a prominent individual would cause pain to his own family,wife and children first, and making us believe that HE is supreme RIGHTEOUS, the one to rescue US.
Is it criminal? The justice will decide. To be drawn into female bed, a presidential candidate, what else should we expect?
Dirtbag with no honor. He could have at least reclaimed a last shred of honor by admitting the truth... however, being a lawyer, well, the truth would be the last thing that'd go through his mind.
Wish I had people to contribute to help me out with life's financial problems.
No need to slander all lawyers. There are dirtbags in every profession and honorable people as well. Let's stick to facts here and not broad brush the whole profession with the sins of an individual.
Dirtbag is a ridiculous adjective used to describe an attorney. Yes, there are dirtbag lawyers, dirtbag teachers, dirtbag mayors, dirtbag doctors etc. But not all of any profession can be described in this manner. That's like saying that all ministers or priests are dirtbags. They aren't, just some.
Friends paying hush money for a mistress is an imputed campaign contribution?
Immoral & stupid, sure - illegal, no.
The prosecution's argument is absurd on it's face - stop wasting taxpayer money on this crap.
You are absolutely correct. It was a stupid thing to do. That money was clearly a private gift to help a friend hide a moral sin. The friends joined in that sin by helping him, but the law of the land was not broken. God's law was broken and John Edwards and his friens will have to answer to the Lord for that, not the U.S. Government.
Not so clear. Would she have given him money if he were not running for president? I doubt it. If he were not being prosecuted then Eric Holder and the DOJ would be vilified for letting a fellow democrat off the hook.
Implacable Patriot - forget the Hunter issue. If Edwards knew that any donor was paying more than $2,300 in campaign contributions, then he broke the law.
"from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign-please send the bills to me…It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
If Edwards read this memo, he did break the law. This memo clearly states that the bills being paid was "important for his campaign."
Didn't hide it very well ......
I don't think what happened was a crime...
But what a slimy person. I met Edwards once at a Democratic function, if only I knew then what I know now.
I just cannot get past the $700,000. figure. Hunter worth that much? Her expenses? really? that much??
I guess the presidency is worth it, but wow, what a huge boondoggle!
Whether she is worth it or not I believe I read somewhere when she was trying to get child support that she needed something like 5000.00 dollars a month to eat out and take vacations. So at that rate 700,000 would not go very far.
A $700,000 Whore, wow the price of getting laid is going UP..
A horrible husband -guilty. A felon on these facts - no way - a prediction of NOT GUILTY. And I hope he sticks to his guns and takes the feds to trial. This is nothing more than some Assistant US Attorney seeking to make a name for taking a novel position. I'm surprised that the US Attorney (Holder) did not put a stop to this, but then perhaps the reasoning was that the right would have harped on insider (democrat) protection.
It doesn't matter who initiated the investigation or based on what mixture of motives - the truth is the truth - Edwards solicited then rerouted donations for the benefit of his campaign. There was no other reason for the donor to provide the funds.
Holder surely has been great at insider protection, but remember that in this campaign Edwards was running against Obama. This may not be exactly the stongest case in history, though. The crux of the arguement seems to be that it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to give him a small fortune to cover up the existence of his mistress and her child had he not been running for President. Well, he made his fortune as an "Ambulance Chaser" of the basest sort. This level of bad behavior is disappointing, but hardly surprising.
...& rummy, dummy, and cheney are still at large... where is justice??
Libs always try to deflect the corruption, ineptness, cheating , lying, from their own towards Republicans every time. You lemmings are so predictable..The article was about Edwards facing the chance of being a convicted felon, not about anyone else!
Interesting that he can see a difference between "wrong" and "illegal". I guess it's part of the Democratic viewpoint of variable definition - as in "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is"
The question of whether she would have given the money if he were not running for President is a good argument, but is it really the basis for breaking FEC law? I don't think that it is. If I were a defendant, I wouldn't want a jail bed and freedom to rest on a whole lot more than this kind of question. I'm sure that Edwards' relationship with Mellon grew because he was running for President, but I hope our legal system would not weigh an if statement on someone's guilt or innocence.
"take full responsibility" Would you care to elaborate?
bb
Looking at the REAL facts I think John Edwards will find out he is the "screwee" and not the "screwer" this time. If I were sitting in judgment I would have to ask myself..."Did the money Edwards receive play any role in his quest for the Presidency?" The answer..."OF COURSE THEY DID!" These funds were used to conceal a very material event in Edwards life that goes directly to the character of the man. Edwards whore attorneys insist the money was personal gifts for a personal matter...that statement is of course HORSE DUNG! The funds were used to conceal a major flaw in the man's character, that would absolutely prevent his ascension to highest public office in the land! The verdict: GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES. (off with his head)
TVAR - really not the law. He won't be found guilty. He had friends who gave money to try to keep his relationship quiet. No law broken.
W. Goin... I was taught "never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell the difference between the two of you." TVAR is either grandstanding to improve their own appearance of morality, or TVAR is incapable of separating morality from the law. There are few who would argue that Edwards' actions were not immoral, but as most of us know, there are many things that are immoral that are not illegal. Recognizing the difference doesn't mean you are condoning dishonesty, but rather that you do not condone stupidity.
That is NOT the correct question. Under that reasoning, once a person announces his candidacy, any money he receives/spends would be considered campaign contributions. The real question is did any of the money that went to pay is mistress pass through any campaign bank accounts. If it was completely outside of his campaign finances, then there is no case.
That's actually not accurate Starlane. In fact, one of the charges he faces is that someone gave him money because he was a presidential candidate and that money wasn't put "on the books". If someone gives a politician money because they are running for office, then that money is one of three things: a legal campaign contribution, an illegal campaign contribution, or a bribe. This money was clearly intended to protect a presidential candidate's reputation, which means it clearly is a campaign contribution. Keeping it off the books is in itself a crime.
W. Goin....It's folks like yourself that see nothing wrong with deceit. The man is a fraud, or don't you see that; he attempted to deceive the voting public in order to ascend to the Presidency of the United States. And you, in your infinent wisdom see nothing wrong with that? In other words you openly condone dishonesty.
All dishonestly is morally wrong, but to state the obvious fact that not every instance of dishonesty is a violation of federal law is not "openly condoning" it. If you were to curse out your spouse that would be morally reprehensible behavior also, but I wouldn't want to see you sent to federal prison over it. Does this mean that I "openly condone" cursing out one's spouse?
Did someone pay you almost a million dollars to cover up the fact that you cuss out your wife on a daily basis while you were trying to get elected to the highest government office in the nation? The fact that he cheated on his wife is part of the reason why it is morally reprehensible, but the main reason is because he lied to everyone else (the entire nation, because I know you are a bit slow). That is morally reprehensible, even if he didn't get elected. All of our politicians are that way these days though, and you probably keep making excuses for them. They steal money, you say "well at least he didn't kill a person", they kill a person, "well at least he didn't kill a kid", they kill a kid, "well at least he didn't kill two kids". Quit doing that, quit making excuses for them.
So he should go to Federal prison for a long time because he is a liar who lied to millions of people? Do they have enough room in the system for all of the liars? Should they all be sent to Supermax?
Everything which is clearly morally wrong should be a Federal offense with a long jail term? I don't think that anyone is saying that the guy is all right, and I'm certainly not, but somehow if I were a juror I might see "resaonable doubt" that this was a campaign finance law violation -- a different standard than whether it was a moral violation, which it very clearly was. There might be a reason to prosecute and even get a conviction on this, but really only those at the trial will know for sure, perhaps along with those who read the transcript. Don't know how anyone can conclude that it's an "open and shut" legal case based on this.
Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Brett Farve ???John Edwards, most likely will be not guilty. But I am glad he did not make it to the Whitehouse. The bigger the money, the more they think they can get away with. Didnt John Edwards say he was not the father????
Take away his law license permanentaly.
TVAR, how do you get from "No law broken" to "see nothing wrong with deceit" and "condone dishonesty"? There are plenty of things that are deceitful but not illegal. I don't see anyone here claiming sainthood for John Edwards. Obviously the man is slime. But it's not against the law to be a slimeball.
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me a huge can of worms to say that any money spent to conceal character flaws counts as a campaign contribution on its face. You could carry that in a lot of directions and never get to the end of it. Furthermore, when people make political contributions, they generally expect the money will be spent on things like campaign ads and general expenses, and that clearly wasn't Ms. Mellon's intent. She knew quite specifically what she was paying for, especially since the amount was far beyond the allowable contribution to a campaign.
I was an Edwards supporter, but my money didn't go to Ms. Hunter. Fortunately, Ms. Mellon took care of that. Yes, I'm extremely miffed that my candidate turned out to be a lying, narcissistic, hypocritical b****rd. On the other hand, you can say that about a large percentage of currently serving representatives. How many of these so-called "family men" have run ads with their wives and children by their sides, only to be caught later with a prostitute or trolling on Craig's List or trying to pick up men in airport restrooms? Should they all be prosecuted for deceiving the public as well? And if so, where exactly would you draw the line?
It's ugly, there's no doubt about it. But I think this prosecution is a stretch.
Daughter has a point. While this whole sordid affair with Edwards is reprehensible, the case is not a clear violation of the law. Lets add the "Edwards Amendment" to specifically include "donations" that aren't necessarily used for campaign purposes (i.e. hiding one's pregnant mistress).
Great hair tho.
did almost no one read the article, the note from the big donor said "necessary and important for his campaign -- please send the bills to me. ... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions"
Does this not show an intent to avoid campaign donation laws? And the hiding of a mistress and child from the public during a campaign, clearly part of the campaign.
I suspect this is as usual coming down to partisan lines, democrats seeing no foul...
I would think both sides would be in favor of all who break laws being caught and punished. I know I am equally happy whichever party. There should be no place for the dishonest in government, unfortunately too many from all sides are corrupt and that has put the country where it is.
David, it's not a matter of "seeing no foul". I think we are all in agreement that what Edwards did was despicable, and his political career is toast. The question is whether Edwards violated campaign finance laws by allowing supporters to pay money to his mistress to keep the matter secret. Edwards did not DIVERT campaign funds, the supporter knowingly spent their money on this other matter. You can argue that the supporter did this to indirectly support Edwards' campaign, and I suppose that's the case the prosecutor is trying to make, but I'm not sure that Edwards violated any campaign finance laws.
I'm not clear on one point--the supporter said "it is a way to help our friend without government restrictions" but did Edwards ever see that email at the time? If he never saw the email, then how does it make him guilty?
This issue moved far away from ideological lines a long time ago, and really sits squarely on how bad John Edwards sucks at being a decent human being.
But the issue of this article is about whether he should be sentenced to a long term in Federal prison, and not whether he is a decent human being, upon which the case is obviously not close.
Another Chinese saying, "Never put anything in writing and never throw anything away that some fool does put in writing." Them some smart Chinese, to bad your weren't.
Lawyers are an easy target for jokes but I have known several very honorable ones. When I had to have a kid arrested, we were worried because he hired a very good attorney but the attorney actually talked the defendant into pleading guilty, saving our family from a very difficult and emotional trial. We need to quit stereotyping--I have even known a quite admirable murderer.
"I have even known a quite admirable murderer." Avice-2270904, you are truly stupid.
Truly.
This is why they have the trials.
I'm thinking this still may end up being a bit of a stretch for the prosecution to prove, but they wouldn't have put forward the case if they thought so.
Similarly, it's hard to believe Edwards would have had matters arranged in such a way as to leave himself open to charges.
It sounds as if prosecutors wish to contend that any money given to anyone connected to a candidate during a campaign is automatically a campaign contribution and subject to those laws and restrictions. I think that will be a tough climb.
I am a conservative but the federal prosecutor case is a real stretch. The lady knew about the Edwards problem. She first wanted to contribute to the campaign but when told the money could not be used for the problem, she wrote the check seperately from the campaign. This note takes the position that any money given to Edwards during this time by someone who did contribute seperately to his campaign is automatically campaign money. The check wasn't written to the campaign, neither was it ever places in the campaign accounts. This is a real stretch. Seems like some of his fellow Democrats are out to get him. Again, I am a conservative but I can smell a railroad.
See, that's kinda what I've been thinking: Either he's being made an example of for whatever reason, or he's really pissed someone off somewhere along the line, and he's getting paid back for something.
The way I look at it, if HAVING A GOOD POLITICAL IMAGE during an election campaign is NOT PART of the politician's campaign strategy, then the MONEY USED TO PROTECT his image IS NOT part of CAMPAIGN MONEY. However, if having a good political image during an election campaign is part of the politician's campaign strategy, whatever money is used in any way to maintain and enhance that image is campaign money. I believe the later.
gescobar, you got it right. My question is: why him and not Eliot Spitzer? Also, why aren't any of them behind bars even after convicted of very serious crimes?
David, I did read the article - I don't necessarily disagree. But I don't think Edwards can be held responsible for what Ms. Mellon wrote. Moreover, when she wrote that note she was talking about "haircuts, etc." Personally, I don't think personal grooming is something that should be covered by campaign contributions, anyway.
Here is a rich women spending huge sums to help a cheater pull the wool over the American voters eyes. What does she expect in return if he were to get elected? I'll bet it is more than she spent.
I wonder just how many of our leaders have been bought by the rich? It amazes me that so many of you here think it is okay for him to accept this kind of money just so long as he didn't use it for his campaign. Using that logic, it must be okay to buy politicians that aren't running for re-election?
Question ? How many "dirt-bags" will it take to defend one "scum-bag" ? ?