John Edwards.
Well, this is a little unsurprising:
After reports emerged that the Justice Department had decided to bring criminal charges against Mr. Edwards, his lawyer, Gregory Craig, issued a defiant statement saying that the government was operating only on an untested “theory” and that Mr. Edwards was not guilty.“John Edwards has done wrong in his life — and he knows it better than anyone — but he did not break the law,” the statement said.
The Justice Department is planning to charge Mr. Edwards with violating campaign finance laws; prosecutors say he used money that should have been reported as campaign donations to cover up the affair, which produced a child, wrecked his marriage and ended his political career.
I'm certain there are those who would like to see the entire Edwards affair just go away. It would certainly be nicer for the Democrats -- though I doubt Mr. Edwards received any Christmas cards from the DNC this year -- and it might even be nicer for North Carolinians who are tired of hearing about it. It would certainly be kind to his children for this mess to disappear.
Yet I can't agree with the statement that his lawyer released at all:
Mr. Craig’s statement challenged the government’s view that certain monies would be considered contributions and therefore subject to campaign finance laws.“There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution,” the statement said, adding that the government itself had already found that “not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved.” It added that the Justice Department had already “wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours” pursuing this case and should drop it.
It's not a waste of time or money to find out if someone that millions of people trusted, not just with their votes but also with their volunteered time and their donated money, lied. When you donate to a campaign, it is supposed to be a positive action. It is certainly an act of some trust: trust that the dollars you spend will be used in the best way possible to support an idea or ideal you believe in.
The ways in which John Edwards betrayed the trust of his family have been too-well documented in the press and through his own wife's words. The ways in which he may have betrayed the trust of the everyday folks who supported his campaign have been less well discussed. Though this trial would center specifically on the donations of two wealthy benefactors -- Rachel Mellon and Fred Baron -- the case is relevant to anyone who's given money to a politician or a political cause. It's never a waste of time to investigate whether that money is being spent in accordance with the law.
In fact, I wish these investigations would happen more often, and more swiftly; maybe fewer folks would believe that their war chests are personal bank accounts if they did.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Which is why I'm so mad at him for having blown it this badly. I'm embarrassed for having liked him originally and find him beneath contempt. But he betrayed a lot of people who previously believed in him, and I don't think he should get away with that.
rated
I couldn't agree more.
as to campaign finance, if you know who gave the money, there is an argument that this is what matters, as you can infer agenda, although i think that argument too far.
If prosecutors can't find something more productive to do, they should simply go on vacation.
But this thing has already been investigated to death.
Are you saying that a trial is an investigation?
Or that the investigation to date is faulty?
If Rachel Mellon and Fred Baron feel violated, let them sue Edwards in civil court.
Or are you saying he spent money given by the 'little people' whoring around?
Or are you simply saying that he 'lied' and should therefore go to prison?
The criminal justice system should be be reserved for redress regarding behavior that is clearly criminal. Lying about sex -- not so much. Same with recreational drug use and a lot of other stuff.
Actually, although once a supporter of Edwards, I am no longer. And if he violated the law, I'd as soon see him prosecuted. I want people who violate the law brought to justice, and if it's someone from The Left it's no different. Plus it's an opportunity to show The Right that our concern for prosecuting people is not partisan.
That said, I'm not sure that a case can't successfully be built that using campaign funds to cover up an affair is an appropriate use of moneys. Certainly throughout history, many Presidents have had affairs and probably public moneys have been used to cover that up. And one can reasonably argue that in some cases it would have been tragic not just for those individuals but for society at large if they were removed for what were, well, not high crimes and misdemeanors (in spite of the vagueness of that term). Put another way, suppose John Edwards was someone who really did have the backing of the world to solve the financial crisis or global warming. Would I want that person—anyone with such demonstrated skills is hard to find—removed for unrelated reasons? I think not. And so one might reasonably argue that the supporters of that person, at least some of them, just want to see him elected. Perhaps enough that the moneys spent were covered simply by the donations that willfully would have given up the money to cover.
Now John Edwards doesn't, by all accounts, have that kind of skill. And so he wasn't elected, and rightly so. And his name is mud. And he may have violated other laws, for which I'd say prosecute him. But if the entirety of the case is that he spent campaign money making himself look good on things that weren't illegal and didn't play well, then I've got to say all people in all campaigns pay for such things and get away with it. And I think it's utterly inappropriate to scapegoat him for that alone.
I'd love to see just about the entire Right taken to task for claiming that they thought Obama was not a US citizen. That's just obvious hogwash. Many said he wasn't when it's obvious they knew otherwise. Which means they are being manipulated by money we cannot see. There is a lack of disclosure and (e.g., Citizens United) a lack of proper controls. But if we're not going to go after that, then it's silly to go after Edwards for this.
And, moreover, although the Republicans in particular and sometimes even some Democrats sometimes talk like it would be good to be ruled by saints, the fact is that Jimmy Carter is probably the closest President we're likely to have had in my lifetime to being a saint, and many of both parties liked him least well. Which says to me that sainthood is not really the qualification people want for office. They want results on tangible things that matter to the population at large, and they would sacrifice the family life of the President in a heartbeat if they could trade it for a job or safety in the streets.
So even if it was campaign money, I think the use ought not be criminal. And if it were private it ought not be criminal. And that means it ought not be criminal. At least unless we just want a society in which it's criminal to have an affair or to cover it up. It's just a routine part of life, for better or worse. Certainly it's a private part. He can answer to God or his wife or to his friends or to the public but not to the government for it.
Or maybe there is something in the campaign finance laws that says specifically that it's bad that I just don't know about. I'm looking for something that says “Notwithstanding the fact that having an affair is legal and a personal private matter for ordinary citizens, campaign money cannot be used to cover such things up even though it can be used to in general sanitize the overall look of a candidate against other past issues that are going to be embarrassing and would impede the chances of the candidate.” or even something that says “If a candidate is not always utterly forthcoming about the least little flaw in his past, then that person is guilty of criminality and should be prosecuted to the ends of the earth even long after his candidacy crashes and burns and he returns to his own miserable personal life.” Absent language like that, it seems to me he has a fair case.
By the way, if the claim is narrowly that he received money at all and should have classified it as a donation, then what he used it for seems irrelevant and they should not even be remarking on it. Bringing in the use seems a red herring and makes me doubt that it's brought in for any other reason that the case on the donation itself is weak.
Rated, Erica
The website whol esale for many kinds of fas hion sho es,
like the nik e,jord an,pr ada, also including the jea ns,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.
All the products are free ship ping, and the the price is com petitive,
and also can accept the pay pal pay ment.
,after the paym ent, can ship within short time.
**** {{w w w }} {{ happyshopping100 }} {{ com }} ****
^^^^^wanna get more details , please enter our web^^^^^^^
PS.We are committed to providing high quality commodities at a reasonable price,
I believe that we have something for you. Please be assured that your choice and vision.
Which is also what I think Kent said.
Chickenshit charges.
And, FWIW, Elizabeth was complicit. No one gets a pass in an ethical catastrophe.
That said, I liked his stance on healthcare reform; he didn't want to bring anyone to the table who was a player in healthcare costs. As it worked out everyone got a 'by' but the health insurance companies.
Elizabeth Edwards seemed to good for him.
I don't imagine charges would have been brought without some accounting evidence of wrong doing. We'll see...