Does it seem like the Edwards trial is more about the affair...

[cynatnite]

than what he's been accused of?

I don't like Edwards. IMO, he's pond scum, but I'm not convinced he broke the law.

This whole trial really seems to be nothing more than a tragic soap opera playing out for the world to see.

[northoftheborder]

1. Agree.

[teddy51]

2. Agree as well. The possible penalty for what he is charged with is ridiculous as well.

He faces a possible 30 year prison sentence and a huge fine. Yet here we have some of the possible most notorious criminals walking around free in our society; ie: Bush, Cheney, et al.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. No doubt ShrubCo are criminals

But 6 felony counts aren't ridicules charges . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[teddy51]

13. I find that laws apply to some, but not others and that is what is ridiculous. n/t

[TBMASE]

3. Isn't it because he used campaign funds to cover up the affair?

Just checked a story on ABC

Edwards faces six criminal counts—including conspiracy, four counts of receiving illegal campaign contributions and one count of making false statements—for allegedly soliciting and secretly spending over $925,000 to cover up his affair with Hunter

[underpants]

4. Well let's take it in context of the Sen. Vitter trial....

oh that's right he got away with it and it is rarely mentioned anymore

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Unfortunately, in order to prove the money trail, they have

to outline the timeline of events (and people involved and in the 'know').

[AtomicKitten]

6. It is and always was a bullshit prosecution - especially after Citizens United.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. CU wasn't the law of the land when this happened though.

[AtomicKitten]

9. My point exactly. CU made this prosecution in retrospect twice as ludicrous.

[DevonRex]

10. It goes to character.

You can bet that the defense will have all sorts of people who will testify to his good character. No prosecutor worth her/his salt would give him a pass on the related affair and the emotional damage it did to his family, staff, donors and constituents. The alleged crime was to cover up the affair, after all. You cannot separate the two.

[pnwmom]

15. It's a smear. And he deserves all the scorn

but I don't see that he broke the campaign finance law either.

The prosecutor wants the jury to convict on the basis of hating him, and maybe they will.

[DevonRex]

17. Of course it's a deliberate

attempt to tug at some emotions. Like I said, no prosecutor would pass up that opportunity. They'll get to the nuts and bolts of the case, if they actually have the nuts and bolts, after the emotional testimony. There's sure to be stacks of accounts and printouts and bank records that will likely bore everyone to tears. So they're weaving a story first with witnesses who have knowledge of both the emotional side and of a bit of the money part.

Then they'll do a day or two on the accounts and submit all the paper as evidence, clearly marked so the jury can go through it, from donor to the campaign to Hunter's hands, in the jury room.

[pnwmom]

20. Except the papers won't show money going from the donor to the campaign to Hunter,

from what I've heard.

It will show it going from the donor to Andrew Young's personal account and to Andrew Young's builder.

[HiPointDem]

11. It's the US version of the soviet-era show trial.

[Capt. Obvious]

22. Totally!!

The fact that he never even had an affair just makes this show trial that much worse.

Off to the gulag with you John John.

[HiPointDem]

26. a little too obvious, captain.

[grasswire]

12. think back to what Kenneth Starr did to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky

Brutal, irrelevant sex detail.

[provis99]

14. I learned more about cigars than I ever needed to know.

Ken Starr was nothing but a lewd third-rate porn writer.

[JDPriestly]

16. They are trying to embarrass him so that he can never make a political comeback.

He was too dangerous to them.

They didn't try Ensign for the things he did.

They tried Spitzer or threatened to. They impeached Clinton although the Senate did not convict him.

They threatened to try the D.C. Madam.

But Vitters and Ensign -- no legal action. None whatsoever. And then wasn't the guy in South Carolina, the governor, named Sanford. He allegedly used state money to travel to visit his girlfriend in South America. I don't think he was tried.

But Don Siegelman, Spitzer, Clinton and Edwards either face the threat of legal charges or are actually charged.

Something is out of balance here.

[Spike89]

23. Edwards doesn't fit in that group

Both Spitzer and Clinton were in their positions and yes, it makes sense the repugs would want to shut them down. Edwards wasn't even that strong a 3rd choice in the democratic primaries, had lost his senate seat, and had a dismal progressive record as a legislator on the poverty issue (Iraq he was even worse). That was all before the scandal. The scandal ended his political career.
There is absolutely no Edwards political viability to destroy today.
The repugs are certainly happy to use him to embarrass the Democratic party, however there are plenty of perfectly good Democrats who feel deeply betrayed by the guy. I do think he is vulnerable to prosecution and it is very much germane to the trial when and how his campaign interacted with the affair.
I will NOT defend Vitter, Sanford or Ensign, but what exactly do you think any of those guys did that a prosecutor could sucessfully bring to court? The reason Sanford wasn't tried is much more likely because there wasn't evidence, he certainly wasn't protected by the establishment.

[cali]

25. Surely you jest. He was already cooked. done. finished.

dangerous to who? that shyster poses no threat to the political class. Never did.

And you conveniently forget Stevens. Prosecuted.

I listened to a very interesting program about Edwards on "On Point" this morning. I do think that it's reasonable to look at the prosecution as politically motivated, but it's entirely possible the phony did knowingly break the law.

In any case, prosecution wasn't necessary to sideline the little fuckwad. He did that all by his slimy, sleaze ass lying self.

[vaberella]

18. That's what I feel based on what I'm hearing. This is not evidence of his wrongdoing. n/t

[BlueIris]

19. The Edwards trial is about demonizing him.

It is about damaging what is left of his reputation.

Why? That's anyone's guess. My guess is that it has something to do with his lingering viability as a political candidate. Very threatening to some. Oh, and he's still a Democrat, last I checked. That factor, in and of itself, leaves a politician vulnerable.

I don't like what he did. At all. He obviously made a lot of mistakes in his personal life. But the motives of the people prosecuting him are obvious to me.

[hamsterjill]

21. I agree 100%

I don't like him either. And I honestly think he deserves pretty much what he gets, BUT I don't like that his family is being humiliated during all of this. I don't think he broke the law, either - at least not the laws that he is charged with breaking.

Yes, I understand that the prosecution is going to use everything at its disposal... I just don't like that they are sensationalizing it all beyond what should be necessary IF they truly feel they have a viable case.

[Hubert Flottz]

24. What better could the people who own the major Nutworks and who

Own over half the people in Washington, have dreamed up than the John Edwards "Trial"...to hide the fact that the GOP don't have a single good idea for the future of this country right now but more of their same old bullshit rob the poor and give to the rich plan. Mitt McSame ain't a damned bit better than John McSame, the loser of 2008.

Maybe the GOPers still have the rope Bush used on Saddam?

"a tragic soap opera playing out for the world to see." directed by Karl Rove, produced by the Brothers Koch