The John Edwards Case: Justice or personal vendetta?

[Donnachaidh]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/mike-whitney/36596/the-john-edwards-case-justice-or-personal-vendetta

Why is the Justice Department hassling John Edwards?

Don't they have anything better to do then waste their time on a dead-end case like this? We're only talking about a measly million dollars here. It'll cost more than that just to bring the case to court. And what difference does it make anyway? Even if Edwards is guilty, he's small potatoes. Why not go after the big fish, instead of making a laughingstock out of the DOJ?

Hey, Eric Holder: Have you ever heard of George Bush or Dick Cheney or the big Wall Street bankers? Those are the guys you need to nail, not some washed up ex-senator whose life is already in a shambles.

:snip:

I'm no fan of Edwards and I certainly never voted for him, but I'm no fan of "trial by media" either, where they slap a big Bull's-eye on someone's back, and then bury his reputation under a pile of feces. That's not the way justice is supposed to work.

More at the link --

[robcon]

1. It's about justice: whether the law forbids political contributions to be used that way.

The law is not settled - I think Edwards has a case, even though he's a scumbag.

[Horse with no Name]

17. This is where the smear is working

It was NOT a campaign contribution--it was money given specifically to cover up his personal mess. The money did not go through Edwards--sworn testimony says he didn't know anything about it...and gift taxes were paid on the money.

What they are trying to do is to FORCE the gift to be a campaign contribution...because it was "improving his image...therefore money for the campaign".

Was it sleazy? Oh yeah. But it wasn't illegal and most certainly isn't a provable case. Taxpayer money is being used to satisfy a vendetta.

[bemildred]

2. We have to have Democratic scandals to balance the Republican scandals. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I'm a bit confused.

Couldn't this just be cleared up by Bunny Mellon meeting with the prosecutor and proving it was a personal gift, not a campaign contribution? OTOH, the only thing that would prevent that would be if Bunny Mellon didn't report the money as a gift on her 1040 and therefore didn't pay taxes on the gift.

[roguevalley]

7. Bunny Mellon was abused. An old woman was conned. I don't

think that she would have willingly paid that kind of money or even a nickel to cover up his affair on his wife and the subsequent child. She was conned. He also hired Obama's ex counsel to go to the justice department and try and get this quashed. Consider if they had succeeded? Can you imagine the scandal that would have caused?

He conned an old woman out of a ton of dough to pay for his affair and its outcome. Take dem out of it and put republican. Do you still think its a joke? How about some pug commentator.

He conned a good hearted old woman with sleaze. Now she, at nearly a 100 years old has to be a part of this because John Edwards was too FUCKING CHEAP to take care of his own sleaze. GOD! He has millions and millions of dollars and he didn't use them. He conned an old lady and got her into this mess at 100 years old. He DESERVES this.

And I voted for him. So don't jump on my ass if I don't have pity for him or the problem this is.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. Yes, he's a greedy, sleazy con artist,

but I'm not convinced that he did anything illegal, at least not anything they can prove. When I hear about the things he's accused of, I think of all the things televangelists do to acquire money and live their decadent private lives. I think he conned the old lady into giving him a gift, but I think Edwards is probably too slick to use his campaign funds to cover up the affair.

[Little Star]

16. I agree. Besides he is loaded why not use his own damn money?

[dsc]

8. according to ABC news she did pay gift taxes on the donations

source this week Dee Dee Myers.

[nevergiveup]

4. A little of both

[Bluenorthwest]

5. I wonder if the author of the OP had any words at all for John

when the affair came to light, in terms of John's long winded diatribes against marriage equality on the basis of his 'deeply held Baptist values'? Doubt it. Straights never seem to see the wrong in slandering gay people to make a personal shield of rhetoric to cover the actions of a straight man. A straight man who wailed about 'one man and one woman' while he had plural child bearing relationships, a multi-millionaire who sought to extend discrimination and financial injustice against my family and community as a smokescreen for his own lies and hypocrisy.
I note that the 'leave John alone, this is about sex' crowd said not a word about John's attacks on us, nor about his sermons detailing his deacon daddy and the bridge he can not cross toward equality because of his traditional view of marriage as being for one man and ONE woman, he kept saying that his view of marriage as a Sacrament was a part of him that he could not remove, nor mitigate. Without outside prompting, he went on and on, again and again, about his righteousness, about how his Sanctified Union should not be sullied by the horrible gays.
Funny how when he was lashing out at us, not one of the 'it's just sex' folks spoke up for us. Funny that when this child bearing adultery came to light, not one of his supporters, not one of his staff, not Mr Young, not Liz, not Mudcat, and not John offered so much as a signal of regret for the vicious, mendacious religion shrouded pack of lies he and they repeated so many times. This man with what, 50 million, never made any penance with the communities he so openly slandered for his own sake.
I have to wonder what sort of people only think of justice when it is for a man whose entire platform was built on injustice and lies. Why no thoughts of justice when John said we are not worthy of rights? Why no shouting about priorities when his fetid hypocrisy came to light? Not one of his defenders bothered to say 'gee, it was awful that he slandered gay people to distract from his own failings'. Nope. They say 'all these prudes hung up on sex' as if they were not defending a man who came after millions of Americans for our sexuality, saying his family was superior to ours even as his family was two or more families, pay offs, deception, adultery and alienation of affections from his 'Sacred Union' because his wife was ill.
Just odd that after years of anti equality rhetoric couched in Baptist dogma, so many are willing to prop him up as a symbol of free love or something.
If nothing else, one has to assume Johnny boy would not wish to be defended by 'those people'. So it is up to you, straight folks, to defend your own. A homophobic liar and adulterer. Feel free.
I'll never forget what he said, or what has been said in his defense. Never.

[dsc]

10. I am gay, I did criticise him in just the terms you have

but the fact is hypocrisy and adultery aren't against the law and this indictment is outrageous. There has never, not ever, been a case brought under this legal theory. Add in that we now know that apparently both donors paid gift taxes on the donations (source This Week via Dee Dee Myers) it is clear that no one thought of these as campaign contributions. This is a case of a politically ambitions US Attorney prosecuting an unpopular client for a made up legal offense. Something we gays should understand the danger of.

[OHdem10]

6. Crininalization of Politics is dangerous. Edwards has proven

himself to be a first rate jerk not a criminal.

Our Right-Leaning Prosecutors will not permit
themselves to be outdone by those Right Winger
Prosecutors. We can be just as tough--to hell
with Justice.

[roguevalley]

9. he defrauded an old woman to cover up an incident that would

have ended his campaign if known. that is politics. this isn't about sex. this is about fraud and deceit of the law.

[JI7]

14. i thought the old woman was ok with whatever he used the money for

[Fla_Democrat]

12. Is this a repost from the Onion?

:shrug:








:smoke:

[ladjf]

13. I think it is either personel or strategic. nt

[BlueIris]

15. Edwards has quite a lot of credibility left as a populist and campaigner.

(For the record, I'm not the biggest fan of Edwards, either.)

Also, Edwards, despite his flaws, has made an effort to keep his hands clean of the collective bad decisions most other name Democrats have participated in these last three years. Despite that whole pesky affair-plus-child "scandal," this case is the only truly questionable thing in his background, the only thing that could really work against him should he run for public office again.

So he's a target. Not saying he didn't do anything wrong, here, but I doubt that he would be in this mess if he were anyone other than John Edwards.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Unequally applied justice. n/t