June 3, 2011

"The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts..."

"... including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements..."

ADDED: Gregory Craig, Edwards's lawyer said: "John Edwards has done wrong in his life — and he knows it better than anyone — but he did not break the law... The Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court."

What? The FEC isn't enforcing law? When John Edwards was a Senator, did he not vote for laws that made campaign finance matters into crimes? Is Craig trying to say that some kinds of crimes aren't really crime crimes?

135 comments:

Fen said...

hahahaha

nevadabob said...

Foreshadowing Weiner.

Fred4Pres said...

This is not a good thing for democracy.

John Edwards deserves a good ass kicking, by his late wife's family. Criminalizing politics is a very bad idea.

Ricardo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

" Criminalizing politics is a very bad idea."

Maybe, but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?

Ricardo said...

Waste of government money. The government should be spending its time fixing the economy, creating jobs, rebuilding the declining national infrastructure, blah blah blah. Going after a schmuck who failed to get elected is just entertainment for the masses, and we have too much of that.

Sixty Grit said...

Democrat, lawyer, cheater, former senator - I am surprised he was indicted.

caplight said...

It is hard to feel sympathy for an attorney who should know better who tried to game the system.

Scott M said...

I noticed they whitewashed his party affiliation. Perfect time for J to elucidate on which Edwards plan J thinks was going to eradicate poverty.

Fred4Pres said...

Ann, no doubt Edwards is a hypocrite in general (and it would be ironic if he voted for the regulation that he ultimately gets indited for breaking). I do not care about Edwards. I care about the precident of this going forward. The entire Scooter Libby case was a travesty too. At least in Bill Clinton's case they followed the constitutional way of impeachment (although I thought that a bad idea too). I thought Clinton matter should have been dealt with in the civil courts.

The Crack Emcee said...

GOD, RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IN YOU AND I LOVE NEWAGE!!!

WHOOPIE!!!!!!

LET'S ALL GET RIELLE!!!!!

LIFE IS RIELLE!!!

GOD IS RIELLE!!

WHOOPIE!!!!!!

nevadabob said...

Criminalizing politics is a very bad idea."

We're not criminalizing politics. We're criminalizing behavior - completely legitimately.

Edwards is being indicted for conspiracy to commit a crime, money laundering (essentially) and lying to a federal grand jury. Those are real crimes that demand real punishment.

Anthony Weiner isn't just sending dic pics. He's breaking the law's we have against exhibitionism. Maybe you don't like that law. But that's the law the majority passed.

That's not criminalizing "politics." It's criminalizing "behaviors." And it is totally legitimate.

Edwards wasn't indicted for supporting ObamaCare. That would be "criminalizing politics."

Edwards was indicted for activities that had nothing to do with his political stances.

Irene said...

Greg Craig, who "[a]s assistant to the President and special counsel in the White House of President Bill Clinton [ ... ] directed the team defending Clinton against impeachment." Wikipedia.

Look the other way. This is a private matter.

traditionalguy said...

The Edwards operation fell into the pit so carefully dug to snare the GOP bundlers. A Union can make a bundled contribution from dues. But a rich Conservative cannot dump money on his candidate to buy influence. Instead he must get 100 friends to write checks and wink at them about getting it back on the next inflated billing at 133% ratio to even out the income tax obligation that swap creates. AlGore extended that method to foreign immigrant cultures who are Democrat social climbers. In any event, Edwards is under the Curse of a Dying Elizabeth. The system will criminalize his conduct without a second thought.

The Crack Emcee said...

Fred, you know I agree with you (I almost always agree with you) but, absent common sense, party payback's a motherfucker.

And this is NewAge, baby - stand back and watch the show!

Marshal said...

CF rules are stupid. But since only politicians and their employees have to worry about them they're one of the least destructive stupid ideas around.

nevadabob said...

Miranda: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you."

John Edwards had a choice: Lie, or remain silent.

He chose poorly.

Lying is against the law. He could always have said "On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer your questions, as the answers may tend to incriminate me."

Edwards had rights that he knew about intimately as an attorney. He chose to waive those rights and place himself in grave legal danger.

On top of being a scumbag, apparently he's a really shitty lawyer.

Roger J. said...

Seems to me how Edwards voted on legislation makes him a hypocrite but not a criminal--God knows we have enough hypocrits in politics anyway.

He is thoroughly dispicable human being, but that doesnt necessarily make him a criminal.

Frankly I dont give a damn (to quote Rhett Butler)--but there is some cosmic satisfaction he will end up being the butt boy to his other half of American while doing his time.

Fred4Pres said...

Sending a picture of your pup tent to another adult is not criminal (except at home when you have to explain it to the missus). Sorry Bob. If Weiner files a false police report, that is criminal.

I agree if Edwards lied to the grand jury, that is criminal. He was under oath. That said, I am not buying that having a friend pay money (likely Edwards' money too) to some bimbo that John Edwards got pregnant is a crime. It is pathetic and wrong, but that is not "money laundering." It is trying to hide you got some bimbo knocked up.

Fred4Pres said...

Okay, I made my point. Crack makes a good point. When in Rome, go to the circus and watch the games. Johnny "My Little Pony" Edwards gets to have his fun in court.

nevadabob said...

Lying to authorities is not a "campaign finance matter." It's a "lying" matter.

Conspiracy to commit a crime isn't merely "campaign finance." It's a crime to get together with others to discuss a plan to commit a crime - even if you never implement your plan.

That's illegal. And it should be.

The Crack Emcee said...

Politics shmolitics, this doofus led a charmed life until the day a NewAge yoga freak, who'd been meditating her whole life on meeting a powerful man, told him he was "hot!"

Call it karma - call it whatever you want, today.

I am at peace.

Roger J. said...

John Edwards and Anthony Weiner are the face of the modern democratic party--good riddance. Are the decent democrats? of course there are--they just dont seem to be going up on the skyline to condemn bad behavior. Sad--really sad.

Richard Dolan said...

"Maybe, but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?"

If the topic were the hypocrisy of politicians, that might be a sensible question. But that topic is so uninteresting -- perhaps the follow-up would be the odd frequency with which the sun rises in the east? -- it would hardly be worth pursuing.

This indictment represents a classic problem with loosely worded federal statutes, ostensibly aimed in one direction but worded so broadly that they can be read to take in quite a bit more as well. Edwards arranged the payment of hush money to keep an embarrassing episode of marital infidelity secret. Doing that certainly had, in part, a political motive. But everything a politico does has, at least in part and often in dominant part, a political motive; and anything anyone else does to make a politico look good in the public eye does not become a contribution subject to federal regulation because it also involves the payment of money. That seems to be the theory of the Govt case, gussied up with general allegations (obviously true) that Edwards was involved in "coordinating" the whole thing.

That the very broad wording of the statute will bear the Govt's reading is not enough to justify the decision to indict. The SCOTUS had some harsh things to say about that approach in rejecting earlier efforts by DOJ to use the mail and wire fraud statutes to criminalize anything the Govt chose to characterize as a violation of the duty to render fair and honest services. (And then Congress amended the statutes to restore in part an aspect of the 'honest services' theory of mail/wire fraud.) Perhaps it takes over-reaching of this sort by DOJ to get politicos to pay attention, but that doesn't change the fact of the over-reaching any.

nevadabob said...

" ... sending a picture of your pup tent to another adult is not criminal."

I'm sorry, Fred, but Yes. It. Is. You may not like the law, but the majority does like that law and had their elected representatives enact that law.

What Anthony Weiner does is called "flashing." If you send an unsolicited photo of your erect penis to a young girl on the internet, it is no different than standing in a public park and opening your trench coat and showing someone your hard on.

Exhibitionism is illegal and it has been for hundreds of years. And it should be. Because it's wrong.

Anthony Weiner has a mental health disease - the sexual disorder known as exhibitionism.

And his behavior is illegal. Just as John Edwards' behavior was illegal. Not his political positions. His behavior.

MadisonMan said...

So his legal name is Johnny?

Sixty Grit said...

He got "gifts" from an old woman, the argument seems to boil down to whether or not he can accept money from an old woman to pay off his young woman, or is that a violation of campaign regulations. My guess is he will walk. He is too pretty for prison.

Mary Beth said...

I don't think that I knew before that his given name was Johnny. I think it's odd when a child has what is usually a nickname instead of a more formal name for their given name.

The Crack Emcee said...

When in Rome, go to the circus and watch the games.

Atta boy. And that's the image I want:

Me and Fred4Prez, sitting in a special box, sharing a bag of popcorn and throwing things!

Rock Lobster! Down, down, down,...!!!!!

Comrade X said...

I thought sex lies were OK?

nevadabob said...

Fred, do you think it should be legal to lie to a federal grand jury?

traditionalguy said...

Johnny was not thinking straight about the money he asked his friend Bunny to send to support a scheme to remedy his Reille Hunter bimbo eruption. To this day he sees that money as a "gift from a concerned friend of the family" rather than as a contribution to his campaign. I agree with Edwards, but then lawyers tend to stick together.

Mark O said...

Ole Johnny is a Southern boy. One can be a bad person AND break the law. Not impossible.

Cotton Mather would be so proud today.

A. Shmendrik said...

Few pieces of news have been this satisfying. I wonder if John Nichols can extract his tongue from Edwards' ass now.

nevadabob said...

Lying to federal authorities investigating a crime is a deliberate illegal act.

Edwards had the right to remain silent and he should have taken the advice every attorney gives every scumbag:

Never talk to the police. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It never, ever, ever, ever accrues to your benefit. Never. Ever.

Law 101: Shut. Your. Fucking. Pie. Hole.

First day of criminal law school: Tell your client to shut his fucking piehole or you will triple your fee.

Sixty Grit said...

Yeah, but the real question is - when will the sex tape be made public?

PatHMV said...

Fred4Pres, I hate most campaign finance laws, but we have them, and they are law (except to the extent to which they are unconstitutional, and the limits on direct contributions and the disclosure requirements have been upheld by the Supreme Court).

If the purpose of those laws is to disclose the contributors to whom a candidate may be indebted, then isn't disclosure mandated by law here? If Edwards were not a candidate for political office, those expenditures to Hunter would not likely have been made by those private individuals. They helped hide Hunter because they wanted to help Edwards become Vice President of the United States, or perhaps President. Thus, they were, in fact, political contributions to assist his campaign, and should have been disclosed as required by law.

nevadabob said...

"They helped hide Hunter because they wanted to help Edwards become Vice President of the United States, or perhaps President."

No, they made those payments so that when Edwards became Vice President or President, they would be able to control his actions. Like a puppet on a string.

That's why we have campaign finance laws. It prevents individuals and corporations from being able to hide their true motivations and protects candidates from blackmailers.

We need these laws. We need them to be enforced. And we need those who break them to go to jail.

For the larger good.

These laws protect the candidate from the donor (that's their primary motivation). And that is a net good.

Fred4Pres said...

PatHMV, the one part of campaign finance that I agree with is full disclosure of people who contribute to your campaign. So you make a legitimate point.

But a world of overempowered U.S. attorneys roaming around and looking for violations of the law does not make me feel safer.

that-xmas said...

Damn...I hate that "False Statements" BS. That's how they got Martha Stewart.

If they only catch him on the false statements thing, then, yes, the whole set of charges is a sham.

Word verification: conmate (What do you get when you cross John Edwards with a tomato

Methadras said...

Ricardo said...

Waste of government money. The government should be spending its time fixing the economy, creating jobs, rebuilding the declining national infrastructure, blah blah blah. Going after a schmuck who failed to get elected is just entertainment for the masses, and we have too much of that


You know how the government can do all of those things? Get the fuck out of the way. You look to government to do these things and you know they are ill equipped to handle any of it.

edutcher said...

Demo politicians are setting themselves up into the same kind of class that got a close shave from the National Razor.

If they get caught, then it isn't a real law; anybody else...

Irene said...

Greg Craig, who "[a]s assistant to the President and special counsel in the White House of President Bill Clinton [ ... ] directed the team defending Clinton against impeachment." Wikipedia.

Look the other way. This is a private matter.


If a Democrat's involved, it always is any more.

edutcher said...

PS Interesting that he was given the Lone Ranger's real name.

Like the serial killers named John Wayne.

AllenS said...

"During the campaign of 2004, I spoke often of the two Americas: the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who lived from paycheck to paycheck and those who are going to be indicted and those who won't be." -- Johhny Edwards

The Crack Emcee said...

Hey, Fred, ignore these douches - you're with me - have some popcorn! Here [passes rubber duckie] throw it!!!

nevadabob said...

Here's the most interesting part of the indictment.

Bunny Mellon, a super-rich Democrat writes to a staffer in the Edwards campaign (probably Andrew Young) after reporters embarrassed Edwards by reporting on his $200.00 haircut.

(Mellon): "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 friends without government restrictions.

It is a way to help our friends without government restrictions.

This. This is why campaign finance laws are important. It's why we need to enforce them.

It's because powerful corrupt Democrats are conspiring to help their corrupt Democrat "friends" without "government restrictions" (otherwise known as laws).

PatHMV said...

Nor does it make me feel safer, Fred. But U.S. Attorneys pick on little people all the time, for much less stuff than this. The only way to stop it is to get the laws changed, but the only way that'll happen is if there are some high profile prosecutions of people with the resources to fight, and possibly the political influence to change the laws.

When they browbeat the relatively powerless, nobody raises a stink. It's only when they go after the powerful, like Edwards, that any light at all is shown on this sort of thing.

The Drill SGT said...

well, he's going down on at least one count: one count of false statements.

Rule 1: The FBI hates getting lied to, and has no sense of humor

Even Weiner knows that much....

ALH said...

His parents should be indicted for naming him "Johnny" instead of John or Jonathan, etc.

Unless your last name is "Walker" or "Appleseed", stick with John.

nevadabob said...

"But a world of overempowered U.S. attorneys roaming around and looking for violations of the law does not make me feel safer."

Wait ... what?

US Attorneys enforcing the laws we pass doesn't make you feel safe?

Is the purpose of the law to make us feel comfortable? Feel?

Sounds like a Democrat - all touchy feely.

Politicians who get caught breaking the law never like the laws and Ann's point is a good one: Edwards like the law pretty fucking good when he voted on it (i.e., when it helped him to prevent OTHERS from running AGAINST him.)

He liked it pretty good then.

I'm unmoved by the logic of enforcing the laws that make us feel good and not enforcing the laws that don't make us feel good.

You should work to repeal the laws that don't make you feel good, Fred and support the enforcement of the laws on the books.

That's the only intellectually honest position in my view.

J said...

Another demopublican pseudo-scandal--in this case led by J-Edgar Holder and the Obama Admin DoJ. Obviously the Alt-tards have no problem siding with Holder when they might stick it to a southern Dem.


Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.

nevadabob said...

"Rule 1: The FBI hates getting lied to, and has no sense of humor ... "

I may have mis-cast this part of the indictment in my haste.

Edwards was indicted for lying to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)... not the FBI. Sorry for any confusion.

Pogo said...

I hate John Edwards with the heat of a thousand suns, but this prosecution is a waste of time and money, and another example of prosecutorial overreach.

We are, each of us, prosecutable for our violations of any number of federal and state laws that criss-cross the sky to the point it is blackened, and being a lawbreaker is unavoidable.

This is what faced the Soviet serfs each day: never knowing when they would come for you because you were always in violation of something.

It's a strategy to reduce trust and prevent organized dissent. People turn you in first to avoid being turned in. It's destructive as hell to politics and work and families. Russia hasn't yet recovered from its poison even yet.

We're foolish for creating the same thing here, where we are are all criminals. Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate wrote a book about it: "Three Felonies a Day," the number of crimes the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague and numerous laws.

Patrick said...

"but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?"

Certainly, this would affect how people should view him, although most thinking people probably believe that he is a hypocrite anyway. However, even if he had voted against the law, I would still think that the law is dumb.

I would not think whether a particular senator voted for or against making a particular act a crime should determine whether he should be charged with the crime. Would his voting against a decent law exonerate him?

nevadabob said...

"Obviously the Alt-tards have no problem siding with Holder when they might stick it to a southern Dem."

Exactly right, dude.

We support the arrest and conviction of all corrupt Democrats. Holder is good when he does that and BAD when he does almost anything else.

Welcome to politics. There's no fucking crying here.

t-man said...

By federal law, we are all prohibited from contributing more than $2,500 to political candidates. Edwards claims, oh, but a friend can give me an ulimited amount as a personal "gift," and then I can use that money to advance my candidacy.

I think we should get rid of campaign contributions, but if we're not going to do that, Edwards should be prosecuted.

If his defense prevails, the limits won't mean anything anyway because contributions will just be called gifts. If his defense fails, he will get what he deserves for trying to skirt the law.

J said...

Fuck you, nevada snitch.
You sound like one of Sherry Angles' scumbags.


You don't know f*ck about Edwards' politics, or for that matter, the law --the presumption of innocence for one. He'll probably walk anyway, and at most merely a misappropriation of funds or something.

Better, lets start the war crimes trial on Bush and Cheney, et al (and Obama for that matter)

nevadabob said...

"Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on."

Except Edwards is not charged with how he spent the money.

Edwards is charged with accepting the money illegally over federal limits on donations; and for lying to the FEC; and for conspiring with many other corrupt Democrats to commit these crimes.

Edwards can spend all the money he wants fucking crazy sluts. Nobody cares except his poor children who have to live with the same he's brought to their names.

But he can't take more than $2,300 from Bunny Mellon. He can't launder money. He can't lie to the FEC. And he can't conspire with others to get around these laws.

That's the law.

Sixty Grit said...

Only 3 felonies a day? Dang, what a bunch of slackers! Step your game up!

nevadabob said...

"You don't know f*ck about Edwards' politics ..."

I know he ain't a 'gonna be a practicin' em any more.

He's gonna be too busy being somebody's bitch.

edutcher said...

J said...

Another demopublican pseudo-scandal--in this case led by J-Edgar Holder and the Obama Admin DoJ. Obviously the Alt-tards have no problem siding with Holder when they might stick it to a southern Dem.


Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.


The way J describes it, the Breck Girl committed a kind of fraud, "takes a million given to him to run for POTUS and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R".

It's good J never got out of Mom's basement. You wouldn't want him for your lawyer.

PS He'd never get through Prof Althouse's class, anyway.

G Joubert said...

Law 101: Shut. Your. Fucking. Pie. Hole.

Especially if you are guilty or have some degree of culpability in the matter under scrutiny (or even just arguably so). But if you're innocent as the wind-driven snow and can prove it, it may be okay to talk to some limited extent. Beats being indicted for something you demonstrably didn't do.

nevadabob said...

"Better, lets start the war crimes trial on Bush and Cheney, et al (and Obama for that matter)"

Get on that, dude.

Don't fucking whine when one a yorn gets the treatment.

Get offa ur ass and get busy on indictin' Bush 'iffin yur able.

nevadabob said...

"But if you're innocent as the wind-driven snow and can prove it, it may be okay to talk to some limited extent."

Nobody is innocent. Everybody is guilty of something. Never. Ever. Ever. Ever. talk to police ESPECIALLY if you are INNOCENT.

It will never, ever ever help you. Never. Ever.

Shut. your. fucking. pie. hole.

traditionalguy said...

NevadaBob...You are an unforgiving man. Politics has always been a money game...let them play. You probably cheer when the NBA refs call a ticky foul every time a Miami heat star runs into a Dallas Maverick who gets into his way. Let them play.

Chuck66 said...

I know a couple of hard core Democrats who kept their Kerry-EDWARDS bumper stickers on their cars for 4 years (to protest President Bush).

I do enjoy rubbing it in their faces now.

nevadabob said...

"But if you're innocent as the wind-driven snow and can prove it,"

You cannot prove you are innocent, no matter what you think. And you are not required to at any rate.

Shut. Pie. Hole.

Never ever talk to the police (if they are investigating you).

nevadabob said...

"Politics has always been a money game."

It's not any more. I want corrupt Democrats behind bars being anally raped by their co-prisoners.

Democrats are free to quit politics if they don't like the stakes.

J said...

10:59. I agree, pretty f-ing sleazy, but an FEC matter. Or civil suits--ie, he should have to return some of the money.

But hardly enough for stalin-ish show trials. Those should be for like...the BushCo Admin. (misrepresentation of WMDs, terrorists, etc)

nevadabob said...

"But hardly enough for stalin-ish show trials. Those should be for like...the BushCo Admin."

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Fucking crybaby losers.

Go play tiddly-winks.

Hagar said...

If they had given Edwards a pass on this, would not that set a precedent for other politicians to make use of "Bunny" financing?

traditionalguy said...

What Pogo @10:54 said. The Obama's Method is to make a crime out of life and then only prosecute their enemies. Legalism is seen as an effective power move now.

G Joubert said...

It will never, ever ever help you. Never. Ever.

Like I said, yeah, if you're guilty, or arguably guilty.

But if you are innocent, with a lead pipe cinch defense? Absolutely not necessarily true. I have personally helped many clients avoid being indicted by setting the police straight on the actual facts during the investigation. In fact, it ought to be unethical and legal malpractice if you don't, in my opinion.

mike said...

Edwards reminds me of Baltar.

J said...

11:02, what's that Edu-satanist? Upset with some dissent Holder-sucker? Stalk me some more, klan grrl. You're headed for a charge.



Nevada Holder boy--best not let some Nev locals know you're siding with the DOJ, snitch. For that matter, Im sure you got plenty of tweek and illegal weapons around. Glasshouses, hick.

Scott M said...

Edwards reminds me of Baltar.

How? Baltar had some good qualities.

J said...

Ah Amazing Cracki! Black jews. Yr unique, bruttha. Maybe wear a star of david like Palinberg

vnjagvet said...

I hate John Edwards with the heat of a thousand suns, but this prosecution is a waste of time and money, and another example of prosecutorial overreach.

I second Pogo's thought. Johnny (John) Edwards is a loathsome, sorry excuse for a man in so many ways.

But this indictment seems to me to be hypertechnical BS. I thought the Libby prosecution was BS and this indictment is at least as bad if not worse.

nevadabob said...

"But if you are innocent, with a lead pipe cinch defense?"

No such thing.

The police will charge you anyway and use all the things that you said against you in court.

Say anything, A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G and you will regret it. Lots of innocent people are convicted any way.

Shut. Pie. Hole.

There is no other way.

Tell the judge your lead pipe cinch defense and he'll exonerate you (maybe).

But the police are never, ever trying to help you. Their job is to collect evidence and get you charged and processed. That's all they care about. They do not care about your lead pipe cinch defense.

edutcher said...

J said...

11:02, what's that Edu-satanist? Upset with some dissent Holder-sucker? Stalk me some more, klan grrl. You're headed for a charge.

Another shiloh. This one thinks response to a comment is stalking.

These kids need some therapy.

PatHMV said...

G Joubert... the crucial point being that YOU were with the client, helping set the police straight. It's really stupid to talk with the cops, or especially the FBI, without serious consultations with an attorney. The way the FBI has behaved of late, I wouldn't speak to them without an attorney even if approached purely as a witness to an obvious crime. And I say that as a former prosecutor who law-clerked for a U.S. Attorney's office.

nevadabob said...

"I thought the Libby prosecution was BS and this indictment is at least as bad if not worse.

Now you're getting it. Democrats indicted Libby. Wait ... I thought it was all a money game? "Let them play," they said.

So, now all corrupt Democrats are going to go to jail to get fucked up their asses by large angry men with huge colon-busting penises they'd gladly Tweet you if they Anthony Weiner-level internet connectivity.

It's no longer the happy-go-lucky money game, dudes.

Now, it's on motherfuckers.

Get. Out. Of. Politics. If. You. Don't. Like. It.

Fen said...

Told ya. J's a parody bot. All his posts can be summed us thus:

"Fuck you, ____ You sound like one of Sherry Angles' scumbags. You don't know f*ck about _____"

J said...

There you go, vnj. Reason for a change. Ticky tack. Anyway the Edwards scandal is probably part of Obama's campaign strategy to make him appeal to GOP.

A-house McCarthyites for Holder/DoJ! Shocking. Got that snitches?

J said...

11: 29. The dimwit is you Fen snitch.

Now suck Holder-DOJ some more, demopublicans--put, first, put your star of David on.

J said...

HAH HAH HAH.

Kicking the living f**K out of J-Edgarish demopublicans--don't get much better.

Tah tah, trash

nevadabob said...

"Anyway the Edwards scandal is probably part of Obama's campaign strategy to make him appeal to GOP."

Leave the house negro out of it.

This hate crime throw-down is between black Holder and white Edwards.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that t-man has it right. There are limits to campaign contributions. Switching it to a "personal expense" is just one way to get around those limitations.

The Mellons, and, indeed, a lot of other big donors, esp., IMHO, to major Democrats, don't like those limits, and do what they can to get around them.

Bunny Mellon wouldn't have volunteered to pay Edwards' bills if he weren't a prominent (Democratic in her case) politician. Rather, she would have, realistically, expected him to pay for his own hair cuts and love children. He was a multi-millionaire from his channeling of dead babies, and could clearly afford such.

No, Mellon offered the money because he was the politician he was running for President.

So, where do you draw the line, if not here? Calling a political contribution a personal expense is merely a subterfuge to allow very rich contributors to bypass the contribution limitations that the rest of us have to honor.

And, so, we can hope to see what this guy really looks like without hormone treatments and face lifts, when he goes behind bars.

Bruce Hayden said...

I thought the Libby prosecution was BS and this indictment is at least as bad if not worse.

If there is a difference, I would suggest that it is that with Libby, there was no underlying crime, and the federal prosecutor knew that long before the indictment or the entrapment.

In the case of Edwards, there appears, at least now, that there was at least one campaign finance crime committed, and it appears that Edwards was involved.

nevadabob said...

"In the case of Edwards, there appears, at least now, that there was at least one campaign finance crime committed, and it appears that Edwards was involved."

Nah, this is just the black gangster Eric Holder committing a race hate crime prosecution against a white politician who might have challenged Obama for the nomination. ... like J says.

If Edwards was smart (he's not), he'd announce his candidacy to challenge Obama for the Democrat Party nomination.

Then he could say the prosecution is racially motivated and politically motivated and the press would have to write that and he'd have some cover.

Seven Machos said...

Campaign finance law is stupid and hopelessly unconstitutional, the Rule of Five notwithstanding. However, the law is the law and the Rule of Law is perhaps the most important thing of all. Edwards obviously broke this bad, unconstitutional law.

He's going to jail. Which is sad because he'll never be able to implement his plan to eliminate poverty from a jail cell. Of course, he couldn't implement it from his 30,000 square foot house, either.

I'm just hoping his bastard child eventually eliminates poverty when she grows up and becomes a light worker.

Bruce Hayden said...

Regardless of what one thinks of Edwards, the charges are BS. Candidates have no obligation to spend campaign funds on what the govt. or public thinks they should spend them on. So Johnny takes a million and flies to a german FKK club for a week of R & R (bargain priced). He didn't say he wouldn't-. "Ethical lapses" are not crimes.

But what is illegal is to get that million dollars, or, indeed, more than, say $2,300, from any one individual. And, it becomes a crime when solicited, etc.

I would suggest that the difference here between illegal and criminal can be seen with Obama's campaign turning off credit card verification. They likely (we will never know for sure) got millions in illegal contributions. But they likely didn't know if any one contribution was illegal, and they very likely didn't conspire with those making those illegal contributions (either because they exceeded legal limits or came from foreign sources) to make them. So, there is likely no criminal culpability there.

Edwards and his people, on the other hand, appear to have actively conspired to evade the campaign finance limitations.

William said...

The immorality of Edwards' behavior is blatant. However, the criminality of such behavior requires an educated understanding of the law. The DOJ may very well be right, but when we base convictions on the confused motivations of an extremely old woman, there is cause for concern.....The Edwards' story is a sad narrative of endless layers of deceit, manipulation, and gullibility. Everybody involved with John Edwards had ended up looking not just foolish, but deceitful: The wife, the mistress, the fall guy, the press. and now, quite possibly, the DOJ. It's truly amazing how Edwards seems to bring out the absolute worst in everyone.

nevadabob said...

"Campaign finance law is stupid"

Oh, noooowwww it's stupid.

Wasn't stupid when North Carolina Democrats sued Republicans for campaign finance violations.

But it's stupid now, huh?

When Democrats sue or indict Republicans ... its OK. But when Democrats get arrested and indicted, ooooh woe is me the laws are stupid and unconstitutional.

Lame and predictable wailing from the usual liberal retards here.

Scott M said...

Anthony Weiner LOVES John Edwards right now. A good gauge of how many legs the Weiner story has left will be shown after the cycle drops Edwards and starts looking for it's next meal. Will it come back for Weiner seconds?

Seven Machos said...

Lame and predictable wailing from the usual liberal retards here.

Bob -- You are confused. I am a conservative libertarian, as anyone here with any frequency knows.

Your problem, dude, is your sad Manichean view of the world, where there is pure good and pure evil fighting for supremacy. That's a neat story, except it's total bullshit.

nevadabob said...

" ... when we base convictions on the confused motivations of an extremely old woman, there is cause for concern."

They didn't indict Bunny The Confused.

They indicted Edwards The Learned.

Quit trying to blame the innocent, confused donor. That's a red herring. Edwards knew it was wrong to cash her checks or else he would have just given Rielle The Freak the money out of his own bank accounts.

Edwards The Cheap was himself rich and didn't need Bunny Mellon's $900,000.

Quit blaming her. She didn't lie on his FEC forms. He did.

She just wrote checks so she'd have him captive if he won and could blackmail him.

Seven Machos said...

Scott -- Things that are currently okay:

1. Fathering a bastard child while campaigning on your wife's cancer and paying her hush money from a campaign slush fund.

2. Sending pictures of your cock to college girls.

Things that are not okay:

1. Tapping your foot in an airport bathroom because you want a blow job.

Please make a note of it. And check back often, as these things change with some frequency.

nevadabob said...

"I am a conservative libertarian."

No, you're not. You just play one here. But you don't really fool anybody.

You're a Chicago Democrat hack paid to play this game.

Seven Machos said...

...Her being the mother of the bastard child. Who is, by the way, a light worker in the mold of President Obama.

Seven Machos said...

Bob -- You, sir, are a sad crank. You and Shouting Thomas should go make sweet love in a tree somewhere. Preferably a bombed-out island in the Pacific.

nevadabob said...

"You, sir, are a sad crank."

Go fuck yourself, you Obama liberal retard.

Seven Machos said...

Go fuck yourself, you Obama liberal retard.

Dude, get over yourself. I don't think Palin will win the general election. That's why I don't want her as the nominee. I also think many of her supporters have simply irrational expectations about what a Palin presidency would be like, but that's another story.

Let's use logic here. Not a strength of yours, I know, but bear with me. If I was an Obama liberal retard, and if I think Palin cannot win the general election, why would I be arguing that people should not support Palin?

That only makes sense in a sad Manichean scheme of good and evil such as yours. Which is to say, it doesn't make any sense.

Comrade X said...

if I think Palin cannot win the general election, why would I be arguing that people should not support Palin?

interesting question. ask the MSM. their behavior indicates fear.


and I know you are not a Obama liberal.

mccullough said...

Nevadabob,

Why are you personally attacking 7 machos? If you have an argument or want to persuade him why his view is wrong or why yours is better, lay it out.

It's a pretty smart crowd here, start bringing your A-game.

Scott M said...

I didn't see an answer to this earlier, Bob, so I'll ask again. How many offers are you currently entertaining for the proof that Weiner wasn't hacked and sent that tweet his crotchpic himself from his own house?

t-man said...

Assuming that "Person C" in the indictment is Bunny Mellon, I wouldn't be surpised if she were to be indicted as well. I don't care if she's old, she knew what she was doing.

Seven Machos said...

Comrade X -- Maybe people in the media think Palin can win. Or maybe there's another rationale for the negative coverage. I don't know. And as I've said many times, I like Palin and I could be wrong about her. But I am sticking with my argument.

mccullough said...

Palin drives the MSM nuts. That's great and entertaining. The largest reason they hate Palin is because she's a sharp, attractive, socially conservative woman. They also hate sharp, attractive, conservative blacks.

They are social liberals. They demand orthodoxy.

The battle between Palin and the MSM has nothing to do with her electability as President. She's not electable because she has high negatives and can't persuade independents. That's the way it is.

Seven Machos said...

McCullough -- Thank you. I have never denigrated Palin. She is electrifying and a conservative tour de force. I have simply laid out the reasons why I think any bid of hers for the presidency will be unsuccessful.

And for that this crank decries me as some kind of moby. It's really very hilarious. I mean, the amount of ink I have spewed into the Internet void defending President Bush is hard to fathom. But no matter. I'm not toeing the line -- the Line According to Bob.

Comrade X said...

I don't doubt your sincerity 7. It's a legitimate opinion.

She's clearly the candidate the left fears the most. And Obama doesn't have to lose much of his overwhelming 52% to lose the election. In the end, I don't think it matters who it is. Hope/Change Obama barely won against a terrible candidate. Proven Failure Obama is going to have a harder time

t-man said...

Look,

Bunny was not confused and, if the allegations in the indictment are true, she should go to jail too.

In 2007, after the "Breck Girl" haircut fiasco, Bunny wrote to Edwards's assistant, Andrew Young, and told him that bills for "things necessary and important for his campaign" to her directly so that she could help Edwards "without government restriction."

They knew she wanted to support Edwards, and asked her to fund the cover up of Hunter.

Bunny made the checks out to a friend of hers, and falsely wrote on the checks that the payments were for furniture. The friend then forwarded the checks to Andrew Young. Young's wife cashed the checks using her maiden name and then Young provided it to Hunter.

I wonder if there's also an IRS investigation into all of this.

Curious George said...

Fred4Pres said...
This is not a good thing for democracy.

Criminalizing politics is a very bad idea.
What a steaming pile. This is in no way "criminalizing politics". It's a criminal act committed by a politician. It's equally as dumb as the Prof's response of "Maybe, but how did Edwards vote on campaign finance when he was a Senator?" That also has no bearing on whether it's criminalizing politics, just the irony of his actions.

hombre said...

According to some sources, but not the WaPo, a warrant has been issued for his arrest.

Edwards is a jerk, but an arrest warrant seems unwarranted.

Justice Dept. posturing, I'll warrant.

lol

Seven Machos said...

Hombre -- If there's a criminal indictment, an arrest is pretty much part of the process. It's the first step.

I doubt there's a perp walk. What it means is, come down to our office and learn the charges against you.

kent said...

Interesting li'l tidbit, from Ace's site:

"You may remember John Kerry's own memory of Edwards, as recounted, I believe, in Bob Shrum's book.

"Apparently Edwards was lobbying VP, and told Kerry a story about his son's death, and gave a teary account of it, and told him that he'd learned so much from it and was ready to be VP, or that kind of thing.

"And he concluded: And I have never. Told. Anyone. That story before.

"Kerry got a chill when he heard this, but not for the reason you'd think. He'd got the chill because he remembered Edwards telling him this same story, with the same dead son and the same "And I have never -- told -- anyone" conclusion, to convince him on some other virtue of Edwards', years earlier. And he got a sense of the man he was thinking about putting on the ticket.

"Put him on the ticket anyway, of course."

Heh.

mariner said...

Patrick,
I would not think whether a particular senator voted for or against making a particular act a crime should determine whether he should be charged with the crime.

I don't see that as the issue. I see it Hamlet's way:

'Tis the sport to see the enginer hoist with his own petard.

mariner said...

nevadabob is right about talking to police.

Here's a law professor to explain it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646#

And here's a cop (one of the professor's students) to agree with the professor:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646#docid=6014022229458915912

mariner said...

Seven Machos,
I'm not toeing the line -- the Line According to Bob.

But at least you know the difference between toeing a line and towing it.

I don't agree with you about Palin, but that's for another thread.

I hope Johnny Edwards gets his richly-deserved comeuppance.

Sixty Grit said...

Drop the lobster and step away from the boney fish...

traditionalguy said...

Does any attorney type Know that Bunny Mellon wrote John Edwards a direct check? I would think the she paid money to the associates who were handling this erupting bimbo, and that Bunny claims she did an act of kindness to a dying friend who should be allowed to die in peace. It would have worked, but for the National Enquirer guy's skill.

Trooper York said...

nevadabob is Florida after he moved.

He is a moby of the first water.

You just need to scroll on by.

Just sayn'

d-day said...

I hate John Edwards. When I was a young, naive, first-year law student in 2000, I sent 5$ to his primary campaign. I can't undo that - I'll be embarrassed about it for the rest of my life. So when I say I hate him, I HATE him with the zeal of the converted.

BUT.

I have a big problem with the government bringing up a man on charges of failing to report campaign donations for money that 1) donors didn't think was a campaign donation, 2) Edwards didn't think was a campaign donation, 3) was spent on hotel rooms and living expenses (not ads and signs). The theory is "we think this could be construed as a donation and therefore we've construed you into a felon." How can that possibly be just?

Not that it isn't fair. Johnny's chickens have come to roost. But he's an idiot douchebag who deserves to live out the rest of his life knowing how desperately he's harmed his children, wronged his dead wife, and made a hash out of his indistinguished congressional career. So I don't really care about John.

But how can the government do this?

Trooper York said...

If I might be so bold...I would like to say to someone I consider an Internet Friend....the estimable Seven Machos....the problem is you are a lawyer...and you see that lawyers always think they are smarter than you...that they have it all sussed out...and they want to tell you how it is... like the Chinese prosecuting attorney I had on jury duty who grinned through the whole Voir dire like he was a sniper in a WW2 movie but couldn't remember my name....and you know we the men and women of the jury....you see we want to decide it for ourselves.

That's how Democracy works.

Trooper York said...

But that is not to say I don't value the calm and rational way your state your opinion Seven. You are welcome in my boat anytime.

Just maybe....don't be so busy drilling holes in the bottom and telling us we are gonna sink. Just sayn'

d-day said...

This whole Edwards thing echoes the Palin witch-hunt in here too. Remember during the campaign when they were going after her for spending money on clothes and shoes?

Women politicians have different needs. Ann has written about this before. Women politicians are more scrutinized for appearance. So now the standard is that "anything that makes you look good is a campaign expense"? So I guess, hair, makeup, clothes, low-fat meals---all that is a reportable. It will leave you a target for media enemies looking to paint you as frivolous.

The Dems prepare the battlespace for candidate Palin.

John Edwards is their chick in the coal mine.

This is a horrible precedent for women in politics.

mariner said...

Trooper York,
Just maybe....don't be so busy drilling holes in the bottom and telling us we are gonna sink. Just sayn'

Thank you, Troop. I love the way you put that.

If all the people who claim to like Sarah (but believe she's unelectable) will just f-ing VOTE for her, she'll win in a landslide.

t-man said...

Traditionalguy,

I've summarized Bunny's actions above. Read the indictment. She's no dumb Bunny, she knew what she was doing and her intent was to help the campaign, albeit indirectly.

John Lynch said...

So how could it have been a legal campaign contribution? I don't see how he could have stayed in the law.

Unless we're just criminalizing hush money?

John Lynch said...

I yield to know one in my disdain for John Edwards. But...

Where the hell was everyone when this actually mattered?

traditionalguy said...

T-man...Thanks for the info. I suspect that the ancient super rich Bunny Mellon never believed in all of those Campaign Finance Restrictions that didn't get imposed until she was in her 70s. What you described was a 3 layer cover up done to avoid getting caught. That conduct alone should get Edwards convicted. he should never have treated his insider aid who said that he was the horn dog that knocked up Rielle so badly. Didn't that dude also end up with a copy of the Sex Tape?

Quaestor said...

edutcher wrote regarding J: He'd never get through Prof Althouse's class, anyway.

Give him time, edutcher, he's got to get out of high school first.

Quaestor said...

d-day wrote: The theory is "we think this could be construed as a donation and therefore we've construed you into a felon." How can that possibly be just?

I believe you've incorrectly summarized the DOJ's case. Political campaign spend money on a lot of things, from airtime on major networks to pizza and Coke for the volunteers manning the phones. If money is spent to advance the political fortunes of a candidate and said money is not from the candidates own coffers then it's a political donation subject to FEC regulations. Hiding Rielle Hunter in a variety of expensive hotels, buying her clothes and meals, using campaign staff to shuttle her around and keep her away from the National Enquirer was done (arguably) to advance the fortunes of the Kerry/Edwards presidential ticket. Therefore the 925 KiloBucks paid by Mellon to Edwards to finance the efforts of the campaign to hide Rielle Hunter and her baby from the press were donations and therefore subject to FEC regulations, violations of same defined as felonies.

One can argue that this ought not to be illegal, as many here have done. But the issue is standing standing law. If Mellon had written a check to Rielle Hunter and said "Here's a cool million. It's yours if you agree to take a long overseas vacation and don't try to contact Johnny Edward's very again." It would probably pass legal muster -- not ethical, but legal. But passing the money through Johnny Edwards hands, or the hands of his campaign staff is all the difference.

D. R. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
d-day said...

Quaestor:

I get what you're saying and Edwards, by running it through the campaign, seems to gleefully dance on the line, but I'm still concerned because of this:

"(arguably)"

How can someone face substantial jail time for that something with so much discretion on how the law is to be interpreted? What is the guideline?

The way modern campaigns run---image consultants, etc.---presidential candidates are micromanaged to the Nth degree. If the argument DOJ makes is adopted across the board, would that mean that more calculated candidates are open to a more stringent reporting requirement than those more on the Fred Thompson end of the scale?

Where does it go from here? If the law is what DOJ tells us it is, how can anyone possibly comply in the future, let alone how Edwards was supposed to know before the fact.