Remind me again...why WAS John Edwards put on trial?

[Ken Burch]

I had no use for the guy. What he did in his personal life was scuzzy.

But, seriously...a criminal trial? Really?

The guy's career is over...his marriage ended up collapsing...he's nobody at all now...why wasn't THAT punishment enough for the people who insisted on prosecuting this?

Why were they that fixated with actually having a trial over it?

Was it really that unforgiveable that, for a moment, it looked like he might get elected president?

Who was it out there that still felt this vindictive about the whole thing?

(on edit)

Thank God it's over. May what remains of the Edwards family now be left in peace. And may baby Quin lead a happy and anonymous life.

[banned from Kos]

1. He used campaign donations to fund his girlfriend

Go AWAY, John Edwards!

[HiPointDem]

9. wow. must be a first. prosecuted for it, i mean.

[bhikkhu]

32. It is a crime, and it is frequently punished -

Here is one long list, capped off by Edwards currently: http://politicalgraveyard.com/trouble/campaign-finance.html

Christine O'Donnell may be next. There's always talk about malfeasance with campaign funds, but most often it seems to come down to forgivable errors in accounting. Edwards was just blatantly stupid.

[HiPointDem]

33. wow, that is soooooo long of a list. not.

[dsc]

49. I read your entire list

and found no case, none, where the FCC had declined to call the money contributions, as happened in Edward's case. Nearly all of the cases listed involved either bribery or perjury neither of which are present in Edwards case.

[bhikkhu]

54. I suppose I haven't look over the finer details

...just making the point that illegal use of campaign contributions is a fairly ordinary and prosecutable crime, and Edwards is hardly the only one to ever be prosecuted.

Perhaps he is being treated unfairly anyway and his defenders have a valid point; to be honest, I don't care. Living in a predominantly repug town, at some point or other in too many political discussions Edwards is trotted out as a prime example of a lying asshat of a democratic politician, a laughable hypocrite of the "save the poor" variety. I know memories are short and these things come and go, but he did a great deal of current damage.

[dsc]

60. the fact is the vast majority of that list isn't about misuse of campaign funds

that is my point. Most of the cases were either violating limits, bribery, perjury, or some combination of those. Unlike you, I actually live in the jurisidiction where this case was filed and thus have to live under that rouge federal prosecutor.

[Hawkowl]

2. Two Americas

He is prosecuted for his message. He was against the 1% before they were defined as such. He attacked the wealthy who run this country as their own personal plantation.

So I believe they are prosecuting the message, not the man. John Edwards should have known better. So should have Elliot Spitzer. We no longer live in the 1960's where Kennedy could hide his affairs. Then again, I'm sure Kennedy would rather have been impeached for a blowjob.

[philly_bob]

17. +1

[cali]

22. bullshit. Mr. Hedgfund used the 99% and particularly the poor

that piece of shit never fucking gave a damn about the poor. He is the wealthy. He cynically trumpeted a message that he never lived. I warned people here of this back in 2006.

[Ken Burch]

56. And you were a prophet.

I think, if they had it to do again with what they know now, every progressive that backed Edwards instead of Kucinich would make a different choice.

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. yup!

The PTB certainly did not want Edwards any where near the Presidency.

























Give them a seat at the table and they'll eat all the food.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Hello. The Edwards prosecution\persecution was a demonstration

project.

Cf. Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. One reason Nixon went after Ellsberg with such a hard-on was to deter other putative whistle-blowers\leakers.

[magical thyme]

48. +1, and there was a lot of local politics involved

The "Edwards betrayed us" crybabies need to get over it. He didn't do anything that a dozen GOPers don't do every day, without repercussions or even a moment of embarrassment. He just happened to do it while being a democrat.

He is, like all of us, a flawed human being. Because is flawed doesn't mean his message wasn't important, and it doesn't even mean that he didn't believe it. He's only got enough blood for one head, and gravity won.

And his innocent children have been through enough humiliation.

[Ken Burch]

57. Will the aquittal screw up the congressional campaign of the chief persecutor?

n/t.

[magical thyme]

58. hope so. at least he won't be helped it. nt

[leftyohiolib]

3. and why ISNT senator Ensign on trial.

[The Magistrate]

4. Because He Beat The Prosecutor In A State-Wide Race Some Years Ago, Sir

[struggle4progress]

11. Nope. Edwards' Senate run was his first campaign -- and in fact his only campaign, other

than his failed 04 and 08 POTUS bids

The original prosecutor George E. B. Holding was, however, a Dubya appointee, who hoped to turn his habit of prosecuting only Dems into high political office -- and indeed George E. B. Holding is today the GOP nominee for the NC-13 Congressional slot

[The Magistrate]

13. My Mistake, Sir: Donated Money To The Man Mr. Edwards Defeated....

[struggle4progress]

18. Please don't tell me you gave money to Lauch Faircloth

I hope you mean that Holding was a Faircloth donor

[Ken Burch]

40. I'm pretty sure that the other poster did mean that Holding was the Faircloth donor

It was just a pronoun problem in the post.

[DCBob]

5. Illegal use of campaign funds.

Im sure you knew that.

[Ken Burch]

23. Even if that's true, everybody else who did that

has only been punished with a fine.

[DCBob]

28. His crime goes deeper than the typical.

see post below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002745758#post6

[Ken Burch]

31. Dude, that's the same post I just responded to.

Whatever you might think of me, I do NOT deserve the "reread for clarity" treatment from you. I already read that post.
Your condescension is not justified.

[DCBob]

35. Sorry, I my have not copied the link correctly... this post:

"This is not about sex, this is about a politician who essentially used bribery to cover up a personal scandal. The affair is not a huge issue with me, that is between him and his family and I don't really see it as any of my business. Using campaign dollars to cover it up however is a big deal, many working class people donated their hard earned money to his campaign having no clue it was being used for this.

I think Edwards brought the hell he is going through on himself and I think he deserves to be prosecuted, I will say however that it does bother me that these politicians only seem to be held to account when sex is involved. Money corrupts politics in so many ways and there is such massive corruption in Washington but it rarely seems to be prosecuted unless it involves sex. That is my only problem with the Edwards prosecution, there are so many other politicians who are just as corrupt or more so but as long as they keep their pants on they don't ever seem to be held to account for it. A politician's sex life is none of my business, how they use money to influence public policy is and I wish more corrupt politicians were prosecuted because way too many of them are corrupt and they don't get prosecuted for that corruption no matter how blatant it is. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=745799

[cali]

37. but were they campaign dollars? I followed this trial closely

and I don't think the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[DCBob]

39. I defer to you on that. I have not followed the trial closely.

The question was why Edwards was brought to trial in the first place.

The charges may be over the top but what he appears to have done is illegal and serious.

[Ken Burch]

43. And it would have been more than punishment enough

to fine him an amount equal to the amount sent to Ms. Hunter.

The costs of this trial, even just on the prosecution side, must have run into the millions by now. It's been a complete waste of time for all concerned.

Yes, Edwards was wrong to do what he did. No, it wasn't a freaking war crime. And making him rot in prison would serve no purpose at all(as making most of those currently rotting in prison rot there also essentially serves no purpose, especially the "three strikes felons" who were just sent there for selling a few joints, and were mainly sent there just to make sure they would never be able to vote, for the record).

[DCBob]

50. You asked why he was put on trial.

I think that has been answered.

[Ken Burch]

42. And in that post, you posted the same previous post and a LINK to the same previous post

Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Was there something else you MEANT to link to?

[HiPointDem]

34. Nope. Less deep than typical, in fact.

[Bjorn Against]

6. The charges against him are quite serious

This is not about sex, this is about a politician who essentially used bribery to cover up a personal scandal. The affair is not a huge issue with me, that is between him and his family and I don't really see it as any of my business. Using campaign dollars to cover it up however is a big deal, many working class people donated their hard earned money to his campaign having no clue it was being used for this.

I think Edwards brought the hell he is going through on himself and I think he deserves to be prosecuted, I will say however that it does bother me that these politicians only seem to be held to account when sex is involved. Money corrupts politics in so many ways and there is such massive corruption in Washington but it rarely seems to be prosecuted unless it involves sex. That is my only problem with the Edwards prosecution, there are so many other politicians who are just as corrupt or more so but as long as they keep their pants on they don't ever seem to be held to account for it. A politician's sex life is none of my business, how they use money to influence public policy is and I wish more corrupt politicians were prosecuted because way too many of them are corrupt and they don't get prosecuted for that corruption no matter how blatant it is.

[jillan]

20. +1

[ellenfl]

7. for acting like a republican? eom

[HiPointDem]

8. so everyone could know what a dirty boy he is. what better use of the court system?

[former9thward]

10. This is a political trial.

For those who think it is not I would like to see anyplace where the government has used their theory to go after someone.

[A HERETIC I AM]

12. Because we're a nation of puritanical hypocrites. n/t

[Odin2005]

14. Because he siphoned campaign money to his lover.

That's called fraud.

[Taverner]

16. And usually fraud is punished with huge fines

The fact that they are talking jail time means this is a witch hunt

[Ken Burch]

21. The funds were used

As I understand it, it's not clear that Edwards himself KNEW they were being used.

And still, why wouldn't it be enough to fine the guy?

This just seems like it's way the hell overkill.

[cali]

24. nah, he knew.

the question is were the funds in question campaign funds or personal gifts unrelated in any way to the campaign.

[Ken Burch]

27. Ok...thanks for clarifying.

I knew there was some ambiguity regarding the funds.

Still, clearly the NC powers-that-be would never have prosecuted this in a criminal proceeding if a Republiban candidate had been involved.

[grasswire]

62. how could it be "campaign money" if the campaign was over before he got it?

The campaign had been suspended.

[Taverner]

15. In NC, the Republican powers that be were just waiting for something they could take him down with

Yes, he fucked up.

Yes, he should pay all kinds of fines, the money back, and be dis-barred.

BUT - he did not earn this witch hunt.

[FSogol]

19. Flirting with jurors.

Also, the Repubs are afraid of him becoming JFK.

[cali]

38. nonsense. he was already one of the most despised

public figures in the country with no way back.

[Ken Burch]

47. JFK? before or after the motorcade?

[yodermon]

26. 30 years is excessive. Crazy excessive.

Some punishment may be appropriate but 30 years?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. The FEC agrees with you

Justive doesn't.

I suspect it's a message...a bad one b the way...and also what he was pushing. This two Americas crap ( a good description) needs to die.

Yes, call me very cynical.

[cali]

36. Edwards had already destroyed any viability he had

as a messenger long before he was indicted. And he was indicted because an ambitious republican prosecutor wanted to use him as a springboard for his run for the U.S. House. That simple.

[Ken Burch]

46. Excellent analysis, cali.

Thanks for posting that.

[slackmaster]

41. He turned me into a newt

[Ken Burch]

45. That explains it! Burn the witch, then!

[Life Long Dem]

51. One word

Politically motivated by Republican's. Okay... four words.

[Ken Burch]

52. "payback" would have covered it.

Still, you did offer a nice summary.

Edwards has now been aquitted, and, hopefully, the sanctimonious Republiban hypocrite who prosecuted him will lose his race for Congress.

[rufus dog]

53. He was a Democrat

And it was purely a political payback.

We all need to remember this about the enemy, and I do not feel this is too strong.

Edwards is getting a great deal of well deserved grief from numerous posters on DU.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich did almost the exact same things and was considered a viable Presidential candidate to Republicans.

[Ken Burch]

55. True.

Now, it's time to let Edwards fade into obscurity.

Finally, this shit is over.

[Vattel]

59. The prosecution was a joke.

This should never have gone to trial.

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. Because he thought with his cock and not his head?

That might sound a little crass but I'm thinking if that had never happened, the world might be a different place today?

Thanks John.

[Ken Burch]

63. Hey, I wasn't saying the guy isn't a scumbag.

Just that he doesn't deserve to rot in prison for it. A hefty fine would have been more than suffecient.