Did John Edwards ever speak ill of others in similar circumstances?

[HardWorkingDem]

This is not flamebait or a critique of Edwards and his affair. I remember back when Edwards was just hitting the stage in NC and how I told people this unknown person running for Senate was going to be going somewhere.

So other than the obligatory Clinton statements he made (you know, when most all other Dems were coming out to hammer him mostly out of some sort of self-preservation), is anyone aware of other Edwards statements toward people like Gingrich, Hyde or others in the same sort of circumstances.

I can't recall any and think he mostly avoided that line of criticism. I hope so.

[yardwork]

1. His comments about Clinton were very strong. It was more than self-preservation.

A lot of people have come to regret their self-righteous criticisms of Bill Clinton - David Vitter and John Edwards are two of them.

[saracat]

9. Yeah well his legal defense of Clinton kept him in office. But lets forget that shall we?

Clind specifically asked for Edwards and Edwards is credited with preserving his office. And ALL the Dems spoke out against Clinton then and it may be John was faithful at the time so had litlle understanding. Who knows.

[Jane Austin]

10. I didn't know that.

Can you give us a link that talks about his defense of Clinton?

Thanks.

[saracat]

14. Here is one.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/edwards-closed-door-impeachment-statement/

August 8, 2008
Edwards’ closed-door impeachment statement

Posted: 07:29 PM ET
Permalink | 37 Comments



Tom Foreman
AC360° Correspondent

In case you’ve forgotten… Sen. John Edwards was selected by fellow Democratic senators to give closing arguments in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. The excerpt is here below:

Sen. Edwards’ closed-door impeachment statement, released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

So I said to myself, what is the right and fair thing to do? And this is what I have done. I have looked–many times until 3 a.m. in the morning–at the evidence in this case. Because I think that is the way we need to make this decision.

The perjury charge, I believe, is just not there. The evidence is not there to support it. I know many of you believe it is there. I respect your view on that. I don’t believe it is there. The obstruction charge is a totally different matter. And this is the way I have thought about the obstruction charge.”

[yardwork]

24. Clinton was impeached. He wasn't removed from office, but he was impeached.

If the Republicans had had more votes he would have been removed from office. Which probably would have been a good thing for the Democratic Party. At the time I felt that Clinton should have resigned. It wasn't the sex - it was lying under oath. Bad move.

If Clinton had resigned, Gore would have won handily in 2000 and been reelected in 2004.

[karynnj]

26. Tom Foreman is an idiot incapable of looking at the Senate record

Edwards was NOT "chosen" to give that speech as a closing argument. Look in the Senate record - more than half the Senators gave speeches at that time - many far beyond Edwards in their judicial gravitas - Moynihan, Levin and Leahy (among others) are referenced by later speakers to buttress their own arguments. Edwards speech was close to the middle of the speeches - a place of no special merit. Go to the Senate record and you can access the speeches. I found them interesting as they showed a lot about the Senators, but as others said this was a POLITICAL vote. The majority of Senators are lawyers and they were not going to be swayed by Edwards' speech - or anyone else's. There was NO WAY it was going to get 67 votes.

[saracat]

27. Funny Clinton himself asked for Edwards and has said Edwards

contributed greatly. but what would he know? I guess i will have to look for info AGAIN>

[karynnj]

28. Look at the Senate record - many Senators said what

they were doing before Edwards' speech - it was pretty much a party line vote - as was the House's. I assume Clinton thanked all of those people who worked on this - it would not have been gracious to do otherwise.

[saracat]

31. Edwards contibuted to the defense team. He didn't participate just as a regular senator.

[XemaSab]

30. This is supposed to be defending Edwards?

:shrug:

"I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen."

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. The Republicans never had the votes in the Senate to remove Clinton

[yardwork]

23. I didn't say that Edwards didn't support Clinton. I said he probably regrets his strong words.

The OP was asking about Edwards's words.

[karynnj]

25. No it didn't - look at the roll call - 67 votes were needed to throw him out

and it was a party line vote. Edwards' speech was after about have the Democratic ones and it was not one of the ones others referenced in theirs. Edwards, incidentally, was not the only Democrat defending Bill.

The fact of the matter is that from the first moment, it was clear the House would impeach. They had more than the 50% of votes needed to do so and the Senate would fail to throw him out unless something unknown came out (or cynically, if there was a massive shift in public opinion which would have moved Democrats against WJC.)

Also, in retrospect would that have been so bad? Al Gore would have become President and run as an incumbent. He would likely have had to make a high profile speech soon after it happened where he could have spoken of no one being above the law, but arguing that Clinton also had done some positive things. He could have asked for unity. He and his family would have been better known by 2000 and the Clinton mess could have been behind him. He would have had to nominate a VP then and I suspect it wouldn't have been Leiberman. There would have been less need to pick him. But, regardless of VP, he would have been far more likely to win in 2000. (Not to mention a Gore Justice Department might have looked into the FL felons list when it was first seen to have problems BEFORE the election - they would have had a vested interest.)

[Lebam in LA]

2. As I recall

He was pretty hard on Bill Clinton. No link yet found

[karynnj]

11. Here's his speech in the Senate record

To me it was preachier than most Democrats - though most correctly hit Clinton for his actions. It also was less sophisticated and intellectual in why he shouldn't be impeached. When his speech was pushed by Edwards' supporters as having saved Clinton - I noticed that nearly half the Senators had already given their speeches before him. None afterwards referenced his - and all were clearly written before Edwards spoke. But, in scanning or reading many, they were fascinating in what they saod of the speaker and what his or her values were. (You can get the query page at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html - select the 106 Congress and the word "impeachment, then pick any Senator.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I have prepared remarks. But I am not going to use them. I made that decision about 20 minutes ago.

I have been sitting, listening to my fellow Senators speak, and I want to speak to you from the heart. I want to speak to you about a struggle, because I have been through a struggle. It is a real struggle. And I suspect that there are an awful lot of you who have been through the same struggle--both before we voted on the motion to dismiss and, for me, since we voted on the motion to dismiss.

For me, the law is a sacred thing. And that is part of my life. I have seen what the law can do. It is a powerful, powerful thing. It can do extraordinary things for ordinary people. And I believe we have been given a sacred responsibility. I will tell you what that sacred responsibility means to me personally. It means that when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President.

And I have to tell you all something, my friends on this side of the aisle, that wasn't a hard thing for me to do. I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

So I said to myself, what is the right and fair thing to do? And this is what I have done. I have looked--many times until 3 a.m. in the morning--at the evidence in this case. Because I think that is the way we need to make this decision.

The perjury charge, I believe, is just not there. The evidence is not there to support it. I know many of you believe it is there. I respect your view on that. I don't believe it is there. The obstruction charge is a totally different matter. And this is the way I have thought about the obstruction charge.

I view, in my mind's eye, the scales of justice. And on one side, where the prosecution makes an allegation, I put their evidence. On the other side I put the defense evidence. And I do believe that for a charge this serious that the proper standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

So after that evidence is put on both sides of the scale of justice, what happens? I want to just very briefly go through what I think are the four main charges for obstruction.

First, the false affidavit. The prosecution side: There is, in my judgment, clearly a false affidavit. The President had a conversation with Monica Lewinsky about filing an affidavit where he said to her, ``You can file an affidavit; that might be a way for you to avoid testifying.'' That is on the prosecution side.

I want to make a really important point for me personally here. I think there is an enormous difference between what has been proven and what we suspect, because I have to tell you all, I suspect a lot that has not been proven.

What is on the defense side? On the defense side: what has been proven in this case is that President Clinton never saw the affidavit, never had a discussion with anyone about the contents of that affidavit. He didn't know what was in it. He never told, according to her, Monica Lewinsky or anyone what should be in the affidavit.

So that is the evidence on the scales of justice: One for the prosecution; that evidence for the defense. For me it is a very clear thing. The scales tilt in favor of the defense, and they certainly don't tilt strongly enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second charge--and the one that bothers me the most--coaching Betty Currie. The evidence on the side of the prosecution: President Clinton has a conversation with Betty Currie just after he has been questioned in his deposition where he makes very declarative statements to her--it happens twice--very declarative statements to her about what he remembers, many of which we now know to be false. And his explanation for that conversation lacks credibility, to say the least, that he was trying to refresh his memory. I doubt if anybody buys that. That is on one side, that is on the prosecution side.

What is on the other side? On the other side we have Betty Currie saying it had no influence on her. But that is not the most troublesome thing for me. The troublesome thing is this: For that conversation to be obstruction of justice, it must have been proven that it was President Clinton's intent to affect her sworn testimony.

Now, what are the other possibilities? We have a man who has just been confronted with this problem, who is political by nature. And do we really believe that the first thing he thought about is, ``I'm going to go protect myself legally''? I suspect the first thing he thought about is ``I'm going to protect myself politically.'' He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out. Do I know which of these things are true? Absolutely not. I don't know which of them are true. Doesn't that answer the question? If we don't know which of those things are true, have they been proven? If we don't know what was in his head at that moment, how can we find that the prosecution has proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt?

The third charge, the job search. On the prosecution side of the scales of justice, we have an intensified effort to find a job for Monica Lewinsky. I think that has been proven. I think that has been proven clearly. On the other side, we have testimony from Monica Lewinsky that she was never promised a job for her silence. We have evidence that the job search, although not as intense, was going on before anyone knew she would be a witness. We have Vernon Jordan testifying under oath--I sat there and watched it and looked him in the eye--that there was never a quid pro quo, that the affidavit was over here and the job search was over here.

The reality is, when you put all that evidence on the scale--prosecution evidence on one side, defense evidence on the other--at worst the scale stays even. And the prosecution has got to prove this case in order to remove the President of the United States beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have not proven it no matter what we suspect. No matter what we suspect. So that is the false affidavit which we have talked about, coaching Betty Currie, the job search.

Now to the gifts. Let's see what the proof is. What is the proof--not the suspicion. On the prosecution side, we know that the President's secretary went to Monica Lewinsky's house, got the gifts, took them home and hid them under her bed. I have to tell you, on its face, that is awful suspicious, and it is strong, heavy evidence. The problem is, there is evidence on the other side. That evidence doesn't stand alone.

First, we have the testimony of Betty Currie that Monica Lewinsky called her. Second, we have the fact that President Clinton gave her other gifts on that Sunday, which makes no sense to me. I heard the House managers try to explain it away. I have been a lawyer for 20 years, and I have been in that place of trying to explain away something that makes no sense. It doesn't make sense. Monica Lewinsky, herself, testified that she brought up the issue of gifts--not President Clinton--and that the most President Clinton ever said was something to the effect of ``I'm not sure. Let me think about that.''

Now when that evidence goes on the defense side and the only evidence on the prosecution side is the fact that those gifts are sitting under the bed of Betty Currie, what happens to the scale? At best, the scale stays even. In my judgment, it actually tilts for the defense. There is no way it rises to the level of ``beyond a reasonable doubt.''

Every trial I have ever been in has had one moment, one quintessential moment when the entirety of the trial was described, and in this case we have such a moment. There was a question that had my name on it. The reality is, Senator KOHL wrote it--I tagged on--but it was a great question. The question was, Is this a matter about which reasonable people can differ? I will never forget Manager Lindsey GRAHAM coming to this microphone and his answer was ``Absolutely.'' Now if the prosecution concedes that reasonable people can differ about this, how can we not have reasonable doubt?

These things all lead me to the conclusion that however reprehensible the President's conduct is, I have to vote to acquit on both articles of impeachment.

I have one last thing I want to say to you all, and it is actually most important. If you don't remember anything else I said, and you weren't listening to

GPO's PDF

anything else I have said, please listen to what I am about to say because it is so important to me.

I have learned so much during the 30 days that I have been here. I have had a mentor in Senator BYRD, who has probably been a mentor to many others before me. I have formed friendships with people on both sides. Senators LEAHY and DODD, who I worked with on these depositions--wonderful, wonderful Senators. I have learned what leadership is about from these two men sitting right here--Senators LOTT and DASCHLE. I have loved working with Senators DEWINE and THOMPSON. And Senator SPECTER and I worked together on a deposition. He showed me great deference and respect. I have no idea why, but he did; and I appreciate it. I have deep respect and admiration for my senior Senator from North Carolina, who has been extraordinarily kind and gracious to me since I arrived here.

Let me tell you what I will be thinking about when my name is called and I cast my vote, hopefully tomorrow. I will be thinking about juries all over this country who are sitting in deliberation in rooms that are not nearly as grand as this but who are struggling, just as you all have and I have, to do the right thing. I have to say, I have a boundless faith in the American people sitting on those juries. They want to do what is right. They want to do what is right in the worst kind of way.

An extraordinary thing has happened to me in the last 30 days. I have watched you struggle, every one of you. I have watched you come to this podium. I have listened to what you have had to say. I talked to you informally; I watched you suffer. I believe in my heart that every single one of you wants to do the right thing. The result of that for me is a gift. And that gift is that I now have a boundless faith in you.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

19. oh god... that's all. just... wow. n/t

[mod mom]

3. here:

He should recall his own wisdom in 1999, when with great clarity he described Clinton's affair as "breathtaking" for its "remarkable disrespect … for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20080811/cm_usatoday/foredwardsonlyfulltruthcanpavepathtoredemption

[grannie4peace]

4. he did

he was really harsh about clinton,, i figured that was part of why it happened to him, karma works that way sometimes

[LSparkle]

8. If that's true, then I can't wait for JOEMENTUM's comeuppance ...

or ... err ... DOWNFALL. That self-righteous gasbag
needs to be brought down.

[LittleClarkie]

5. His comments re: Clinton were enough

and dismissing them as self-preservation isn't enough.

And my point o' the day still stands. If his religious upbringing wouldn't allow him to support same sex marriages then it shouldn't have allowed him to cheat on the Mrs. either.

[HardWorkingDem]

6. That's a good point.....nt...

....

[emilyg]

16. Great point.

[NNN0LHI]

7. I am actually more interested in what McCain had to say about Clinton

Seeing he dumped his disabled wife to marry his drug addicted mistress.

Don

[MJW]

12. it is the world famous American

double standard

[karynnj]

13. Here's McCain's Senate speech - he voted yes because of perjury and obstruction of justice,

while saying he wasn't judging the President's private life and stating he did things he was not proud of. (The Democrats were in a tougher position on this - needing to distance themselves then define reasons that this was not a reason to throw him out of office.)


Mr. McCAIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I intend to vote to convict the President of the United States on both articles of impeachment . To say I do so with regret will sound trite to some, but I mean it sincerely. I deeply regret that this day has come to pass.

I bear no animosity for the President. I take no partisan satisfaction from this matter. I don't lightly dismiss the public's clear opposition to conviction. And I am genuinely concerned that the institution of the Presidency not be harmed, either by the President's conduct, or by Congress' reaction to his conduct.

Indeed, I take no satisfaction at all from this vote, with one exception--and an important exception it is--that by voting to convict I have been spared reproach by my conscience for shirking my duty.

The Senate faces an awful choice, to be sure. But, to my mind, it is a clear choice. I am persuaded that the President has violated his oath of office by committing perjury and by obstructing justice, and that by so doing he has forfeited his office.

As my colleagues across the aisle have so often reminded me, the country does not want the President removed. And, they ask, are we not, first and foremost, servants of the public will? Even if we believe the President to be guilty of the offenses charged, and even if we believe those offenses rise to the level of impeachment , should we risk the national trauma of forcing his removal against the clearly expressed desire of the vast majority of Americans that he should not be removed even if he is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice?

I considered that question very carefully, and I arrived at an answer by reversing the proposition. If a clear majority of the American people were to demand the conviction of the President, should I vote for his conviction even if I believed the President to be innocent of the offenses he is charged with? Of course not. Neither, then, should I let public opinion restrain me from voting to convict if I determine the President is guilty.

But are these articles of impeachment of sufficient gravity to warrant removal or can we seek their redress by some other means short of removing the President from office? Some of those who argue for a lesser sanction, including the President's able counsel, contend that irrespective of the President's guilt or innocence, neither of the articles charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors. Nothing less than an assault on the integrity of our constitutional government rises to that level. The President's offenses were committed to cover up private not public misconduct. Therefore, if he thwarted justice he did so for the perfectly understandable and forgivable purpose of keeping hidden an embarrassing personal shortcoming that, were it discovered, would harm only his family and his reputation, but would not impair our system of government.

This, too, is an appealing rationalization for acquittal. But it is just that, a rationalization. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the expressed views of our founders are crimes intended to conceal the President's character flaws distinguished from crimes intended to subvert democracy. The President thwarted justice. No matter how unfair he or we may view a process that forces a President to disclose his own failings, we should not excuse or fail to punish in the constitutionally prescribed manner evidence that the President has deliberately thwarted the course of justice.

I do not desire to sit in judgement of the President's private misconduct. It is truly a matter for him and his family to resolve. I sincerely wish circumstances had allowed the President to keep his personal life private. I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have. But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law.

All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard. Although I may admit to failures in my private life, I have at all times, and to the best of my ability, kept faith with every oath I have ever sworn to this country. I have known some men who kept that faith at the cost of their lives.

I cannot--not in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendship--I cannot agree to expect less from the President.

Most officers of my acquaintance would have resigned their commission had they been discovered violating their oath. The President did not choose that course of action. He has left it to the Senate to determine his fate. And the Senate, as we all know, is going to acquit the President. As much as I would like to, I cannot join in his acquittal.

The House managers have made, and I believe some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree, a persuasive case that the President is guilty of perjury and obstruction. The circumstances that led to these offenses may be tawdry, trivial to some, and usually of a very private nature. But the President broke the law. Not a tawdry law, not a trivial law, not a private law.

The tortured explanations with which the President's attorneys have tried to defend him against both articles fail to raise reasonable doubts about his guilt. It seems clear to me, and to most Americans, that the President deliberately lied under oath, and that he tried to encourage others to lie under oath on his behalf. Presidents may not be excused from such an abuse no matter how intrusive, how unfair, how distasteful are the judicial proceedings they attempt to subvert.

The President's defenders want to know how can I be certain that the offenses, even if true, warrant removal from office. They are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution as impeachable offenses. Nor did the founders identify perjury or obstruction as high crimes or high misdemeanors. Were an ordinary citizen accused of perjury in a civil proceeding he or she would in all likelihood not be prosecuted or forced out of political necessity into a perjury trap.

No, an ordinary citizen would not be treated as the President has been treated. But ordinary citizens don't enforce the laws for the rest of us. Ordinary citizens don't have the world's mightiest armed forces at their command. Ordinary citizens do not usually have the opportunity to be figures of historical importance.

Presidents are not ordinary citizens. They are extraordinary, in that they

Are perjury and obstruction of justice expressly listed as high crimes and misdemeanors? No. Why? Because they are self-evidently so. Just as the President is self-evidently the nation's chief law enforcement officer, despite his attorneys' quibbling to the contrary. It is self-evident to us all, I hope, that we cannot overlook, dismiss or diminish the obstruction of justice by the very person we charge with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. It is self-evident to me. And accordingly, regretfully, I must vote to convict the President, and urge my colleagues to do the same.''

[NNN0LHI]

15. Well we need to ask him exactly what things he is not proud of then

Need to get to the bottom of this right away.

Can't have unanswered questions like that lying around.

Don

[karynnj]

20. I suspect that the one you referenced is high on the list

[NNN0LHI]

21. Well he needs to get in front of some cameras and discuss this

And not Fox news either.

Don

[Bluenorthwest]

18. He has also

He also grandstanded many times in the last couple of years about his Southern Baptist values being such a part of him that he can not support marriage equality for all Americans. He said he can not make those 'values' disappear.
That is saying that GLBT people are morally inferior. He said these things of his own free will, before during and after his affair, and the lies around that affair. While not a direct 'ill of others', when one claims moral superiority and the right to judge others in the name of God no less, one is indeed saying 'they are bad and I am better.' And that is in fact a way of speaking ill. And also speaking well of one's self, at the expense of others. It is also a smoke screen for his own indiscretions and his own loose way with the truth.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. John Edwards has supported civil unions which not a different opinion than the one held by

Obama. He also wants a repeal of DMA.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Yeah and Obama is wrong too

And John Edwards is the prefect example of why they are wrong. Also, my point was that he used the questions about GLBT equality not to support that equality, but to make a clearly false point about his religious views regarding the sanctity of marriage. He used the issue, and religion, to take a high horse he had no right to be riding.
He painted a picture of moral status, with himself above all GLBT people, and he said God was the reason to do so. When he said those things, he was covering up his own infedelity with mountains of lies.
And again, Obama's position on equality for those not like him is also wrong headed, based on a religion that is selectively read by both men. They are both wrong, and bigoted. And Edwards is a self serving hypocrite on top on that.