For those who keep saying that Ensign and Edwards are similar cases

[dsc]

you need to look at the ethics committee report on Ensign. The cases aren't remotely similar.

Let's start with the Edwards case. Edwards is charged with violating campaign laws by having two wealthy supporters pay Hunter Rielle and Andrew Young (mistress and aid pretending kid is his) living expenses while Young was pretending that Hunter's child was his. No money went to his campaign, nor is there evidence that Edwards solicited the funds. The theory is that since the campaign benefited from covering up the affair these payments are campaign contributions. He is also charged with one count of making a false statement which I don't know anything about. No one has been charged with a similar crime in the history of campaign finance law.

Now onto Ensign.

Ensign either had a consentual affair with or sexually harassed the wife of Doug Hampton. Upon Doug finding out about the affair an intervention is held but the affair continues and Doug is fired. After firing Doug, Ensign looked for a variety of ways to pay him off. One of those was having his father pay him $96,000 from the family trust, the money didn't go through Ensign's campaign. On top of that similar to Edwards conduct he did all of the following according to the ethics report:

1) He paid Doug Hampton for excessive vacation days (that would be tax payer money since Hampton had a tax payer funded job)

2) He arranged a lobbying gig for Doug Hampton at a lobbying firm.

3) He undertook efforts to convince and compel constituents to hire Mr. Hampton.

4) He conspired with Mr. Hampton to funnel lobbying contracts through Mr. Lopez since Mr. Hampton was banned from lobbying the Senate for a year after his termination.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/senate-ethics-panel-ensign-sex-scandal-may-have-broken-us-ethics-laws-we-have-forwarded-ensign-findi.php

end of quote from report

Honestly, as sleazy as the 96,000 is it probably wasn't illegal. But the other four elements, none of which Edwards did, clearly are. You can't use taxpayer money to pay off the husband of your mistress, you can't conspire to violate laws, and you can't create straw employees in order to not get caught breaking the law.

[OHdem10]

1. My reason putting the tow in the same sentence is: Why Edwards

and not Ensign???

[hlthe2b]

2. the real difference....

Ensign is a Rethuglican and as such will never be prosecuted nor even taken to task by the media, which remains cowed by the virulent RW.

Though Edwards is anything but "squeaky clean" and morally upstanding, even if he were it was a foregone conclusion that, as a Democrat, he would be excoriated. Look at the media trying to find some big scandal out of Weiner's twitter issue. I nearly lost it when i actually heard one hinting it might cause him his seat in Congress. Good Gawd. Meanwhile, the prostitute-exploiting Vitter was given a standing O by RETHUGS when he returned to the Senate.

[cali]

14. you mean like Tom Delay was never prosecuted.

It's so stupid this stuff. It's stupid when the freepers moan about how if Repub X was a democrat he'd get away with this or that and it's stupid when DUers say it.

[dsc]

15. Delay was prosecuted by a Demcoratic state prosecutor

not the federal DOJ. He also actually broke laws.

[hlthe2b]

16. Yes... that's the point...

[me b zola]

3. Recommended

I think that many of us on the left side are easily swayed by how we care for Elizabeth instead of looking at facts. Lordy, I do care for Elizabeth, but John's offense's were not criminal.

[malaise]

4. K & R

for truth

When will Ensign be indicted?
This ReTHUG led Edwards charade will drag through the courts just in time for the Democratic Party Convention in North Carolina.

[JDPriestly]

5. Thanks.

Edwards was wrong to have the affair and wrong to hide it. But, having made a horrendous error, Edwards or his supporters had the decency to try to protect his wife from the pain of public exposure of the facts. Unfortunately, some political sadist just had to make the details of Edwards' affair public and add to Elizabeth Edwards' misery.

Permitting his Justice Department to proceed in the Edwards indictment is hideously vindictive on Obama's part. Obama should be calling on Edwards for help -- for fresh ideas in dealing with the economic ruin that is occurring in our country -- rather than calling Edwards to court.

Obama won the election, but he lost the argument on economic issues as seen in the horrible and declining state of our economy.

Obama is dividing the Democratic Party. It is a terrible thing that he will bear on his conscience for a long time.

Remember the Siegelman case? As far as I know, the Obama Justice Department still has not adequately investigated the conduct of some of its attorneys in that matter.

Is Obama using his Justice Department to silence potential political rivals? I hope not, but I am beginning to wonder.

[dsc]

6. In fairness to Obama this case is being brought by

a Bush appointed US Attorney who Kay Hagan wouldn't let him replace until this case was resolved.

[JDPriestly]

7. Thanks.

Obama needs to get rid of this case because I don't believe that Kay Hagan has that kind of power over Obama. There are lots of ways that Obama can handle this.

[dsc]

9. she can, and did, unilaterally hold up the confirmation of the replacement

until the case was resolved.

[JDPriestly]

11. Kay Hagan is a Democrat who supports free trade.

She is on the Export-Import committee. No wonder she wants to do Edwards in. He might actually oppose her election next time. And he is not an advocate of "free trade."

In October 2008, The Politico reported that Hagan's husband Chip Hagan III, a former Democratic county leader, had been a member of 1,000-member Greensboro Country Club for years, despite the club's de facto segregation and refusal to admit black members.<14> Hagan herself was not a member of the club. Greensboro Country Club admitted its first black member in 1995.<14> Over the summer, Chip Hagan had also been criticized by Republicans for part ownership of domestic oil wells as gasoline prices increased for consumers.

. . . .

Hagan differs from the Democratic Party on the issue of FDA regulation of the tobacco industry. Hagan opposed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which was cosponsored in the 110th Congress by Barack Obama. Lorillard Tobacco Company is based in her hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina.<32> Hagan was the only Democratic senator to oppose the bill when it came to a vote in the Senate. The bill passed with 79 votes in favor to 17 in opposition, including Hagan.<33>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Hagan

Hagan is not the kind of person I would vote for.

[dsc]

13. I can't imagine she fears an Edwards non endorsement

as he is about as popular as anthrax right now. I think she was pretty much playing to her constituency on the US Attorney issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. I don't think it's fair to accuse Obama of being politically vindictive

When Democrats were criticizing Bush for firing US Attorneys for not prosecuting Democrats, the Republicans pointed out that Clinton fired US Attorneys when he came into office and there were still outstanding investigations of Democrats going on. So while Bush took politicizing the DOJ to a whole new level, it had been politicized before. Obama, I think, wanted to reverse that trend.

The problem is that he did it by keeping in US Attorneys that were engaging in politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats.

[spooky3]

8. good post--why DOJ is not using its resources to go after consequential wrongdoing

such as prosecuting war criminals is beyond me. If this case is as legally weak as legal experts have been saying, it will amount to a tremendous waste of resources, as well as continued pain for the innocent Edwards children.

I also don't buy the story that the intent is to make an example of Edwards' case in order to ensure that other politicians don't use an "excuse" that a campaign donation was really a personal gift of some sort. The Citizens United case has unleashed all kinds of far worse abuses.

[FrenchieCat]

10. How long did it take for Edwards to be Indicted?

Why do we think Ensign won't suffer the same fate?
Ensign lost his seat due to his ethical laspe....
and it ain't over yet....not even close.

Guess patience prior to making determinations is
not our strong suit......

[dsc]

12. I am assuming Ensign will be indicted because he actually broke laws

my point is Edwards didn't break any laws, or at least didn't break any that have ever been prosecuted in the past. I think the investigation took about 2 and a half years.

[JDPriestly]

17. The prosecution of Blagojevich has not gone well thus far.

It looks odd when Obama's political rivals end up indicted by Obama's Justice Department based on very little and probably insufficient evidence to get a conviction.

We saw enough of that stuff with the Bush administration. Meanwhile the torturers and those who lied to get us into Iraq as well as the war profiteers and Wall Street cheats face no indictments.

There is an imbalance here, and it makes Obama look bad whether he is responsible or not.

[dsc]

19. blagojevich is in deep trouble

He only got the hung jury based on one juror in the first trial. I don't think he will be so lucky this time.

[JDPriestly]

21. Actually, the prosecution has had the time to test its arguments

and evidence. We shall see. I personally think that Blagojevich is probably a brash, annoying person, and quite corrupt, but no more corrupt than than the majority of our politicians including many in our current government.

[KG]

18. if either of them had keep their peters parked, they'd have nothing to worry about.

[dsc]

20. not keeping your peter parked isn't a crime

I am not saying Edwards deserves a medal, or even to be thought of as a decent human being, but I am saying that he doesn't deserve jail and that Ensign does since he did worse things than Edwards did.