Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Sadly, the most interesting piece of information to come out of the indictment against the former Senator and 2008 presidential candidate is that John is his nickname. His given name? Johnny.
A federal grand jury handed down the indictment today for various charges relating to violating campaign finance laws. All of these arose out of an attempt to hide his infidelity with Rielle Hunter, a union that produced his youngest daughter.
There are six charges: four counts of illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy and one count of making false statements.
Johnny Edwards is the type of candidate I least like. Still, I'm not sure this should even count as illegal. Hiding one's infidelity is a key component of a political campaign.
And even so, isn't prosecuting this just a humongous waste of taxpayer money? What public interest does it serve? Help me out, here.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
So, what are you saying? Have campaign finance laws but don't enforce them? Or only enforce them against winners? Or guys saddled with the name "Johnny" have suffered enough (with deference to Johnny Carson, Johnny Bench, Johnny Cash and Johnny Depp)?
Jun '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
He wasn't just a candidate for President. He's a lawyer. There's a special duty for officers of the court, or police officers, to follow the law. If they can't, or won't, then why should anyone?
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
EJHill
So, what are you saying? Have campaign finance laws but don't enforce them? Or only enforce them against winners? Or guys saddled with the name "Johnny" have suffered enough (with deference to Johnny Carson, Johnny Bench, Johnny Cash and Johnny Depp)? · Jun 3 at 8:05am
It will probably not surprise you that I generally oppose campaign finance laws. But even so, you see what I'm saying about how hiding a mistress would seem like a very legitimate use of campaign funds? If it had been discovered, it would have been devastating. And campaigns generally oppose the uncovering of devastating information. It's not like the affair and funds let to general corruption, as was the case with Ensign ...
And as for the illustrious Johnnys you mention, I am now downright elated he changed his name to John. Speaks volumes about what kind of North Carolinian he is.
May '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
I'm not sure his donors would be as generous. I can't say I'd be thrilled to help a candidate cheat on his dying wife. That's placing a very flawed man above principle, above the law and above country. And you can flush him down the Johnny.
Aug '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
One of the reasons for opposing the vast majority of Election Finance laws is that the donated money represents speech -- in support of the candidate -- on the part of those donating the money. I agree with this point of view.
What Edwards potentially did was take speech that was advocating him as a political candidate and turned it into speech covering up infidelities. He turned his political supporters into the financial supporters of his sexual liaisons.
I think even without Campaign Finance laws there might be a tort in there somewhere on the part of the supporters, and there may even be some fraud since Edwards potentially spent their money which they believed was going to his campaign to pay off a mistress and to -- arguably -- get someone else to commit perjury.
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Mollie this will raise an interesting issue on what is a legitimate campaign expense. I don't know that his lawyers will go there, but if they have nothing else they may have to.
Fun history note on pols hiding kids: President Harding had an illegitimate daughter and kept her and her mom in a house in my hometown of Asbury Park.
Sep '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Perhaps it is because this fellow enriched himself as an entreprenuerial litigator or perhaps it is the transparent, sentimental way they tried to capitalise on his wife's cancer but I regard him as one of the most disgusting, mendacious and untrustworthy politicians to strut and fret his hour upon the stage in many years. I know I am a sinner but this Johnny's misery gives me nothing but pleasure.
Oct '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Of course he does. What kinda question is that?
May '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Mollie, are you really seriously defending using campaign funds to hide a mistress? Well, then, how about using the money to pay her expenses, put her up in a nearby hotel when he travels, and such? Or to pay a prostitute? Now sure how different the latter is, for that matter.
Do you think a mistress (secret or otherwise) is a normal and acceptable part of a politician's entourage?
If so, all I can say is: Zoiks!
Objections are often made, BTW, to paying family members who work on campaigns out of donated funds (speciously, I think, unless the pay scale is outside norms for the type of work done).
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
I think the presence of a mistress, much less the use of funds to hide her, is absolutely deplorable. I wish there were more moral outrage over Edwards' behavior than there has been but I'm not sure I'm sold on a federal indictment or all these laws and regulations about how you can spend funds. I think Edwards is a worthless piece of trash, the lowest of the low. I'm full of schadenfreude seeing him humbled this way, but I'm just asking about the propriety of a federal case here.
May '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
I seem to remember a few White House employees who went to the crowbar hotel for campaign violations much more mild than this...
Edited on June 3, 2011 at 7:26pmMay '11
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
I think it is interesting to contrast his offense with Tom Delay's. Campaign finance laws are much like NCAA recruiting rules. Delay's activities were a technical violation but provided little if any improper recruiting advantage. Edward's actions constitute outright fraud similar to knowingly paying players.
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Mollie, count me in as pro-indictment. And here's a copy of said document, for all to review.
It's easy to get distracted by morality of the situation -- and that, for me at least, Edwards and his silk-pony persona is fingernails on the blackboard.
At the heart of the case isn't whether they tried to cover up the affair. They did -- and failed in a huge way. The legal issue is the motivation. If you're running a slush/hush fund that benefits a presidential candidacy -- in this case, protecting the candidate's image by hiding some ugly truth -- then that, to me, is a deliberate circumvention of campaign finance laws. It's a donation-in-kind.
Sep '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
If the money to prosecute Edwards could actually be saved and used for more important public purposes, like, say, paying down the debt, I'd be all with you, Mollie. I'm tired of laws that are impossible to enforce and prosecute and that give seeming life to an otherwise dying mainstream media. (An aside: I'll wager Edwards beats this.) But since the attorney costs can't be extracted, I'm very interested in having these felony charges pursued to the fullest extent of the law.
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Wait, is there any way he could go to jail? If so, I'm back on board. I just don't want this to result in some petty fine that he can handle easily through his ill-gotten wealth.
Sep '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
I don't know; the law gurus would have to answer that. But I did double-check, and according to the Wall Street Journal, he's being charged with felonies: "If convicted, Mr. Edwards faces five years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines."
Aug '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Edwards made preposterous statements and ludicrous claims in his speeches when he ran with John Kerry, such as "There are thirteen million veterans living on the streets in America! And it's George Bush's fault!"
He made hundreds of millions by convincing juries that children born with defects like cerebral palsy got that way because the pediatricians who delivered them didn't perform C-sections. He often 'channeled' the dead spirits of babies in the courtroom to convince jurors of his thesis, and won so many cases that the rate of C-sections has soared, adding hugely to the cost of births in the U.S. Ann Coulter has documented this thoroughly.
The man is slimy and amoral at his core. He richly deserves prosecution.
Mar '11
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
To paraphrase Edwards, there are two America's. One in which a multimillionaire politician can decry income gaps while building a mansion the size of a small state while voting for idiotic laws that limit my freedom of political speech, then flaunting those laws to cover up an indiscretion against his dying wife. The other America is where no one is above the law and will be prosecuted in accordance to the law. I am happy to be in the latter America.
Oct '10
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Edwards is being charged with felonies. If convicted, he will lose his license to practice law and will face jail time. Press reports prior to his indictment indicated he had been offered a plea bargin that required time in jail. Edwards rejected this and has rolled the dice. Personally, I hope he loses this bet, and if convicted is awarded the maximum allowable sentence.
Mar '11
Re: Did John Edwards Really Need To Be Indicted?
Applying laws enacted and defended by legislators on the legislators themselves provides them with what President Obama would call “a teachable moment.” With what we already spend on education, giving errant politicians a pass because trying them costs money seems foolish. Trying anyone costs money. Edwards paid for his behavior with his political future, but his debt to society remains in arrears.