Johnny Law Catches Up To Papa John...

[Lord Jim]

Speaking of hypocritical politicians; the guy who's picture sits in the dictionary next to definition of the term gets his just desserts:

John Edwards indicted by North Carolina grand jury

By Michael A. Memoli

June 3, 2011, 7:22 a.m.
Reporting from Washington—

A North Carolina grand jury has indicted former Sen. John Edwards on criminal campaign finance violations in connection with a sex scandal.

Edwards, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004 and a candidate for president in 2004 and 2008, was charged with four counts of illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy and one count of false statements. The charges stem from a years-long investigation into whether Edwards used money from two supporters to cover up an affair with Rielle Hunter, a former campaign videographer with whom he had a child.

Prosecutors say the money from Edwards' supporters to Hunter constituted campaign donations because it furthered his political career. Edwards attorneys consider that an improper interpretation of campaign finance
laws, and that the case is a matter for the Federal Election Commission, not the courts.

"John Edwards has done wrong in his life — and he knows it better than anyone — but he did not break the law," his attorney, former White House Counsel Gregory Craig, told the Los Angeles Times last week. "The government's theory is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. It is novel and untested. There is no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution."

Edwards, 57, has reportedly been offered deals to lessen criminal penalties in return for admission of guilt, but he has refused to plead guilty to a felony offense.

Rumors of infidelity dogged Edwards' 2008 campaign; he repeatedly denied them. But in January 2010 he acknowledged that he was the father of Frances Quinn Hunter, now 3. His marriage to the late Elizabeth Edwards collapsed as a result.

The money Edwards is alleged to have used to cover up his affair came from his national campaign finance chairman, Fred Baron, who died in 2008, and banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, who is 100.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2658.story

You can read the indictment here:

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/20 ... 073303.pdf

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Scary to think how close this malignant narcissist came to high office.

[Rick]

Actually I thought they did this a week ago.

I guess now it's official...

[dgs49]

As loathsome as Edwards is, this is a bullshit case.

If you accept the idea that money given to Hunter was a "campaign contribution,"...

I don't.

[Sue U]

I agree with dgs. (Yes, they're having snowball fights in Hell today.)

[Lord Jim]

If you accept the idea that money given to Hunter was a "campaign contribution,"...

Where do you get that from Dave?

The issue is that campaign contributions were used as hush money paid to Hunter...

[Sue U]

Fred Baron (pbuh) and Bunny Mellon gave (their own) money to Rielle Hunter, presumably so that she'd shut up and go away. The money was not given to or paid from the election fund. The indictment, as I understand it, alleges that this was somehow a "campaign contribution" that violated the federal contribution limits. It's a stretch.

[Rick]

So if it goes to trial he walks.

They just killed his political career...

[Lord Jim]

They just killed his political career...

He did that himself a long time ago, Keld. When I have a little more time, I'm going to read through the indictment; but I sincerely doubt this is an automatic "walk"....

[Guinevere]

He had any shreds of a political (or other) career left anyway, Keld?

As is documented all over the CSB, I never ever liked or trusted this guy. He is simply a dishonest schumck of the highest order.

The feds are relying on a FEC advisory opinion that money given to a candidate running for federal office is to be considered a campaign contribution. While not black letter law, or binding on the courts, agency interepretations of the statutes they implement and enforce is given considerable weight and force by the courts. Some judges more, some judges less. Even if that opinion isn't given significant weight, how is money given on behalf of a candidate -- either directly or indirectly -- to influence an event or issue that directly impacts on that candidate's campaign, not a campaign contribution? "Issue" ads and campaigning are subject to federal election laws, this type of "gift" should be as well.

[Rick]

He had any shreds of a political (or other) career left anyway, Keld?

Wellll no

Now it's completely beyond resurrection...

[Sue U]

I understand the argument, Guin, but I think characterizing third-party gifts to a candidate's mistress as "campaign contributions" is a step too far down the slippery slope (unless she was using the money to purchase ads or otherwise campaign for the candidate).

ETA:

Was it sleazy? Was it tawdry? Was it awful? Absolutely. But was it illegal? Was it a way to illicitly fund a campaign? I don't think so. Campaign funds couldn't have been used to support his mistress, so it's not like the campaign was actually spared any expense of its own by the payments.

[Guinevere]

I'm not sure money paid so she doesn't come public about the relationship and torpedo the campaign isn't a form of "otherwise campaigning."

[Sue U]

There is no indication at all that she was going to go public; she didn't say a word until more than two years after Edwards had withdrawn from the campaign -- and that was only after everyone else had already talked and his career and marriage were destroyed. This was a sad personal issue for all involved, but it was not an attempt to evade campaign finance laws.

[Guinevere]

This was a sad personal issue for all involved, but it was not an attempt to evade campaign finance laws.

I agree on the former, and the latter is now for the court to decide.

There is no indication at all that she was going to go public; she didn't say a word until more than two years after Edwards had withdrawn from the campaign -- and that was only after everyone else had already talked and his career and marriage were destroyed.

As you have pointed out on many prior occasions, we have no idea what went on in the grand jury room, what facts were presented, and by whom they were presented. Clearly there was enough to convince a grand jury that there were sufficient facts, and a plausible legal basis for the charges.

ETA: I haven't has time to read the statutory sections referenced in each charge, but the facts set forth in the indictment read pretty damn well for the prosecution.

[Sue U]

This was a sad personal issue for all involved, but it was not an attempt to evade campaign finance laws.

I agree on the former, and the latter is now for the court to decide.

Yes, that's true, but having seen some parts of this drama from the inside I have have my opinions.

As you have pointed out on many prior occasions, we have no idea what went on in the grand jury room, what facts were presented, and by whom they were presented. Clearly there was enough to convince a grand jury that there were sufficient facts, and a plausible legal basis for the charges.

Yeah, well, ham sandwich, y'know.

[Rick]

Ham sandwich?

Oh boy a female lawyer fight...

[Sue U]

"Ham sandwich" is a reference to a famous quote of NY Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler, who said any decent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

I don't think Guin and I are having a fight, just a slight difference of opinion; the law was not written to account for this set of facts specifically, so it's a matter of interpretation whether this situation amounts to a violation. I just think the peg is too square for the round hole; Guin thinks it might fit.

[Rick]

"Ham sandwich" is a reference to a famous quote of NY Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler, who said any decent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Thanks, I seem to recall that somewhere towards the back of my skull.

As for the other, interesting banter either way, thanks...

[Guinevere]

I don't think Guin and I are having a fight, just a slight difference of opinion; the law was not written to account for this set of facts specifically, so it's a matter of interpretation whether this situation amounts to a violation. I just think the peg is too square for the round hole; Guin thinks it might fit.

Agreed. (I'd insert a kissy-faced smiley here, but I don't want to go *too* far . . .)

Query whether our personal opinions of Johnny Reid Edwards (Sue is a long-time supporter, I am not) affect our willingness to shave the peg, or not . . .

[Sue U]

Also, I knew Fred, who was a truly terrific guy, and my former firm had a small role in this mess.