Given that Edwards was wealthy in his own right, and, like the former governor of California, could have paid the expenses himself, from his private funds, this boils down to why others made the payments? The most plausible explanation, given that no one would have had a right to see his private accounts except his wife, that he was hiding the expenses from his wife. That’s what cheating husbands do.

Trying to tie this to a run for the President, is more than a slight stretch, and I don’t see how you can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the only reason for doing this was the run for President. He had a position in society in his home town that would be threatened by his actions, so I don’t see the point in this prosecution.

If the money had come from the campaign treasury, nail his hide to the wall. But this was a totally segregated operation. This makes no sense at all because it requires a judge and jury to accept the prosecution’s theory without reservation. Depending on the judge, this could get dismissed during the initial motions and never see a trial. I don’t see how this could be classed as strictly a “political” problem for Edwards.

Kryten, I put it down to midlife crisis. He should have waited until he was mayor of New York and no one would have cared.

Yeah, Zero was less than vigilant when it came to “sweeping out the stables” after taking over, and we are all paying for it. Eric Holder is a total disappointment as an Attorney General.

Florida has to prove “it’s tough on crime” and has prosecuted a number of children as adults to make that point. The parents may well be prosecuted for child neglect/endangerment, if there is a way to make a case, because that’s the way Florida has become. The parents will no doubt cop the “good Christians” plea, as that is convenient cover for a lot of crimes involving children. I keep hoping the state will make it to the 19th century, but that probably won’t happen.

Ummm… you mean, Prez Hopey no-Changey. As far as I’ve seen, he hasn’t changed anything, except maybe some wallpaper or a lick of paint here and there. It’s all cosmetics with him. He should run for President of Avon, except that they are a Corp that actually knows what they are doing, so probably wouldn’t have him, except maybe a junior marketing position. Pfffft!

I just saw on the news this morning, that Florida plans to try a 12 YO boy for murder as an adult. That will be interesting. From the *evidence* cited, he looks to be guilty of killing his 2 YO brother, but I think his parents should be locked up and also sterilized! They are obviously too stupid to have kids anyway. What a sad state of affairs… and it happens far too often now.

So, if I am reading the article correctly, the prosecutors must show (beyond reasonable doubt) that:
1) Edwards would not have paid (or arranged for others to pay) his mistress; and/or
2) The donors who paid his mistress only did so because to support his bid to be president.

It seems that #1 is needed so that the payments to his mistress can be considered campaign expenses rather than a personal expense. It isn’t clear to me that #2 is needed, but I *think* that if other people paid off the mistress in the hope of seeing Edwards become president, then these were campaign contributions even if Edwards would have made payments to his mistress anyway. (Or, alternatively, if the payments she received were larger than they would have been if he were not running for office, then that excess is the campaign contribution.)

Your thoughts?
Best,
Jim

Weiner was brain-dead. Nothing you put on the ‘Net ever disappears and all too much of it includes the meta data that makes identification a relatively trivial exercise. I have avoided all of the “social media” as a time sink and security breach waiting to happen. Politicians seem to think it’s nothing more that texting, when you are essentially on a party line with thousands of other people.

It may be embarrassing, but it is not like Larry Craig or Vitter which involved criminal conduct, as long as everyone involved was an adult.

Yeah, Steve, I get the feeling that they didn’t spend any time at all checking the professional credentials of the people at Justice. It wasn’t simply that they were political, almost all of them were incompetent.

There is nothing in the law, or in precedents that make the prosecution’s theory of the “crime” even plausible. I have no idea how this is going to work out, but it does make it fairly obvious why Edwards didn’t agree to any kind of plea deal, and is going to court. The prosecution is going to have to prove there was a law to be broken, i.e. that something in the campaign finance law makes what was done was illegal, when for years, it has been ruled illegal to do it any way except the one Edwards used.

This Department of Justice smells like the fundies were never exorcized.

Re: Edwards… wait a minute. I thought he was in trouble for using campaign funds to buy his mistress’s silence. Now they’re saying that he did NOT use campaign funds, but he should have listed that money as campaign-related? WTF? I could see that it would probably be illegal to use campaign funds to pay her to STFU, but I can’t see how it can be illegal for him… or his friends… to give her personal money to stay quiet. It seems to me that assumes a fact not in evidence, i.e., that the money given was campaign money. I haven’t followed the matter closely; maybe I missed something. Or maybe someone feels the DP needs a sacrificial lamb, and Edwards was chosen.