http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/03/edwards.case/index.html

The former Senator from North Carolina and Vice Presidential nominee pleaded not guilty.  He admitted he did wrong, but denied he broke the law.  Edwards stands accused of of misusing campaign contributions to support his mistress Rielle Hunter with whom he fathered a child in 2008.  Edwards first denied and then confessed he was the father of Frances Quinn Hunter.  Rielle Hunter, now 47, is alleged to have received more than  $1 million from Edwards' campaign.

Edwards' wife Elizabeth died of breast cancer on December 7, 2010. 

Yeah I read the various stories.

While it is obvious that this guy is a dirtbag deluxe, the government's case is quite weak and to me reeks of either (a) a desperate attempt to absolutely cement the end of his political career, or (b) a "wiffle ball" prosecution to ensure that a political crony never sees the inside of a jail cell.

As I understand things, Bunny Mellon directly provided the money to hide away Edwards' jumpoff baby mama ho girlfriend and did NOT funnel it through his campaign funds.  She knew she was ponying up money to cover up his indiscretion.

My money says that the charges will either be thrown out in a preliminary hearing, or he will be acquitted of all charges.  For all the money spent on the investigation the list of charges and the legal reasoning provide little return for the dollar.

Above is by no means a defense of Edwards.  His actions speak for themselves.

Yeah I read the various stories.

While it is obvious that this guy is a dirtbag deluxe, the government's case is quite weak and to me reeks of either (a) a desperate attempt to absolutely cement the end of his political career, or (b) a "wiffle ball" prosecution to ensure that a political crony never sees the inside of a jail cell.

As I understand things, Bunny Mellon directly provided the money to hide away Edwards' jumpoff baby mama ho girlfriend and did NOT funnel it through his campaign funds.  She knew she was ponying up money to cover up his indiscretion.

My money says that the charges will either be thrown out in a preliminary hearing, or he will be acquitted of all charges.  For all the money spent on the investigation the list of charges and the legal reasoning provide little return for the dollar.

Above is by no means a defense of Edwards.  His actions speak for themselves.


I wonder if Kerry knew Edwards was such a greaseball in the 2004 campaign.  I voted for Kerry in '04.  The vast right wing conspiracy would have dug up the dirt on Edwards by '06 and used it to derail Kerry's presidency.
::)

I wonder if Kerry knew Edwards was such a greaseball in the 2004 campaign.  I voted for Kerry in '04.  The vast right wing conspiracy would have dug up the dirt on Edwards by '06 and used it to derail Kerry's presidency.
::)


HECK YEAH  8)

I doubt that Kerry knew that Edwards was swinging from the chandeliers though.  If he did, he would have been scared to death that Teresa Heinz-Kerry would kick his ass by association.  ;D

As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, this is a non-story

As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, this is a non-story


Can't be.  Our government is spending beaucoup dinero to pursue an exceedingly flimsy case against this cad.

Fortunately this will be cheaper than the Starr investigation, a colossal boondoggle for sure.

Can't be.  Our government is spending beaucoup dinero to pursue an exceedingly flimsy case against this cad.

Fortunately this will be cheaper than the Starr investigation, a colossal boondoggle for sure.


So?  Who cares?

As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time, this is a non-story


What about my righteous indignation!  I mean, that man got lefties like me to like him with his class-conscious rhetoric.  We were willing to overlook the fact that he was a zillionaire trial lawyer who lived like a sultan.  We trusted him...and then he...he...how DARE he!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/ticking.gif

BTW, Rachel Lamber "Bunny" Mellon is heiress to the Warner-Lambert pharmaceutical fortune (Pfizer bought out Warner-Lambert in 2000).  She was married to the late Paul Mellon of the Mellon banking fortune.  Picksburgh's finest.

So?  Who cares?


Apparently the Justice Department and one heck of alot of newspapers, including the Washington Post who ran an "Edwards is Getting What's Due to Him" story before they pulled it.  Covering this story is gonna be big business.



BTW, Rachel Lamber "Bunny" Mellon .... was married to the late Paul Mellon of the Mellon banking fortune.  Picksburgh's finest.


Yep.  Between her and Teresa Heinz-Kerry there is Picksburgh written all over this scandal.  ;D

Yep.  Between her and Teresa Heinz-Kerry there is Picksburgh written all over this scandal.  ;D


Bunny Mellon...The good die young!

I'll be shocked if Edwards does any time.  What's the point anyway?  The campaign finance laws are meaningless after Citizens United v. FEC.

 The campaign finance laws are meaningless after Citizens United v. FEC.


Campaign finance laws are as ineffective as anti-drug laws.  They both attempt to defy the laws of economics.  Money is like water and will always leak through the cracks in the system.

"Be water, my friend"...

Campaign finance laws are as ineffective as anti-drug laws.  They both attempt to defy the laws of economics.  Money is like water and will always leak through the cracks in the system.

"Be water, my friend"...


I'll be your friend, but I won't do no leaking through yer cracks!
8-P

Campaign finance laws are as ineffective as anti-drug laws.  They both attempt to defy the laws of economics.  Money is like water and will always leak through the cracks in the system.

"Be water, my friend"...


Not quite.  You can't always follow the drugs, but you can sure as hell follow the money, like the koch brothers financing all those astro turf groups, and Dick Armey and his fantasy ground swellings, or the Chamber of horrors commerce and all their shenanigans. That money can be traced

Not quite.  You can't always follow the drugs, but you can sure as hell follow the money, like the koch brothers financing all those astro turf groups, and Dick Armey and his fantasy ground swellings, or the Chamber of horrors commerce and all their shenanigans. That money can be traced


Money can always be laundered and diverted. Just ask Edwards or A.C.O.R.N.

Not quite.  You can't always follow the drugs, but you can sure as hell follow the money, like the koch brothers financing all those astro turf groups, and Dick Armey and his fantasy ground swellings, or the Chamber of horrors commerce and all their shenanigans. That money can be traced
You got guys got George Soros so don't complain!

Money can always be laundered and diverted. Just ask Edwards or A.C.O.R.N.


But since you know about it, it MUST have left a trail, so you make my point

You got guys got George Soros so don't complain!


George Soros is open about whom he gives $$$ to, the Koch brothers are not, and where does Dick Amrey get his $$$ from, or the chamber of commerce?  Do you know? 

You got guys got George Soros so don't complain!


And Bill Gates!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

But since you know about it, it MUST have left a trail, so you make my point


Not really.  I don't have much of a problem with contributors being required to disclose their contributions.

My original point was that regardless of the restrictions on campaign money that people try to implement, the money... like water... will find a way around the cracks and flow downhill to the destination anyway.  The Supreme Court said as much in its ruling on the original McCain-Feingold way back when, whtn they (essentially) said "This law is not unconstitutional, but if you think it will stop the flow of money you are naive".

Not really.  I don't have much of a problem with contributors being required to disclose their contributions.

My original point was that regardless of the restrictions on campaign money that people try to implement, the money... like water... will find a way around the cracks and flow downhill to the destination anyway.  The Supreme Court said as much in its ruling on the original McCain-Feingold way back when, whtn they (essentially) said "This law is not unconstitutional, but if you think it will stop the flow of money you are naive".


Of course he dollars will seek the lowest level and flow through the cracks, but the more transparency we introduce into the system (just the reverse of Citizens United) the better.

Of course he dollars will seek the lowest level and flow through the cracks, but the more transparency we introduce into the system (just the reverse of Citizens United) the better.


I do not recall Citizens United striking down any contributions-reporting requirements.  (Let me know if this is not the case)

Before CitUnited I was of the opinion that "if you cannot vote in a given election then you should not be allowed to spend money on it", which would not only ban unions and companies from funding candidates, but would also ban contributions from persons "out of state" etc...

But CitUnited corrected my view of this because CitUnited was, first and foremost a "freedom of speech and the press"-based decision.  The nature of the Press is corporate in nature; the vast majority of the Press are news organizations.  If companies (or Unions for that matter) were to be prohibited from spending on political campaigns, running viewpoint ads, etc... this would be a direct infringement of their right to a free press (in their case to BE the press). A free press by its nature must be free to be partisan, and so this ruling really broke no new constitutional ground.

And so I have had to change my view of all of this.

Citizens United was not about transparency.  It was about the right of Corporate entities (including unions) to provide fun ding to promote the free exchange of their political views.

I do not recall Citizens United striking down any contributions-reporting requirements.  (Let me know if this is not the case)

Before CitUnited I was of the opinion that "if you cannot vote in a given election then you should not be allowed to spend money on it", which would not only ban unions and companies from funding candidates, but would also ban contributions from persons "out of state" etc...

But CitUnited corrected my view of this because CitUnited was, first and foremost a "freedom of speech and the press"-based decision.  The nature of the Press is corporate in nature; the vast majority of the Press are news organizations.  If companies (or Unions for that matter) were to be prohibited from spending on political campaigns, running viewpoint ads, etc... this would be a direct infringement of their right to a free press (in their case to BE the press). A free press by its nature must be free to be partisan, and so this ruling really broke no new constitutional ground.

And so I have had to change my view of all of this.

Citizens United was not about transparency.  It was about the right of Corporate entities (including unions) to provide fun ding to promote the free exchange of their political views.


Yes, it was about all of this legal mumbo jukmbo, it also lifted the barrier for corporations to make direct contributions to political campaigns, and not have to report their donations, so we have, in the last election, the Chamber of Horr Commerce spending Hugh sums to support repubs and defeat dems without having top disclose their sources of funding.  Some transparency