It's really an indictment of the government and AmeriKan media:
"Edwards indicted over campaign donations; Allegedly used funds for coverup; trial is likely to recall details of his affair" by Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times / June 4, 2011
NEW YORK — John Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina and nominee for vice president in 2004, was once one of his party’s most promising stars. But yesterday, he found himself in a stunning fall from grace: in a courtroom in North Carolina, being read his rights.
Earlier in the day, a federal grand jury indicted him on charges that he violated federal campaign finance laws by “secretly obtaining and using’’ contributions from wealthy benefactors to conceal his mistress and their baby while he was running for president in 2008....
Earlier in the day, a grand jury, which had been investigating the case for two years, indicted Edwards on six counts — one involving conspiracy, four involving illegal payments and one involving false statements. If he is found guilty, Edwards, 57, faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines....
The indictment contends that Edwards and his co-conspirators solicited $725,000 from Rachel Mellon, the now 100-year-old heiress to the Mellon banking fortune, and $200,000 from Fred Baron, Edwards’s campaign finance chairman.
The money, the indictment said, was used to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter, his mistress, with whom he had a child, and to pay for her prenatal medical expenses, travel, and accommodations.
If there is one thing you can say it is he is not a deadbeat dd.
The fact that Edwards tried to cover up his affair is not at issue. The Justice Department says that those contributions from two wealthy patrons were campaign donations and therefore subject to federal campaign finance laws that set limits on the amounts that can be donated and received, and require public reporting. Those two donations were well in excess of the $2,300 limit on individuals.
The indictment says the money was actually used for campaign purposes: If the public knew that he was having an affair, his campaign would have been over. (It was over anyway, before he confessed to the affair in August 2008, having lost too many primaries to political Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but it might have imploded even earlier or never even gotten off the ground.)
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, is that news?
*******************
The Edwards defense is that the money was used not for political reasons but for personal reasons: He wanted to conceal the affair from his wife....
Mellon said she had been “sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. . . . It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.’’
The money from Edwards’s patrons, which was delivered through checks made out to a third party — one check was stashed in a box of chocolates — paid for Hunter to live in various hotels and in gated communities in North Carolina and California....
What, no envelopes or cereal boxes?
Btw, whatever happened to that case?
While some legal experts questioned the validity of the government’s case, saying it was applying an overly broad definition of campaign contributions, others say it is important that candidates take campaign finance law seriously.
Here we go with ANOTHER WASTE of TAXPAYER MONEY!
--more--"
"Prosecutors face tough task in Edwards case; Some charges rely on untested legal theory" by Mike Baker and Nedra Pickler, Associated Press / June 5, 2011
RALEIGH, N.C. — Two crucial witnesses are dead. Another is 100 years old. A fourth was recently held in contempt of court.
The daring indictment of two-time presidential candidate John Edwards has pitfalls at every turn for federal prosecutors, adding strain to a Justice Department section still trying to recover after botching its last major political case.
Government attorneys are relying on an untested legal theory to argue that money used to tangentially help a candidate — in this case, by keeping Edwards’s pregnant mistress private during his 2008 presidential run — should have been considered a campaign contribution. Edwards’s lawyers counter with an argument that’s reprehensible but could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, who died in December.
The six-count indictment accuses Edwards of conspiracy, taking illegal campaign contributions, and making false statements.
The government has some nerve, doesn't it?
On Friday, appearing both defiant and contrite, he insisted he did not break the law.
Some legal specialists tend to agree.
At Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which typically criticizes the Justice Department for not pursuing enough cases against public officials, executive director Melanie Sloan questioned why federal officials were spending resources on this one....
I don't. It is called DIVERSION!!
It is JUST LIKE calling up BASEBALL PLAYERS for perjury when BANKERS and BUSH OFFICIALS are simply given amnesty or ignored.
The federal and state governments CAN NOT REALLY DO MUCH of ANYTHING THESE DAYS because to do that would be to CHALLENGE the VERY INTERE$T$ to which they are $ubordinate.
That is why you get gay and bullying legislation, state dessert s***, and other inane issues presented to you by the paper. The budget-writing and tax loot giveaways all occur behind closed doors.
--more--"
