The case against John Edwards
I never could see how anyone could support Edwards for president.
There was always something slick and smarmy about him, although I can’t say I had an inkling of just how slick and smarmy he really was. There was also nothing he offered politically that other candidates didn’t offer, and better. If I’d been a liberal Democrat I would never have voted for him in a primary.
When his private life was revealed as sleazy and dishonest, it seemed like the end of a sordid story. His career as a politician is effectively over. His mistress and the mother of his child has gone on Oprah to talk about their sex life and the videotape that documents one of their encounters.
So when Edwards was indicted by a grand jury for the felony of misusing campaign contributions to keep the mistress out of sight during the 2008 campaign, I didn’t pay much attention. And I probably won’t pay a whole lot of attention as the case goes forth.
But I noticed today that there’s a spate of articles about the weakness of the case against Edwards (see this and this). The consensus seems to be that yes, he’s a scumbag extraordinaire, but that it’s a stretch to define the monies used to deal with Rielle Hunter as campaign contributions. And that, after all, is what he’s accused of in the case, not of being a heel. There’s a difference.
Some details of the case:
Justice Department officials decided that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that two Edwards donors gave to help keep his mistress in hiding were contributions that should have been reported publicly by his campaign fund because they aided his bid for the Democratic White House nomination.
From the article, I gather that two wealthy donors gave Edwards money for the purpose of shutting Hunter up and shuttling her around. The monies may have been specifically targeted for that purpose, rather than as general campaign contributions. Now the prosecutors are claiming that, because they were designed to help Edwards’ presidential bid by protecting his reputation, they should be labeled as campaign donations for the purposes of the law.
That may indeed be too elastic a definition of campaign contributions. However, Edwards’ ex-aide Young has said that one of the donors was unaware of what the money (which was labeled a personal gift to Edwards) was being used for. This may indicate that perhaps it was a campaign contribution after all, just by another name. Another problem with the case is that this donor is now a hundred years old and cannot testify for health reasons, and the other donor is deceased.
How the sort-of-mighty have fallen.
The arcana of campaign finance law are impenetrable to me, but it does sound like a stretch. I’d hope the Justice Department had better things to do, such as dropping the cases against the CIA people who helped Obama put the bin Laden feather in his cap. I don’t want to see laws twisted – even fatuous laws like those pertaining to campaign finance – and even to give someone like Edwards a richly deserved comeuppance.
For he is undoubtedly among the scum of the earth – no Democrat should be allowed to get away with their “Just think how Palin could have been a heartbeat away from the Presidency” nonsense while John Edwards remains in this mortal coil. 2004, people. Mr. Two Americas was whatever pulse Kerry had away from the Presidency. Just let that sink in for a moment.
Fun fact, fwiw: I read Bernard Henri-Levy’s “The Left in Dark Times,” and guess who his favorite candidate was?
It starts with “Jo” and ends in “hn Edwards.”
Not too shabby coming from the stalwart defender of Roman Polanski and DSK.
MR>KOLNAi, you should stop making yur conclusions by associeation. You moron, you must hate white lawyers and you deserve all your “friends” maybe that you have known and have had that be reflected upon you too!
You are a bad person, a hypocrit and I am telling on you!!!!
Seriously, Kolnai, you make an excellent point on the arcana of campaign laws, which like tax laws, establish opportunity for rapacious attorneys and/or government officials.
Curtis –
How dare you say I make my conclusions by association!
😉
I know I make my conclusions by association.
How else? Think of that. What is the first thing a scholar does when analyzing the work of someone?
Find out who influenced them. And Obama wants to violate that first law of analysis. Screw him, dorkbag. He’s not special.
I consult the Bible first, then . . . whom? (And remember that it is always whom, not what)
Neo? (And all the superb commentors!) Because I respect and value her objectivity. . . . probably pretty close.
Prager. Limbaugh (and I can’t even really listen that much to him because I’m too busy). And my sisters. Sheesh! They’re hair pullers!
OK, so it wasn’t a campaign contribution. I seem to recall that when someone gives a “gift” over $10,000 (or whatever the limit is now), there are tax complications to the donor. Any tax whiz want to chime in?
First of all, let me make it clear that I don’t much care for John Edwards and to a certain extent he deserves what he gets. But I don’t understand this. Isn’t the Federal Elections Commission in charge of deciding who has violated campaign laws and either imposing whatever fines and penalties they can by law or then referring the case to Justice for prosecution?
When was the last time you’ve seen a former presidential campaigner treated this way? And isn’t the Obama campaign’s violations concerning credit card donations (accepting donations from one and all outside the US) a much more significant violation of the law?
Given the politicization of the Justice Dept’s prosecutions and the fact that given Edwards stature that the decision to prosecute had to have come from on high and that he’s a Democrat, isn’t this a message from Obama as to what will happen to any Democrat that decides to mount a primary challenge to him in the forthcoming election?
“John Edwards sleeps with the fishes and you can too if you’re stupid enough to challenge me.”
Jim: You are undoubtedly correct that there is a political dimension to the Obama justice department prosecuting Edwards. But in this case the fix is simply letting justice be done rather than protecting a party hack sleaze.
I seem to recall that when someone gives a “gift” over $10,000 (or whatever the limit is now), there are tax complications to the donor.
That is correct. In 2008, the limit was $12,000. It is unclear to me if the gifts where donated into the Edwards campaign fund – the amounts cited should run afoul of campaign finance law – or directly to Edwards. More importantly, it is not obvious where the payments to Ms. Hunter orginated from. Edwards personal accounts, or the campaign’s?
Additionally, if the gifts went from the benefactors to Edwards, and then Edwards to Hunter, then each gifting incurrs a tax – usually paid by the benefactor.
kolnai:
“no Democrat should be allowed to get away with their “Just think how Palin could have been a heartbeat away from the Presidency” nonsense while John Edwards remains in this mortal coil. 2004, people.”
You took the words right outta my mouth.
Next chance I get, I’m gonna ask my Austin liberal son and his wife if they are gonna slice off the right half of the Kerry – Edwards bumper sticker they so proudly displayed all during the Bush 2nd term.
This New York Times hit-piece reveals Edwards at his professional peak:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1167714000&en=f8b8156429b30d03&ei=5070
He just about destroyed the profession of OBYGN in North Carolina.
I was under the impression that Edwards is a wealthy ex-trial lawyer. He can’t be very bright if he used campaign donations to hide his pregnant mistress from the press.
Jim O says, “But I don’t understand this. Isn’t the Federal Elections Commission in charge of deciding who has violated campaign laws and either imposing whatever fines and penalties they can by law or then referring the case to Justice for prosecution?”
This smells wrong to me.
IRA Darth Aggie: I believe (this is from memory, without looking it up) that the tax consequences to the donor are that $10,000 can be given each year to each person without any tax consequences at all. Above that, the giver is supposed to keep a record of the gifts and there is a lifetime limit that they can’t exceed w/o paying taxes on it. The limit is the same as the limit on estates/bequests. In other words, if the law reads, for example, that above an estate of a million dollars you have to pay taxes, then the lifetime limit for gifting a person or people is a million dollars.
So, if you want to give someone $500,000 in a single year there are no tax consequences. However, if you did that three years in a row (for a total of $1,500,000) or if you gave it to three people at once, there would be tax consequences if the estate tax kicked in at levels above a million dollars. The allowed amount ($10,000 per person per year) would be subtracted, and the rest would be added up. The point is that, in your lifetime, you’re not allowed to give away the money in your estate that your estate would otherwise pay taxes on when you died.
I just looked it up, and read it really quickly, and the completely tax-free limit right now per year per person is $13,000, not $10,000.
How is it that conservatives can see an Edwards or Obama character problem from a mile away and a liberal has no f****** clue? How can humans even get this way without a purposely embraced ignorance of the world around them?
Way back in the day — around late 2003 when the milblog that I was writing for was still pretty much heavily trafficked – my parent’s house in Northern San Diego County burned to the ground in one of the fires that hit SOCal that year. I wrote about that, of course – and so I had a long comment thread on that post. One of the comments back-linked to the Edwards campaign website, was signed Elizabeth Edwards, and it was so very gracious, thoughtful, and comforting … she had the right thing to say at that time. (That comment is long lost, since it was an age ago in blog-time, and having to change hosts and ditch all comments several times since then.) That ability – to say the exact right thing, in response to such an event – is a gift. Edwards was only one of about a dozen Democrats making a determined run for the Dem nomination at that time, and I do confess that I thought better of him, for a bit. Eventually, I thought much better of the wives of the 2008 ticket than I did of the candidates themselves. Theresa would have been an absolute hoot … pity I didn’t know anyone in the retired military community in San Antonio who would have bothered to walk across the street to piss on him if he were on fire.
Edwards: “There’s no question that I’ve done wrong and I take full responsibility for having done wrong,”
This formulation has become all too common, and I find it infuriating. It’s as if he is somehow manning up. If he did wrong, of course he’s fully responsible. What an idiot! As one of our local talk show hosts would say, John Edwards gives “smarmy” a bad name.
Liberals can see the character flaws in an Obama or an Edwards. They just don’t care. Recognizing character flaws means you have to judge that one person is better or worse than another. And being “judgemental” is one of the few sins that liberals abominate.
Judging people according to some objective standard, or trying but failing to live up to your own standards are the only things they recognize as sins.
In both cases it’s because they absolutely loathe the idea that someone ELSE can tell them that doing whatever they like at the moment isn’t right and good.
This complete disdain for objective moral standards also means they pretty much can’t comprehend the idea of following the rules, or fairness. Rules are to be gamed for advantage. Fairness is what you demand when there’s no objective reason for anyone to give you what you want.
Power is all they really understand. Power unfettered by rules and unconstrained by laws. And since they refuse to allow their conduct to be judged right or wrong, everything they do is good, which means any horror, any crime, is justified because they are doing good.
Welcome to America’s dark age. It was a good two hundred years, I guess. Perhaps we can hope for enlightened foreign conquerors.
“Perhaps we can hope for enlightened foreign conquerors.”
I hate being so pessimistic and I hope I’m wrong, but for some time now, I’ve felt that our best hope lay with unspoiled, hard working, and intelligent Orientals…both domestic and foreign. Hopefully, they will retain the good parts of our Anglo-Saxon legal traditions.
The gift tax issue seems to me to be one of the pillars of this case. If Edwards were given a gift above the tax-free limit, he, not the gift-giver, is responsible for paying the gift tax. Someone above said the tax is usually paid by the gift giver. If so and the tax were to be above the gift limit, then this “gift” too would be taxable to Edwards.
The tax records would either show a gift (because a gift tax would have to have been paid) or a political contribution, IMHO.
Fred Beloit: absolutely incorrect, if you follow the link I gave in my earlier comment. Gifts are never taxable to the receiver, only to the donor. Here’s the quote, “The gift tax is perhaps the most misunderstood of all taxes. When it comes into play, this tax is owed by the giver of the gift, not the recipient.”
How is it that conservatives can see an Edwards or Obama character problem from a mile away and a liberal has no f****** clue?
This one drives me nuts. How can people not take the measure of these guys’ character and be repelled by what they see?
Edwards, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Obama, and young Weiner – one look at them and it’s obvious (to me, at least) that they need to be handled with tongs. (Gore was an exception, until after the election, which appeared to have unhinged him.) Then some earnest liberal will gush about how wonderful they are, and worthy of adulation.
Liberals don’t think merely that their candidate would be a good chief executive, but rather than he would be a good guru, prophet, imam, spiritual counselor, life coach, something. He’s the President, guys, kinda like Jack Welch writ large; he’s not here to imbue your lives with meaning. That’s your job.
Oops. Make that “not be repelled.”
Newt Gingrich has similar character flaws to some of those lib politicians Occam mentioned. In my opinion. Perhaps Rudy G. does also….
But if my choice when I step into the booth is either four more years of the Marxist fool/knave…..or a slime like Newt….what do I do?
Point being….to TRY to be as charitable as I can to the Dems who were willing to hold their noses and overlook Edwards’ sleaze vibe in 2004…..from an ideological standpoint, I knew some people who were as “Anybody but Bush” as I am going to be “Anybody but Obama.”
Plus, back then, he had real sex appeal. I recall going to lunch with two young (mid-20’s) professional female colleagues, and they were just gushing over John Boy.
I mean, it was like how I imagine Neo reacted to Bobby Sherman when he was on the cover of Tiger Beat. 🙂
It made me almost question for the first time, whether it was a mistake for us to give women the right to vote. (Just kidding).
I don’t know much about Gingrich, in candor, but he would seem to be a worthy addition to my list.
It made me almost question for the first time, whether it was a mistake for us to give women the right to vote. (Just kidding).
We’ve discussed this here before, in a semi-jocular fashion. The serious part is that many women apparently conflate sexual attractiveness with leadership ability, and that phenomenon has been instrumental in saddling us with, e.g., JFK and Obama.
Let’s suppose that you are on the left and you knew about Edwards’ character flaws, but decided to support him anyway because you think he will be a good spokesman for your causes.
(And I suspect some leftists made exactly that calculation.)
I don’t often agree with that kind of argument, but I can understand it.
Now here’s the part of their thinking that I don’t understand: Did none of them notice that he accomplished absolutely nothing as a US senator? Were his pretty (from their point of view) speeches enough all by themselves?
Worked with Obama, so I’d have to say yes.
Occam, loved your 06/05 – 2:03 P.M. post.
And based on the solid 40 something percent that is guaranteed to vote for him again, that is apparently all that is needed.
Bunny Mellon, 100 year-old widow of Paul who lives in Middleberg, VA, gave a huge amount of money to John Edwards. Turns out the money was used to help pay for his lover and their daughter’s expenses. Bunny did not know how the $$ was going to be used. She is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Edwards’ case, but because of her age, will not be called to testify.
Liberals put up with the sleaziness, silliness, and stupidity of their leaders because if they used their brains to think things through and reject those “leaders” publicly, their friends would excommunicate them from the “Herd”.
Takes a mighty strong person (like Neo) to leave the Tribe.
Southern James, a female relative of mine once admitted that she voted for Bill Clinton because (and I quote) “He has sexy eyes.”
I remember thinking something along the lines of “You make me wish women never gained the right to vote.”
Regarding Edwards, Trimegistus took the words right out of my brain:
Liberals can see the character flaws in an Obama or an Edwards. They just don’t care. Recognizing character flaws means you have to judge that one person is better or worse than another. And being “judgemental” is one of the few sins that liberals abominate.
That we should judge the actions of others and find them to be acceptable or unacceptable is anathema to liberals. And that’s why our society continues to deteriorate morally.
“”And being “judgemental” is one of the few sins that liberals abominate. “”
But they have no problem being judgmental of one type person on the planet. A conservative free market person of the white race.
Surely some liberals in their quiet moments must wonder how they’ve been conditioned into this relexive form of masochistic racism. It has to be terrifying for some of them to really examine how their very thoughts are dictated by the simple threat of tribal ridicule.
Wow! There were tax geeks lurking! Thanks, y’all.