Despite the whole sex tape biz and all of it, I never got the impression Young really meant to "take down" or otherwise really harm Edwards. Young is a lawyer after all. You can't tell me he didn't know exactly what he was doing...

My question is did he do this entirely on his own or was Edwards party to it?

You don't have to be a card carrying conspiracy theorist to imagine Young and Edwards sitting there over drinks somewhere, dreaming up ways to throw sand in the prosecution's gears.

Edwards' defense has always seemed somewhat shaky to me anyway. He's a lawyer too and an experienced campaigner so he knew what was a campaign contribution and what wasn't. And anybody who could put forth such a lame defense with a straight face could easily get his friend to derail the trial by contaminating the witness pool.

As with everything Edwards does, he thought he was too smart to get caught.

Your theory does not fit.

How would you know that Edwards had a clue about his campaign finances. He hired people to take care of that.

This year, in California, there is a major scandal in that a person who was hired by a number of Democratic politicians and organizations to handle their campaign finances, their money, allegedly embezzled huge amounts of money from the Democratic organizations for which she was keeping the accounts and handling the banking, etc. (See the link below.)

I have heard that one of the politicians from whom money was allegedly embezzled is Dianne Feinstein.

Did Dianne Feinstein know where her money was going? I seriously doubt it.

Similarly, Edwards might not have known where his money was going -- might have -- might not have. And Edwards probably was not an expert on campaign finance.

As far as I know, we don't know whether Edwards had direct contact with those whose money was given to Rielle Hunter. In fact, that may be an issue to be determined at trial.

For all I know (and I don't know), Young could have been the person who contacted the donors.

But a conspiracy is highly unlikely. It is more likely that Young is getting very nervous about having to admit how much he lied and being asked a lot of questions on cross-examination that could get him into trouble.

Here is what happened in California.

Kinde Durkee, the California political operative at the heart of a major embezzlement scandal, is expected to plead guilty later this week to stealing more than $8 million from her clients, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other California Democrats, according to sources close to the case.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74567.html#ixzz1sxnY8uEN

he employed.

The guy sends my creep-o-meter off the scale and I have no trouble at all, given how arrogant he is, believing he could conspire with a slimy former associate in order to gum up a prosecution against him.

The Durkee case is not analogous to Edwards' situation. Durkee as far as I know stole the money for her own benefit. It wasn't used to shut up someone who may have harmed Feinstein politically. In Edwards' case, he (his marriage and his political aspirations) was the beneficiary of the diversion of the funds.

money goes.

Dianne Feinstein watches the details of our national defense and our legal system, but her campaign finance staff allegedly stole her money and spent for purposes that had nothing to do with Dianne Feinstein and were not supported by Dianne Feinstein.

If it can happen to Dianne Feinstein (and a number of other Democrats in California), it could happen to Edwards.

I'm just saying that you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Also, a lot of Obama fans were very anti-Edwards. But many of us here on DU appreciated and still appreciate the fact that Edwards was, whether sincere or not (and that is something we really can't judge), the only candidate other than Kucinich who spoke about our broken economy. Obama seemed surprised to discover that we are broke. Edwards knew that our closed factories were not producing anything we can sell or use, and he pointed this out.

Edwards has not been convicted of anything yet. And as I have pointed out, it isn't Edwards who killed American citizens with drones.

Edwards' healthcare plan included allowing younger people to enroll in Medicare among other things. Edwards warned about negotiating with health insurance companies.

Obama would be way ahead today if he had included Edwards among his advisers rather than some of the folks he did include.

There was also some question about his conduct with regard to a sex tape involved in this matter.

I think Young is scared. He is the chief witness for the prosecution, and his lies will probably be served up to him on a platter in the trial.

And, something you may or may not know, lying to a court is a violation of a lawyer's ethics. Young may be quite nervous at this point. He is in a pickle in my opinion.

Though it is really conspiracy theory to speculate that Young and Edwards colluded on this - that lie actually might make it more believable. Young was willing to throw his own family life into chaos to help Edwards.

I scanned Young's book - to see what was said on 2004 - and, while it was a tell all, it seemed that he mostly presented everything from Edwards' perspective. Yet, he often described a pretty vain man, who clearly thought he was not only entitled to be the VP nominee, but that he knew more than the far more experienced (and successful) Kerry. Although he violated Edwards' trust by writing the book and he described many embarrassing parts of the 2008/Hunter years, it seemed he was still obsessed with Edwards.

I don't think it is Young, but Edwards who is most in a pickle. It is not against the law to lie to the media - so the paternity claim is not an issue. It does go to his credibility, but the explanation is that he would do anything for Edwards - making Edwards seem the puppet master. I am not a lawyer, but I assume that even if he is found to have lied in book, that at worst opens up a libel suit, which I think is a civil, not criminal issue. (Not to mention, many things in error could be wrong, but not necessarily lies.

The worst thing for Young might be that he really comes off as creepy - but that's been the case since he claimed to have lied when he admitted paternity and then when he put out his book.

It weakens your case if your chief witness comes across as a creep. And for the witness, it is really beyond embarrassing.

totally unlikable. The key may be whether, in person, people will find some sympathy for Edwards. He certainly has lost nearly everything - his wife, his reputation, his health, his political future. He looks like he has aged decades since 2004.

Not meaning to equate them, but I wonder if the fact that - at least to the his side and the media - Chuck Colson was able to have a second act that did give him back a good reputation. (Though I think the truth test of contrition would have been that if given an opportunity to make up for something you say are sorry for, you would not just take it, but welcome it. Colson did not meet that test - suggesting that he would still have done the dirty tricks for political gain - maybe just staying within the law. I guess he helped some with his prison ministry. )

The guy comes off as a rather sleezy and untrustworthy character. I read a little of his book and it just came off sounding rather boastful and sensational.

Plus he spent three pages just on how he met his future wife at Senor Frogs in Mexico, which was just comical.

If he is the chief witness for the prosecution, there may be problems for the case.

As Hampton Dellinger describes it, the trial has gone from US vs Edwards to Edwards vs Young.

(I posted a link to Dellinger's reporting at MSNBC in another thread.)

but he did expose what went on. I say he did us a service in the end. The book details how money and politics works in corrupt America.