More witnesses testify at Edwards grand jury

Source: ABC News

RALEIGH -- The widow of John Edwards' former campaign finance chairman appeared at the federal courthouse in Raleigh Wednesday.

Sources said Lisa Blue Baron - wife of late Democratic fundraiser Fred Baron - was scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury that's looking into Edwards' affairs.

Baron - who died in 2009 - was a Texas attorney who managed the Edwards' campaign finances.

The grand jury has been investigating the former North Carolina senator and 2008 presidential candidate for more than a year.

Read more: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=7880604

John may not deserve any sympathy. What he did to Elisabeth was, in and of itself, seemingly unforgivable. But, she appears to have forgiven him before her death. Knowing that, I can do not different. I just want this whole thing to be over--for John's kids' sake.

Would you still think he shouldn't be investigated so long as he has kids and his wife forgave him?

but not drawn out and politicized (by the likes of Fox News) so Edwards children don't have to be put through that.

IMHO Edwards deserves what ever he gets if these charges are true.

The children not so much.

i misunderstood and thought you wanted them to drop the investigation.

After all, he did not win the presidency and then move a lot of Goldman Sachs gamblers into the White House to steal Americans' pension funds (Bush and Obama). He didn't torture prisoners or open Guantanamo (Bush and Cheney) or even cover up for someone who did those things (Obama).

He argued to invest in America. He disliked give-away trade agreements that harm our economy. He wanted to extend Medicare to all who wanted it.

What I am wondering is this: if there is a grand jury investigating Edwards for hiring a girlfriend or paying her out of campaign funds (I assume that is what this is about from news reports), why aren't there similar grand juries investigating John Ensign (who may have hired a family member or paid off a witness to an embarrassing situation) or Mark Sanford who used public money to visit a girlfriend?

And if what you are angry about is Edwards' affair and separation from his wife, what about Newt Gingrich?

I was an Edwards primary supporter FWIW.

I'm just saying if the charges are true (misappropriation of campaign donations) he should be punished.

You have very valid points about John Ensign - I really do not understand why he is not under investigation.

As to Edward's affair and separation, I am old enough to know that making judgements about people's marriages is not a good idea - that sort of thing is for the people involved, not me.

"After all, he did not win the presidency and then move a lot of Goldman Sachs gamblers into the White House to steal Americans' pension funds (Bush and Obama). He didn't torture prisoners or open Guantanamo (Bush and Cheney) or even cover up for someone who did those things (Obama).

He argued to invest in America. He disliked give-away trade agreements that harm our economy. He wanted to extend Medicare to all who wanted it."

It both helps to understand Obama better and makes one wonder why someone who could have helped the country would even consider handing the Pukes any hint of a scandal to render him useless.

If it were only a campaign finance matter, he could have survived it. The other issue is something they could exploit forever. I haven't watched the mainstream news for years, so have no idea how much they've done to him on the adultery issue.

Bringing up Gingrich here does nothing except cause widespread nausea.

If in any of the cases public or campaign funds were used, it is wrong. Just as it is wrong if Christine O'Donnell supported herself with them.

I think part of the anger is coming form people who feel betrayed and others who feel that Edwards hurts the reputation of Democrats in general. I never supported Edwards in either 2004 or 2008 - except as a VP. I really just want this to be resolved one way or the other. If he is tried and if he is found guilty I hope the consequences are limited to fines (he's got the money) and things like being disbarred. I hope that there is no jail - as his kids need him.

Abramaoffs kids needed him. So did OJs. So do kids of every person who has ever been in jail--and few of them have $25 million to tide them over until Dad or Mom is released.

What I was trying to say is that I hope that whatever he did was something where the penalty does not extend to jail. Edwards was a more than competent lawyer and knew whatever the consequences of his actions could be. This actually makes him even less a sympathetic character. This really should be a cautionary story to anyone who thinks they are smart enough that they can violate rules and not get caught. But, for those with the chutzpah to think they can get away with it, someone else's consequences will likely be ignored. What is really galling here is that Edwards had the personal money to support her himself and could easily have found an accountant who could have found a convoluted way to hide the money diverted from Elizabeth. (ie the hedge fund money could have gone to a new account.) Not commendable, but at least not violating the law.

Obviously, if what he did would typically carry jail time, then using his children as a reason to ask for mercy is as you say not reasonable. Although it is a huge burden on her, the younger kids have Cate, and they have other supportive relatives and friends.

should pay for their crimes?

As far as Ensign, I believe Congress is investigating. Should it stop? And Sanford was apparently spared (so far) because his Lt Governor is even worse than he is.

Besides, we do not know that no one investigated, nor that neither of them will ever be prosecuted. I do not think the statute of llimitations has run out.

However, do I think Edwards is worse. Adultery is one thing. Adultery while your spouse is dying is another, as is publicly denying a baby. As is jeopardizing the nation by seeking the Democratic nomination for POTUS while you know the National Enquirer is on your tail. If edwards had succeeded, Hunter and her baby would have probably been the October surprise. Hello, VP Palin, and maybe eventually President Palin, following 8 years of Bush.

:sarcasm:

Of course, i feel sorry for his kids. However, many people who are disgraced and jailed have kids and elderly moms with heartbreaking stories. We've never let people off because of that. No, I mean, we have never said that is a valid reason. I see no reason why Edwards should get special treatment. And his innocent kids are a lot better off than the innocent kids of many folk wbo end up in jail whose names we would not recognize. Life is unfair. Several President have said so.


Anyway, fter all the humiliation and heartbreak he has inflicted on kids, will a trial for misspending campaign money really be the deal breaker?

Do we have enough jail space for the entire right wing and everyone who claims to be "family values"?

You are correct that he could not be charged with adultery, so had he used his own fortune, there could be no charges.

Note: At this point, he is being investigated. that does not mean that he is guilty. I remember many campaigns being fined, but I don't remember many where their are actual criminal penalties.

This rings of another anti-democratic candidate hit piece.
Edwards may be a total tool for cheating on his wife, but he has not been charged with a crime.

From the article: "(Rielle) Hunter worked for Edwards' political action committee in 2006, shooting behind-the-scenes video as the Democrat prepared to launch his White House campaign. The committee paid her video production firm $100,000 that year and then another $14,000 later on in what a senior campaign official described as a payment for leftover footage."

Campaign funds may also have been used to buy her silence and to compensate an Edwards staffer for pretending to be the baby's father.

But that still does not translate to facts in a criminal case.
So what if he paid her company $114k to film his run for office?
If it was a payoff, then charge him, if not, move on.
The fact that the investigation has been fishing around for a year tells me that there is not much of a case, if any at all.
Like I said, a political hit piece based on no information or charges.

As I said earlier, there may be more payoffs involved.

I agree that the grand jury system is antiquated and redundant. It was abolished in Britain long ago, and the Brits regard our system as "quaint." The reason is that a grand jury is usually a rubber stamp for the DA, who could "get them to indict a ham sandwich."

and that they might have been listed fraudulently as "furniture". Like you, I don't understand the length of time that has been spent on this - it doesn't seem complicated if it happened.

Besides, you do not know who has what facts.

If half of what people have alleged is true, he is guilty.