John Edwards: US Green-Lights Prosecution for Alleged Campaign Law Violations Tied to Affair Cover-U

Source: ABC News

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned.

A source close to the case said Edwards is aware that the government intends to seek an indictment and that the former senator from North Carolina is now considering his limited options. He could accept a plea bargain with prosecutors or face a potentially costly trial.

-----

If the case were to proceed to trial, legal experts said, the government would have to prove that the intent of the donations was to cover-up the affair so that Edwards could continue his pursuit of the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

The government's case against Edwards is expected to rely heavily on Andrew Young, a former close aide to Edwards who falsely claimed paternity of Hunter's child three weeks before the Iowa caucuses.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-prosecuted-alleged-campaign-law-violations-tied/story?id=13680079

Instead we have this disgraceful tragedy.
Double ugh.

While it would be easy to write him off totally--for what he did to Elisabeth if nothing else-- I do still believe he gave a damn about ordinary people. I take absolutely NO satisfaction from this. When I think of all the crimes committed by politicos that went unpunished--not even investigated, I have to wonder.... :shrug:

or his hedgefund mega house post senate career.

Umm. ok. whatever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You apparently think it must be realized to have even existed.

po·ten·tial/pəˈtenCHəl/
Noun: Latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.

coupled with the fact that he had a lot of media support gave him the incredible lucky break to run for President as a media designated "viable candidate", not once but twice. His "potential" was not based on career of public service. But, he took these incredible lucky breaks and threw them away.

He was a very junior Senator, but he was a lawyer and bankruptcy was one of Elizabeth's specialties - so he had to understand how bad it was.

I think that most crimes committed by politicos ARE investigated and punished, if they are caught. I can't think of any PERSONAL ACTS that might violate laws that are not investigating. On both sides - here the closest counterpart is Ensign and he was investigated.

corporatist and establishment. He was the rising star that said the Bush Iraq invasion was necessary. Then he told Kerry, they have to support Bush war or they would look weak. Then he finally admitted he was totally wrong.

The Liberal/Progressive voice we are missing is Elizabeth Edwards'. May she rest in peace.

that has nothign to do with Obama.

They're sprouting up everywhere.

"I'm getting new carpet. Any advice?"

Response post: "It's Obama's fault that there isn't more carpet available for the poor. He's such a corporatist elitist, that he thinks it's great that carpet is so expensive!"

Post: "Nancy Pelosi is spending the holidays with her family in California."

Response post: "If it weren't for Obama's lackadaisical attitude, Pelosi would be staying in Washington, fighting for the poor and downtrodden, instead of using expensive fuel to fly to California!"

with the same speech about 2 Americas over and over. It was getting old during the campaign already. It would be REALLY old and tiring now.

Assuming he cares about what the voters want more than he cares about what the big donors want.

But then, since the Edwards affair, I wonder what kinds of similar scandals are being covered up about other people in powerful positions.

Edwards spoke the truth. He is paying the price for it.

Meanwhile, Ensign, who did far worse things, remained a senator until recently, and as yet has not been indicted. And the list of other individuals who did far worse things than Edwards and are walking around without indictments over their heads is quite long.

Edwards should not have misused campaign funds. But he is being singled out. And I suspect that he is being made an example to intimidate others into shutting their mouths and not speaking the truth about what is going on in our country.

Edwards was NOT a Senator when the scandal came out. It is not like he had to immediately resign. Not to mention, being a Senator, means that Ensign was the subject of a Senate ethics investigation that is recommending that the Justice Department pursue it. At this point - pre-indictment, there has been more public action on Ensign. In addition, it was because of the ethics report's upcoming release that he resigned. So, Ensign lost a US Senate seat. In addition, before the scandal, he was a very possible 2012 Presidential candidate - another thing lost.

In Edwards case, he had no position to lose and after winning just 1 competitive contest (SC in 2004, then coming in a poor third there in 2008), he would never against have been a viable Presidential candidate. What Edwards did lose was his reputation, the love and affection of most of his friends and his marriage. None of those imposed by some all powerful THEY.

In addition, the two scandals are not on the same timeline. The Edwards case is at least a year ahead of the Ensign one. Just as the Edwards case will turn on whether he broke the law with how he funded hiding his affair - the same is true in Ensign's case. Their methods were different and it may be that one or both may have violated the law.

my thoughts are this is small potatoes, considering the damage done by a fabricated war, wall street banksters and torture. What has harmed the majority of the american people the most? Those things that have harmed more people are swept under the rug-yet, the sex sells.

The wall street bankers, for the most part, did not break the law - there was no regulation of derivatives and credit swaps - the super fuel that transformed a "small fire" of foreclosures into a raging inferno. That was added to a House appropriations bill during reconciliation - the Senate did not even really vote on it - it was a voice vote a few days before Christmas. It was not illegal for Phil Gramm to write it. It was not illegal for Congress to legislate it and it was not illegal for the President to sign it.

There is ample proof for me to believe that Bush took us into to war on a lie. However, proving it in whatever venue would exist would be tough - as they would need to know what was really in his head. (The best argument is to condentrate on what was known in March, 2003. There was FAR more known then - as the inspectors investigated - than there was in 2002 At this point the various Bush people are trying to improve their place in history - not tell the truth.

Torture might be the strongest against Bush as he admitted he signed off on waterboarding.

However, I doubt an American court will ever try it.

Republicans are excused. Democrats are charged. Look at the Siegelman case for example.

Johnny Hedgefund was all about Johnny Hedgefund. fuckwad.

Even if there were no affair and no scandal, Edwards would not be an elected official and likely would have no more visibility than someone like Chris Dodd.

The fact is there are Senators who have a stronger record and the same or a stronger message - start with Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders. (For that matter, try John Kerry, who has spoken quite strongly on the current situation - and in fact spoke of the America of Roseanne Barr and the America of the yuppies on LA Law back in a time those shows were popular.)

The fact is that Edwards did not have actions to match his words. So, once scandal negates his looks/charm/charisma, there is NOTHING left there that he has to offer. He is an embarrassment to the Democratic party.

I hope he is smart enough to take a plea deal and END this.

Looking backwards would be counterproductive! We must win the future.

:sarcasm:

Those two are choice examples of politicians who should be open to similar prosecution.

of the government of his state to travel to see his mistress. Does anyone know whether that has been properly investigated? Was the accusation true? What happened? Is he just being permitted to do that?

And what about Clarence Thomas who failed to report income on his income reports as a Supreme Court justice?

Obama's Justice Department is quite selective about whom it targets. Very political if you want to ask me.

oh wait......

I'm disgusted.

is this an example of selective prosecution, perhaps by a RWer inside DOJ?

with a couple of unreliable bloggers reporting a supposed indictment! This sounds real and serious. Edwards could actually be facing some prison time.

Via Twitter:
BreakingNews
ABC, NBC also report (via sources) US has given the green light to bring criminal charges against John Edwards

but if they can go after Edwards like that--someone who isn't even on the national scene anymore--why the fuck can't they go after Cheney and Bush? I mean, come on! Bush and Cheney committed a thousand times more crimes during 8 years in the white house and there is PLENTY of evidence to show it.

I remember there was a standing joke that we didn't want anything to happen to Bush because then Cheney would be president, and Pugs always seemed to boast how their party was fucking us all. No need to use Luminol--the blood was obviously on their hands.


I still have to take Pelosi to task on taking away the possibility of impeachment--we had them dead to rights, and the way those bastards fucked up our country is going to last for a very long time.

Yeah, so Edwards wasn't exactly honest in the long run, but he isn't even a player anymore. Criminals still in our government are far far worse, and they haven't even been called for jury duty!

and the powers that be did not want to jeopardize them.

to see some banksters trotted off to the slammer. Or all the polluters. Or all the election thieves. Or Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo. Or the Koch brothers. Or Karl Rove.
So, so many other real criminals.

pffffft.

Will Ahnold be prosecuted? Will Ensign? Will Gingrich? Will Foley, Sanford, Chris Lee, Vitter, or George HW Bush for that matter? Joe Scarborough? They all lied.

Will George W. Bush, Richard "Darth" Cheney, Kinda Sleezy Rice, Rumsferatu, et all be prosecuted? They all lied. People were tortured. People died.

a much lower tolerance for sex than for killing, esp. wars.


Siphon some campaign dollars to a mistress and you're skewered, even if skewering you is the last thing the donor would have wanted.

Lie us into wars and torture--hey, it's O.K. if the President does it. Nixon said so.

Don Siegelman's case is ignored but they certainly helped the convicted RepubliCON crook in Alaska.

Gee, I wish we had a Democratic administration.

First they lose their mother and now this. Edwards always was too slick and I never really understood the progressive love for him.

prosecute. I also find it very interesting in big media's choice of which prosecutions to focus their air time on and which prosecutions not to focus their air time on.

I understand the motivations of big media, by looking at who owns and controls big media. But, I find it interesting that our Justice Department's head was appointed by President Obama.

but no more so than many politicians.

I believe that Andrew Young did speak much truth about how the system works. And truth about what he endured in the orbit of the Edwards. I have to support his absolute right to that version of things. But at the same time, the unfairness of what is being done to Edwards now--and not to others--is mind-boggling.

I think Edwards was sincere in his wish to do something for the poor and downtrodden, but when he built the palace (and Elizabeth did participate in that) --he went astray. We who seek progressive change are in a no-win position re. Edwards. He embodies some of our best impulses and some of our worst. At any rate he has been pulled out of the herd to pay, unlike so many others. I don't feel sorry for him but neither can I applaud the false righteousness of his adversaries.

There's some screwy "justice" in this country all right.

Virtually all candidates and campaigns misuse contributions. No, I am not saying this behavior is acceptable, but if Edwards goes down for it, a lot of others are vulnerable. So, the payoff must be pretty big.

From the after election audits, the errors are usually cases where the auditors disagreed on some decision made. ie - In 2004, Kerry's campaign in early July, at the time of the Edwards announcement repainted the planes that Kerry and Edwards were using to have the Kerry/Edwards insignia. As it was before the convention, this was paid from primary funds as approved by the campaign lawyers. Even though the planes were then used for about a month before the convention, the FEC ruled it was a general election charge - thus putting Kerry over the limit. Here, there was a fine and it was paid. There was, however, not the hint of this being criminal. (Bush incidentially was hit because joint ads that pushed him and Congressmen were funded entirely by the Congressional fund - same result - a fine.)

Many things are ambiguous. Edwards was hurt POLITICALLY when his campaign paid $400 for a haircut. However, although it was paid back, it really was a legitimate expense - the reason it was high was his barber flew to Iowa. Now consider the alternatives - leaving the campaign trail and incurring travel costs or taking a chance on a good, well reputed Iowa barber. Now imagine you did the latter and it was a bit unflattering. His error was that as he was a multi-millionaire - pay for it out of pocket.

I think most campaign finance errors occur because a Presidential campaign grows quickly from almost nobody to hundreds of people. They quickly get a ton of money in - and they are charged with insuring that no one exceeds the limit - very tricky if people have multiple addresses and write their names differently. In addition, they need to be reasonably sure that the person is eligible to contribute. As to expenditures - again a fast moving campaign likely has many people making expenses. Keeping everything balanced and correct in the chaos of a campaign means there will be mistakes.

The difference here is that this is NO mistake. In addition, the thing I wonder about is whether the payments from the poverty center to Rielle for the films was legal. It is possible to justify a campaign paying for film of the candidate to put on line - though other campaigns likely simply handed existing employees or volunteers the camera - or hired real professionals, how could the poverty center benefit fro films of its director speaking of not wanting to be a plastic Ken doll?

To me it seems that the million of so dollars from Mellon was either a highly illegal campaign contribution (way over the limit) used for questionable expenses or a personal gift to Edwards - which he almost certainly did not include in his taxes. The really stupid thing - beyond having the affair in the first place - is that Elizabeth already knew of the affair before Rielle became pregnant. He really should have used his own money - even if it meant telling Elizabeth that he had to pay off Rielle.

Edwards was already out of the game for all intents and purposes by early 2008. The reason he is being investigated is that he may have blatantly broken the law.

Is there really any money left in the Justice Department to prosecute shit like this when we have so much else to dig down into in this country? Let's start with war criminals of the last administration and move on to the bankers after that.

We not only pay for this shit, but all the defense lawyering that the Bankers needed when Fannie Mae top executives took joined others in taking us to the cleaners.

ENOUGH...

From one account he and Maria had separate finances. He did not use California or campaign money. What law did he break? (other than the many groping charges.)

War crimers and financial crimes are just fine for this administration, but add sex to the mix and that's when you go to jail.