NY Times: New John Edwards News - It Ain't The Crime -- It's The COVER-UP! -nt

It just gets ugler and uglier. Why is this news? Because this man almost became Vice-President of the United States in 2004 and lied his way (and probably more if Grand Jury testimony is true) through a campaign in 2008. It would only be a sad story if he hadn't been such a blatant liar and the stories coming out of Raleigh are just too hard to believe. This man has serious issues.

Remember how he changed positions on a dime during his campaign? He was always taking stands opposed to his votes in the Senate and he was always "regretting" this vote and that vote? My guess now is that he's a pathological liar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/us/politics/20edwards.html?_r=1

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

That's a perfect example of the lack of civility Obama talks about.

in this secondhand story would not be crimes even if they were true.

The bribery and hush money may not be cut and dried violations of campaign finance laws - but could very well be (and probably are!) criminal violations. The grand jury will ultimately decide whether to issue criminal indictments and right now, it doesn't look good for Mr. Edwards.

pays a mistress to keep quiet? Please, do tell.

of evidence that there was any fraud involved in that? No, of course you don't. Yet you post with arrogant certainty that John Edwards is a criminal.

When all the evidence says otherwise? "Innocent until proven guilty," is a courtroom concept only. Do you feel the same way when there's only hints of scandals with Republicans? I don't believe making decisions about the conduct of public officials/ past public officials a partisan thing. I read your theories - many (by the way) without a scintilla of evidence. But you defend John Edwards?

I'm a lefty, a progressive, support single-payer, anti-corporatist, etc. John Edwards is not one of us.

Adultery isn't a 'crime' - neither is lying about it.

And all the would haves and should haves and might haves and maybes in the world don't mean a thing. He did NOT become President, or V. President or the county Dog Catcher, for that matter.

Would that we could puff up the same level of moral outrage over endless war and corporate control of government . . . but noooo - we save it all for shrieking over where Edwards (and Clinton before him) put his dick.

If I read "it's not the sex, it's the lies!!!!!" one more time, I'm going to puke. Of course it's the sex - politicians lie as easily as they breath.

Nation of f'ing Puritans . . . geeze.

North Carolina General Statutes § 14-184 Fornication and adultery


At least it is just a misdemeanor there. In Michigan it is a first degree felony with a potential sentence of life in prison.
Note that in NC neither has to be married for it to be a crime to lasciviously associate.
Michigan has that too...but only for men. Well against men.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28uzlo3w55rkedt145svrta1ri%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-532


These are rarely enforced in any state but are on the books.

I don't care about where he puts his dick.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

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

How is this garbage helpful?

If we don't learn from our mistakes - we're bound to repeat them. Don't allow a man that almost was VP and was a viable presidential candidate to skate away with these brush-offs.

None of my business.



Besides, his political career is finished.

A lot of people can't keep their pants zipped. He used campaign funds to cover-up the fact, lied about paternity and was involved in outright fraud and bribery. Some people think this man could go to JAIL. This has nothing to do with adultery - it's the cover-up and use of campaign funds as hush money. Yeah, that matters.

He DID NOT use campaign funds to pay the mistress or cover anything up. Other people used NON-campaign money to do those things. The prosecutors in this case are using what the Times calls a "novel" (read: pulled out of their asses) legal approach. They are trying to suggest that those payments SHOULD HAVE BEEN reported as campaign contributions because covering up the affair benefited his campaign. It's an absurd reach of logic and I can only imagine someone buying into it if they already hated Edwards for his non-corporatist politcal views.

That's wrong. You need to read the Raleigh papers, who are following this.

Edwards a non-corporatist? ONLY on the campaign trail. He was a pure corporate Democrat while he was in the Senate. Don't you imagine this lying fool was lying to you as well - to fill the niche as the great populist?

Thank God a few Democrats do. And I think the fact that this slime campaign of yours continues is proof positive that he got under a few people's skin doing it.

There's an insinuation in your post that I have a corporatist agenda. That's against the TOS, here. Search my posts and you'll see I'm a progressive Wellstone Democrat.

that maybe it's you who have fallen for the trap. This is what the right wants us to be talking about. This wouldn't be an agenda item in our corporate media but for Edward's populist efforts (whether you believe they were sincere or not). They are working overtime to smear him because he represents the populist left.

was populist? Now, there are things he co-sponsored - that others led on, but there were no investigations of corruption, no legislation written (even if it failed to pass) that was designed to stop corporate abuses.

The fact is that he did nothing - other than speak populist words in 2006 - 2008, likely because he knew the only possibility was being the candidate of the left - as Hillary had the centrist Democrats.

There are many far better real leaders of the left.

himself. He kept running for President while engaging in behavior that was ruinous and self destructive.
I don't care if he's a populist or not, and I contributed money to his f...ing campaign. He could have
set this country and the democratic party back 50 years. It was Gary Hart revisited but with a love child.
Stupid is as stupid does.

info.

His career is over, he's pretty much ruined his life and lost out on all his ambitions, possibly lost the trust of his family in the process. Let him have his obscurity now, instead of hounding him further. Yeah, it was obvious from the start that the baby was his, but I honestly don't care. I just feel sorry for him now.

This multi-multi-multi millionaire who.....forget it.

Why do we treat celebrities so differently? A man who puts himself up for POTUS should not be putting himself in positions to have to pay off people (with others money!) but when they're caught and are being held accountable - you feel sorry for them?

Blame ourselves for the bought-and-paid-for politicians when it's so easily dismissed by comments like yours.

...for those who truly deserve it, where I've seen people oppose the death penalty for true monsters who have killed and raped people without remorse, and yet invariably many will stand up and say "they're still human and we should have compassion." (For the record, I have precious little compassion for those types of humans.)

And then there's John Edwards, who is not evil, merely flawed. Who had good intentions, but made the same mistakes (admittedly on a larger scale) that countless millions of married men and women have made, and yet he's demonized and hounded and apparently can never be punished enough. I understand the anger and the feeling of having dodged a bullet when we think that he almost became our nominee with this skeleton in his closet - but the fact of the matter is, he didn't become the nominee. So isn't all that rage better reserved for those who really have damaged the country and the planet without the slightest twinge of regret? Where's all that "compassion" that we're supposed to have even for vile death-row inmates, when it comes to one guy who ruined his life over a surge of hormones?

What many of us resent is that he is still pushed as a perfect, populist, liberal leader - which he never was in office.

in a rooftop wedding with the Dave Mathews Band as soon as his wife died and got out of the way?

I thought John was a better man than this but I was very wrong.

It hurts a lot that the only person who would even mention poverty and the scourge of ever increasing wealth inequality in the primaries turned out to be essentially, a whore.

I really wish people would stop gloating over that and rubbing it in.

so it all falls into place in a very predictable way.

And the ones who lose... besides Elizabeth?

Poor folk.

Again and again and again and again and again.....

Her: "I wonder if any human beings anywhere have managed to create a system of government that doesn't include the same elements of greed, corruption, elitism and cronyism we see repeated around the world, in every form of government"

Me: "Well every leader that threatens to get close to that goal either suffers assassination (or life imprisonment, or torture, or some combination thereof) or is ruined by being exposed in a public scandal. Each time a truly populist leader is assassinated, it sends the message 'this is what happens when you stick your neck out' and every time a fraudulent one is exposed in a scandal, it reminds the skeptics and the naturally apathetic that 'all politicians and leaders are corrupt, so why bother to stick your neck out'. Between the two tactics, any possible support of a just and honorable system of government is easily eliminated before it takes root."

My examples were Martin Luther King (murdered), Elliot Spitzer (caught in a sex scandal), and John Edwards (same).

about it. Usually we poor folk just get ignored, so knowing that you're talking about it encourages me.

Now, what I want to say is that you were asking if "any government anywhere", but the examples you gave were the US. NO, the US has NEVER been a good country in which to be poor! It just isn't, and that is what gets to "progressives". They want to be seen as generous hearts and caring of us poor folk, and yet they ignore us. That's even worse, because if you're being ignored, there is NO place to get any entry even into the conversation!

Now, back to your sister's question. Tere are countries now that are doing a lot better in terms of poverty. Most of the EU, for example, has a lot fewer people in poverty, and the income gap is much narrower. There is a lot more in terms of safety nets, and I think it would be good for us to be looking at this at the same time we are looking at the difference in health care. These countries are far from perfect, but there is no doubting that they are doing a better job....with more compassion.

Regardless of what you think about them, there are also some countries "we don't like" that have done MUCh better for their poor citizens. For all of his faults, Castro has created a much more egalitarian society, as has Chavez, which is why they are popular among their people.

Historically, there have been many societies that were matriarchal and matrilineal that did very well at keeping the heirarchy to a minimum and taking care of everyone. Even in today's Indian societies, all are considered important and people watch out for those who are unable to take care of themselves. This is one reason why the US govt has such a hard time with them.... for example, if one family is given food stamps, they will share those with others who are also hungry, and that goes against the stooooopid rules but it is certainly much more human.

We have to remember that there are other cultures besides ours, and people who have different beliefs and see things differently who we could learn from.

who is not a poor person. The fact is that Edwards was out of the national political scene before this story broke.

Here is a link to the Congressional record. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r111query.html

You can see the number of speeches where a Senator uses the word "poverty". Bored and annoyed with the phony claim on DU, I took a few years in the middle of his 6 year term - assuming that he might have not spoken much in the beginning (he was new) and the end (he was campaigning) and checked words that deal with poverty. Now, I only looked at Edwards, Kennedy and Kerry - guess who was the lowest - by far? Hint - THe last name does not begin with "K".

MANY politicians have spoken of poverty. Our current President worked - for little pay - on the South side of Chicago - trying to help people - real people living in poverty.

The Kerner report in the 1960s spoke of the 2 Americas - and it likely wasn't an original thought then.

Christ.

This kind of shit is wasted media space. There is NOTHING new here.

We all shout about integrity for the other side, but so many want it to mean nothing if it comes from a Democrat. The man, and his campaign, is the subject of a grand jury. It's NOT just between him and his wife. What part of the cover-up do some of you not (or don't want to) understand?

I'm outa here for the night. Seeing the defense of John Edwards and the "nothing new" posts are disturbing. It's the old syndrome of, "Yeah, he may be a bastard, but he's OUR bastard!"

Frankly, I could care less who a politician sleeps with....

This story was about the love child - that is what caused it to hit the headlines again, not the investigation.

The whole fixation on politician's affairs is just a distraction from reporting real news.

I stand by my original comment. Who the hell cares? (And, I don't follow who the Republicans fuck either, if that makes you feel better)

You start with strongly worded opinions, stating them as facts. The story has so many qualifiers in it, it reads like gossip. When, or if, there are actual facts, I will consider them. Not this editorial and not your opinions.

Edited to add qualifiers so you may understand what I mean:
"a federal grand jury in nearby Raleigh is investigating"
"he is considering "
"The situation may become"
"she seemed to turn"
"prosecutors are considering"
"there may be a statement"
"Investigators are examining"
"who could suffer"
"but could also"

Towards the end we get: "Joe Sinsheimer, a former Democratic consultant who has monitored the Edwards investigation, said it would be difficult for prosecutors to make a case because “the law probably doesn’t anticipate payments to a mistress during a campaign.”"

I'm done with this story.

This is a personal story that is between he, his family, and his rumored other family.

It seems that you have a couple of outside parties making large cash payments to a major political candidate, or rather to his proxy (the mistress). The payments are being made in order to benefit the candidate politically. That is, the mistress is asking for large sums of money in order to keep quiet about the affair. Is it really possible that John Edwards did not know that his mistress, who was pregnant with his child, was receiving these funds? Is it really possible that these third-party payments would be made to the mistress if John Edwards had not been the VP candidate? And if all parties involved knew about the payments to the mistress and knew why the payments were being made, can the payments be considered as unreported campaign contributions?

And remember, the mistress was on the campaign payroll for a while as a videographer making a six-figure annual salary. The investigation should include whether or not she was paid market rate for the job and whether she posessed the experience and skills expected for such a position.

Then there is the issue of taxes. Did Rielle Hunter report the cash gifts received from the two political donors as income?

There's a lot to untangle here. It sounds like the plot of a bad novel.

As much as some hate the hear that, it is true. And I am a former supporter and donor.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/1110/8975243/Ex-aide_says_Edwards_fathered_mistress_child

"Edwards has said the affair with Hunter ended in 2006. That year, Edwards' political action committee paid Hunter's video production firm $100,000 for work. Then the committee paid another $14,086 on April 1, 2007. The Edwards camp has said the latter payment from the PAC was exchanged for 100 hours of unused videotape Hunter shot.

The same day, the Edwards presidential campaign had injected $14,034.61 into the PAC for a "furniture purchase," according to federal election records."

Looks fishy to me. I know people here who gave more than they could afford to the Edwards campaign because they believed in the values he espoused. He should be forced to return campaign donations to those folks instead of paying off his mistress.

If John does marry his mistress after his wife dies, all his assets could end up going to the mistress and HER child. The children that Elizabeth had with John could end up with nothing.

That alone would make me divorce him, if only to claim half the marital assets before my death, so I could at least make sure the money would go to MY children. Not the hussy's.

I might do the same thing in her position. She wants to make sure that her children are protected, and would do anything to make sure that this woman does not become their stepmother some day. What a sad situation.