Edwards' lawyers have argued that the funds were gifts from friends intended to keep the affair a secret from his wife, Elizabeth, who died of cancer in December.When this is your defense, you've pretty much failed at life.
Federal officials have approved criminal charges, deciding that the hundreds of thousands of dollars 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.That's a very weird and broad standard that doesn't get applied very often.
"Edwards knew that public revelation of the affair and the pregnancy would destroy his candidacy by, among other things, undermining Edwards' presentation of himself as a family man and by forcing his campaign to divert personnel and resources away from other campaign activities to respond to criticism and media scrutiny regarding the affair and pregnancy," the indictment added.posted by saulgoodman at 8:46 AM on June 3, 2011
The money wouldn't have been a factor if we didn't have a reputation for punishingFTFY. This is bullshit. Clearly what Edwards did was scummy, but indictments? Seriously? It's bullshit. And you never see republicans held to the same standard. Who was the last republican prosecuted for an affair?peopledemocrats for consensual sex; it's like liberals who said about Clinton it's not the blow job, its the abuse of power, when he was v. much being railroaded for the blow job.
Doesn't matter, he still mis-used campaign funds. That's a bad thing, and should be punished.That's not what happened. Some of his donors paid for her living expenses. The theory is that this was somehow a "campaign contribution" because covering up the affair was key for the campaign. But they weren't donations directly to Edwards, as far as I know, they were to Hunter.
he's being investigating for misusing campaign funds.Again, no, he's not. He's being investigated because of a theory that payments from Edwards friends to Hunter should have been considered 'campaign donations' as far as federal law goes, which is absurd really. Money flows between friends and associates of politicians all the time. The only reason this is a 'scandal' is because there was sex involved.
Well at the other end of the spectrum you get everybody shrugging off pieces on the side and you end up with Dominique Strauss-Kahn.Because there's no difference between cheating with a woman who throws herself at you and trying to rape a maid who has no idea who you even are.
Data point: Tom DeLay was not just indicted, but convicted of misusing campaign funds.Again, the argument is that these funds should have been considered campaign donations, even though they were going to Hunter and not Edwards. There were never any actual campaign donations that were used to pay her living expenses.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I'm a cynical son-of-a-bitch and he had me completely fooled.I suppose you think MLK jr. didn't really care about the poor because he had affairs too, right? Maybe Edwards was full of shit, maybe he wasn't. But judging someone's moral outlook based on who they fuck seems ridiculous.
The problem I see is the sublimation of women in our society as a powerful political voice in the last 20 years. Where the fuck did all the feminists go?The Edwards campaign actually tried to hire Amanda Marcott, but she ended up being too controversial. This would have been before the Reily Hunter affair started, I think. Anyway, the point of feminism -- as far as I can tell -- is not to chide men for having affairs.
most of the attorneys I go up against are doing plaintiff's side tort litigation because they weren't good enough to get jobs doing corporate or defense work. -- valkyrynWow. So talented people should strive to defend corporations from average people they've harmed, and anyone who doesn't must suck? And you expect us to take your opinion of Edwards seriously? That ought to have as much weight as the average drug dealer's opinion of the police.
In Canada we used to hear about stuff like the McDonald's hot coffee settlement and laugh at the crazy people in the USA.That whole case was misrepresented. The women had serious burns and required surgery, and the coffee was way hotter then it's normally served. In Canada, she could have been treated without worrying about the costs, but that's not the case in the U.S. Someone has to pay, either the victim or the company, and the courts have to figure out who's at fault.
and the reason it didn't surprise me is because he was a very, very convincing "good guy" and this scandal seemed so completely out of character based on my impression of him that in retrospect I could see him selling just about any line to anyone.Let me see if I can follow: He seemed like a nice guy, but because he had an affair he's not a nice guy. And, because he's not a nice guy and he acted like he was one, he's a liar? Or something?
« Older The USDA has ended the pyramid scheme.... | As part of a 1995 Wired specia... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by spicynuts at 7:36 AM on June 3, 2011 [2 favorites]