Does John Edwards Deserve 30 Years in Prison?

[Linux23]

He's a POS, and you know it. Fvck him and his crocodile tears. I say give him LIFE.

 

[werepossum]

I think 30 yrs is extreme. Despite how objectionable he may be as a person, those things are not relevent to the trial/sentencing. A person's sentence etc should be based upon the law, and not some popularity contest.

I believe there will be a hung jury, so I think it's moot anyway.

Fern

This. I too think it will be a hung jury, but should he be convicted, a year to three seems to me to be about right. He is a truly despicable person and arguably broke important if technical laws, but it's not like the money was stolen. The money was donated to get him elected President, and hiding his loathsome nature from the voters has to be job one.

Funny, he and Cain were two men who had good chances to become President if only they could have kept it in their pants. I guess Clinton didn't completely change America.

 

[werepossum]

FWIW, while I have not followed the case closely, what evidence I have read suggests that Mr. Edwards was doing his best to hide his affair while not explicitly violating campaign law.
A decision of guilt may stand on interpretation of whether he was trying to avoid actually violating the law, or was trying to abuse the law while skirting it on a technicality.
I haven't read enough evidence of direct intent to form an opinion.

I agree with this too. If he did not violate the letter of the law, he should not be convicted, period. I too haven't formed an opinion on that either way.


Too damned bad the Youngs have immunity though. I HAVE reached an opinion on that.

 

[SilthDraeth]

30 years... considering his age, you'd give him life behind bars. Such police state mentality disgusts me. We have enough people in prison, many who do not belong there. Edwards does not belong there.

The man may have committed a crime, I question if it should be a civil suit by his donors, but to severely punish him for what he did is draconian at best, a violation of human rights at worst.

I must protest if he receives more than 5 years. I question giving him any time in prison.

Agree.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

No way does he deserve 30 years in prison. He isn't charged with being a philanderer or a liar (he is both). He isn't charged with being a loathsome human being (he is that too). He is charged with a technical violation of campaign finance laws which have never been used to prosecute someone engaged in similar behavior, and it's not clear to me that he committed a crime at all.

We don't (or at least shouldn't) sentence people to prison because we don't like them - we sentence them to prison for committing crimes, and impose sentences which fairly recognize the nature and extent of their crimes, as well as their criminal history (he has none). To me, if he is guilty of a crime, an appropriate sentence might be, at most, a couple of years, not 30. I would rather not see my tax dollars used to house, feed and clothe this jackass for the rest of his life.

 

[mchammer187]

He is a lying scumbag but I don't really think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The way they wrote the law requires a really overbearing burden of proof to determine someone guilty.

 

[werepossum]

No way does he deserve 30 years in prison. He isn't charged with being a philanderer or a liar (he is both). He isn't charged with being a loathsome human being (he is that too). He is charged with a technical violation of campaign finance laws which have never been used to prosecute someone engaged in similar behavior, and it's not clear to me that he committed a crime at all.

We don't (or at least shouldn't) sentence people to prison because we don't like them - we sentence them to prison for committing crimes, and impair sentences which fairly recognize the nature and extent of their crimes, as well as their criminal history (he has none). To me, if he is guilty of a crime, an appropriate sentence might be, at most, a couple of years, not 30. I would rather not see my tax dollars used to house, feed and clothe this jackass for the rest of his life.

Well said.

He is a lying scumbag but I don't really think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The way they wrote the law requires a really overbearing burden of proof to determine someone guilty.

As it should be.

Seems to me the core issue is pretty straightforward. Did the Edwards campaign solicit and/or take in this money through its fundraising apparatus? Did the Edwards campaign (as opposed to the individual donators) actually spend this money for something clearly not an allowable campaign function, for which I'm assuming neither hiding your pregnant crazy girlfriend nor building a campaign worker a house qualify? Did it issue anything indicating this money was a tax deductible donation to a not-for-profit? If none of these things is true, if a few of Edwards' big donators gave money directly to the Youngs for the purpose of hiding the loony, then I don't see that technically he broke the law. Admittedly though it's a highly technical point of law at what point money given to a third party to keep a candidate viable should be considered a campaign donation.

I know the Youngs have criminal immunity, but can they get immunity from the IRS? As I understand it they took nearly a million dollars to build a house for themselves which they used to house Edwards' wacko mistress. If I'm right about this - and I may well be wrong since I've only heard what gets reported on the radio - then they need to have reported that money as either income or gifts and paid taxes accordingly.

I also wonder if Edwards will issue a new edition of his book and call it "Five trials" . . .

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don I'd go for a few years, but a "technicality" seems to imply accidental. Considering his legal training and years in government I find that hardly creditable. There ought to be some action against his professional license. If I performed a similar breech I'd be hung out dry and rightfully so.

 

[woolfe9999]

The guy who massacred 70 people in Norway can only recieve 21 years :hmm:

True, but he can be subject to indefinite detention thereafter at the discretion of the authorities.

 

[Craig234]

Fuck off Craig. You are the clueless one. Get your head out of your ass and quit defending people just because of the party they are in.

Except you just prove once again you are clueless, and wrongly attacking.

My position has nothing to do with his party. Any person with a clue, whether they agree with my political opinions or not, understands that.

But people who are guilty often love to try to turn around the criticism wrongly.

My favorite president other than arguably FDR is John Kennedy, but I think he was an asshole when it comes to sex and fidelity - not a rapist, but a serial womanizer.

The President I appreciate so much for fighting discrimation and poverty, Lyndon Johnson, appears not only to have been a cheater - but an actual criminal on money and votes.

The Democratic Congressman with the cash in his freezer - haven't followed the progress that closely but open to him being a despicable criminal belonging in jail.

Bill Clinton, the Democratic President who kept us out of major wars and reversed the Republican deficits, while raising taxes (too little) on the wealthy, who provides a good reminder of some Republican lies when contrasting him with the Bushes he's sandwiched between - not only the cheating and misleading, but he sold out to Wall Street in ways that caused great harm to people and helped pave the way for the 2008 crash.

Want me to go on? I've criticized Edwards to the amount he deserves - not too little, and not too much like you.

I find the view of people calling for him to have a long prison sentence, given the total absence of any indication of him intending any wrong to our democracy other than hiding his love affair and child from it, misuing laws to prosecute him that were designed for actual election fraud and corruption, highly immoral - those people belong in jail more than Edwards - a man I very much resent and criticize for his reckless harm threated to progressives and betrayal of progressives' trust. Progressives were hurt the most by him.

I'll let your very wrong attack slide as bad judgement - not a move to ignore, unless you repeat the mistake with a similarly false response. Don't make more false attacks.

 

[wirednuts]

he had a nice life. courts need certain people to be examples for others. we have people in prison for life just because they possessed too much marijuana. give him 30 years. maybe you might stop another politician from ruining our country one sold vote at a time.

 

[woolfe9999]

No way does he deserve 30 years in prison. He isn't charged with being a philanderer or a liar (he is both). He isn't charged with being a loathsome human being (he is that too). He is charged with a technical violation of campaign finance laws which have never been used to prosecute someone engaged in similar behavior, and it's not clear to me that he committed a crime at all.

We don't (or at least shouldn't) sentence people to prison because we don't like them - we sentence them to prison for committing crimes, and impose sentences which fairly recognize the nature and extent of their crimes, as well as their criminal history (he has none). To me, if he is guilty of a crime, an appropriate sentence might be, at most, a couple of years, not 30. I would rather not see my tax dollars used to house, feed and clothe this jackass for the rest of his life.

Bolded for emphasis because I'm pretty sure many people posting in this thread do not understand that the criminal justice system isn't a forum for seeking unbridled vengeance against everyone we don't like.

 

[wirednuts]

if he is using campaign money for hookers, then yes burn him at the stake. fuck him. im so tired of people thinking that is not "that bad" of a crime so he shouldnt go to jail. like you guys are saying, the law is the law and if he broke it then he should do time. and if he is really that shitty of a person, that what the max sentence is there for.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Don I'd go for a few years, but a "technicality" seems to imply accidental. Considering his legal training and years in government I find that hardly creditable. There ought to be some action against his professional license. If I performed a similar breech I'd be hung out dry and rightfully so.

I suspect that to the extent he violated the law, he really did do so accidentally. The federal campaign laws are complex and I imagine he felt there was a legitimate argument for the legality of what he was doing. The extraordinary length of the jury's deliberations, to me, bolsters the proposition that this is a fairly close case as a matter of law.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Bolded for emphasis because I'm pretty sure many people posting in this thread do not understand that the criminal justice system isn't a forum for seeking unbridled vengeance against everyone we don't like.

Unfortunately the courts sometimes blur this line as well (e.g., OJ Simpson's extraordinarily harsh sentence in his robbery case).

 

[wirednuts]

Unfortunately the courts sometimes blur this line as well (e.g., OJ Simpson's extraordinarily harsh sentence in his robbery case).

if ANYONE on the planet thought he didnt kill two people, he would have some support on that case. but everyone knows he got away with murder, so again, fuck that guy too.

 

[wirednuts]

I suspect that to the extent he violated the law, he really did do so accidentally. The federal campaign laws are complex and I imagine he felt there was a legitimate argument for the legality of what he was doing. The extraordinary length of the jury's deliberations, to me, bolsters the proposition that this is a fairly close case as a matter of law.

i bet it was more like he thought he could get away with it. people dont lose track of where their money comes from. no way. well, i dont know where this $20 in my pocket originated, so i guess im wrong

 

[Craig234]

courts need certain people to be examples for others. we have people in prison for life just because they possessed too much marijuana. give him 30 years. maybe you might stop another politician from ruining our country one sold vote at a time.

Except:

- He didn't 'sell a vote'. he did nothing corrupt about selling policy for money.

Now, we have many who clearly HAVE - ok, a whole party pretty much, look at the K Street Project, look at Bush appointing hundreds of regulators from that industry.

- Let's take your premise of 'needing to make an example', insofar as that means 'enforce good laws with one benefit being deterrence'.

I nominate Tom DeLay for that 30 year sentence. And John Bohner and Scott Walker. And everyone who voted for 'Medicare Part D', for a start.

Especially the guy who was the Congressman who led Medicare Part D through Congress - and resigned right after it passed to head big pharma lobbying for $2 million annual salary.

Get the facts clear: even what the prosecution alleges at worst had nothing to do with policy corruption, but a 'technical violation', because a donor who isn't complaining - who wanted their money to help him personally on this outside politics - has their money being counted as a political donation since he did better if he hid the affair. No policy was sold for that. It's not that sort of 'corruption'.

 

[woolfe9999]

Unfortunately the courts sometimes blur this line as well (e.g., OJ Simpson's extraordinarily harsh sentence in his robbery case).

It's a good point, and a good example, but of course the fact that the system sometimes does not operate to ideal standards is no excuse for ordinary people to prefer it that way.

 

[Craig234]

if he is using campaign money for hookers, then yes burn him at the stake. fuck him. im so tired of people thinking that is not "that bad" of a crime so he shouldnt go to jail. like you guys are saying, the law is the law and if he broke it then he should do time. and if he is really that shitty of a person, that what the max sentence is there for.

Hookers? He had a love affair with a campaign contractor, a child with her, and he paid money to care for them and keep his affair hidden from the public.

You apparently can't tell the difference between people really violating the public trust abusing their office and someone like this, guilty of a lie about an affair.

Again, even what he's being accused of is that the donation by a friend be called a 'political contribution' against that donor's wishes, to pretend this is real corruption.

And nevermind the larger issue as far as justice that the worst interests in the country can legally donate unlimited sums that ARE aimed at corrupting policy and buying elections.

 

[werepossum]

I suspect that to the extent he violated the law, he really did do so accidentally. The federal campaign laws are complex and I imagine he felt there was a legitimate argument for the legality of what he was doing. The extraordinary length of the jury's deliberations, to me, bolsters the proposition that this is a fairly close case as a matter of law.

I suspect you are right, although people will do some pretty stupid things to acquire great power. Once you're in, it's easy to keep inching across that line to avoid the whole house of cards collapsing.

I hope you are correct about the reason for the long deliberations. My own guess would be that the jury has one or more people who think Edwards is detestable and needs to be put away on principle, and one or more people who think Edwards is hot or noble or sufficiently Democrat that he needs to be forgiven whatever he had to do to acquire power and serve the people, no matter the law.

if ANYONE on the planet thought he didnt kill two people, he would have some support on that case. but everyone knows he got away with murder, so again, fuck that guy too.

I think most blacks still believe (or at least say) that O.J. is innocent, and while I didn't follow the trial I did see enough of the cops' and prosecution's malfeasance and/or incompetence that I'm not comfortable saying O.J. is guilty. You don't take blood-soaked evidence to the suspect's home; you don't cover the victims with a blanket from their own home and then later consider fibers found as evidence (unless possibly there is no conceivable way those fibers could have legitimately gotten in the victim's home.) If we begin to jail people we all "know" are guilty, then the obvious suspect gets jailed most of the time regardless of who did the crime. The standard needs to remain guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence provided, not whether we all "know" the accused is guilty.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suspect that to the extent he violated the law, he really did do so accidentally. The federal campaign laws are complex and I imagine he felt there was a legitimate argument for the legality of what he was doing. The extraordinary length of the jury's deliberations, to me, bolsters the proposition that this is a fairly close case as a matter of law.

We'll see how the jury decides however how could Edwards not understand that donations made to a campaign fund aren't properly used to hide personal problems. I'm not an attorney but if I were given money I would assume that if I used a tax free vehicle for the purpose Edwards did my ass would be in a sling.

 

[wirednuts]

And nevermind the larger issue as far as justice that the worst interests in the country can legally donate unlimited sums that ARE aimed at corrupting policy and buying elections.

youre so right about that. it would be silly to slam one guy for it when the entire system is set up to do what he did in a microcosm (is that the correct term?). the fact that they just re-voted to allow corporations to donate unlimited funds, to me, is incomprehensible. its like saying "here, we want to make it LAW to enforce political corruption". PASSED!

 

[Craig234]

By the way, note that it may not be 'justice' for his wrongs, but he has paid a large price for them.

It cost him his marriage, it cost him in his relationships with his children, it cost him as a pariah for public office, it cost him public humiliation and hate.

And unfortunately, far more price than any other politician I can think of who has done far worse in this area - take Newt Gingrich, recent front-runner for the presidential nomination, and I don't need to recount his *repeated* cheating and lying before even getting to his harmful politics - forget being the first Speaker guilty of ethics crimes.

 

[wirednuts]

I think most blacks still believe (or at least say) that O.J. is innocent, and while I didn't follow the trial I did see enough of the cops' and prosecution's malfeasance and/or incompetence that I'm not comfortable saying O.J. is guilty. You don't take blood-soaked evidence to the suspect's home; you don't cover the victims with a blanket from their own home and then later consider fibers found as evidence (unless possibly there is no conceivable way those fibers could have legitimately gotten in the victim's home.) If we begin to jail people we all "know" are guilty, then the obvious suspect gets jailed most of the time regardless of who did the crime. The standard needs to remain guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence provided, not whether we all "know" the accused is guilty.

it was fairly unclear if he was guilty or not during the trial. it was a horrible trial. thats why he got off. but since then? come on, the way the guy has acted and the fact that he wrote a damn book (dont think it released) that was titled "i did it" pretty much sums it up. everyone knows he did it.