Edwards Taking Dirty money?

[bozack]

DISASTER IS LURKING
July 7, 2004 --

JOHN Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his vice presidential candidate is getting predictable but sincere applause from Democrats, relieved that some charisma will enliven their presidential ticket. But the initial positive reaction may not last long as the Bush campaign zeroes in on Edwards' vulnerability: his presidential campaign contributors.

During his run for the top job, John Edwards relied heavily on leading trial lawyers. Twenty-two of his top 25 donors were trial attorneys. And those donations likely cloak a multitude of sins and violations of the campaign-finance laws.

Edwards' trial lawyers bundled massive contributions from their assorted law firms and client lists to float his presidential run. Bundling isn't illegal - except when the donors are straw men and women putting up money given to them by a wealthy patron.
For example, $1 million of Edwards' funds came from trial lawyers' wives - identified merely as "homemakers" in the campaign-finance filings. If the money came from their husbands, there could be a violation of law.

More significant is the example of Little Rock trial lawyer Tad Turner, whose firm gave $200,000 to the Edwards campaign and associated committees. But Slate found last Aug. 29 that many of the "contributions . . . appear to be illegal." The online magazine reported that "one clerk who gave $2,000 said that Turner had 'asked for people to support Edwards' and assured them 'he would reimburse us.' " Another clerk told much the same story.

 

[dahunan]

Does it compare to Tom DeLay trying to help Republicans try to take the whole state of Texas via illegal fundraising schemes?


at bottom of page DeLay, Incorporated (18:24)
18 minute video from Bill Moyers special on Tom Delay and his illegal political contribution schemes

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Source?

My guess is there's nothing to see here (at least nothing illegal). Before picking him, Sen Kerry will have thoroughly vetted Sen Edwards' background, and history of campaign contributions. Edwards himself is so wealthy, and frankly so bright, that I imagine it's unlikely he ran significantly afoul of campaign contributions laws. FWIW, I think it's significantly harmful to the effective and fair function of our government to allow candidates to take any contributions, but that's a topic for another day.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Source?

" And those donations likely cloak a multitude of sins and violations of the campaign-finance laws. "

Dunno, but it sure sounds like a good one.

Edit- Found it.

The author seems like a serious jounalist whose opinion should not be taken lightly.

"Dick Morris is one the most brilliant people on the American scene, and we're glad he's offering our readers his insights," Christopher Ruddy, President & CEO of NewsMax Media, the parent company of NewsMax.com magazine, said.

"With all of the bias in the media, it is refreshing to work with NewsMax, which goes where other media outlets fear to tread," Morris said about joining NewsMax.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Dunno, but it sure sounds like a good one.

Hey, I never said the source was credible now did I? something I saw quoted on another board...haven't bothered looking for more info, just thought it was interesting, word has it :

When that came out, Edwards returned $10,000 to Turner employees. Tad Turner himself - a noted trial lawyer - said that he didn't know his promise of reimbursement was illegal.
How many more stories like Turner's are there buried in Edwards' filings? The Bush campaign's negative-research operatives will be crawling all over the trial lawyers' firms to find any other donations that were similarly disguised. Since more than half of Edwards' donations came from trial lawyers, there's a vast ground to pick over looking for scandal.

A running mate is really a presidential nominee's first appointment, widely seen as an indication of what kind of administration and Cabinet he would appoint. Kerry's choice of Edwards sends all the right messages. The pick of a Southerner assuages worries about Kerry's liberalism, and the North Carolina senator will lend a dash and attractiveness to the ticket.

But these apparent positives could be overcome by big-time negatives if the trial-lawyer donations blow up in Edwards' face. No candidate would relish having to spend the first month of his campaign explaining away donations to his No. 2, but that could be exactly how John Kerry will have to spend the next few weeks.

 

[ThePresence]

Holy hell, that was quick.

 

[conjur]

<yawn>

And Bush is free and clear from special interest money related to oil and energy companies?

How much money has Enron, Ken Lay, Halliburton, etc. given to the Bush coffers?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
<yawn>

And Bush is free and clear from special interest money related to oil and energy companies?

How much money has Enron, Ken Lay, Halliburton, etc. given to the Bush coffers?

how does this have any bearing on Edwards though? again this is about Edwards not Bush.

Thanks

 

[crazycarl]

damn, i wish the democrats had the money and the FBI to look into Bush's campaign. well, I guess thats just impossible considering the level of secrecy and power the republicans have

 

[Genx87]

How much money has Enron, Ken Lay, Halliburton, etc. given to the Bush coffers?

Apparently not enough because when Enron came looking for a govt handout Bush said no.
And we all know what happened next.

Enron filed for bankruptcy, Ken Lay is now or will soon be standing trial for his fraud.

Halliburton is 67th largest defense contractor. I guess they need to give a little more to move upto 66.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
<yawn>

And Bush is free and clear from special interest money related to oil and energy companies?

How much money has Enron, Ken Lay, Halliburton, etc. given to the Bush coffers?

how does this have any bearing on Edwards though? again this is about Edwards not Bush.

Thanks

If you want to claim Edwards is taking "dirty money", I suggest you look to your candidate first before casting aspersions upon the other.

 

[kage69]

If you want to claim Edwards is taking "dirty money", I suggest you look to your candidate first before casting aspersions upon the other

Thank you conjur, I was just about to question the selective vision of our conservative friends here. C'mon guys, no one takes a hypocrite seriously. You're better off keeping your trap shut or searching for positive elements of Cheney &amp; Co. than you are slinging weak trash around like that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: kage69

If you want to claim Edwards is taking "dirty money", I suggest you look to your candidate first before casting aspersions upon the other

Thank you conjur, I was just about to question the selective vision of our conservative friends here. C'mon guys, no one takes a hypocrite seriously. You're better off keeping your trap shut or searching for positive elements of Cheney &amp; Co. than you are slinging weak trash around like that.

That would make for a very quiet ATP&amp;N!!

 

[Harvey]

Edwards Taking Dirty money?

Do you mean as opposed to well laundered money from Enron, Haliburton, Arthur Anderson, NRA, etc.? :Q

Throwing out labels like "trial lawyer" as if it's something dirty is pure bullsh8. Trial lawyers are like most other groups with both good and bad among them. I know some trial lawyers, and they are good, upstanding people out fighting the good fight for the right causes. What many people conveniently forget is, when an attorney takes a case on a contingency (no win, no pay), he makes nothing if he loses, but he may have invested several years, and thousands of dollars in court fees, just to get to a judgment.

And before you complain about that, remember that a major corporation typically has a staff of many attorneys to represent them. If a company really is responsible for harming someone, or worse yet, some large group of people, who else is there to provide fair representation to those who have legitimate grievances?

If that same company stalls and lies about the evidence of real wrongdoing, is it wrong to penalize them for this? Is it wrong for the attorney(s) who volunteer to fight on behalf of those injured to do well for doing a good job for the injured parties?

If you really think ALL trial lawyers are evil and greedy, you may change your tune about the time you find yourself needing one of them because you were the injured party. Who else are you going to call if YOU are the one who needs their help?

 

[YellowRose]

Didn't take long for the attack to begin.

 

[digitalsm]

Fred Baron, one of the nations top and Texas' top trial lawyer was Edwards money man, and then became Kerrys money man a month ago. This guy is as low as trial lawyers come, numerous investigations, some of which are ongoing IIRC, of fraud, ethics violation, and instructing witnesses to lie under oath, and various other charges. If he wasnt a powerful behind the scenes figure in the democratic party, tas he is the #1 fundraiser for the party, and Texas, his ass would have been disbarred several years ago.

 

[crazycarl]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
This guy is as low as oil executives come, numerous investigations, some of which are ongoing IIRC, of fraud, ethics violation, and various other charges.

hmm sounds like our VP

 

[kage69]

That would make for a very quiet ATP&amp;N!!

Yep, I used the word 'search' very deliberately. I'm sure there might be an occasional 'he's just a good man' or the 'he's got a powerful memory for names and faces!' - but yeah, mostly crickets.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Fred Baron, one of the nations top and Texas' top trial lawyer was Edwards money man, and then became Kerrys money man a month ago. This guy is as low as trial lawyers come, numerous investigations, some of which are ongoing IIRC, of fraud, ethics violation, and instructing witnesses to lie under oath, and various other charges. If he wasnt a powerful behind the scenes figure in the democratic party, tas he is the #1 fundraiser for the party, and Texas, his ass would have been disbarred several years ago.

That's a lot of sh8 to fling without any links to back it up. :| I Googled "Fred Baron", and the only link about this Fred Baron was this hatchet job from the RNC. Even then, the first quote says:

Millionaire Personal Injury Trial Lawyer. Fred Baron is a founding partner of Baron &amp; Budd, P.C., an 80+ lawyer plaintiffs' firm that exclusively represents victims of exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances.

Gosh oh golly gee whiz. One hardly knows where to start feeling so fscking sorry for all those manufacturers of asbetos and toxic substances. We wouldn't want them to help any of their innocent victims, would we? :roll: The rest of the links on the first google page are about a film maker.

The second google page finally gets back to the attorney. This link on legalpr.com says:

Civil Justice Debate Features Leading Trial Lawyer and Top Reform Advocate

(Washington, D.C.) ? Renowned trial lawyer Fred Baron of Dallas? Baron &amp; Budd, P.C., and leading civil justice reform advocate Victor Schwartz will meet at the National Press Club on Jan. 14, to debate key issues facing the civil justice system.

From the injured?s rights to access to the civil justice system to proposed federal tort reform measures, Mr. Baron and Mr. Schwartz will debate and discuss a variety of the civil justice issues being considered by the 108th Congress and various state legislatures nationwide.

Mr. Baron is recognized as a pioneer of toxic tort litigation, having handled his first asbestos claim in 1973. Following that case, which he won, Mr. Baron founded Baron &amp; Budd, which has become one of the nation?s preeminent plaintiffs? firms dedicated to achieving justice for victims of toxic exposure resulting from corporate misconduct. Mr. Baron is a past president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, among many other honors.

Mr. Schwartz (a.k.a. Schwartz on Torts) has co-authored one of the most widely read torts casebooks of the last two decades. He is General Counsel to the American Tort Reform Association and Chairman of the Public Policy Group of the law firm Shook, Hardy &amp; Bacon LLP.

Both Mr. Baron and Mr. Schwartz have been recognized by the National Law Journal as among the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in the United States.

Wowie zowie! There's one stinging accusation of evildoing!

Please find evidence for the mud you sling, or STFU until you can. :|

 

[Jhhnn]

First off, I suspect that it might be a little difficult for politicians to tell what went on behind the scenes with some campaign contributions, but that Edwards definitely played it straight when there was a hint of impropriety...

And, of course, trial lawyers are not well regarded among the Republican business community, simply because the whole idea of accountability is a drain on profits... Particularly a practice like Baron's... Like Black Lung before it, Asbestiosis is a real "Industrial Disease", often contracted by unprotected workers long after the hazards were well known...

Hey, the worst thing that will happen is that they'll put up a new sign over the "For Sale" Billboard currently on the Whitehouse lawn- "Under New Management". Change is good, right?

 

[arsbanned]

You're better off keeping your trap shut

 

[digitalsm]

You obviously have no fricking clue what you are talking about, and as willing to suck down spoon fed drivel from pr.

Fact of the matter is an internal Baron and Budd memo instructed their lawyers to find witnesses and coach them to lie. What happened? The investigator of the case had a wife running for public office, her campaign was mostly funded by the ~70 Baron and Budd laywers. A conflict of intrest no? He later recused himself from the offical investigation, but the case was never thoroughly investigated. They not only had the memo, they had 3 former partners and several paralegals testifying. Baron and Budd also used their political influence to get before a friendly judge which reversed a previous court ruling.

Also its well known Baron and Budd has over 10,000 asbestos clients. Less than 5%-10% of all national claims involve people who are actually sick or "damaged" from asbestos. Most have never even been exposed. Over seventy-five companies have been put out of buisness by bogus asbestos claims by people that havent been affected by asbestos. I think you should do some research on toxic torts and see how bogus most are. Theres a reason why Congress has been exploring the idea of asbestos tort reform, and toxic tort reform in general. And to paraphrase Fred Baron, tort reform will never pass, trial lawyers own congress. Trurth be told it will pass because the abuse by certain trial firms, like Baron &amp; Budd have abused it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
You obviously have no fricking clue what you are talking about, and as willing to suck down spoon fed drivel from pr.

Fact of the matter is an internal Baron and Budd memo instructed their lawyers to find witnesses and coach them to lie. What happened? The investigator of the case had a wife running for public office, her campaign was mostly funded by the ~70 Baron and Budd laywers. A conflict of intrest no? They not only had the memo, they had 3 former partners and several paralegals testifying. Baron and Budd used their political influence to get before a friendly judge which IIRC recieved campaign contributions from Baron and Budd. The judge reversed a previous court ruling.

Also its well known Baron and Budd has over 10,000 asbestos clients, less than 5% are actually sick or "damaged" from asbestos. Most have never even been exposed. Over fifty companies have been put out of buisness by bogus asbestos claims by people that havent been affected by asbestos. I think you should do some research on toxic torts and see how bogus most are. Theres a reason why Congress has been exploring the idea of asbestos tort reform, and toxic tort reform in general. And to paraphrase Fred Baron, tort reform will never pass, trial lawyers own congress. Trurth be told it will pass because the abuse by certain trial firms, like Baron &amp; Budd have abused it.

Do you have a source for all this "insider information"? If it's untrue you could be successfully sued for libel.

 

[conjur]

The rnc.org website says it's true so it must be true!!

http://www.rnc.org/news/read.aspx?ID=3391

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: digitalsm
You obviously have no fricking clue what you are talking about, and as willing to suck down spoon fed drivel from pr.

Fact of the matter is an internal Baron and Budd memo instructed their lawyers to find witnesses and coach them to lie. What happened? The investigator of the case had a wife running for public office, her campaign was mostly funded by the ~70 Baron and Budd laywers. A conflict of intrest no? They not only had the memo, they had 3 former partners and several paralegals testifying. Baron and Budd used their political influence to get before a friendly judge which IIRC recieved campaign contributions from Baron and Budd. The judge reversed a previous court ruling.

Also its well known Baron and Budd has over 10,000 asbestos clients, less than 5% are actually sick or "damaged" from asbestos. Most have never even been exposed. Over fifty companies have been put out of buisness by bogus asbestos claims by people that havent been affected by asbestos. I think you should do some research on toxic torts and see how bogus most are. Theres a reason why Congress has been exploring the idea of asbestos tort reform, and toxic tort reform in general. And to paraphrase Fred Baron, tort reform will never pass, trial lawyers own congress. Trurth be told it will pass because the abuse by certain trial firms, like Baron &amp; Budd have abused it.

Do you have a source for all this "insider information"? If it's untrue you could be successfully sued for libel.

I have sources to back up the information. There have been several exposes on Baron and his law firm, along with other major Texas firms. As for asbestos lawsuits, and the percentage of who are actually sick or damaged/impaired comes from various studies and reports. All one has to do is

1. Be old enough to fit the lawsuit.
2. Sign a sworn affidavit stating you were exposed to asbestos 40-50 years ago, no proof needed.
3. You win. Well your lawyer wins, they get 60% of the money.