John Edwards Will Face Criminal Charges

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do. If his wife can't trust him to keep his promises, I can't trust him to keep his promises. I don't get people who think otherwise. How can you trust a politican who cheated on his wife? If he can lie to the woman he allegedly loves, he can definitely lie to you, a complete stranger!! Why would I ever support a person I can't trust in the least?

Of course, if she gave him permission, that's different - then he's not lying.

I agree completely, but at issue isn't a "sad story" but a thief. That's why his butt is in a sling.

 

[werepossum]

I do. If his wife can't trust him to keep his promises, I can't trust him to keep his promises. I don't get people who think otherwise. How can you trust a politican who cheated on his wife? If he can lie to the woman he allegedly loves, he can definitely lie to you, a complete stranger!! Why would I ever support a person I can't trust in the least?

Of course, if she gave him permission, that's different - then he's not lying.

I agree completely, but as HR says, that's a question of whether I would vote for him rather than a question of whether he should be in jail.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is a victimless crime. People gave him money, he was running for office with that money and that would include protecting one's image. His life is already ruined, but that's not enough for some malicious narcissists who get their jollies off at making everything a crime worthy of jail.

I might go so far as to call it a crime against humanity to pursue Edwards further in revenge. Justice has already been done to him and if you can't see that then you must enjoy the welfare state cause people rotting in jail are leeches on society and our coin. It should be reserved for criminals who belong there, people who are a threat to society.


John Edwards is no threat to society. Leave him alone.

He's already been shamed. His political career ruined. Is this really how we want to waste the tax payer's money pursuing this case? What's the point. I'd say this if he was a Republican in the same circumstance. Will this really scare other politicians from doing the same thing in the future?

It's as if this administration is going way out of it's way to prove they are objective by going after a Democrat. I still haven't figured out why they didn't fire half of the prosecutors like previous admins exspecially the ones with degrees from places like Oral Roberts University.

 

[HumblePie]

He's already been shamed. His political career ruined. Is this really how we want to waste the tax payer's money pursuing this case? What's the point. I'd say this if he was a Republican in the same circumstance. Will this really scare other politicians from doing the same thing in the future?

It's as if this administration is going way out of it's way to prove they are objective by going after a Democrat. I still haven't figured out why they didn't fire half of the prosecutors like previous admins exspecially the ones with degrees from places like Oral Roberts University.

WHAT? No! He's a lawyer and knows the laws. The laws state he can't spend the money he received as campaign funds in that manner otherwise it is labeled as theft. Because there is a LAW stating how that money can and cannot be spent when he breaks that law he deserves every punishment that is associated with breaking that law. He stole money. I could care less who he is, what he's done, what party he belongs to or anything else for that matter. He stole intentionally and knew the consequences if caught. Now it's time to face the piper for him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He's already been shamed. His political career ruined. Is this really how we want to waste the tax payer's money pursuing this case? What's the point. I'd say this if he was a Republican in the same circumstance. Will this really scare other politicians from doing the same thing in the future?

It's as if this administration is going way out of it's way to prove they are objective by going after a Democrat. I still haven't figured out why they didn't fire half of the prosecutors like previous admins exspecially the ones with degrees from places like Oral Roberts University.

So you are good with criminal fraud eh? It's between said that we get the government we deserve. We deserve garbage it would seem

 

[werepossum]

He's already been shamed. His political career ruined. Is this really how we want to waste the tax payer's money pursuing this case? What's the point. I'd say this if he was a Republican in the same circumstance. Will this really scare other politicians from doing the same thing in the future?

It's as if this administration is going way out of it's way to prove they are objective by going after a Democrat. I still haven't figured out why they didn't fire half of the prosecutors like previous admins exspecially the ones with degrees from places like Oral Roberts University.

So an ordinary person committing tax fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice goes to jail, but it's sufficient that the political class be shamed? Doesn't sound very American to me.

Those possessing and/or seeking great power need to be held to a higher level of accountability, not a lower. Edwards should be prosecuted, and if sufficient evidence can be found, so should Ensign.

 

[Jaskalas]

So you are good with criminal fraud eh? It's between said that we get the government we deserve. We deserve garbage it would seem

You might have noticed he's no longer in government. Further action is to take his life away at tax payer expense. There is no damn sense in doing it.

 

[Craig234]

What does Nixon have to do with

You are now on ignore, long overdue. Try reading the thread.

You'd think Nixon would have taught all politicians that the coverup is likely worse than the crime, especially when the crime isn't actually a crime but the coverup is. Then again, maybe I just don't know how many coverups work . . .

 

[Craig234]

I agree completely, but at issue isn't a "sad story" but a thief. That's why his butt is in a sling.

Typically, you don't understand. Sad story and misusing money are not mutually exclusive.

People close to him describe how the national stage had a bad effect on him. It's sad.

 

[hal2kilo]

So an ordinary person committing tax fraud, perjury, and obstruction of justice goes to jail, but it's sufficient that the political class be shamed? Doesn't sound very American to me.

Those possessing and/or seeking great power need to be held to a higher level of accountability, not a lower. Edwards should be prosecuted, and if sufficient evidence can be found, so should Ensign.

What ever floats your boat. I'd much rather see some bankers and Wall Streeters prosecuted since they've have done much more damage to this country.

 

[Genx87]

You are now on ignore, long overdue. Try reading the thread.

 

[shortylickens]

Shame he's not in the White House, he would have been given a free pass.

 

[werepossum]

What ever floats your boat. I'd much rather see some bankers and Wall Streeters prosecuted since they've have done much more damage to this country.

Big difference between those arguably doing damage through their legal actions and those breaking the law to achieve and/or maintain power. If you don't like the former, change the laws. Or better yet, enforce the ones we have. But a government of those willing to break vows and laws for power is in my opinion much more likely to result in the former group getting away with things that are arguably illegal.

Shame he's not in the White House, he would have been given a free pass.

LOL QFT. Although I can make a case for the President being somewhat unique and therefore deserving of some discretion in deferring accusations, I could also make a case for the President being somewhat unique and therefore deserving of stricter scrutiny and even less tolerance.

 

[ProfJohn]

I can't believe all the Democrats who have came into this thread and condoned illegal behavior.

A democracy can not function without the rule of law being applied to everyone equally. Therefore Edwards MUST be treated the same everyone else.

And most likely he will be treated worse because he should have known better.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Typically, you don't understand. Sad story and misusing money are not mutually exclusive.

People close to him describe how the national stage had a bad effect on him. It's sad.

Nixon's crime was just that and so was Edwards, who is among those who could have afforded to spend his resources for hush money. Did he? No. Instead he elected to take what was not his to use for this purpose.

"A sad tale" mitigates many evils.

 

[werepossum]

Nixon's crime was just that and so was Edwards, who is among those who could have afforded to spend his resources for hush money. Did he? No. Instead he elected to take what was not his to use for this purpose.

"A sad tale" mitigates many evils.

Quoted for truth.

It's amazing how many politicians with tons of money do things that can potentially send them to prison rather than spend their own money.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Nixon's crime was just that and so was Edwards, who is among those who could have afforded to spend his resources for hush money. Did he? No. Instead he elected to take what was not his to use for this purpose.

"A sad tale" mitigates many evils.

From the local news report tonight Edwards didn't take money from his campaign fund for this, it was specifically from two donors that paid off the mistress. Edwards is just accused of being "involved" in some way and failing to report the money as donations.

 

[Craig234]

Nixon's crime was just that and so was Edwards, who is among those who could have afforded to spend his resources for hush money. Did he? No. Instead he elected to take what was not his to use for this purpose.

"A sad tale" mitigates many evils.

Wrong again.

Nixon's crime had bad elements - its main purpose - Edwards' did not.

Let's not even get into misusing the resources of the federal government - pushing the CIA to lie, obstructing the FBI - just talking about the crime itself that started both of these, Nixon's being the Watergate break-in *designed for political reasons to steal information*, versus Edwards committing adultery. We were talking about 'the crime versus the coverup', and those are the 'crime' part of that discussion.

As for a sad tale, I'm referring to how Edwards was seeming changed by the national spotlight very much for the worse.

That doesn't 'mitigate' his doing wrong, as I said before, so don't misrepresent what I said.

Nixon, on the other hand, is said in some ways, but seems to have long been just a not very moral person, going back to when he was nicknamed 'tricky Dick' in 1950, when he used dirty tricks in an election against the woman he was running against for the Senate.

JFK said it well: "Do you realize the responsibility I carry? I'm the only person between Nixon and the White House."

 

[Thump553]

I can't believe all the Democrats who have came into this thread and condoned illegal behavior.

A democracy can not function without the rule of law being applied to everyone equally. Therefore Edwards MUST be treated the same everyone else.

And most likely he will be treated worse because he should have known better.

Two points: (a) you are assuming it IS illegal behavior. As I tried to raise early on there is a significant legal issue as to whether these funds were legally campaign contributions. If the government gets around that hurdle Edwards better pack up his toothbrush (maybe). Edwards (I assume) will be arguing that this money was a gift from a friend to bail him out of a jam and was never intended by the donor or donee to be a campaign contribution.

And as werepossum and I pointed out, this is pretty much the identical case that can be made against Ensign (R)-and both of us made it pretty clear that corrupt politicians of either party should be prosecuted-to keep the rest of them in line.

The people saying let him go I don't think are doing so because they are D or R-they are saying he is washed up, it's a waste of government money and time to go after him. A rational position but one I strongly disagree with for the deterrance factor.

Will Edwards or Ensign ever actually get jail time if either is convicted? I'm not holding my breath on that.

 

[Slew Foot]

Rot in hell asshole. Just another douchebag malpractice attorney.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wrong again.

Nixon's crime had bad elements - its main purpose - Edwards' did not.

Let's not even get into misusing the resources of the federal government - pushing the CIA to lie, obstructing the FBI - just talking about the crime itself that started both of these, Nixon's being the Watergate break-in *designed for political reasons to steal information*, versus Edwards committing adultery. We were talking about 'the crime versus the coverup', and those are the 'crime' part of that discussion.

As for a sad tale, I'm referring to how Edwards was seeming changed by the national spotlight very much for the worse.

That doesn't 'mitigate' his doing wrong, as I said before, so don't misrepresent what I said.

Nixon, on the other hand, is said in some ways, but seems to have long been just a not very moral person, going back to when he was nicknamed 'tricky Dick' in 1950, when he used dirty tricks in an election against the woman he was running against for the Senate.

JFK said it well: "Do you realize the responsibility I carry? I'm the only person between Nixon and the White House."

I'm familiar with Nixon's moral standards. You'll not see me justifying any of his actions. I submit that if you were to go into his life history you could find tragic turning points. I'm not even going to try since they are completely irrelevant. The point remains that this was a purposeful act by someone who knew better. I am not and never will give him or any other holder of high office any sympathy whatsoever for fraud. If he has in fact done what he's accused of, he's not a victim, he a perpetrator.

 

[Craig234]

I'm familiar with Nixon's moral standards. You'll not see me justifying any of his actions. I submit that if you were to go into his life history you could find tragic turning points. I'm not even going to try since they are completely irrelevant. The point remains that this was a purposeful act by someone who knew better. I am not and never will give him or any other holder of high office any sympathy whatsoever for fraud. If he has in fact done what he's accused of, he's not a victim, he a perpetrator.

You're the king of false equivalency, Hyabusa. You turn 1% and 99% into 50-50 as a matter of habit.

Because of that, you also distort people's positions to fit your preferences. Suddenly my commenting that Edwards did wrong and also is a sad story becomes 'excusing what he did'. Suddenly two people with very different stories are no different because there's some little thing in common.

I can point at OJ Simpson and an abused wife who kills her spouse, and I can find SOME way each was treated badly, and SOME way each was wrong.

But unlike your approach that doesn't make them 'the same'.

So getting your post doing nothing but changing my post into your version and correcting that is annoying.

 

[lothar]

If he is guilty then taking the license to practice law is fitting. He certainly knows what's not permitted. Will it impact him? I believe that he's quite wealthy but any future income from law is gone. I don't know the rules regarding lobbying but he should be banned from any such activities and required to repay the money. Putting him in jail is just costing taxpayers money. Of course if he tries to game the system then put him away.

How is it fitting?
John Edwards has a net worth of $29 million...He could live off the interest of US savings bonds alone. He probably doesn't practice law anymore anyway. If anything, he could even end up being a CNN/MSNBC contributor making millions like Elliott Spitzer.

Taking John Edwards law degree is about as fitting as taking my high school diploma.

 

[werepossum]

How is it fitting?
John Edwards has a net worth of $29 million...He could live off the interest of US savings bonds alone. He probably doesn't practice law anymore anyway. If anything, he could even end up being a CNN/MSNBC contributor making millions like Elliott Spitzer.

Taking John Edwards law degree is about as fitting as taking my high school diploma.

If taking his law license turns out to be the correct legal remedy, then that's what should be done even if he doesn't particularly suffer from it. Same as with Clinton losing his license; the fact that it did not hurt him in the least does not mean that greater punishment is called for. Arguably, this is proper in assessing the amount of a fine, but not in deciding the nature of the actual punishment itself. This is the flip side of claiming that the shame is enough, in that the law needs to be equally applied to everyone. Hold them to tighter standards, certainly, but don't change the actual penalties.

 

[Thump553]

If Edwards is convicted he would almost certainly be disbarred by whatever jurisdictions he is licensed in. That's a matter of the lawyer's code of ethics and bar rules-not part of the sentence the trial judge imposes.

In fact he could be disbarred without ever even be convicted.