Prosecution of the ignoble John Edwards closes.

[woolfe9999]

Don't forget how John McCain cheated on and left his disfigured wife!

I think Newt, McCain, and Edwards should start a club.

Yes, and Mark Sanford used tax payer money to bang some chica, but he finished out his term.

Seriously, why does Edwards stand out from this bunch?

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think anyone can say what is truth, what seems to be the truth and what may not be the truth absent being confronted by the testimony and then only if you are able to observe the testimony giver's demeanor and what ever other indicators there may be.

FWIW, my opinion on the legal case is he probably knew the funds were being used the way they were being used, but it looks like there's reasonable doubt to me. OTOH, I could see the jury thinking he's such a PoS after hearing how devastated his now dead wife was that they convict him anyway. I honestly do not understand how the judge let that in.

 

[Craig234]

So John Edwards is innocent because the Republicans did worse, brilliant!

Where is this idiocy coming from, that after the point is made - and then even clarified further - you can't read simple English?

Show me the word "innocent" or any equivalent in my post, or "ok" to quote Fenix.

Edwards did wrong. The public condemnation of him is out of whack with others.

This is so hard for you to understand.

Let's try a SECOND analogy to make the point, which won't do any good:

"I demand John Edwards be executed for his crimes! He's the worst criminal in the US!"

Craig: That is an exaggerated reaction to what he did wrong.

Incorruptible: Why do you say he's innocent? He's not innocent!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, and Mark Sanford used tax payer money to bang some chica, but he finished out his term.

Seriously, why does Edwards stand out from this bunch?

Republicans hate him because he's a Democrat who acted like Republicans and Democrats hate him for the same reason.

 

[LunarRay]

FWIW, my opinion on the legal case is he probably knew the funds were being used the way they were being used, but it looks like there's reasonable doubt to me. OTOH, I could see the jury thinking he's such a PoS after hearing how devastated his now dead wife was that they convict him anyway. I honestly do not understand how the judge let that in.

I think you're right about the jury and the finding of doubt.
He's way sharp to not find the means to isolate him from the transactions and one lies and the other swears to it and yet another simply plays dumb. Hard to break up a conspiracy like that when each is not intimidated by the Government's folks.

I'm not sure if defense actually objected to any of that under 401 or 403 but failing their objection the court should have sustained its own objection unless it comes in under 404 character... I've not really a clue actually.. Well, other than if it was my butt on trial I'd challenge anything and everything and in front of the jury (but the PoS issue would have been moved outside the jury) up to the point of further alienating the jury..

 

[xj0hnx]

Where is this idiocy coming from, that after the point is made - and then even clarified further - you can't read simple English?

Show me the word "innocent" or any equivalent in my post, or "ok" to quote Fenix.

Edwards did wrong. The public condemnation of him is out of whack with others.

This is so hard for you to understand.

Let's try a SECOND analogy to make the point, which won't do any good:

"I demand John Edwards be executed for his crimes! He's the worst criminal in the US!"

Craig: That is an exaggerated reaction to what he did wrong.

Incorruptible: Why do you say he's innocent? He's not innocent!!!!

Well duh, everyone should know by now that you don't ever pass up an opportunity to bad mouth conservatives whether it's related to the topic or not.

 

[LunarRay]

Republicans hate him because he's a Democrat who acted like Republicans and Democrats hate him for the same reason.

The eloquent voice of Political Reason enters... We need a Constitutional Convention and among the Articles proposed ought to be the banning of Parties and setting limits on campaign length and money allowed to be spent. Along with defining for the Congress and the other two branches exactly how they will run their respective bodies. With impeachment being brought by the constituents as well as the current process. I've a lot more suggestions Mr. Madison... ()

 

[Anarchist420]

This is why campaign laws need to be decentralized.

 

[classy]

I don't know, I kinda have mixed feelings on this. I think his whole cover up was wrong and pretty dirty. But I think he just melted down. Up until it was known his wife was going to die, it appears he was pretty much a straight arrow. His son had died not long ago as well. I think he just looked for peace in the wrong way. I had an aunt who married someone like 6 months after my uncle died. They were together for over 40 years, faithful, truly faithful. When my other aunt asked why she was getting married so soon, she said, I just can't be alone. I just need somebody to be with me. So I am not as quick to judge the guy in totality based on this. He should get some jail time though.

 

[ichy]

Yeah, Edwards is a piece of shit. Yet oddly, I somewhat agree with Craig here. I don't see why this man is reviled so much more than other philandering politicians (let alone those who do worse than philandering).

I admit that my hatred for him mostly has to do with his record as a shameless ambulance-chaser back before he entered politics. I bet a lot of doctors in North Carolina are feeling some serious Schadenfreude right now.

 

[QuantumPion]

The case against Edwards is stupid but it's still 10x more relevant than the phony charges brought up against Tom Delay.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, Edwards is a piece of shit. Yet oddly, I somewhat agree with Craig here. I don't see why this man is reviled so much more than other philandering politicians (let alone those who do worse than philandering). Yes, I see the issue of misuse of campaign funds, but that as yet is unproven, and if memory serves, it didn't come out until a year or so after the adultery scandal hit. It seems like he was pretty reviled before anyone even knew about that. Even if he's acquitted, his political career is not only dead, I'm not so sure he could get a job at McDonalds.

Is it because his wife had cancer? Yeah, that makes it eIven shittier.

Then again... Newt cheated on TWO sick wifes, and dumped both of them. And he got to run for POTUS and even topped the polls for a time.

Then there is Eliot Spitzer to give another example. His wife wasn't sick. However, he serially cheated with prostitutes, an illegal act. Yet Spitzer gets spots all over the media and even has his own show now on Court TV. I wouldn't be surprised if Spitzer could even run for office again some day. Meanwhile, Edwards is so toxic no one will touch him with a 10' pole.

So what is it that makes Edwards the devil incarnate while these others are just ordinary assholes?

So where did I say Newt gets a moral pass? He betrayed those he was most accountable to and therefore isn't worth trust, yet neither he nor clinton nor JFK should have faced trial. Neither should Edwards for that part, but the charges hes accused of are another. He may be acquitted or not, but what I've seen given in evidence against him is not good. Regarding Newt, he was rightfully scorned at the time and it was a major reason hes not a contender. He won the fruits of his labor. Edwards however is current and just how many of these do we have? One by my count and this involves a trial on criminal activity. Does that seem to suggest he's singled out? Though it's not the attitude of yourself and some others, we have the resident apologist pointing to republicans again ignoring the reason this is news and thats because of a trial. While I despise those who do as edwards, he'd get a fairer treatment by me in court than any republican would by him. This is an issue which would be ten pages long and front page material.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Man, the hype about Edwards.

His wrongs - treating his wife badly cheating to father a child, hiding it - are just nothing incomparison to what every Republican leader has done in policy.

A few of them have done as bad or worse in the same thing - but they're all guilty of far worse in how they serve corrupt interests.

A lot of these guys cheat. Edwards had good policies and he cheated and hid it.

Strawman.

Just because someone else has done the same or worse does not give another person free reign to do the same. Each person should be judged by personal merits, and faults, and actions against a single standard, not some sliding scale of their peers.

 

[SilthDraeth]

He could be the biggest piece of shit on earth and not be guilty of the charges against him. He makes me sick but that doesn't make him guilty. That is for the jury to decide. They are supposed to make their decisions on the evidence and the law. Let's hope for the sake of innocent people who seem to be very guilty that emotion isn't calling the shots. If you deserve a fair trial so does he. I have more reason to hate that swine than most because I used to think he was a good guy. But the only thing that should convict him are facts.

QFT

 

[Craig234]

Strawman.

Just because someone else has done the same or worse does not give another person free reign to do the same. Each person should be judged by personal merits, and faults, and actions against a single standard, not some sliding scale of their peers.

First, you need to learn what a straw man is if you want to use the term.

Second, read my posts above. You are not accurately quoting me.

 

[Matt1970]

He's just another Politician who can't keep it in his pants.

 

[Craig234]

The case against Edwards is stupid but it's still 10x more relevant than the phony charges brought up against Tom Delay.

Well, there's a good example of having a screwed up weighting of wrongs.

Tom DeLay was a horribly corrupt monster.

I won't even try to describe a lot of it - just give a couple of examples.

He was a full out seller of the government, close partner with Jack Abramoff. He had a 'charity' he abused for political corruption, funneling illegal contributions.

In the Mariannas Islands, there were 'slave labor' factories that imported Chinese women to work in horrible conditions, living in the factories; a bi-partisan movement in Congress was horrified and passed reforms in the Sentae. DeLay took donations from the factory owners, was flown down there for a golf vacation by them in which he said they were the model of how businesses shoudl operate - and promised them he would block the reforms from coming to a vote in the House, which he did.

So for his greed he subjected many thousands of women to horrible things, for that example. And you say Edwards was much worse.

You're wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is why campaign laws need to be decentralized.

My parody meter just broke. Thank you very much.

 

[rudder]

Man, the hype about Edwards.

His wrongs - treating his wife badly cheating to father a child, hiding it - are just nothing incomparison to what every Republican leader has done in policy.

A few of them have done as bad or worse in the same thing - but they're all guilty of far worse in how they serve corrupt interests.

A lot of these guys cheat. Edwards had good policies and he cheated and hid it.

ummmm... Edwards is not on trial for having a mistress.

 

[Thump553]

He is a phony and scumbag to boot, but the case is weak I think.

I agree. I'm also amazed the judge let that videotape interview in-it wasn't relevant at all to the charges against him and is highly prejudicial. Excellent groundwork laid for a successful appeal by Edwards if he loses.

I totally agree Edwards is a scum (as is the main witness against him, a former aide who personally pocketed much of the million dollars himself) and am somewhat proud that my BS detector always turned me off to him, but I have a lot of problems with the government bringing this case. First and foremost is the problem that since the Supreme Court gutted campaign finance laws this is almost certainly the only such case that could ever be brought. Is that really a good use of the millions of tax dollars spent on this prosecution?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As far as I am concerned Edwards is a dirtbag and a sociopath. It is not clear to me, however, whether his actions are criminal, and this prosecution seems like something of a waste of taxpayer funds.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

QFT

Thats as it should be. The legal process needs to determine if a crime was committed. That does not shield him from his actions in terms of his character. He already condemned himself.

 

[hal2kilo]

As far as I am concerned Edwards is a dirtbag and a sociopath. It is not clear to me, however, whether his actions are criminal, and this prosecution seems like something of a waste of taxpayer funds.

This.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As far as I am concerned Edwards is a dirtbag and a sociopath. It is not clear to me, however, whether his actions are criminal, and this prosecution seems like something of a waste of taxpayer funds.

I would have thought misuse of campaign funds for personal gain unrelated to their legitimate use wouldn't be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.

 

[woolfe9999]

So where did I say Newt gets a moral pass? He betrayed those he was most accountable to and therefore isn't worth trust, yet neither he nor clinton nor JFK should have faced trial. Neither should Edwards for that part, but the charges hes accused of are another. He may be acquitted or not, but what I've seen given in evidence against him is not good. Regarding Newt, he was rightfully scorned at the time and it was a major reason hes not a contender. He won the fruits of his labor. Edwards however is current and just how many of these do we have? One by my count and this involves a trial on criminal activity. Does that seem to suggest he's singled out? Though it's not the attitude of yourself and some others, we have the resident apologist pointing to republicans again ignoring the reason this is news and thats because of a trial. While I despise those who do as edwards, he'd get a fairer treatment by me in court than any republican would by him. This is an issue which would be ten pages long and front page material.

I wasn't critiquing your attitude toward Edwards. I was wondering why Edwards is more hated than Newt by the general public. Newt's fall in the GOP primary does not seem to have been because of his past philandering because that was well known when he initially rose in the polls. It seems to have been because he supported cap and trade and the healthcare mandate and ran that ad with Pelosi. If it's because his offenses are older and have faded in public consciousness with time, well there is also Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, both of which are MORE recent than Edwards. Why are Spitzer and Sanford not so toxic as Edwards? And Clinton? Sheesh he was IN THE OVAL office when he did his thing, and arguably lied about it under oath (whether technically perjury or not isn't the point.) Yet Clinton is actually a very popular ex-POTUS.

I don't think the reason here is especially partisan, which is why I mention the democrats Spitzer and Clinton. Sure the dems will hate the republican philanderer and reps will hate the dem philanderer more, but Edwards is a cross-over. Craig's attitude of only condemning him somewhat is actually the exception among dems. I don't think I've ever seen someone hated this much by people of their own party over a scandal.

All I'm saying is that it's odd. It seems like either Edwards should be hated a little less or these others a little more. There's a certain mass psychology that plays in to this sort of thing. I'm going with the fact that his wife was not only sick but actually died, and died while heartbroken over it. Newt's wives didn't die. Maybe that's it.

- wolf