Something Stinks About The Whole John Edwards Criminal Trial

[FarCenter]

What did strike me about this matter is that it seems to confirm a feeling that I have long had: Progressive Democrats who get caught with their pants down appear to pay a steeper price in terms of impact on their career prospects—if not criminal prosecution— when compared to similarly compromised corporate-friendly Republicans.

Let’s consider the long list of Democrats before John Edwards who were wounded by accusations of sexual misbehavior: Gary Hart. Gary Condit (who was tied to the disappearance and murder of a young woman; although in the end it turned out he had nothing to do with it, he was ruined anyway because of an alleged dalliance with the young woman). Bill Clinton. Eliot Spitzer. Anthony Weiner. (I’m sure I am forgetting some.)

Republican politicians seem no less prone than Democrats to adultery and other common if frowned-upon behavior. But compared to the infamy visited upon those named above, how many of us recall all the GOP/Conservative Scandals? How often were these the topic of constant chatter on the major talk radio programs? Try David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Jon Ensign, Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, Mark Foley, to name but a few. Several quickly resigned but the only one who, pardon the expression, went down after extensive coverage (and his own resistance) that I can recall was Larry Craig—whose public washroom behavior (and tone-deaf defense thereof) was pretty hard to ignore.

...

So much for the notion of a “liberal” media showing favoritism to its own. My experience is that the “liberal” label when applied to journalists is a red herring which distracts us from the fundamentally accomodationist nature of the corporate-owned media. But the liberal label is effective in pressuring journalists to prove they do not coddle liberals—by doing the exact opposite.

The media is, by nature, cowardly. It too seldom goes after powerful people over the actual business of governing because it is too hard to make the audience care. And it only goes after people for misusing their peckers when it senses that a mob is forming, that there’s blood in the water. Then it is all about going to the head of the pack.

http://www.businessinsider.com/something-stinks-john-edwards-and-a-thirty-year-jail-term-2012-5

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I've been noticing that effect for years.

The hypocrisy of Newt & Hyde going after Clinton, for example.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. And don't forget Bob Livingston, who was outed by Larry Flynt,

not to mention Clinton's fellow Arkansan and impeachment cheerleader, the former Senator (and minister) Tim Hutchinson, who had the same kind of skeletons in his closet.

[hack89]

2. If he had not violated campaign spending laws he would not be on trial

why don't you compare him to Repukes that did the same - like Tom Delay.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Did you not read that the judge prohibited the ex-FEC guy from

testifying that the FEC had found the money was not for the campaign? So, how did Edwards, himself, violate campaign laws?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/14/11701316-judge-rules-out-testimony-on-fec-audit-that-cleared-mon

"Judge rules out testimony on FEC audit that cleared money for John Edwards' mistress"

[hack89]

8. Because it was impossible to determine if the campaign gave the FEC correct information.

if the campaign misled the FEC then the audit is meaningless.

[uponit7771]

9. How was it impossible to determine this? Where they caught fudging their numbers? Regards

[hack89]

11. Why not ask the judge and the lawyers?

they were there. I was not.

On edit:

On March 10, 2010 President Barack Obama nominated Eagles to a seat in the Middle District of North Carolina that came open when N. Carlton Tilley assumed senior status.[1] Eagles had a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 16, 2010 and her nomination was reported to the full Senate on May 6, 2010. The Senate approved her nomination on December 16, 2010, during the lame duck session of the 111th Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Eagles

[NoGOPZone]

13. Interesting. A trial itself is proof of guilt nt

[hack89]

14. He was charged with campaign finance violations. We will see if he is guilty

he is not on trial because he cheated on his wife. That makes him a scumbag but not a potential criminal.

[NoGOPZone]

15. Exactly, he was CHARGED

your OP doesn't mention that important qualifier.

[hack89]

18. The OP says that there is a double standard when it come to sexual peccadilloes

I am just pointing out that his legal problems have nothing to do with him cheating on his wife. My only point.

So is there a double standard when it comes to prosecuting campaign finance violations? Beats me.

[NoGOPZone]

19. Not actually relevant to MY only point

which is that when you say something like 'he wouldn't be on trial if he hadn't violated finance laws', it could be read as assuming guilt.

[hack89]

20. The only thing I assume is that Edwards is an egotistical prick

but judging from some of the trial testimony, it is closer to fact than assumption.

[NoGOPZone]

22. OK, got it

you're simply not good with putting thoughts into writing Happens to a lot of people

[riderinthestorm]

25. Please, just like the witch hunt against Bill Clinton was all about the perjury?

And not really about a blow job and trying to cripple his presidency right?

You can't really believe that do you? Because this smells the same

[hack89]

26. Whatever. I will not waste a second defending Edwards. nt

[RZM]

3. I think you're completely missing the point here

He's not on trial for the affair. He's on trial for violating campaign finance laws.

As pointed out above, a better comparison would be with Republicans like Tom Delay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham, all of whom were sentenced to prison for corruption/financial irregularities.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Funny that the FEC audit didn't discover a violation. See above.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. And Bill Clinton was all about "perjury", nothing about the affair. Please.

Of course it's about sex.

[meow2u3]

4. The old political double standard strikes again

This whole case reeks of a political witch hunt against Democrats who dare to buck corporate rule. If Edwards were a repuke, he'd be nominated for the Supreme Court.

[RZM]

7. Like Delay, Ney, and Cunningham?

See my post above. It's almost like people are interpreting this Edwards trial in an alternate universe where no Republicans are ever punished for anything.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Please. Condit lied to the police and hindered a murder investigation.

He didn't kill the intern but made himself look as suspicious as hell and deserved the consequences.

[Cary]

12. I have to admit that there is something to their idea that we are "weaker" than they are.

I wouldn't want to be like "conservatives" though, so I am not suggesting that we become more like they are. We are more flexible, like a willow tree versus an oak. We bend without breaking, while they just end up breaking.

I think it's a fact we have to accept and the perfect example you raise here is Bill Clinton. Yes he had to endure the bullshit, but who really came out ahead? Bill ended his presidency being what? The most popular man in the world.

Where did the Republicans end up? They had to steal the election from Gore and we all know the rest of the story.

[cali]

16. oh bollocks. this is a simple case of a repuke U.S. Attny who

went after JE for political gain. He resigned after indictment to run for Congress.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/05/john-edwards-prosecutor-wins-gop-primary-in-nc-122878.html

a couple of other things: JE was no progressive and I'm amused by the mirror images on the left and right in terms of whiny persecution shit.

Oh yeah, and JE wasn't indicted for his pecker being out of his pants.

[Cary]

27. John Edwards is a huge disappointment

Mostly it turns out that he wasn't as bright as many of us perceived him to be. I have seen him compared to Sarah Palin. I don't really feel all that sorry for him to tell you the truth.

But that doesn't negate the point of the OP here. I think your "mirror images on the left and right in terms of whiny persecution shit" is a bit off. It's worthy of inquiry, IMHO.

The problem here is not John Edwards' pecker issues but rather ethics surrounding campaign financing. The hypocrisy here lies in "conservative" campaign finance "values" or lack thereof considering Citizens United and the anything goes environment created by "conservatives".

[dionysus]

17. he's no progressive, he is a fraud. doesn't mean he belongs in prison.

[Nye Bevan]

28. Does Tom Delay belong in prison? (nt)

[dionysus]

29. yes. i'm trying to be a little charitable to smoove johnny over here....

[Cary]

31. Not just Tom Delay...

All of the people involved in rationalizing torture belong in prison including Bush and Cheney. I know I don't need to explain that. All of the people involved in outing a non-official cover CIA agent for their own political purposes belong in prison, including Cheney.

But there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion and we are talking about our government officials here. There are good reasons to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should prosecute. What are the longer term consequences to our nation? You know there will be Republican retaliation.

This is what checks and balances is all about.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Smells like John Edwards to me.

[Taverner]

23. David Vitter. Nuff said.