Report: Grand jury investigating Edwards over mistress

[kpete]

Source: Salon

Friday, April 3, 2009 19:00 EDT
Report: Grand jury investigating Edwards over mistress

A federal grand jury is reportedly investigating whether former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., violated campaign finance laws by making payments to his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

The National Enquirer was the first to report the story, which has since been picked up by outlets in North Carolina, Edwards' home and the reported location of the grand jury. The tabloid is often thought of as untrustworthy, but it has a solid record on these types of stories, and it consistently led other media outlets in reporting Edwards' affair.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, but local news sources are reporting that one did convene on Wednesday. The U.S. attorney, George Holding, said he wouldn't "confirm or deny any investigation." Wade Smith, a prominent local defense attorney and Edwards mentor, according to the Raleigh News & Observer, declined to say whether he was representing the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee -- but his quote did seem to indicate that something might be going on. "I'm at a place where I cannot make any comment to confirm or deny," Smith said. "I can't say anything. It's possible, at some later point, I can." (Defense attorneys are not bound by grand jury secrecy rules the way prosecutors are.)

Edwards has denied making any payments to Hunter or to Andrew Young, a former aide who claims to be the father of Hunter's child. Fred Baron, who chaired Edwards' finance committee for his 2004 and 2008 presidential runs, did say that -- without Edwards' knowledge -- he personally paid for Young and Hunter to move to California to escape media attention. Baron died last year.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

[ixion]

1. Bush murders thousands and pisses on the constitution: nothing. zip.

what Edwards may or may not have done -- for good or ill -- is nowhere near the severity of the laws decimated by BushCo.

Why no federal grand jury for war crimes or torture?

[ZombieHorde]

2. Good question. Rove has broken the law as well, what is going on with him? nt

[saigon68]

63. Nothing for the Chimp or this guy

In other words--we must move forward and not lo9ok back

[MADem]

4. Two wrongs don't make a right.

We can't be binary about these things. Edwards disgraced himself, his family and brought a small measure of ridicule to his party.

I feel sorry for his wife--she's the classiest one in that crew, I'm afraid.

[ixion]

7. what we need to be is neither binary nor unary... we need to consistent

is someone is a war criminal, they should not be wandering around giving speeches about freedom.

[MADem]

9. Sure...but you're hijacking the thread when you change the subject like that.

The OP subject line is pretty plain. It's not about BushCo Evils. It's about the disappointing former Senator and Presidential candidate, and what's in store for him, possibly.

If you've really got a genuine concern about Bush, the war criminal, as we all should, the best place to express that is in a thread that deals with that subject.

[Mithreal]

16. Our justice department has been as fair and balanced as fox news. nt

[MADem]

86. We have new leadership at Justice. He'll get a fair shake. NT

[Mithreal]

87. I agree. nt

[Hannah Bell]

51. He wouldn't be getting "investigated" if he hadn't made enemies somewhere.

He wouldn't have been pinned in the first place if he hadn't.

Like politicians paying mistresses is some kind of big anomaly in DC.

[MADem]

85. No. He wouldn't have been investigated if he hadn't paid a dumbass woman with a video camera

over a hundred grand to shoot video of his ass and chop it up using windows movie maker into four "webisodes" that consist of him wandering around, answering questions, and flirting with the off-camera videographer. That was probably the first tip-off. Next, I'm betting he was "indiscreet." Then, I'm betting he flew her hither and yon on the campaign plane when she had no clearly assigned duty, and given that she's a rather "loud" person in terms of her appearance, I'm guessing that someone NOTICED.

He's getting investigated because of what he did. Not because of "enemies."

And paying mistresses? That is not a big deal. Paying them with money that little old Joe Blow contributed to a federal presidential campaign? Now THAT is a problem. It's especially craven when one realizes how rich this little shit is, and how he could have afforded to keep her in clover without involving the campaign.

His worst "enemy" is the idiot who looks back at him from his mirror when he wakes up in the morning and goes to shave.

[Hannah Bell]

89. you say. but it's not the case. no argument his behavior was craven,

but he's not the only offender. some just don't get caught, & one of the reasons is they're on the right side of the powers.

[MADem]

90. Which GOP candidates spent federal Presidential campaign funds on their honeys?

You'll have to point me, or better still, the DOJ, to some evidence of malfeasance.

In any event, that's just a distraction tactic--the "Well, THEY do it too" argument. Two wrongs, as I have said, do not make a right. Aren't we supposed to be better than them?

This man ran for office pledging to represent the little guy, the "Two Americas" forgotten folks, and then he took their dimes and dollars, that they sent to him because they BELIEVED, and handed a hundred grand of it to his girlfriend to take video of his ass marching into a gymnasium and engaging in verbal foreplay with her. He used his campaign plane to fly her around while he was schtuping her, and later to get her out of Dodge when the going got rough. There might well be more instances of improper reimbursement, and that's what the Grand Jury is there to do--find that shit out.

We don't NEED people who cheat the system (never mind the cheating on their wives) in our club. We're supposed to be better than that. Graft is never the right thing to do. Corruption is never acceptable. I'm pretty sure Eric Holder will make sure the guy gets a fair shake. If he's done nothing wrong, financially speaking, the only thing he'll have to deal with is the shame of being unfaithful to his lovely, terminally ill wife. If he is guilty, he'll be fined, most likely--and hopefully, heavily.

[rhett o rick]

95. Disagree. Spitzer resigns but Vitter doesn't and neither does Sen Craig.

Sen Stevens gets cleared but Siegleman doesn't. There is clearly a double standard here. Martha Stewert goes to prison and sen frist doesn't. I can go on. George Bush is a war criminal and Cheney has a death squad. Why are we investigating Edwards?

[MADem]

102. There's nothing to "disagree" about.

Some people get punished. Some don't. That's life. The prosecution either has to make their case or the person walks.

Most importantly, NONE of the people you are talking about are accused of violating CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, either. And that is the topic of this thread, not a hodge-podge of grievances from political and celebrity lifestyles of the rich and famous.

There have been a number of threads on this forum where the sins of those people can be discussed. This thread is about how JE gave his girlfriend a hundred plus grand of money that was donated to his campaign to make four lousy YouTube videos that look like they were done by the High School AV club. The question remains...what else did he give her? The Grand Jury is convened to answer that question.

[rhett o rick]

104. I agree that we don't disagree. I am just tired of the left politicians getting punished

while those on the right skate. If JE is guilty he should pay. But something is very wrong when we let the bush admin off scott free for their war crimes but go after Edwards, Spitzer, Pres Clinton, Sielgelman, and the CEO of Quest.

[The Stranger]

117. Cliches are not a defense to selective prosecution.

Wake the fuck up.

[Mithreal]

13. And don't forget the RNC Chair. He stole campaign funds. nt

[global_traveler]

20. I hope the Grand Jury Supoenas Jeff Gannon-The-Cannon

ooooops.....wrong politician. All this political whooooopeeeeee has confused me about who ugly bumped whom.......


Still on the road looking for the code,
global_traveler

[karynnj]

34. They have nothing to do with each other

I assume that the Bush issues are tough for many Republicans and soem Democrats to actually pursue because they reflect things our country did wrong in the world. I think for our own sake those crimes need to be pursued.

BUT, they have NOTHING to do with not investigating whether Edwards or his campaign broke the law. Are you arguing that no crime - all the way up to murder - be tried because the Bush crimes are more serious?

[ixion]

69. I'm arguing for consistency

convening a Grand Jury for what is essentially a civil suit and doing nothing about war crimes, mass murder and crimes against humanity seems a bit lop-sided to me.

[karynnj]

71. I understand your comment on consistency

but you fail to understand while one action is simple to do and the other weighty.

I have always thought that the reason GHWB was not impeached over all he did with Iran/Contra was that doing so would be the US admitting before the world that crimes were committed in our name. That also is why Nixon could be impeached on Watergate, but not Vietnam - though Father Drinan sponsored legislation to do that. Watergate's crimes were corruption and obstruction of justice. Those were actions the Nixon administration took - but they reflected on them, not the country. Both the Contras and Vietnam were actions, official or unofficial, taken by the US Government. (Note that Clinton's "crime" also reflected just on Clinton - not our government.

There are few cases in history where a prior government was ever tried for official actions. There are none in US history that I know of. In general, this type of introspection and coming to face unpleasant truths usually happens only when a country is completely defeated or the international community leads it. It also often takes a huge passage of time. Pol Pot was far worse here and only now are there trials - and only because of an international demand for them.

Please do NOT think that means I think there should not be trials or at least hearings to establish asmany details of things done and get them on record. I just don't think that there are people who will fight enough for it to happen. In addition, the people who do speak out will likely be politically hurt for decades for doing so. Americans do NOT want unpleasant truths. Consider that 33 years was not enough time - though "Fog of War" completely showed he was right on the Vietnam War and the military's own records show that Americans were guilty of atrocities - for many people including Senator Webb, who knew Kerry spoke the truth (he used similar events in his fiction), to not hold speaking the truth against Senator Kerry. This even though Kerry was extremely eloquent and stayed well within the law in his protest.

In Edwards' case, IF there really is a "secret" grand jury looking into this, there is no such complexity. If he misused campaign funds - he misused campaign funds. Misusing campaign funds (with no affair and scandal) was what led to the censor in the Senate of Thomas Dodd, the father of Chris. It is not far from accepting huge gifts, like Stevens was indicted for. If it were, say, Romney or Guilliani, who was accused with diverting funds for illegal purposes, there would be NO ONE here arguing to give him a pass.

There are two ifs here:
If there were illegal diversions of campaign funds

and

If there is a "secret" grand jury, that just the NE knows about. This is also a low risk story for them - if no charges come about - the secret jury didn't find sufficient proof.

If both are true, then he might be in major trouble. For Elizabeth's sake I hope it won't happen. The Edwards kids are very young and they and Elizabeth likely need his support. (Though there are likely poor fathers found guilty that go to jail leaving there family destitute in addition to losing the father's emotional support.

[ixion]

79. That's a very well-thought-out response...

and from a political/governmental perspective, I think it makes perfect sense.

Chomsky has said that just about every US president, if not all, have committed war crimes. I would find that to be true. So following my consistency premise, every single US president would have to be brought up on war crimes charges. Realistically, that's unrealistic.

This is reality. I understand that. I guess I'm something of a stubborn idealist, though. You have to keep on trying. If you give in to tyranny, it will consume the planet. Maybe it's too late for that. Maybe it always has been. What I do know is that it's wrong. It was wrong a thousand years ago, and it's wrong today, and it'll be wrong tomorrow.

I'm in no way trying to minimize what Edwards may or may not have done. It just makes me sad to see him facing a sh*t storm for doing something most politicians probably do in some form or another, while * goes around giving speeches and planning his 'library' (sic), after murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

As you say, though, no one will ever face prosecution for that. :(

[krabigirl]

64. Seriously. Our Puritanical country is so messed up with its values.

[bemildred]

3. Can't we talk about Ward Churchill instead?

Do I have to think again about Edwards and his sex life? As far as I know, Churchill has not been hauled up for sexual trangressions.

[karynnj]

35. This is NOT about his sex life - it is about use of campaign funds

The former is his, Elizabeth's, his mistress and his possible child's - the latter is a public offense if campaign funds were used. (This is a serious charge that has led to disgrace for legislators in the past.)

[cali]

56. only if that's where you're head's at.

because it's fairly easy to see that this isn't about his sex life, but financial wrongdoing.

[bemildred]

88. I just don't care much about Edwards.

I like his wife, but politically he looks like toast, and I'd rather talk about something else. It's nothing personal.

[Summermoondancer]

5. Can we leave him alone already?

His wife has terminal cancer, he is not a presidential candidate..can we cut the guy a break and get over it...he had an affair so do tons of other men in the US.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Yeah, but he's a Democrat, therefore he gets pummeled indefinitely.

Them's the rules.x(

[MADem]

11. This is the first I've seen of this Grand Jury business.

Indefinitely?

The only one getting pummelled indefinitely here is....Barack Obama. Because he's not liberal enough and isn't on the Kucinich bandwagon.

Then again, neither was Edwards. AND he was fucking around and lying about it...and that's the topic.

[Jim Sagle]

17. Worthless topic at that.

[MADem]

19. Running away from it is as bad as Fox refusing to cover Obama in Europe.

And spending all of their time whining about Kim Jung Il in North Korea, instead.

Why not put the fingers in the ears, and do the "NANANANANANANANAA I can't HEEEAAAAR you!!!" routine??

We're not like them...at least I thought we weren't. I'm starting to wonder if I am mistaken.

We confront uncomfortable...or as Al says, INCONVENIENT...truths. And we deal with them, and overcome.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Neither uncomfortable nor inconvenient, just irrelevant.

[MADem]

26. So irrelevant that his wife has another book coming out?

And Oprah interviewed her last week, to be aired later?

No, not irrelevant. INCONVENIENT...but not irrelevant.

Oprah doesn't "do" irrelevant.

[Jim Sagle]

29. That's ALL she does.

This is a political board not a Hollywood fan site.

[MADem]

54. Who's the "actor" in this drama? I see a politician, a politician's wife, and a politician's

mistress, who was getting paid to take video for a politician's campaign.

I don't see "Hollywood" and I don't see "fans" here.

Besides, you're not the board administrator, and you don't get to regulate content or instruct people on what they are, or are not, allowed to post.

The HIDE THREAD option IS your friend, friend. That way, you don't have to see these inconvenient truths.

[Jim Sagle]

68. When I see a piece of shit thread, I enjoy labelling it as such.

;)

[MADem]

72. Your eyes, I fear, deceive you. Your efforts to shut this thing down have failed. NT

[Jim Sagle]

74. Never tried to shut it down. Successfully branded it.

Decades from now, when GRANDMAWDem regales the little ones with tales about this thread, they'll caterwaul, "Aw, Grandmaw, that thread was a piece of shit!"

[MADem]

80. No, you haven't managed that, either. You've dug a little side trench but no one need visit it. NT

[Jim Sagle]

100. The same could be said about the whole thread. In fact, that's what I DID say about it.

;)

[MADem]

101. Whatever--everytime you respond, you keep kicking it. NT

[karynnj]

118. I would hope that GRANDMAWDem will not see her fight to defend Edwards

after he became pretty indefensible as a high point in her political advocacy. Also, I don't think I would ever want to tell "little ones" enough background so they could understand this thread. Unless .... your real goal is to teach them never to trust a politician, who with wide blue eyes lies straight faced while they cried. (reference to "Reason to believe" intentional.)

[Reterr]

66. That is a matter of opinion

From my point of view, all she does is irrelevant. I honestly think the cult of Oprah/"Dr."Philhas played a huge part in the general dumbing down of this country.

I agree with the other poster generally. Edwards should be investigated for the campaign finance stuff. But, outside of that the general "moral" outrage that goes for all these stories of sexual intrigue, at least imo show how fucked up our priorities are.

I really think partially it is that when it comes to more complex crimes involving high political intrigue or financial shenanigans many people don't quite get what is going on, but anyone can understand something like cheating on your wife blah blah...

I personally think if we are gonna take the moral outrage route, Lawrence Summers is way sleazier than Edwards imo in terms of impact etc:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/us/politics/04disclose.html?_r=1&hp

[MADem]

10. I don't see anything wrong with discussing this. Why is it taboo? It's pretty fucking

hypocritical that this forum can guffaw with glee over Bristol Palin's failed romance and unfortunate pregancy and childbirth (to say nothing of her horrid family and her Aunt's burglaries), but we're too sensitive to talk about a guy who is a PUBLIC figure, and who talked a great line of BULLSHIT but was a disappointing person to both his supporters AND his family.

It's important not to "cut the guy a break" when the guy doesn't deserve a break. "Everyone does it" isn't an excuse, and it isn't true, either. Everyone does NOT "do it." He brought this shit on HIMSELF. We can feel sorry for his wife AND call him out for being a hypocrite. Walking and chewing gum isn't impossible, you see.

Excoriating Newt Gingrich, Ted Stevens, and other Republicans here, while not providing the same scrutiny and treatment to our team, just doesn't cut it. It's not a team sport, the issues of integrity and principles are what separate the parties. If you turn it into a team sport, you make it a joke.

[DaLittle Kitty]

12. Uhhh Can We Say Elliot Spitzer? C'mon Edwards Is Going To Begin To Look Pretty Good To...

the progressive community in just a few more months as national health care turns into a subsidy for the insurance companies and clean coal gets a similar boost!

This is all about distraction in the name of FASCIST America... Bite into this and watch as poverty increases side by side w/ decreasing employment, and the man who wanted to help us albeit (falling into the doublecrossing arms of Ms. Hunter), and thereby fucking himself and us we get screwwed to eternity by the reality of One Nation One Party... Corporate America runs the Show and don't you forget it!

Edwards just got in their way!

[DaLittle Kitty]

14. Rielle Hunter Was No Prize Considering Al the Pussy He Could Have Had...

that was throwing themselves at him EVERY DAY! Bad Choice John... Now we all have to suffer cause you fell for as John Kerry calls 'em "The StarFu*kers!"

[tonysam]

32. She was a professional con artist, just like her late father

who was involved in some insurance fraud.

Lisa Jo Druck is her real name, and the name I prefer to call her.

[csibona]

121. guilt by association

[karynnj]

37. Link please

I have NEVER read Kerry ever say that.

[DaLittle Kitty]

42. That IS A Quote From A FIRSTHAND Account... No LINK FIRSTHAND! These Ears!

:)

[MADem]

15. A grand jury convening is a distraction? Come on. That's absurd.

And the Fascist America comment? That was just a dumb thing to say.

What got in Edwards' way was his goddamn dick and his broken marriage vows. He didn't even have the sense to pick a "non-out-in-the-ozone" woman (to whom birth control is a mystery, apparently) to fuck around with, either, which speaks to his poor judgment and his hubris.

And then, he went on national TV and LIED ABOUT IT.

Got in their way? Please--he got in his OWN way. Your enabling and excusing of his behavior is fucking pathetic.

[fujiyama]

22. Edwards' rhetoric really didn't match his Senate voting record

At least with Spitzer, he had a record of tackling corporate crimes.

But we'll see. I hope Edwards does eventually come back and continue speaking out about poverty. To his credit, he was one of the few really making it an issue during the primaries.

However, if there is evidence he committed any crimes, he, like anyone else should be held accountable.

[XemaSab]

44. Right...

Ms. Hunter was a nasty, scheming bitch who took John Edwards and corrupted him. Sure. :eyes:

[MonteLukast]

47. I do believe that, actually. (Well, sort of.)

I think it started with her, almost absurdly simply, needing a job.
Like a lot of us now, she was desperate (or played at it), and John and Elizabeth, being generous sorts, wanted to help her get back on her feet. These days, anyone who gives you a good, well-paying, creative job is damn near your savior.

Well, you know how it went-- that thing played on his feelings and took advantage of his weakness, and took advantage of Elizabeth's hospitality... both of theirs. In the right situation, even a man who deeply loves his wife-- and JE does-- can succumb to the kind of charm and ego-stroke offensive both him and the thing alluded to.

He didn't realize how accomplished a manipulator she was until it was too late. Especially if she really is, as tonysam says, a professional con artist. He probably thought he was too smart to fall for such a scheme-- and that this kind of scenario only happened to Jerry Springer talk show guest types, not sophisticated lawyers and senators like himself.

He knew what damage an affair could do to his message. THAT'S why he lied and kept it quiet. He knew what Americans think of politicians who stray. He remembered how he'd berated Clinton a decade earlier. He knew it might be the end of his public life. Whatever it took to save his profile and message, he was prepared to do.
And he survived long enough for his message to change the discussion among Democrats for the better.

We don't think politicians who would go to those lengths for their principles, exist except in fiction. Hence we don't believe that JE would do it for his ideals. Especially since if he already lied about one thing, how many other things is he lying about? It's natural to extrapolate this way.

I just hope it indeed involved his money and ONLY his money. How do you prove whether someone was paid from campaign funds or not?

And what exactly is he supposed to say to us about the baby? He can't acknowledge a child until he can PROVE it's his. He'd be a fool to admit something until there was incontrovertible evidence of it. He's a lawyer, damnit.

The groupie, however, IS a fool and wants attention and money; and therefore will blather to anyone and everyone who'll listen and pay "celebrity" wages.

JE had the extraordinary bad luck to get involved with the loosest of possible loose cannons.

Nothing about this affair added up. Everything here was out-of-character, from the locale where he met the thing (does he strike you as the type to hang out in bars?) to the reaction of Elizabeth.

[XemaSab]

52. If that's the story that allows you to sleep at night, go for it

My interpretation is virtually 180 degrees different.

[MADem]

55. You'd think, if he knew what damage an affair could do to his message

and his marriage, that he could have, at the very least, tossed a condom over his penis before he stuck it in. The smartest thing he could have done is just not do it.

I can't believe the guy is that stupid. It's plain, though, that he is.

Apparently, the tabloid Enquirer (and they've been right so far) say that he has admitted to his wife that the kid is his. He did that, they say, because his ditzy girlfriend was going to go public and he was cutting her off at the pass. Someone "on the inside" of this drama is getting good info--after all, they were able to get pictures of father and daughter IN the hotel room, too. And, the older the kid gets, the more she looks like her daddy: http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/john-edwards-baby-one-year-old/

I don't think this was "out of character" for him. I believe his public persona doesn't match his private one, thus, the disconnect.

It is also my belief that the reason his wife has cancer is because she took all those drugs to give him a son to "replace" the one that was killed. She had to push her body past its limits twice to achieve that goal, too. She denies that, but I do think all those drugs fucked her up and now she's dying for her "great gift" to this cheating bum.

JE didn't have "bad luck." He's an asshole who disrespected his wife. I find his conduct reprehensible and I believe HE, not that stupid cheesy woman you call a "thing," bears the brunt of the responsibility for the entire embroglio. He could have just said NO. He didn't, though. He believed his own publicity and fell for a few compliments from a space cadet. And he behaved that way because he felt he could do what he wanted without consequences. He's a fool.

[NJmaverick]

106. John is a big boy and fully responsible for his own actions

it's disingenuous to put the blame on anyone else.

[MonteLukast]

107. Looking at the situation is not the same as absolving responsibility.

It's easy to be cut-and-dry about assigning responsibility when you're looking at the problem from a distance. But people indulging their tendency to make the fundamental attribution error doesn't do much toward what's really required when someone screws up like JE did-- solve what problem they are in. We all spend so much time assigning responsibility (in any scenario) that we forget about context-- and never solve the real problem.
The problem is that the fundamental attribution error comforts us. It reassures us of life making sense, and gives us the impression that we've making progress in our dealings with other people.

And don't forget: a lot of what we believe about personal responsibility comes from 40 years of a right-wing approach to it. Which loves dispositionalism, essentialism, and quick and permanent judgments about people. Any one of us 35 and under were born under that meme and it's pretty ingrained in our psyches, so it's going to take a lot of work embracing the power of context.

It's a heap of work in itself, to embrace context without giving off the impression you're against personal responsibility. Anybody have pointers for how to do this, please let met know.

Because what I do know, is that we treat people better by embracing context. Plain and simple.

[NJmaverick]

108. Maybe it's just me, but when someone asks me to be my President

I expect them to have a little more control of things. I don't want helpless victims, who are incapable of controling even their own lives and interactions, being in charge of our nation. Clinton may have gotten away with the lack of personal discipline, but he is the exception rather than the rule.

[MonteLukast]

109. I'm still wondering what the hell he was doing...

... to make the choice to let himself be taken in by a manipulator in the first place.
Clearly, he wasn't thinking.

By all accounts, this appears to be the first time he actually went through with an affair. (I'm not counting getting only too emotionally close to someone outside your marriage, but some do and consider that to be just as big an affair.) It does appear that his personal discipline was pretty sound throughout his life, until now. What was different about now? Was the cancer the straw that broke the camel's back?
I would've thought that lawyers would have been more clued in to tricks of human nature, and more likely to anticipate someone giving them a snow job.

I only wish the fallout from this particular bad decision wasn't so severe, and so long-lasting. Because by all accounts, he's otherwise decent, he's otherwise loving, he's otherwise on the ball.

Maybe his "cowering away from responsibility", in fact, comes from a profound sense of shame. He knows what he did was stupid and dangerous, potentially undoing everything he ever lived for. He woke up after the fact, realized just what he had done... but who wants to show their face until they're actually making substantive progress on rectifying a mistake?
How many times have we done something incredibly stupid, something that showed beyond any reasonable doubt how poor our judgment was, and we just wanted to run away? Because that's all we felt we COULD do.

Because another thing that's bizarre about this whole mess is that, for all his lawyerly skills, he's completely at a loss as to how to come out of this. It's always weird to me whenever an otherwise capable person is left completely shellshocked and powerless to do anything effective. See John Kerry in 2004.

[karynnj]

111. John Kerry was not "completely shellshocked and powerless to do anything effective"

in 2004 or EVER. He nearly won a nearly impossible race when 59% of the country thought the country was going fairly of very well. He was running on changing nearly everything Bush was doing - in a year when the country was not ready for change. He accomplished this with very little help from a VP too vain to have the Presidential nominee's back. Then after this devastating loss, Kerry reached out and helped keep people active fighting to get Democrats back in control. Kerry put his mind, heart, and energy behind this fight.

As to Edwards, his biggest skill was being able to get a jury or voters to believe him as he spoke with wide blue eyes - and he was highly skilled at this. We also don't know anything about Edwards life before 1998 - there was no scrutiny. You can't minimize what he did.

- this was not a one night stand where the next day he couldn't believe he had acted so badly. It was a LONG sustained affair.

- he very likely lied in his confession. His time line is a lie - as it is not likely he told EE and RH continued working for the campaign close to JRE. That lie makes it look like EE was complicit in running a race knowing this risking losing everything.

- If he used campaign money - he is corrupt. Something Kerry is not.

[MonteLukast]

112. I'm sorry, Karynnj.

I should have known better than to say that because I'm part of the Kerry group.

I'm not turning against John Kerry. (hell no!) I shouldn't have tacked that on-- the fact is I didn't think you'd read my response. Stupid, STUPID idea, considering you've already responded to this thread before.
I guess I thought the other person was "of that mind" regarding JK, and was saying it in terms they'd understand.

I do think that JK felt that the attacks on his military service struck at the core of his being. The Republican character attacks do that. They make you question the very value of your life and values themselves. They have the effect of poisoning what you believe in, and attempting to turn something you cherish into something despicable. Hence, you're shellshocked.

So it's a mistake to say this happened to JK, per se; but I do wonder if he was caught off guard, at least at first, by how much the Repugs struck so deeply at something so a part of him. Certainly, most of us ordinary Americans felt it-- a better term than "shellshocked", would probably be "emotionally raped".

Forgive me? :blush:

[karynnj]

116. Of course I forgive you

I don't however see any sign that he ever questioned the very value of your life and values themselves. Kerry, never made a single comment that can be taken as questioning either his service or his decision to fight to end the war when he returned. He kept the two lines in every stump speech I heard as a CSPAN addict including them in his biography. (Listen to his dissent speech in 2006 where he reaffirms what he did in 1971.) There was never a sign that he questioned the values he has lived his life by. I don't think he was even surprised that the Republicans attacked him like that. How to respond was a political question and he was advised by many many people including Clinton to just rise above it. The media already had the truth - that strategy would have been correct had the media not given credibility to the liars. Remember that McCain in 2000 imploded because he angrily reacted to similar Rove attacks.

Since 2004, there has been a LOT of second guessing but you never know what would have happened had he taken the other path. But consider that in 2004, Clinton was whining about Kerry mentioning Vietnam at all in August. (A part of me suspects, Clinton was uncomfortable that both in war and in returning and speaking out, Kerry was a real hero.) Diverting from a campaign message to directly attack shadowy veterans would have been a very high risk action - and doing it in early August before his numbers fell due to the Republican convention and the SBVT - would have been strange. Not to mention, his defense at the Firefighters convention - TWO MINUTES long - got very little coverage. At that point, he was essentially equal with Bush and he knew he could gain points in the debates. What he didn't count on was the media. Even now it is hard to believe that the media did not call the Republicans on their treatment of the purple heart medals.

[MonteLukast]

113. I trust JE's word more than *hers*.

If it's her saying that she worked for JE a long time, that it's his baby, etc. then I do NOT believe a word of it.

She's hungry for notoriety and delusional about JE's feelings for her. She's so intent on keeping a toehold in his life, for money or perceived affection or "he should take responsibility" or her newfound status as a demi-celebrity, or all four; that she'll say and do anything to bolster her case.
I only wish JE had woken up to her game sooner. I only wish he hadn't been so damned susceptible to ego-stroking and flattery.

It's just so bizarre for him to forget the skepticism that's been ingrained in him through his training as a lawyer-- and the insight about human nature and strong instincts about people that he HAD to have had to win so many cases. Surely he had to know when someone else was using on him some of the very verbal tricks he had used himself in court!

[karynnj]

115. Nothing I said says I believe Hunter anything Hunter said

and in fact she has said very little publicly. I assume you are speaking of the timeline comment - I am going by the KNOWN fact that she was there - sitting next to JRE on the day he announced in New Orleans in some of the published pictures.

I also think the worse you make her out to be - the worse this reflects on JRE who chose to have a long term intimate relationship with her. Making him into an innocent drawn into her web of deceit doesn't work. He was a married man in his 50s, who went out of his way to create a position to make a continued affair easy. He was not an innocent young boy led astray by an evil enchantress. He was the one who betrayed a spouse, dealing with cancer, and everyone who believed in him. He did this even though having an affair while running for President runs the risk of everything blowing up. It also opens these questions of misusing campaign funds.

In any campaign a narrative is created that creates a two dimension view of the candidate. It is needed to "sell the candidate'. The people who really know him/her can see that the person they know is far more complex than the narrative. In Edwards' case, his narrative included the "perfect" family and coming up from little to wealth while being a champion for the people. Each of those aspects were idealized and likely exaggerated. In addition, it is hard to accept that a pleasant myth could have never been really true or at least isn't now.

[cali]

57. uh, no. Edwards will never look good to the vast majority of progressives

again. He always was a phony, and now most people see that clearly. And he never really gave two shits about poverty- his actions demonstrated that clearly.

Of course, there are always a few hardcore suckers who will fall for anything.

[Mojorabbit]

40. I totally agree. nt

[DissedByBush]

28. I will give him a huge break on the affair

It is his family's business and absolutely none of ours.

But any hint of breaking campaign finance laws has me tasting blood no matter who the suspect is, no matter what party he is in.

I want him in prison if he broke campaign finance laws. I want him left alone if he didn't.

[rvablue]

82. It was our business as he conducted said affair while running to be our nominee

and had he suceeded, Bible Spice would now be residing at the National Observatory and working in the White House and Phil Gramm "America is a nation of whiners" would be treasury secretary, as it would have been a huge and disastorous loss for Democrats at the polls.

Please don't argue that he wasn't even close to getting the nomination behind Obama and Hillary. That doesn't matter. He was trying to get it and put our party and the future of this country in jeopardy.

[DissedByBush]

84. That was then, not now n/t

[MimiAvril]

91. The law applies to those who broke it a while ago

And if Edwards broke it, he should be penalized.

[DissedByBush]

105. I'm talking about the affair

It is my business if someone broke campaign finance law. But Edwards is a private person now so his affair is none of our business.

[karynnj]

36. This has NOTHING to do with his having an affair

he could have done that and used his fortune to support her - and there would be no grand jury (if there was one). If he used campaign money - he broke the law.

[emilyg]

53. If he broke the law - he's not

off-limits.

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. I agree!

:thumbsup:

[Pastiche423]

8. Good!

[amandabeech]

18. Does the U.S. Attorney have higher aspirations?

If Edwards did give campaign money to the woman for other than regular work, he should just settle the thing and get it over with quick for the sake of the labor economic wing of the party.

[MADem]

21. He's forfeited his position as a party leader. He's toast.

He might be able to pull a Newt in ten years or so, but for now, he's fucked and has nothing to contribute. No one wants to engage him on working/labor/family issues...unless they're asking how his love child and the baby mamma are doing.

[amandabeech]

23. That's why I think he should get out of this quickly and quietly. Let someone else

step into his shoes as a spokesperson for the labor/economic populist wing of the party.

[MADem]

25. Sounds like a good plan to me, too. That wing deserves unfettered representation.

Mrs. Edwards has just written another book, to be released in May. Oprah just scored an interview with her, and likely will be flogging her book.

The Rielle shit will be part and parcel, and this stuff will be brought up. Apparently, Mister "That was not my baby" has admitted that, yes, it is his baby. Or so says that trash-tabloid the Enquirer (and they were right the first time, now, weren't they?).

He needs to fade into the sunset, to be replaced by someone who doesn't have all that baggage.

[amandabeech]

27. I couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[karynnj]

38. Is he supporting the baby then

If not, that is the height of hypocrisy.

[MADem]

61. The guy who was paying her fifteen grand a month up and died.

He was JE's best friend. Not sure if that was a "funnel" operation, or what. So then, she moved to New Jersey. The tabloids said she was about to go public with her story.

Then, Elizabeth Edwards kicked John Edwards out of the house. Not sure if he's still in the doghouse, or what. Seems like there'd be enough room in that obscene barn for them to live without ever seeing each other.

JE supposedly admitted to EE that he was the Baby Daddy. Not sure of the timeline, if that precipitated the story that EE gave him the boot. Apparently they've reconciled because the reports say he was present at the Oprah interview with EE last week.

There are links to all this stuff elsewhere on the page, along with a pic of the kid, who looks JUST LIKE JE.

[mbperrin]

70. Thought this was only about campaign funds?

Or is it really about morals?

Just asking. You seem to want to have it both ways.

[MADem]

73. I think you need to look at the whole package. And it's not simply "morals"--it's HONESTY.

This guy got up on TV, sat next to his wife, and LIED. He lied to the country, he lied to her. He lied because he wanted to be Obama's VP. He had campaign associates and old political partners run interference for him so he could perpetuate the lies, too. Whether or not money from campaign coffers changed hands to support this woman he was stashing out on the west coast is one thing--but we do know that donations from small town "Two Americas" folks DID go to pay her over a hundred grand to follow JE around with a video camera, flirting with him and taking video of his ASS. Those "webisodes" are still up on YOUTUBE. A sixth grader with a camera and Windows Movie Maker could have done a better job.

Now, it turns out, he can't keep the girlfriend quiet, so he had to 'fess up to the wife. She threw him out of the house. Apparently, they've come to some sort of terms now, but the point remains that the guy was dishonest.

It's not simply about "morals" if by that word you mean "sex." People slip all the time and while that's not optimal, that is what it is. It's the lying, on national TV no less, the deceit of his wife who did not deserve to be made a fool of in that fashion, the failing to take responsibility, the denials even after his girlfriend was leaking info (and pictures) to tabloids, the slow drip-drip-drip of admission....you have to ask yourself, is this a modus operandi? Does this person conduct con jobs in other areas of his life as well? And there's nothing that looks like a "mea culpa" forthcoming. At least not yet.

He's not simply playing games with the definition of "is" or "sex" to forestall investigation, he started out lying about the extent of his relationship with this woman, who received campaign cash for doing very little work, and iced the cake by denying his one year old daughter. Now, he's fessing up. I'm sure that kid will feel just swell to learn that daddy said "That ain't my baby" ... when the little shit looks just like him, too!

It's not just the crime, it's the cover up...and he continues to cover up. He'd probably be able to move forward with his life if he'd simply come clean and apologize to his supporters, who ran around like fools yelling "Lies! Damned lies!!" when the liar was JE, and who defended him when he wasn't being truthful with them. How he makes it right with his wife and kids is a private matter, but he owes at least an "I'm sorry" to his supporters.

[MonteLukast]

75. Would a mea culpa really make things better?

I'm not sure. It certainly wouldn't absolve him in the court of public opinion.

How many times in our everyday lives have we mea culpa'd, only to make matters worse? How many times have our efforts to explain ourselves and make our case, only dug our hole deeper?

He's thinking like a lawyer here. He can't acknowledge a child unless he can PROVE, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it's his. Looking kind of like him is not proof. The words of an untrustworthy, attention-hungry woman are not proof. And, she would've had to have been conceived in May of June of 2007-- after H was fired-- for it to be his.

Some people have said that he coached her to refuse a paternity test. That makes sense... if you're filling in the blanks and already believe he's a lying phony.

I'm not sure a mea culpa would allow him to move forward with his life any faster than it's moving right now. Just ask ourselves, and every failed mea culpa WE'VE ever experienced.
And what kind of life to move forward to, I ask? He'd never be able to do good public works again... and that would be a terrible loss not just to us, but to him; who's gotten the bug of public service and would never feel the same again, knowing that he could never do it again.

[MADem]

77. He absolutely MUST do that, as a start. And then he needs to go to Newt-Ville.

He can't prove it is his, because all accounts indicate he has refused to take a DNA test. He is holding up the girlfriend at gunpoint--you say YOU don't want the test, or I won't give you the check every month. It is a game of tensions, with the ditzy mistress (who is "in love" and no doubt sees herself as the next Mrs. Edwards if she plays her meal ticket right) pushing just to a point but no more, and JE pushing back just enough to keep a lid on her.

All the while, though, she's griping to her relatives and they're griping to the Enquirer. AND providing swell pics of the kid--who looks JUST LIKE JE, down to the eyebrows and that intense expression.

But he most certainly CAN say he's sorry, go away and do his penance, and come back...later.

Elliot Spitzer is back, offering economic advice on cable news after his humiliating resignation. He's just dipping his toe in the water, but he's back from the cold after a very truncated absence, in the big picture.

Newt Gingrich mea culpa'd, and disappeared for a decade. He's BAAAAACK. In a BIG way. Now he won't shut up.

Bill Clinton mea culpa'd, and mea culpa'd, and mea culpa'd, and humbly mea culpa'd, and sheepishly took his licks, repetitively, on the world stage....and he never had to leave it. People got so tired of him apologizing, they said "OK, OK, you're forgiven, already!" Of course, he was excoriated for a good long time before, during and after that mess broke, so enough, really, was enough.

Bill Bennett, the gambling, whoring bullshitter mumbled mea culpa and ran to rehab, and his pasty, florid face is still on tee vee.

Senator David "Pampers" Vitter mea culpa'd, and he continues to serve in the Senate.

There are loads of others who have survived scandal.

Like I said, it ain't the crime, it's the cover-up. The more you cover up, the more you have to mea culpa, and if the cover-up goes on too long (like Newt) "society" demands that you take a walk in the wilderness for five to ten years, to cleanse the national spotlight of that offensive stain.

That's what JE needs to do. He can be quietly, anonymously charitable, if he'd like. But he needs to apologize, loudly, fully and sincerely, and get his lying ass of the stage for awhile. He's transmitting "BIG FAT PHONY LIAR" and no one wants to hear from his prevaricating ass for a bit.

[DaLittle Kitty]

43. Names That You Can Put Forward? = 00000 0000000 000000 000000 0000000

Let's Hope John Rehabs himself I am certain that he is smart enough to learn from his mistakes... He will be all the better for it in the end!

[amandabeech]

46. I don't have names, but I'm definitely looking around.

I voted for Edwards in the primary even after he dropped out.

However, I agree with MADem. He took himself out of the running by opening his zipper in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He may very well be a better person for this if he learns from his mistakes, but it won't matter much politically.

[MonteLukast]

48. That's why...

... he needs to get back involved with anti-poverty causes as soon as possible.

I finally got a hold of the Greene County High School principal last week, after months of being unsuccessful. That's where he'd had his scholarship pilot program that sunsetted last year. The principal considered it a big success, and said she'd be happy to see him around doing those kinds of projects again.

[cali]

58. bernie sanders has done ten thousand times more for poor and

working class people than johnie hedge fund ever has.

[karynnj]

99. Actually there are many

For one there is our President who in the recently passed budget and stimulus package did more than any President since Johnson.

But Edwards never had the power of the Presidency - so let's limit it to other Senators. There are very few Senators that Edwards was more progressive than while he was a Senator. His record was closer to Bayh's than to Kennedy's.

Here is a short list of Senators who did far more than Edwards -off the top of my head
Kennedy
Leahy
Kerry
Sanders
Brown
Dodd
Reed
Lautenberg
Menendez
Boxer
Harkins

(to name a few)

Edwards spoke of poverty very well, but he voted for the bankruptcy bill. He also was not the first to do so - Democrats spoke of 2 Americas before Edwards was old enough to vote. (I'm sure there were earlier examples - but the 1968 Kerner report spoke of two Americas.)

[tonysam]

31. Guilty Until Proven Innocent. How Lovely.

[MADem]

60. You need to keep up. He is "guilty" of behaving like an asshole.

That's why he's toast. He did father that child, and he's admitted it to his wife, according to the tabloid that broke the original story. I'm sure we'll hear more when the Oprah interview airs next month.

He's in Newt country now, regardless of whether or not he also gave the campaign contributions, that were donated by working class people who were not rich fat cats, and who sat around kitchen tables in his "Two Americas," to his girlfriend to keep her quiet. You don't convince one of your best and richest pals to pay an old girlfriend fifteen grand a MONTH for old times' sake, now, do you? And that guy, inconveniently, has died, so the mistress had to move out of her three million dollar home that had been rented for her, and move to .... New Jersey.

It took Newt a good decade to find his way back from the wilderness, and people still snigger behind their hands at what he did. He had no recourse but to marry Calista after she was forced to stipulate to "sexual contact" in the Speeee-kah's cham-bahs on the stand during his divorce trial from Wife Numbah Two. Had he not, he would have been regarded as a jerk AND a cad!


Who's yer daddy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/edwards-fathered-hunters_n_118529.html
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/66289
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/08/edwards-admits-sexual-aff_n_117780.html
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65916
http://www.zimbio.com/John+Edwards/articles/70/John+Edwards+admits+wife+father+love+child
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2008/10/report-elizabeth-edwards-kicks-out-john-edwards/

[Adelante]

76. The first picture I've seen

Certainly a family resemblance there.

[excess_3]

30. what is the hypothetical crime here?

using campaign money for payoffs?
or his own money?

[tonysam]

33. Ask the National Enquirer,

which hounded Edwards last year and helped the blackmailers get him out of the running.

[karynnj]

39. He never came near to getting the nomination and was out before

this got traction. It had surfaced earlier, but no one gave it much credence. He won only one primary in 2 election years - the state he was born in in 2004.

[MimiAvril]

93. campaign money

What is being investigated is a violation of campaign finance laws.

[excess_3]

96. would be a felony, or a misdemeaner?

is JE still practicing law?

[karynnj]

98. He wasn't through at least early 2008 I've heard nothing of him returning to law

[JDPriestly]

41. This is really sad. Edwards was the only candidate who really

understood the politics of the economics. How sad.

[Pastiche423]

49. The guy that said he went to work for a hedge fund to learn

about poverty understands the politics of the economics?

:wow:

[MonteLukast]

50. The first clue his judgment was faltering, no doubt...

[MADem]

62. Well, he learned that if you don't want to live in poverty, always use OTHER PEOPLE's MONEY!

:rofl:

[cali]

59. yeah, mr hedge fund

understood the politics of economics alright- like how to line his own pockets, while santimoniously pretending he gave a shit about poverty.

[totodeinhere]

45. If Edwards broke campaign finance laws, he deserves what's coming to him.

However, if he is being picked on because he is a Democrat while a Republican could get away with the same thing, then that's wrong. But corruption is corruption and it should not be allowed coming from either party.

[krabigirl]

65. I feel sorry for Edwards and his family. The guy made a mistake big deal.

Too many Americans have sticks up their behinds when it comes to politicians having affairs. It happens. But war profiteering, the private prison system, etc are no big deal at all.

[cali]

67. um, this isn't about his affair. It''s about his alleged misuse of campaign

funds. And that is a big deal.

[karynnj]

83. It has NOTHING to do with having an affair

That is NOT illegal. Here, there would be no grand jury if there were no possibility that campaign money was used.

Now - it may be that there was no grand jury looking at Edwards - after all, if it were secret, how would anyone know. Also, even if there was a grand jury, it may be Edwards stayed within the law. He and many of his top advisers are lawyers - it would seem that Edwards would have used his own money - even if he passed it through Baron. He is extraordinarily wealthy - even in terms of keeping the money secret from Elizabeth - even diverting some of the money he got from the Hedge fund to a JRE only account would be easy. I doubt he would risk breaking the law.

[lanlady]

78. I've been bashed on DU for opining about Edwards

But what the hell, I'll say it again: Edwards is an over-rated dolt. Why he's been idolized by some on the left is beyond me. He's like the Democrats' Bobby Vindal. If he's done wrong or illegal, then jail his pretty ass and let's move on. I feel sorry for Elizabeth--she seems like good people.

[MADem]

81. Are you craving some chicken vindaloo?

Jindal, not Vindal!




However, your points are valid. I thought the guy was overrated, too. I thought the brains of the bunch, and the one with the most warmth and ability to connect on a personal level, was his wife. Pity she didn't dump him years ago and go into politics herself.

[New Dawn]

92. And where is Bush's arrest warrant?

[Sultana]

94. Shhhhhhhhh, it's ok if you are Republican

[MADem]

97. A separate issue.

Worthy of it's own thread, don't you think?

[MADem]

103. Well, he's done some dispicable things...but he hasn't had any

campaign finance issues of late, at least that have been reported. And that's what this thread is about--violation of campaign finance law on the part of John Edwards.

[karynnj]

110. This story is slowly going mainstream - here are two links to NC papers

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/640203.html

and

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1469531.html

(Obviously written by the same source - each reporting it as rumour - and pointing out Grand Juries are secret. I hope this is not true - it will be negative press for Democrats.

[MonteLukast]

114. I hope it's not true either.

It makes me want to :cry:

The fact is, I wish I were a friend of the Edwards family. I wish I could talk them through this. I wish I knew what to do to keep this otherwise good man's life from being ruined, and bring both him and EE back to where they should be in public life.

He is definitely finished if it's proven he misused campaign funds.

The thing is, even if he's found innocent, how does he get over the public opinion side of it?

I want to thank you for keeping your head about this whole issue-- and not degenerating into Kenneth Starr-style glee and graphic speculations like some of the responders above.

[Liberal813]

119. Where did the money come from?

If you never knew Fred Baron personally, then you may find it difficult to understand the level of compassion and generosity he was capable of. For those who were privileged to work with him, it is highly plausible that he independently provided financial assistance to 2 former campaign workers. Keep in mind that Ms. Hunter, along with Andrew Young and his family, were not celebrities, but private citizens, being harassed by the National Enquirer.