I remember that Rolling Stone article that endorses him for POTUS and America's best hope. lol.
John Edwards
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
He is a scumbag, but I would still vote for him over Bush, McCain, or any of the Republican wackos in the running for next election.Pretty sad. He was actually a Democrat candidate for President. How anyone could have supported this scumbag is beyond comprehension.
Ari Melber hones in on a weird feature of the Edwards indictment, and suggests:
[T]he prosecutors actually have the law exactly backwards. It would have been a violation of campaign finance law if Edwards did what the prosecution says he failed to do – file and spend the money for his family as official campaign expenditures.
I was struck by this feature in conversations with lawyers Friday as well: If Edwards can't pay for his mistress out of campaign cash -- that would be illegal "personal use" -- how can he be barred for paying her bills outside the campaign finance system? What's a sleazy politician to do?
Agree with you but the children here like to make everything partisan.the guy is a scumbag...but this is not an issue of left or right, but another instance of politicians and the POS things they do...i'm sure there are a few in the GOP as well
As I understand the indictment RLD is not the Government's position that in asking for these donations they were for the purpose of furthering Edwards campaign by hidding the existence of the Mistress. Hence they are a violation of Election Fiance law.Ari Melber hones in on a weird feature of the Edwards indictment, and suggests:If Edwards can't pay for his mistress out of campaign cash -- that would be illegal "personal use" -- how can he be barred for paying her bills outside the campaign finance system? What's a sleazy politician to do?
Are donors ordinarily told the exact use to which their cash will be put? If I donate money believing it will be used to purchase election ads, but then it's used instead to rent a venue for a stump speech, is that also a violation of election law?As I understand the indictment RLD is not the Government's position that in asking for these donations they were for the purpose of furthering Edwards campaign by hidding the existence of the Mistress. Hence they are a violation of Election Fiance law.
Covering up politically damaging information would seem to be a valid election expense, regardless of how slimey it may be.
The guy is toast in the court of public opinion, but if I was a politician trying to get elected, I think covering up the existence of my former mistresses, girlfriends, use of SP's, etc., would be an important part of the campaign.
I would imagine that the case is obfuscated a bit by the fact that his mistress was working on his campaign.As I understand the indictment RLD is not the Government's position that in asking for these donations they were for the purpose of furthering Edwards campaign by hidding the existence of the Mistress. Hence they are a violation of Election Fiance law.
Ain't that the truth.Agree with you but the children here like to make everything partisan.
