[An Nahar] Former presidential hopeful John Edwards pleaded not guilty "Wudn't me." Friday to charges of using $900,000 in campaign funds to cover up an extramarital affair, proclaiming: "I did not break the law."
Edwards, 57, was charged in a six-count indictment "for allegedly participating in a scheme to violate federal campaign finance laws," the Justice Department said.
The former Democratic U.S. senator, who fathered a child in the affair with a film producer, asserted his innocence upon leaving a courthouse in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
"I did not break the law and I never ever thought that I was breaking the law," said Edwards, accompanied by his oldest daughter, Kate.
The charges concern hundreds of thousands of dollars provided by two wealthy donors that Edwards allegedly used to shelter his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
Edwards acknowledged making mistakes, but said they weren't crimes.
"There's no question that I've done wrong and I take full responsibility for having done wrong and I will regret for the rest of my life the pain and the harm that I have caused to others," he said outside the courtroom.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/05/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I did not break the law and I never ever thought that I was breaking the law," said Edwards
Based soley on his own 'legal opinion' of coures.
Posted by: Besoeker sans poste ||
06/05/2011 0:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Can anyone blame Johnny for thinking he would get a pass? Clinton's inappropriate behavior (before & in office) was ignored by the press and he was given a pass. Luckily the ever respectable NYT's National Inquirer broke the story.
Not part of the lawyer's code. Could get disbarred for that.
Posted by: regular joe ||
06/05/2011 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling National Inquirer. The MSM was perfectly willing to be complicit in the cover-up.
#6
Actually, the prosecution's theory of the case presents interesting legal questions. He's being charged under the Election Act for soliciting and receiving about $900k from two private individuals, while a candidate for federal office, all of whom knew the money was going to be used to cover up the affair and the baby, not for legitimate campaign expenses. He's also being charged for filing false statements with the FEC because he failed to report these contributions.
The prosecution's position is, these were illegal campaign contributions, because the money to fund the cover-up was for the purpose of advancing (or rather, preventing the ruination of) his presidential campaign; they exceeded the $25,000 limit; and Edwards didn't report them because he knew they were illegal. The indictment directly links his need to preserve his image as a devoted family man to the viability of his campaign.
The defense position is, Edwards was a private individual who used money from other private individuals to hide the affair and the baby from his wife, not to further his campaign. He was a scumbag in his capacity as a private individual, which is separate and distinct from his actions as a candidate for federal office. These were all private acts and private money which therefore did not need to be reported to the FEC. That these things occurred concurrently with his candidacy is just an unfortunate coincidence.
That would be a much stronger argument if the baby momma was not also a paid campaign staff member, and one of the two "private" donors was not also his campaign finance chairman.
Being a scumbag isn't illegal, and neither is being stupid. But as an ambulance chaser, surely he was fully aware that improperly commingling client funds with personal accounts is the number one reason lawyers get disciplined and disbarred. And the Election Act was written by lawyers who likely meant to apply a similar standard to political candidates. There are, surprisingly, a few good points to be made in his defense, but I'd say he's toast.
#9
Seems to me to be a pretty broad expansion of what the campaign contribution laws cover. A bit frightening to see where a malevolent prosecutor could take this in the future with this as a precedent.
#10
OS, I had the same thought. On one hand, the connections between the money and the campaign are numerous and strong enough that allowing him to rationalize it away as strictly private activity just wouldn't seem right. On the other hand, politics are already so viciously personal, a conviction would open the door to ratchet it up another level, in situations far less egregious than this one. The exorbitant personal price already deters too many decent people from running for office.
#11
Seems to me to be a pretty broad expansion of what the campaign contribution laws cover
Well, yes. It's more or less a political assassination of a political embarassment. Not that Mr. Edwards might not deserve it, but it does allow the Democrats to say they are capable of "cleaning house".
That it also sets an ugly precedent is, for its advocates, a two-fer.
#13
it does allow the Democrats to say they are capable of "cleaning house"
Pappy: I don't think so. Edwards and Obama were rivals, so it would look bad if the winner tried to put the loser in prison. After the election, IIUC, a Republican DOJ appointee was kept on board to make the call and manage the case.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Former presidential hopeful John Edwards 
