Sam Smith
There is no doubt that John Edwards is a rat because of how he treated his dying wife and there is no doubt that he badly betrayed his supporters (including the Progressive Review).
Neither of these, however, are the federal crimes for which he has now been indicted and serious questions have arisen as to the legality and fairness of the indictment. Some stories follow.
But it is also worth recalling that both of the Edwards’ main opponents – Clinton and Obama – also had serious contribution scandals that got quickly swept under the rug.
As Jim Geraghty put it in the National Review during the campaign: “Did Tony Rezko buy Obama’s house? No. But he made it possible for Obama to buy his house. He did him a favor to the tune of $625,000. What, exactly, did Rezko expect in return from the U.S. Senator?”
And then there was the largest fundraising event ever held for a federal candidate paid for by Peter Paul, who was the sort of person you would deny even knowing – as Hillary Clinton did until her cover was blown. According to Wikipedia, “The event cost $1.9 million to organize according to Paul and $500,000 according to the Federal Election Commission filing. Two days after the gala, the Washington Post publicized Paul's criminal record, and Hillary Clinton denied knowing Paul and ‘vowed not to take any contributions from him.’"
The problem with this claim included a photo of the Clintons sitting next to Paul at the event.
In any case, as with Resko, it was all eventually forgotten thanks in part to the Federal Elections Commission which decided Clinton had not accepted illegal funds even as it fined her $35,000 for having underreported the cost of the party.
All this adds to questions about Edwards’ indictment suggesting that, once again, political election laws are often just more politics.
Mike Baer & Nedra Pickler, Huffington Post - Two crucial witnesses are dead. Another is 100 years old. A fourth was recently held in contempt of court. The daring indictment of two-time presidential candidate John Edwards has pitfalls at every turn for federal prosecutors, adding strain to a Justice Department section still trying to recover after botching its last major political case.
Mike Baer & Nedra Pickler, Huffington Post - Two crucial witnesses are dead. Another is 100 years old. A fourth was recently held in contempt of court. The daring indictment of two-time presidential candidate John Edwards has pitfalls at every turn for federal prosecutors, adding strain to a Justice Department section still trying to recover after botching its last major political case.
Government attorneys are relying on an untested legal theory to argue that money used to tangentially help a candidate – in this case, by keeping Edwards' pregnant mistress private during his 2008 presidential run – should have been considered a campaign contribution. Edwards' attorneys counter with an argument that's reprehensible but could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, who died in December.
At the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which typically criticizes the Justice Department for not pursuing enough cases against public officials, executive director Melanie Sloan questioned why federal officials were spending resources on this one. She said it is unlikely prosecutors can prove that participants of the scheme intended for the money to aid Edwards' candidacy, and Sloan said it was a stretch to argue that private plane flights provided to mistress Rielle Hunter should somehow be considered campaign contributions. "This is a really broad definition of campaign contribution," said Sloan, a former federal prosecutor. "It has never been this broadly interpreted."
LA Times - The case against Edwards could easily rise or fall on whether the government is reaching too far, and trying to hold Edwards to a higher standard than normal election law provides in part because of the sordid details of his liasion with Hunter while his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, was struggling with terminal cancer.
Even in the first paragraph of the 19-page indictment returned Friday by a North Carolina grand jury, the document took the quite unusual step of stressing that a “centerpiece” of Edwards' candidacy in 2008 was “his public image as a devoted family man” and that he often stressed to voters that “family comes first.”
Add to that the fact that federal officials in Washington in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section worked collaboratively with prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in North Carolina, and a picture emerges to some experts that the government is seeking to severely punish Edwards as much for his marital infidelity as for allegedly violating campaign financing laws.
Several experts in election law said they did not know of any similar case in the past where prosecutors brought criminal charges against a candidate for using money from a wealthy contributor to hide a personal matter. Normally such alleged violations are typically handled as civil penalties and often result in fines and requirements for the candidates to repay the money.
Outside the Winston-Salem courtroom Friday, Edwards attorney Gregory Craig called the prosecution "unprecedented" and said Edwards "has broken no law.”
To that end, the defense team brought on board Scott E. Thomas, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission with 20 years of service on the panel, and he quietly met six weeks ago with prosecutors in an attempt to persuade them not to seek criminal charges.
“I do not believe that there is any prior case that states that the conduct at issue in the Edwards matter, or even conduct substantially similar to it, constituted a violation of the statute,” he said.
Other outside experts agreed.
“This is a real stretch,” said Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman appointed by President George W. Bush. “And I say that as a Republican who is no fan of John Edwards.”