-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Now here’s a role-reversal: The editors of National Review, never fans of John Edwards, examine the charges against him and conclude that “it is our obligation to come unenthusiastically to his defense.” On the other hand, Walter Shapiro, who once was an admirer of Edwards, thinks that the prosecution’s case is stronger than it looks at first blush. Here’s NR:
Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, was paid off by his supporters. The financial chairman of Edwards’s presidential campaign, the late Frederick Baron, gave financial support to Hunter and to Andrew Young, the staffer who lied about being the child’s father. In a picturesque twist, another Edwards supporter, the heiress Bunny Mellon, is believed to have sent Hunter checks secreted in boxes of chocolate, though her lawyer denies that she knew her money was going to Hunter.
The prosecution’s case is built upon a note from Mellon, who described herself as “furious” about the way in which Edwards was lampooned for his infamous $400 haircuts. “From now on,” she wrote, “all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me… . It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.” And she did indeed write some $725,000 in checks for sundry expenses — all of which went to Hunter, not to the Edwards campaign.
Because none of the money went to the campaign, and none of the money went for campaign expenses — inasmuch as maintaining a mistress is not a campaign expense — it is difficult to see why this should be prosecuted as a campaign-finance violation. At most, the evidence would seem to justify charging Mellon with conspiring to subvert campaign-finance laws, though in the event those laws were not subverted, since her money did not go toward financing the Edwards campaign.
Shapiro agrees that Count One of the indictment, the charge relating to Baron, is flimsy, but suggests that Count Two, the charge relating to Mellon, might be more damning:
[T]he trial will raise the strong possibility—and you will have to trust me on the sourcing for this—that the then-97-year-old socialite was as ignorant of the existence of Rielle Hunter (or any other Other Woman) as any Democratic voter besotted with John Edwards. When she was asked for the money, delivered in seven installments beginning in June 2007, she apparently thought that she was donating in some round-robin fashion to the Edwards campaign, not covering up an affair…
If the trial shows that Mellon believed her checks for $725,000 were intended for campaign purposes, Edwards’s defense under Count Two could be severely curtailed. Edwards’s most straightforward defense—that he sought Mellon’s money in order to hide the affair and pregnancy from his wife Elizabeth—would suddenly vanish. If Bunny Mellon did not know about the affair, how could her contributions be personal rather than political?
Election law expert Rick Hasen responds that he doesn’t think that’s the right question — it’s Edwards’s intent, not Mellon’s, that is legally relevant, and “under the murky law on what constitutes ‘personal use’ of funds received during the course of a campaign, Edwards has at least a plausible argument his intent was to save his marriage and not to help his campaign.” Hasen adds a link to a guest-post on his Election Law Blog by Rick Pildes that goes further, arguing that Edwards didn’t commit a crime regardless of anyone’s intentions, on the theory that the legal definition of a campaign contribution must be objective rather than subjective. Hasen offers Pildes’s argument as evidence that “even if the jury convicts, there’s a good chance the conviction won’t stand.”
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/23/did-john-edwards-commit-a-crim
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.23.12 @ 5:20PM
John who? Why should we care?
That's a serious question. In what way is he relevant in 2012?
Occam's Tool| 4.23.12 @ 6:50PM
Edwards is a scumbag who won Malpractice cases on spurious grounds. Should there be a horrible miscarriage of justice, I really will laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh....hard time servicing Bubbas is what this boy needs. Some nice hard manual labor out in the Southern sun, routinely being threatened and bullied and hit in the face is what this boy needs....
Occam's Tool| 4.23.12 @ 6:52PM
He's a Medical Malpractice PLAINTIFF attorney. As an MD, I want him to be tortured to death by inches, of course...his future life should be wakeups at 4:30 AM followed by hard work in the Sun, being put in the lockbox for the slightest transgression....may be I'm a leetle cruel, but I don't think so.
Oldefarte| 4.23.12 @ 10:10PM
OT, think Cool Hand Luke's Paul Newman!!!!
JimH| 4.24.12 @ 8:49AM
Better yet, Papillon.
MikeN| 4.23.12 @ 5:40PM
If they got Tom Delay on money laundering, they can get John Edwards for campaign finance violations.
WJW| 4.23.12 @ 5:43PM
Conservative voter here (NR subscriber) and I definitely agree with the National Review.
There is no campaign finance crime here (Am of the opinion that there should be very little campaign finance laws except full disclosure of donations).
Nothing he is charged with is deserving of him going to prison. His kids would be deprived of their only remaining parent.
What he did with regards to his wife is shameful, BUT NOT CRIMINAL.
If Mellon feels cheated, let her sue in civil court.
Mike| 4.23.12 @ 8:19PM
Hmmm. He seems to have made a concerted effort to delay revelation while the campaign was ongoing. You are arguing the revelation of her existence would not have damaged his campaign? Using campaign donors to pay extortion to someone who would damage the campaign if they were not paid? National Review and you sound a little dense on this.
Oldefarte| 4.23.12 @ 10:22PM
This is MICKEY MOUSE 101! I mean...who cares? Okay so he was a scum-bagged ambulance chansing hillbilly who typically became rich suing insurance companies by getting STUPIDS on juries to financially crusify the defendant companies and thereafter became an EMPTY-SUITED DEMOCRAT WITH A $400 HAIRCUT AND A NICE SMILE. Anyone ever hear the names Kennedy or Clinton perhaps? Duh! Guilty, don't know, don't care. His now deceised wife expressed in anger the truth......he's a redneck, but that's not a crime either. The scary thing is that he was at one time a heart-beat away from becoming POTUS [but since our country is now on automatic pilot since 11/4/08, gess that's of little significance also]. He'll get justice [true] but only upon his death, from what's known as THE NATURAL LAW. All this other stuff with Bunny [never worked a day in her life heiress of the Mellon Bank fortune], Johnny the slick shiester, etc is simply a comedy of sorts!!!!
Indy| 4.23.12 @ 6:00PM
Levin spoke about this case months ago and said he doubt he would be convicted, I cannot recall the details and I really don't care.
We need to stay focused on matters that impact all of us, the 2012 election. We must work to educate voters, on the economy, EPA power grab, Fed policies and how that is driving up food / gas prices, ObamaCare and how that will collapse into single payer if not repealed, loss of liberties, the corruption of Holder and his DOJ, Gibson Guitar, Fast and Furious, the potential for Voter Fraud and what we can do about it (recruit poll observers), etc. John Edwards does not matter, let the justice system work, we need to focus on the elections.
albert constantine jr.| 4.23.12 @ 6:28PM
I haven’t read the indictment or reviewed the evidence other than what has appeared in the general press accounts. What is described in the article appears very similar to money laundering schemes that are proscribed in both a campaign finance context, as well as traditional criminal enterprises motivated by profit.
That said, as a former elected lawmaker, litigator and a member of the bar, it is ironic that John Edwards is being prosecuted for violations of laws he helped pass by agencies he once funded and expanded, and aspired to lead.
As he campaigned on two Americas, he now gets to join one somewhat removed from the position he previously occupied. Mr. Edwards is now sitting in the other chair in the courtroom, the defendant’s seat, and I imagine he is trying to channel a “Not Guilty” verdict to all prospective jurors.. Regardless of the outcome, I venture to guess he enjoyed his former position more.
Vern Crisler| 4.23.12 @ 7:24PM
I love that line, "as maintaining a mistress is not a campaign expense."
Dixie Pixie| 4.23.12 @ 8:21PM
Ok...Let us say a TAS staff member is involved in a large promotional campaign to promote TAS.
That staff member then solicits funds for that promotional campaign from 1 large donor.
The staffer then uses those funds to hide an sexual affair and resulting child from the world less the TAS campaign be affected.
How is this not a crime?
It is at least embezzlement of corporate funds, illegal diversion of solicited funds for personal gain, tax evasion and lying for personal gain.
I am no lawyer but I can see that a crime has been committed .
If Party (A) intends to give money to Party (B) and Party [C] diverts those funds for personal gain
Has not Party [C] committed a crime against Party (A) and Party (B) as well as the IRS for not reporting the personal gain?
Is any of this not a crime?
If so, is honesty in American Politics the real sin in the eyes of the Judiciary?
hook| 4.23.12 @ 8:29PM
I am pretty sure Edward's offered to plead guilty if there was no jail time. He is such garbage that I wouldn't care what happened to him.
Chris Matthews keeps saying it is political and a Bush appointee ignited case. My understanding is the govt lawyer who ignited case was a CLINTON appointee. But the guy trying the case is a Bush appointee.
spuddie| 4.23.12 @ 10:18PM
If he received money that was not for the campaign, wouldn't that count as a "gift," subject to IRS gift taxes? If he didn't report or pay, wouldn't that be tax evasion?
Paul Windels| 4.24.12 @ 11:07AM
I'm not a fan of Edwards. I do practice election law. I think Mr. hasen hit the issue on the head with the phrase "the murky use of what consititues 'personal use' of funds." Here's why. Under federal election law, a campaign is prohibited from spending money for the 'personal use' of the candidate. Were I advising Edwards's campaign, I would advise that using campaign funds to make alleged hush-money payments to a mistress would probably be illegal, and were I treasurer, I would not make such payments without an opinion of a very prominent and qualified counsel that such payments were legal without question.
Now, if it would have been illegal for a campaign to make these expenditures, how can it be argued that people who made them directly were required
Paul Windels| 4.24.12 @ 12:09PM
Sorry -- My computer posted (twice to boot!) before I was finished. Post continues:
to make them as campaign contributions and for the campaign to be deemed to have made a payment that would have been illegal for it to have made?
I also am very troubled about where the government would draw the line here. Does every expenditure that arguably makes a candidate more attractive (or prevents the candidate from looking less attractive) qualify as a campaign expense? If a Senator has cosmetic surgery, must that be paid for out of campaign funds? What if a major donor to a university asks that a favored politician receive an honorary degree and an invitation to speak at commencement?
It is entirely possible that Edwards has committed a crime somewhere. However, here in the United States, every criminal defendant is entitled to an indictment -- meaning to be charged with a specific crime and to be tried on that charge. Edwards has been charged with violations of federal election law and it is on those charges that he must be tried.
Paul Windels| 4.24.12 @ 11:07AM
I'm not a fan of Edwards. I do practice election law. I think Mr. hasen hit the issue on the head with the phrase "the murky use of what consititues 'personal use' of funds." Here's why. Under federal election law, a campaign is prohibited from spending money for the 'personal use' of the candidate. Were I advising Edwards's campaign, I would advise that using campaign funds to make alleged hush-money payments to a mistress would probably be illegal, and were I treasurer, I would not make such payments without an opinion of a very prominent and qualified counsel that such payments were legal without question.
Now, if it would have been illegal for a campaign to make these expenditures, how can it be argued that people who made them directly were required
buckeyeman| 4.24.12 @ 11:13AM
So few facts in this article. The whole case revolves around $750,000 in payments by one Bunny Mellon. WHO WERE THE CHECKS MADE OUT TO? Why can't you tell us this basic fact. If they were made out to the Edwards Campaign and used as a slush fund to hide Edwards' mistress then it sounds like a campaign finance crime to me. Who received the funds and did they pay tax on them? COME ON!!!!!!! GIVE US A FEW BASIC FACTS.
Curiousasacat| 5.4.12 @ 11:54AM
I wonder if the IRS is going to go after all the various parties for tax issues? It seems that the decorator has some tax issues, the Youngs for receiving benefits in lieu of salary (money for their home construction/ring/vacations), Bunny Mellon for making gifts over the allowable limit, Reille Hunter for receiving benefits/money as support...I would be interested in seeing what the IRS is doing about all of this. What a mess!