Update: John Edwards indicted by Federal Grand Jury

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 5:21 AM GMT
    Of course during his campaign the press could see no evil from this guy beyond his amazing hair.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56164.html
    Criminal charges are expected to be filed Friday against two-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, the result of an investigation into campaign cash allegedly funneled to the woman he had an out-of-wedlock child with.

    According to The Associated Press, Edwards’s attorney, former White House counsel Gregory Craig, is headed to North Carolina on Friday and federal prosecutors are prepared to file charges. Plea deal discussions are ongoing.


    Update: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-edwards-face-indictment-today/story?id=13750805
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:03 AM GMT
    When is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?

    Of course, Edwards should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law, but the FEC is all but neutered and these kind of shenanigans are happening all over with not consequences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:39 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?

    Of course, Edwards should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law, but the FEC is all but neutered and these kind of shenanigans are happening all over with not consequences.


    Yeah - cuz Palin's transparent use of funds to meet with supporters consistent with the mission of her PAC is exactly the same as Edwards siphoning off funds to pay off a mistress and attempting to cover up his affair.

    Do you have any shame?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 3:09 PM GMT
    Both are inappropriate uses of campaign funds. The investigation will happen for Palin just not while she is a candidate for president, lest she get elected and the town squares are needed for gay hangings and witch drowning
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 3:15 PM GMT
    adam228 saidBoth are inappropriate uses of campaign funds. The investigation will happen for Palin just not while she is a candidate for president, lest she get elected and the town squares are needed for gay hangings and witch drowning


    How is it inappropriate? What she is doing is perfectly consistent with the mission of the PAC. It's like a Rorschach test for blinding ideology - to equate what Edwards has done - which was a coverup to what Palin is doing both consistent with the political mission of the PAC and transparent is remarkable.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jun 03, 2011 4:04 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 4:19 PM GMT
    Memorandum from DNC

    When inconvenient facts are raised by any opponents, and these facts cannot be refuted with any credibility, respond using the following terms:

    Racism
    Palin
    Greed
    Unfairness
    Wall Street

    The relevance of the above terms is not important. What is more important is the frequency these terms are used.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 5:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidMemorandum from DNC

    When inconvenient facts are raised by any opponents, and these facts cannot be refuted with any credibility, respond using the following terms:

    Racism
    Palin
    Greed
    Unfairness
    Wall Street

    The relevance of the above terms is not important. What is more important is the frequency these terms are used.


    You forgot Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 6:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?

    Of course, Edwards should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law, but the FEC is all but neutered and these kind of shenanigans are happening all over with not consequences.


    Yeah - cuz Palin's transparent use of funds to meet with supporters consistent with the mission of her PAC is exactly the same as Edwards siphoning off funds to pay off a mistress and attempting to cover up his affair.

    Do you have any shame?


    Talk about shameless. You're the poster boy for loopholes that benefit those you idealize. Palin's use of funds is anything but transparent, and exists in a legal limbo primarily because she hasn't announced her presidential run officially. Despite that, most political financing lawyer note that she is skirting the line between legal/illegal.

    And to use the funds for a "family vacation" (again, her words) certainly raises legal and ethical questions, just as the Governosaurus from New Jersey using tens of thousands of dollars to see his son play baseball including a limo to drive his fat ass 100 yards. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 7:03 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.


    It's not about grasping at straws. If Edwards did what he is accused of, he should go to jail, be fined, whatever the punishment is.

    But where's the indictment for John Ensign? Where's the investigation into Palin's PAC? What about Boner's extensive "golf trips" paid for by corporate donors?

    For all the BS about the liberal media and "rogue administration DOJ", why aren't more Republicans in handcuffs? Why are union protesters in Wisconsin arrested but Tea Partiers carrying guns in public are not? Are they even checked for permits?

    So, it's not about Edwards. It's about putting the lie to this meme that liberals are given preferential treatment when it's actually quite the opposite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?

    Of course, Edwards should be investigated and prosecuted if he broke the law, but the FEC is all but neutered and these kind of shenanigans are happening all over with not consequences.


    Yeah - cuz Palin's transparent use of funds to meet with supporters consistent with the mission of her PAC is exactly the same as Edwards siphoning off funds to pay off a mistress and attempting to cover up his affair.

    Do you have any shame?


    Talk about shameless. You're the poster boy for loopholes that benefit those you idealize. Palin's use of funds is anything but transparent, and exists in a legal limbo primarily because she hasn't announced her presidential run officially. Despite that, most political financing lawyer note that she is skirting the line between legal/illegal.

    And to use the funds for a "family vacation" (again, her words) certainly raises legal and ethical questions, just as the Governosaurus from New Jersey using tens of thousands of dollars to see his son play baseball including a limo to drive his fat ass 100 yards. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Funds that he ultimately decided to pay despite the fact the cost would have been spent anyway. Palin's use of funds is transparent. Further it is consistent with the political objectives of the PAC. Is it unethical? It seems like everything is obvious and above board. In the case of Christie, are you saying you know for a fact there were alternatives given his official duties and constraints?

    Again, it's remarkable that you would equate this to a complete and deliberate coverup of misspending by John Edwards. Truly remarkable how partisan you have become.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 9:28 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said Why are union protesters in Wisconsin arrested but Tea Partiers carrying guns in public are not? Are they even checked for permits?


    Citizens have a right to carry guns.

    Citizens also have a right to not be checked for gun permits without cause.

    You truly know nothing about the Constitution.


    Incorrect. The Second Amendment allows for the maintenance of a militia rather than a standing army. There is no "right to attend a presidential speech with a loaded, unpermitted gun" section of the Constitution.

    And get something straight. Through both my formal education and working life, I have probably forgotten more about Constitutional law than you'll ever know. Just because you can regurgitate tired talking points from the Daily Caller does not mean you understand the Constitution, let alone the significant political history from which it originated.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 03, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
    Ah, the old days when you could simply hire a "Bag Man" to deliver hundreds of thousands of dollars IN CASH.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:00 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThe Second Amendment allows for the maintenance of a militia rather than a standing army. There is no "right to attend a presidential speech with a loaded, unpermitted gun" section of the Constitution.


    Let's just look at it, shall we?

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It doesn't mention anything about gun permits, nor does it mention where a citizen can and where a citizen can't carry a gun.




    Christian73 saidAnd get something straight. Through both my formal education and working life, I have probably forgotten more about Constitutional law than you'll ever know.


    Apparently you've forgotten all of it.


    The "People" in the that phrase refers to the citizenry at large, which the Founder knew feared a renewed dictatorship in the form of a president. This is why the lack of context you reliably display.

    Here's the context for the Second Amendment

    "The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

    Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311])."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThe Second Amendment allows for the maintenance of a militia rather than a standing army. There is no "right to attend a presidential speech with a loaded, unpermitted gun" section of the Constitution.


    Let's just look at it, shall we?

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It doesn't mention anything about gun permits, nor does it mention where a citizen can and where a citizen can't carry a gun.




    Christian73 saidAnd get something straight. Through both my formal education and working life, I have probably forgotten more about Constitutional law than you'll ever know.


    Apparently you've forgotten all of it.


    The "People" in the that phrase refers to the citizenry at large, which the Founder knew feared a renewed dictatorship in the form of a president. This is why the lack of context you reliably display.

    Here's the context for the Second Amendment

    "The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

    Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311])."



    Ah thank goodness for a guy who doesn't have a law degree, specialize in constitutional law that you know the Constitution better than than the Supreme Court Justices - a number of them, over time too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidThe Second Amendment allows for the maintenance of a militia rather than a standing army. There is no "right to attend a presidential speech with a loaded, unpermitted gun" section of the Constitution.


    Let's just look at it, shall we?

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It doesn't mention anything about gun permits, nor does it mention where a citizen can and where a citizen can't carry a gun.




    Christian73 saidAnd get something straight. Through both my formal education and working life, I have probably forgotten more about Constitutional law than you'll ever know.


    Apparently you've forgotten all of it.


    The "People" in the that phrase refers to the citizenry at large, which the Founder knew feared a renewed dictatorship in the form of a president. This is why the lack of context you reliably display.

    Here's the context for the Second Amendment

    "The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

    Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311])."



    Ah thank goodness for a guy who doesn't have a law degree, specialize in constitutional law that you know the Constitution better than than the Supreme Court Justices - a number of them, over time too.


    Right... because the Supreme Court has never made a bad ruling...

    How about Bowers v. Hardwick?Griswold v. Connecticut? Plessy v. Ferguson? Any of those ring a bell?

    And, also - and I'm sure this will surprise you - when you appoint lunatic right-wingers to the Court (which has been the long-game of the Republican Party for 30 years) they tend to decide things is the favor of lunatic right-wingers. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2011 1:50 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    The "People" in the that phrase refers to the citizenry at large, which the Founder knew feared a renewed dictatorship in the form of a president. This is why the lack of context you reliably display.

    Here's the context for the Second Amendment

    "The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.

    Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311])."




    Thanks for the interpretation.

    Now, once again, the actual text:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    It's not an "interpretation". It's the historical context in which the Amendment was created. The founders no more envisioned armed protesters at a presidential town hall than they did a standing army, which is not at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2011 12:41 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.


    Typical. The topic is Edwards and Sarah Palin is brought into it. I wonder if Michelle Bachmann's name will surface soon? icon_rolleyes.gif

    During his campaign John Edwards was promoting his family values, but he deceived his contributors by using their money to hide his mistress and child while his wife was terminally ill. He's criminally and morally corrupt.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 04, 2011 12:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidMemorandum from DNC

    When inconvenient facts are raised by any opponents, and these facts cannot be refuted with any credibility, respond using the following terms:

    Racism
    Palin
    Greed
    Unfairness
    Wall Street

    The relevance of the above terms is not important. What is more important is the frequency these terms are used.



    We're talking about Edwards here, Socal, quit letting the Palin woman commentary get under your skin.....

    icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2011 1:25 PM GMT
    Draper said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.


    Typical. The topic is Edwards and Sarah Palin is brought into it. I wonder if Michelle Bachmann's name will surface soon? icon_rolleyes.gif

    During his campaign John Edwards was promoting his family values, but he deceived his contributors by using their money to hide his mistress and child while his wife was terminally ill. He's criminally and morally corrupt.


    Wrong. The contributor who gave the money to Edwards for Ms. Hunter did so explicitly for that purpose and did not consider it a contribution to the campaign. Edwards is still douche bag, but the question of illegality is unclear.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jun 04, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.


    It's not about grasping at straws. If Edwards did what he is accused of, he should go to jail, be fined, whatever the punishment is.

    But where's the indictment for John Ensign? Where's the investigation into Palin's PAC? What about Boner's extensive "golf trips" paid for by corporate donors?

    For all the BS about the liberal media and "rogue administration DOJ", why aren't more Republicans in handcuffs? Why are union protesters in Wisconsin arrested but Tea Partiers carrying guns in public are not? Are they even checked for permits?

    So, it's not about Edwards. It's about putting the lie to this meme that liberals are given preferential treatment when it's actually quite the opposite.






    Oh c'mon, Christian...truth be told these politicians (Republican or Democrat) get away with all sorts of stuff disguised as something else. If a real investigation were done on every member of congress, I wouldn't doubt that a large percentage of them could be found in violation of one thing or another. As for John Edwards, I have always found him to be one of the most plastic politicians -- ever! He always seemed like smarmy scum to me from way back when he was running with Gore. The idea that he was so close to being a V.P. makes me cringe. That said, I don't necessarily think he should have to go to jail. He should, however, be exposed for the fraud that he is, have to pay a huge fine, get tons of community service, and lose his law license.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jun 04, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    Draper said

    During his campaign John Edwards was promoting his family values, but he deceived his contributors by using their money to hide his mistress and child while his wife was terminally ill. He's criminally and morally corrupt.



    Of course, this blows the theory right out of the water that so many libs around here like to throw around that the Republicans are the only hypocrites who preach "family values" yet practice something else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2011 3:07 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidWhen is Palin going to be investigated for using PAC money for a "family vacation" (her words)?



    Could ya grasp at any MORE straws, Christian? Sheeeeesh! John Edwards is total scum. There is absolutely no refuting that. He will get what is coming to him.


    It's not about grasping at straws. If Edwards did what he is accused of, he should go to jail, be fined, whatever the punishment is.

    But where's the indictment for John Ensign? Where's the investigation into Palin's PAC? What about Boner's extensive "golf trips" paid for by corporate donors?

    For all the BS about the liberal media and "rogue administration DOJ", why aren't more Republicans in handcuffs? Why are union protesters in Wisconsin arrested but Tea Partiers carrying guns in public are not? Are they even checked for permits?

    So, it's not about Edwards. It's about putting the lie to this meme that liberals are given preferential treatment when it's actually quite the opposite.






    Oh c'mon, Christian...truth be told these politicians (Republican or Democrat) get away with all sorts of stuff disguised as something else. If a real investigation were done on every member of congress, I wouldn't doubt that a large percentage of them could be found in violation of one thing or another. As for John Edwards, I have always found him to be one of the most plastic politicians -- ever! He always seemed like smarmy scum to me from way back when he was running with Gore. The idea that he was so close to being a V.P. makes me cringe. That said, I don't necessarily think he should have to go to jail. He should, however, be exposed for the fraud that he is, have to pay a huge fine, get tons of community service, and lose his law license.


    I don't disagree with you, but aren't we a bunch of naifs for tolerating such blanket corruption?

    What Edwards did to his wife and children makes me sick. I don't give a shit who sleeps with who, but to get another woman pregnant while your wife has terminal cancer is just beyond the pale.

    I'm also fascinated the he and Schwarzenegger, among others, don't use condoms or any sort of birth control.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2011 3:18 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said Why are union protesters in Wisconsin arrested but Tea Partiers carrying guns in public are not? Are they even checked for permits?

    Citizens have a right to carry guns.

    Citizens also have a right to not be checked for gun permits without cause.

    You truly know nothing about the Constitution.

    The law requires a gun permit, which was Christian's point. Guns are also legally restricted in many places, for instance at town meetings, where thuggish Teabaggers were bringing them, and could legally be checked for a permit. Nor can you bring a gun, registered or not, past the TSA security checks at US airports (thank your George Bush for that). The US Supreme Court has upheld these restrictions as being constitutional.

    Clearly it is YOU who know nothing about the US Constitution and case law. Another of your misfires (forgive the pun).