OpEdNews Op Eds

The Edwards Prosecution -- They have better things to do

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 6   Must Read 4   Supported 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 6/7/11

Become a Fan
  (117 fans)
- Advertisement -

Michael Collins

We can draw several clear conclusions from the indictment of John Edwards.

The case is a joke, quite literally.  It mocks justice.

The cast of characters consists of people who should have recused themselves, rather than bringing a prosecution.  This strange case has the faint odor of the nonstop assault on former Alabama governor, Don Siegelman.

Apparently the Department of Justice has a lot of time on its hands.  How else could it pursue this transparent nonsense while failing to prosecute the perpetrators of the financial collapse?

Finally, the prosecution shows that those in control are not even pretending to acknowledge a rule of law.

- Advertisement -

The Indictment has No Basis in Law

Prosecutors redefine and distort the definition of campaign contributions and activities to fit the Edwards case.  They ignore the clearly stated language negating their claim.  As a result, this prosecution is so flawed it can only be judged as a personal or political prosecution.

The third sentence of the Edwards indictment states:  "A centerpiece of Edwards'  candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man."  Having made that assertion, the US Attorney sprung his trap.  The Election Act's contribution limit applied "to anything of value provided for the purpose of influencing the presidential election""  That's the entire case.  John Edwards took money to cover up a personal problem that would have hurt his campaign.  Taking the money isn't the main problem.  Edwards would have been guilty had he used his own money.  The alleged crime is using money in excess of the maximum limit for anything that influences the election.

- Advertisement -

There has never been a campaign finance prosecution using this broad theory.  Here's why.  You have candidates who take salaries, cash in investments, undergo plastic surgery, and even receive mortgages and other loans during their candidacy.  These acts all contribute to a candidate's positive image in some way.  But, they are not considered campaign expenditures under the campaign finance law used to charge Edwards.  The law specifically excludes personal funds in Sections 431, 441 and elsewhere makes clear.

There's no specific language in the law about paying off a mistress. But that's clearly personal,  an outcome of personal behavior.  It's no different than a candidate using money in excess of the $2,500 contribution limit to polish up his or her image with a loan for an electorate friendly ranch, a new "tuck," or even a vacation.  Whether these are paid for with loans from others or with personal funds, these acts are never the cause of legal problems for the elected officials or their challengers.

What is campaign expenditure?  Is it "anything of value provided for the purpose of influencing the presidential election"? The US Attorney would have us think so.  But he knows better.  That is language right out of federal election law.  The indictment neglects language in the very same section, 431, Definitions (20), (A) that tells us what constitutes "Federal election activity" in the following subparagraphs:  (i) voter registration; (ii) voter identification; (iii) public communication; and,  (iv) services.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://www.opednews.com/author/author3863.html

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ukraine President Once Agent for U.S. State Department

Worst President Ever - Barack H. Obama

It's official! You're on your own

Rigged Elections for Romney?

Real Unemployment at 23% - Dampening the Excitement

Humiliation And Death As A Tool Of National Policy

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Great article but the chart has a typo and is misq... by Dante DeNavarre on Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:38:07 AM
SIGNED by the foreperson or deputy foreperson of t... by Mark Adams JD/MBA on Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:00:56 PM
I mean there must be some serious "meat" on Arnold... by John Russell on Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:19:47 PM
John Edwards was certainly attacked and charged be... by Chyrisse Tabone, Ph.D. on Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:56:46 PM
It's all a shell game.Keep your eyes on the prosec... by SherryGT on Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:18:59 AM
The distractions come in many forms but their role... by John Russell on Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:02:46 AM