Why is the Justice Department hassling John Edwards?

Don't they have anything better to do then waste their time on a dead-end case like this? We're only talking about a measly million dollars here. It'll cost more than that just to bring the case to court. And what difference does it make anyway? Even if Edwards is guilty, he's small potatoes. Why not go after the big fish, instead of making a laughingstock out of the DOJ?

Hey, Eric Holder: Have you ever heard of George Bush or Dick Cheney or the big Wall Street bankers? Those are the guys you need to nail, not some washed up ex-senator whose life is already in a shambles.

Is this a personal vendetta? Is that it? Is this some kind of political assassination?

Why else would the DOJ devote so much time and money to a crime that is so trivial? It just doesn't add-up.

Take a look at Google News. There's already about 2,500 cookie-cutter articles mulling over Edwards' infidelity in excruciating detail, leaving the reader with no doubt that Edwards is the biggest rat in history. "Bravo to you, free press; you've really demonstrated what a cesspool you are." But all the tabloid mud-slinging doesn't prove a damn thing. It's just more character assassination.

I'm no fan of Edwards and I certainly never voted for him, but I'm no fan of "trial by media" either, where they slap a big Bull's-eye on someone's back, and then bury his reputation under a pile of feces. That's not the way justice is supposed to work.

The case against Edwards is so skimpy, it's hardly worth going over. Let's just say that will be very hard for the DOJ to prove that Edwards broke the law. The conditions under which the million dollars was given to Edwards by two contributors is so sketchy, it will be impossible to determine who's telling the truth. So, why is the DOJ going ahead with the prosecution? The whole thing smells fishy.

According to Reuters, Edwards has been "charged with six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions and making false statements for using nearly $1 million in illegal campaign funds to help cover up an extra-marital affair during his White House bid in 2008."

Hmmmmm, that sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? But what are we really looking at here? A politician who was cheating on his wife and who may or may not have been dipping into the till. Big whoop. And for that, someone (?) has mounted a full-blown government investigation pitting the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later media against one rather vain and irritating ex-Senator?  I'm not buying it.

Don't get me wrong, Edwards could be guilty as Hell, but that's not why the DOJ and the media launch a no-holds-barred Blitzkreig like this. They save that for the people they really hate. Like Clinton.

And Clinton is the perfect reference point, because the Clinton affair helped us to see how the media really works. Let me jog your memory a bit with a few buzzwords from the past: Whitewater, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willie, Jessica Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, oral sex, the "blue dress," perjury, "high crimes and misdemeanors" and impeachment.

Does all that ring a bell? Of course, it does, because in retrospect you can see what a joke the whole thing was. Clinton's rivals made sure that the entire country was carpet-bombed with every salacious detail (real or imagined) of his private life in an effort to drive him from office and ruin him. They pulled out all the stops. And what was Clinton's crime? That he lied to Congress?

Baloney.

That he raised taxes on the rich?

Maybe.