OT: The Case Against John Edwards
BillB
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:glaGp.8600$4h1....@newsfe06.iad...
> http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/112553/usa-v-johnny-reid-edwards.pdf
Much of the case seems to be complete BS. The government seems to be saying
that because keeping the affair quiet helped Edwards' campaign, any payments
to his girlfriend were necessarily campaign donations. All right-wingers
should be outraged by this over-reach of government authority!
BillB
> All right-wingers should be outraged by this over-reach of government
> authority!
haha..and Mark Levin is.
He just said *exactly* the same thing I did. That's why I like him -- he
isn't a straight-up partisan hack like mo_ron.
O-PGManager
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:glaGp.8600$4h1....@newsfe06.iad...
>
> > http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/112553/usa-v-johnny-reid-edwards.pdf
>
> Much of the case seems to be complete BS. The government seems to be saying
> that because keeping the affair quiet helped Edwards' campaign, any payments
> to his girlfriend were necessarily campaign donations.
I don't know whether this is or is not a crime, but it sure seems like it
should be. When a guy is running for President there's supposed to a
$2,300 cap on an individual donation - you're basically saying this cap
can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
"non-campaign" functions.
That's ridiculous - whether the candidate uses the money to run ads,
campaign, jetset, vacation, support his mistress is irrelevant - the point
of the 2300 limit is that you're not supposed to be able to purchase
candidates.
Edwards was a multi-millionaire... he couldn't support girl #2 on his own
dime? What a douche.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
brewmaster
> On Jun 3 2011 4:04 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> > news:glaGp.8600$4h1....@newsfe06.iad...
> >
> > >
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/112553/usa-v-johnny-reid-edwards.pdf
> >
> > Much of the case seems to be complete BS. The government seems to be
saying
> > that because keeping the affair quiet helped Edwards' campaign, any
payments
> > to his girlfriend were necessarily campaign donations.
>
> I don't know whether this is or is not a crime, but it sure seems like it
> should be. When a guy is running for President there's supposed to a
> $2,300 cap on an individual donation - you're basically saying this cap
> can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
> "non-campaign" functions.
>
> That's ridiculous - whether the candidate uses the money to run ads,
> campaign, jetset, vacation, support his mistress is irrelevant - the point
> of the 2300 limit is that you're not supposed to be able to purchase
> candidates.
>
> Edwards was a multi-millionaire... he couldn't support girl #2 on his own
> dime? What a douche.
He probably had to keep it secret from his wife and she had access to the
finances.
>
>
> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:qu9ob8x...@recgroups.com...
> you're basically saying this cap
> can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
> "non-campaign" functions.
No, by showing the "donation" really had nothing to do with the campaign or
the political process, but was of a personal nature.
Adam Russell
> On Jun 3 2011 4:04 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
>> news:glaGp.8600$4h1....@newsfe06.iad...
>>
>>> http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/112553/usa-v-johnny-reid-edwards.pdf
>> Much of the case seems to be complete BS. The government seems to be saying
>> that because keeping the affair quiet helped Edwards' campaign, any payments
>> to his girlfriend were necessarily campaign donations.
>
> I don't know whether this is or is not a crime, but it sure seems like it
> should be. When a guy is running for President there's supposed to a
> $2,300 cap on an individual donation - you're basically saying this cap
> can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
> "non-campaign" functions.
OTOH claiming that anyone spending their own money in a way that might
benefit a candidate is automatically considered a campaign donation is
absurd. If I spent huge cash investigating Edwards in hopes of him not
getting elected would I have to report that as a donation toward his
opponent?
brewmaster
It isn't legal in the U.S. to simply give another person a large sum of
money as a gift without paying taxes on it.
----
BillB
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:1noob8x...@recgroups.com...
> It isn't legal in the U.S. to simply give another person a large sum of
> money as a gift without paying taxes on it.
So? The charges are conspiracy and illegal campaign contributions.
O-PGManager
It's a fair argument. I guess my counter would be - would you be ok with
a donor buying Edwards a mansion, a lamborghini, and a yacht? Clearly
they wouldn't be campaign related, but they'd still be the kind of bribes
campaign finance reform purports to stop right?
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
O-PGManager
So you're cool with politicians being bribed so long as the bribe is
pocketed as a personal asset and not used for the campaign?
brewmaster
I'm guessing that if a large sum of money is given to a political
candidate during a campaign and is not listed on a tax return as a
personal gift, then it is assumed to be a campaign contribution. Wouldn't
somebody involved in a presidential campaign be very very careful about
things like this?
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> So you're cool with politicians being bribed so long as the bribe is
> pocketed as a personal asset and not used for the campaign?
What evidence do you have that it was a bribe?
susan
"O-PGManager" wrote in message news:8b3pb8x...@recgroups.com...
On Jun 3 2011 8:34 PM, BillB wrote:
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qu9ob8x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > you're basically saying this cap
> > can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
> > "non-campaign" functions.
>
> No, by showing the "donation" really had nothing to do with the campaign
> or
> the political process, but was of a personal nature.
So you're cool with politicians being bribed so long as the bribe is
pocketed as a personal asset and not used for the campaign?
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the dishonesty and lack of morals of B-BillB are becoming more and more
evident every day.
BillB
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> So? The charges are conspiracy and illegal campaign contributions.
>
> I'm guessing that if a large sum of money is given to a political
> candidate during a campaign and is not listed on a tax return as a
> personal gift, then it is assumed to be a campaign contribution. Wouldn't
> somebody involved in a presidential campaign be very very careful about
> things like this?
Not 100% sure, but I think in the US the gift tax is assigned to the person
giving the gift. I don't see how Edwards would be in a position to know, or
would have any responsibility, if any tax was paid or not.
I suspect it will come out that this wasn't a gift at all, but a personal
loan from a friend to Edwards, who would pay it back on the down-low when
the dust settled. My understanding was that Edwards is very wealthy himself.
The only reason he would need someone else to cover his girlfriend's
expenses is so such payment could be hidden from his wife.
The question I have is if there was undue influence placed on the 90+ year
old lady who gave the gift/loan, and if she had the mental capacity to make
such a gift/loan for such a large amount.
Adam Russell
> On Jun 3 2011 8:34 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:qu9ob8x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>>> you're basically saying this cap
>>> can be bypassed merely by claiming those donations are going to
>>> "non-campaign" functions.
>> No, by showing the "donation" really had nothing to do with the campaign or
>> the political process, but was of a personal nature.
>
> So you're cool with politicians being bribed so long as the bribe is
> pocketed as a personal asset and not used for the campaign?
There are laws specific to bribery. If the prosecutor thought it was a
bribe thats what should have been charged.
Adam Russell
No the FEC opinion cited by the prosecutor already covers that. It
states that any gift to a candidate running is considered to be a
donation to his campaign. The prosecutor is trying to extend that
opinion to say any gift to anyone that may benefit the candidate is also
a donation to the campaign.
O-PGManager
Evidence isn't needed. Whether you are buying influence, giving the money
away for nothing, or hoping to buy some influence but you're not sure -
its the transaction over $2300 that's illegal.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
---
O-PGManager
Without these donations John Edwards has to pay out of pocket, either on
his own or after a legal judgement for child support. I don't think it's
too big of a stretch to say these were personal donations.
Arguing the money went to Rielle Hunter and had nothing to do with Jon
Edwards is like saying Goldman Sachs didn't get bailed out by public tax
dollars. (when 14 billion of the AIG bailout went directly into their
coffers)
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Clave
> On Jun 4 2011 8:20 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8b3pb8x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > So you're cool with politicians being bribed so long as the bribe is
>> > pocketed as a personal asset and not used for the campaign?
>>
>> What evidence do you have that it was a bribe?
>
In America it sure as shit is.
Jim
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> What evidence do you have that it was a bribe?
>
> Evidence isn't needed.
Yes, it is. If you are going to charge someone with bribery, you need proof
that there is some kind of quid pro quo
>Whether you are buying influence, giving the money
> away for nothing, or hoping to buy some influence but you're not sure -
> its the transaction over $2300 that's illegal.
We are going in circles. The $2300 rule is if you are donating to the
campaign. If you are running for office and your best friend buys you a car,
that could be a bribe (if you have evidence of some quid pro quo agreement),
it could be an illegal campaign donation (if the car is going to be used in
furtherance of the campaign), it could be both, or it could be neither.
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> Arguing the money went to Rielle Hunter and had nothing to do with Jon
> Edwards ...
That isn't the argument. The argument is that it wasn't in furtherance of
his campaign, which is what a "campaign donation" is.
The government's theory is that because it helped preserve Edwards'
reputation (at least temporarily), it increased his chances of being
elected, therefore it was a campaign donation. That's similar to saying if
your mom bought you a nice jacket for birthday, it would make you look
better on the campaign trail and increase your chances of getting elected,
herefore it is a campaign donation.
Courts aren't generally fond of twisted pickle-type logic, especially in
criminal and quasi-criminal cases. A campaign donation is exactly what it
sounds like. It's a gift that is intended to finance campaign operations.
It could have been a bribe, as you said. But where is the evidence it was a
bribe? Edwards says this was a personal friend helping him out on a personal
matter in a time of need, and I haven't seen much evidence that that wasn't
the case.
Mossingen
Looks like it will boil down to a legal question on how expansive they
courts are going to interpret campaign donations. Should be interesting to
follow. I'm always fond of the rule of lenity in these situations, but one
never knows what the courts will do. Probably strong public policy reasons
to give it an expansive reading.
I always question why the Justice Department approaches these things by
using a criminal prosecution. Are there no civil remedies available? Do
they *really* need to try put John Edwards in prison?
BillB
"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:iseb8c$r72$1...@dont-email.me...
>Do they *really* need to try put John Edwards in prison?
Yes, because he cheated on his wife while she had cancer.
Like that's never happened before.
BillB
> Looks like it will boil down to a legal question on how expansive they
> courts are going to interpret campaign donations.
The FEC's position is that "anything of value given to influence a Federal
election is considered a contribution."
da pickle
> I always question why the Justice Department approaches these things by
> using a criminal prosecution. Are there no civil remedies available? Do
> they *really* need to try put John Edwards in prison?
I have no love for John Edwards and the money involved is certainly not
trivial, but this does seem to be a little "much." I wonder what some might
say if the W was the "administration" involved? I wonder if there is a
political angle here that we do not know? Maybe Edwards pissed someone off
really bad!
O-PGManager
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f6hqb8x...@recgroups.com...
>
> >> What evidence do you have that it was a bribe?
> >
> > Evidence isn't needed.
>
> Yes, it is. If you are going to charge someone with bribery, you need proof
> that there is some kind of quid pro quo
If you are going to charge him with bribery yes, that's not the same as
charging him with violating campaign financing laws.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
________________________________________________________________________
O-PGManager
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:obhqb8x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > Arguing the money went to Rielle Hunter and had nothing to do with Jon
> > Edwards ...
>
> That isn't the argument. The argument is that it wasn't in furtherance of
> his campaign, which is what a "campaign donation" is.
According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
This sounds reasonable. Edwards' defense is that it wasn't a gift to him,
it was a gift to Rielle Hunter - I think that's kind of a weak defense.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-------
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> If you are going to charge him with bribery yes, that's not the same as
> charging him with violating campaign financing laws.
Huh? You somehow came to conclusion I was "ok with bribery." I don't know
how or why you would come to such a conclusion (obviously I am not ok with
bribery), but I have not seen any evidence of bribery.
You seem to be saying a gift over $2300 is necessarily bribery. It isn't. If
it is a campaign contribution, then it violates campaign financing laws, and
is an illegal campaign contribution. That doesn't make it bribery. Bribery
involves an express or implied quid pro quo. I am saying I don't think this
was an campaign contribution at all. That doesn't make it bribery either.
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
That is not accurate.
> This sounds reasonable.
No, it doesn't. A CAMPAIGN contribution must have some logical nexus to the
actual CAMPAIGN. Your mom giving you a birthday present is not a campaign
contribution.
O-PGManager
> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:u2rqb8x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
>
> That is not accurate.
I think it is:
"The law allows for "gifts of a personal nature," but only if they "had
been customarily received prior to candidacy."
"The law says also that payment of a candidate's personal expenses by
someone other than the candidate or the campaign committee is a campaign
contribution "unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the
candidacy."
http://m.charlotteobserver.com/charlotte/db_260234/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yO7cl1TC&full=true
Looks like he ran afoul of the law to me. I still think this is a
ridiculous case - the government only seems to target people who have no
power.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
----
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> > According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
>>
>> That is not accurate.
>
> I think it is:
>
> "The law allows for "gifts of a personal nature," but only if they "had
> been customarily received prior to candidacy."
That alone contradicts what you are saying Adam Russel said. That is a
specific exception to the statement that "any gift to a candidate is
campaign donation."
> "The law says also that payment of a candidate's personal expenses by
> someone other than the candidate or the campaign committee is a campaign
> contribution "unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the
> candidacy."
>
> http://m.charlotteobserver.com/charlotte/db_260234/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=yO7cl1TC&full=true
>
> Looks like he ran afoul of the law to me. I still think this is a
> ridiculous case - the government only seems to target people who have no
> power.
I believe that is an interpretation of an opinion letter from the FEC (sort
of like double heresay). It does not have the force of law. It is similar to
an interpretation bulletin from the Canada Revenue Agency. They are always
worded in the strongest terms giving the regulatory agency the widest
enforcement latitude. That doesn't mean a judge will agree. I would like to
see the actual statutes or court decisions that were being relied upon by
the person offering that opinion.
BillB
> I believe that is an interpretation of an opinion letter from the FEC
> (sort of like double heresay). Hearsay even
Mossingen
news:TZqdnawXLLO...@giganews.com...
I don't know, but there does appear to be some sub-text agenda here. Maybe
DOJ just wants a test case and knows Edwards will fight it all the way with
good lawyers. This will get resolved at least at the federal Court of
Appeals level, if not SCOTUS.
Mossingen
> On Jun 4 2011 5:49 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f6hqb8x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>> >> What evidence do you have that it was a bribe?
>> >
>> > Evidence isn't needed.
>>
>> Yes, it is. If you are going to charge someone with bribery, you need
>> proof
>> that there is some kind of quid pro quo
>
> If you are going to charge him with bribery yes, that's not the same as
> charging him with violating campaign financing laws.
Don't you first have to know the scope of those laws?
Mossingen
> On Jun 4 2011 6:00 PM, BillB wrote:
>
>> "O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:obhqb8x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>> > Arguing the money went to Rielle Hunter and had nothing to do with Jon
>> > Edwards ...
>>
>> That isn't the argument. The argument is that it wasn't in furtherance of
>> his campaign, which is what a "campaign donation" is.
>
> According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
> This sounds reasonable. Edwards' defense is that it wasn't a gift to him,
> it was a gift to Rielle Hunter - I think that's kind of a weak defense.
Good lord, you're OK with the concept that *any* gift to a candidate
personally is a campaign donation? Are there any limits at all? Have I
turned into pickle?
Clave
Not liking the verdict is not a basis for appeal -- there have to be legal,
factual or procedural grounds.
Jim
Mossingen
news:iserio$fhj$1...@dont-email.me...
> Not liking the verdict is not a basis for appeal -- there have to be
> legal, factual or procedural grounds.
OK, my bad.
BillB
> I would like to see the actual statutes or court decisions that were being
> relied upon by the person offering that opinion.
In particular, I'd like to see where the "customary" part of their
interpretation comes from. That, to me, seems irrelevant to the over-riding
purpose of the rule. What if it's not "customary" because the circumstances
in which it was given were unique? Why shouldn't that type of gift be
protected too, if there is a reasonable explanation for the payment? Why
should it have to be customary? It seems to me that should only be *one
factor* that goes toward establishing that the gift was not in fact a
campaign donation. It shouldn't be a controlling factor. For example, what
if a friend gave a candidate money to help pay his wife's medical bills?
That wouldn't be "customary," but wouldn't it be every bit as legitimate and
every bit and as unrelated to the campaign as a birthday present from his
mom?
da pickle
>> Not liking the verdict is not a basis for appeal -- there have to be
>> legal, factual or procedural grounds.
>
>
>
> OK, my bad.
No good comes from Claving.
O-PGManager
> Good lord, you're OK with the concept that *any* gift to a candidate
> personally is a campaign donation? Are there any limits at all? Have I
> turned into pickle?
What does my being ok with it have to do with the debate about whether or
not he broke the law?
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
---
mo_charles
> > This sounds reasonable. Edwards' defense is that it wasn't a gift to him,
> > it was a gift to Rielle Hunter - I think that's kind of a weak defense.
>
> Good lord, you're OK with the concept that *any* gift to a candidate
> personally is a campaign donation? Are there any limits at all? Have I
> turned into pickle?
i don't feel like reading the whole case. who were the gifts LEGALLY (as
reported on tax returns) given to: the campaign, edwards, or hunter?
this should be a simple matter to resolve.
mo_charles
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Adam Russell
> On Jun 4 2011 10:10 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> Good lord, you're OK with the concept that *any* gift to a candidate
>> personally is a campaign donation? Are there any limits at all? Have I
>> turned into pickle?
>
> What does my being ok with it have to do with the debate about whether or
> not he broke the law?
Because its not against current law but the prosecutor is trying to
extend the FEC Harvey opinion to include more than it offered. The
Harvey opinion stated that any gift to a candidate is automatically
considered a donation to his campaign. The prosecution is extending
that logic to say any money spent that might benefit the candidate is
also a donation - even if the candidate never had possession or control
of it. You ok with that?
By that logic if I spent money investigating a candidate to tear him
down it should be reported as a donation to ALL his opponents since it
benefits them all.
Adam Russell
>>> According to Adam Russel, any gift to a candidate is campaign donation.
>>> This sounds reasonable. Edwards' defense is that it wasn't a gift to him,
>>> it was a gift to Rielle Hunter - I think that's kind of a weak defense.
>> Good lord, you're OK with the concept that *any* gift to a candidate
>> personally is a campaign donation? Are there any limits at all? Have I
>> turned into pickle?
>
> i don't feel like reading the whole case. who were the gifts LEGALLY (as
> reported on tax returns) given to: the campaign, edwards, or hunter?
> this should be a simple matter to resolve.
I dont think it was reported on any return but all reports say it went
from Mellon to Hunter. That may mean that Mellon should report it as a
gift and pay gift tax, though Im not really clear if paying someone's
expenses necessarily falls into that need to report.
O-PGManager
> The prosecution is extending
> that logic to say any money spent that might benefit the candidate is
> also a donation - even if the candidate never had possession or control
> of it. You ok with that?
No. But I think the argument that Edwards had "no control" over money
being sent to Rielle Hunter is a weak one.
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------�
da pickle
> On Jun 7 2011 2:18 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
>
>> The prosecution is extending
>> that logic to say any money spent that might benefit the candidate is
>> also a donation - even if the candidate never had possession or control
>> of it. You ok with that?
>
> No. But I think the argument that Edwards had "no control" over money
> being sent to Rielle Hunter is a weak one.
You are a MONTH late on this one, Opie!