John Edwards: A jerk, not a felon

[cali]

As far as I’m concerned, John Edwards is pond scum. Last I checked, that’s not a crime.

We can stipulate, I think, to the pond scum part. The man cheated on his wife — and defended himself by noting that her cancer was in remission at the time. Even after the affair was disclosed, Edwards lied about whether he fathered a daughter with the woman. He had a loyal aide falsely claim paternity and turned to wealthy friends to support the woman.

<snip>

But being a jerk, even on an Edwardsian scale, is not a felony, which is what federal prosecutors have been pursuing for more than two years. The original theory of the case was that Edwards misused campaign funds to support his mistress, Rielle Hunter. That would have been a serious matter, except the theory fizzled.

Some prosecutors would have stopped there. The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, George Holding, did not.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-edwards-a-jerk-not-a-felon/2011/05/27/AGtRwyCH_story.html

[Boojatta]

1. We can "stipulate to"?

[Ohio Joe]

2. The fucker...

I can't believe I gave his campaign money... Douchebag.

[Raine]

7. I did too, I WANT MY MONEY BACK!!! nt

:mad:

[femmocrat]

14. I actually got some back from PayPal when he dropped out.

Remember how he promised to stay in until the convention? Except he didn't.

I still can't believe that I was taken in by him. :mad:

[madokie]

18. Same here I want it back too.

[TheFarseer]

22. I donated to him too

I don't think I'll ever donate to any political campaign again.

[Uben]

3. LAws are laws. If he committed a felony.....

.....he needs to do time for it. I never liked the man. Something about him was strange. He seemed such a narcissist, and was!
But, most politicians are. No big surprise, I can't think of a one that wasn't.

[undeterred]

19. +100

If he broke laws he gets prosecuted for it, no more or no less than anybody else. Edwards was just a little too slick for me. Some people thought that the criticism for the $400 haircut was off base, but for a guy running a poverty theme campaign, it was an apt criticism. Edwards was vain and arrogant and apparently he didn't think he could get caught- when his aides tried to warn him he got angry about it. He brought all his troubles on himself.

[calimary]

4. Somehow, though, rielle hunter seems to have escaped all criticism or derision.

NOT that I'm defending John Edwards - it's pretty damn schmucky (schmuckeneggery) what he did, especially while HIS WIFE was still around. But seems to me it takes two to tango. How has she escaped being pilloried? From everything I heard, she insinuated her way into his campaign, claiming to want to be his campaign videographer. She is NOT blameless!!!! If anything, I think she's worse because WHO DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS MARRIED? Who did she think she was to come on to him like she did? Besides some political groupie run amok?

[H2O Man]

11. Valid point.

Some might call them "two peas in a pod." I view them as "two turds in a toilet."

[karynnj]

13. She was highly criticized, which she should have been

In addition, she was derided as "new age" and called ugly. In her case, there was near universal dislike.

But, John Edwards was the married man, who in his wife's most desperate time, fathered a baby. (Do the math - the baby was conceived a few months after Elizabeth's stage 4 diagnosis.

More importantly, it was Edwards who had won the trust, support and money of thousands of people. She was never more than a flaky, unprincipled woman, who was the prototype of a fictional party girl. She acted just as people who knew her for decades might have thought she would. Their only surprise would be that a serious Presidential candidate would have anything to do with her.

Edwards gained the trust and respect of many people. He gained the support of many Democratic pundits as a promising young Democrat. He was their designated golden boy - and that resulted in opportunities that very few ever get - including many politicians who diligently serve, but never are considered to have what it takes. He took all these lucky breaks as if he was entitled to them.

As to the legal issues, it is he, not Rielle, who may have broken the law. As to whose responsibility it was never enter this relationship - it was John who swore fidelity to Elizabeth. In addition, there was clearly something in him that sought this. It seems easy to assume that if he never met Rielle, he would have gone after another groupie. (She was essentially replaceable.)

Emotionally, I don agree with the OP - except, if there is a provable felony committed, it should not matter that I, like many, feel sorry for his innocent family and would prefer that Edwards go away and never be heard of again after an announcement of no charges, but a complete statement on what he is known to have done. This would minimize the embarrassment that he broght to the party.

The fact is, he STILL gets more sympathy than she does. I doubt many would write the post you did - flipping John and Rielle.

[calimary]

16. Oh I do NOT in any way hold John Edwards blameless. It takes two to tango. He was

the other half. A willing partner.

And what really pisses me off the most is how he was really pretty much the only candidate who was speaking out about the plight of the poor, drawing attention to it, making it central to his campaign - the "two Americas" he talked about. None of the other candidates made that issue a focus. He was speaking about it all the time, so there was some public awareness of that much-neglected issue in this country. The longer he'd campaigned, the more it would have come up in the public eye and on the mainstream airwaves. And how can you measure what that did to his family and his dying wife (who I remember got a surprisingly large amount of criticism here and elsewhere about being an enabler and "going for the gold" of the White House even after she knew about this)?

No, please don't misunderstand. I think John Edwards is just about the worst kind of louse and cad you can imagine. NO sympathy for him whatsoever. I'm gravely disappointed in him. HOW COULD HE???? HOW DARE HE?????? WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING?????? For heaven's sakes - FATHER A CHILD with some backstage floozy when you're married to somebody else, and you have kids with that person you're married to - and you and your spouse have built this life together over at least a couple of decades and you've both been through some shattering, life-altering things together. It's just unimaginable. And then throw in the she's-dying-of-cancer element and it's just truly staggering. No sympathy.

I was reflecting on how, at least to me, it's appeared that John Edwards stands alone in the latest round of well-deserved condemnations. As you correctly point out, there is the matter of felonies having been committed here, and that was him, not her. More shit on his score card. And I do remember how - back then - she took a lot of well-deserved condemnation. I remember personally dumping on them both in great disgust at the time. I still view her as being damned vile, selfish, self-indulgent, thoughtless, and opportunistic, and a full partner in this disgrace, and I think as long as we're on the subject, it's worth a reminder about her too. While we're excoriating him over the latest development, we shouldn't forget how big a part she played. She doesn't get to slip under the radar this time, at least to me.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

21. Four words from Edwards could have prevented almost all of these problems:

"No, thanks. I'm married."

[OHdem10]

5. Criminalization of Politics is dangerous. I agree, A Jerk not

a criminal.

[saras]

6. And face it, judged by a jury of his peers, he is normal, not a jerk at all

Only when judged by the idealistic standards of the middle class and progressives is his behavior a problem.

Sad, but true. He behaves like people with his wealth behave, no better, no worse.

[cali]

9. bwahahahaha. yeah, because those with

"the idealistic standards of the middle class and progressives"- whatever the fuck that nonsense is supposed to mean- find cheating on a cancer afflicted spouse a problem. If you're wealthy, you think cheating on your cancer ridden spouse and lying about having a kid with the other woman, is just fine and dandy and all of them do it.

Ridiculous- and not terribly, er, intelligent "analysis".

[karynnj]

15. Not true - his actions are worse than any group of peers you could define for him

[brooklynite]

8. He's not being indicted for infidelity...

He's being indicted for misusing campaign funds to hid his infidelity. That is a crime.

[dsc]

12. actually you might, just might, want to read the article

It is very arguable that he used campaign funds to cover up anything. He did go to people who had donated to his campaign but he didn't use campaign funds unless you stretch the term pretty far.

[philly_bob]

10. Get some perspective. There's rule breaking and then there's crime.

Misuse of campaign funds ranks with illegal recruiting by football coaches, illegal removal of mattress tags, and weightlifters taking banned drugs as rule violations -- but not felonies. Prosecutors have discretion. This prosecutor has a political agenda.

[madokie]

17. I believe what he did was a crime

not the getting a little on the side so much but the using campaign cash for the cover up was though. I hope they throw the book at him personally. I feel no pity for him at all

We all should have to follow the same rules no matter who we are or what we are. So in that context if this is true what he did he deserves his fate.
I got thrown in jail for a couple days soon after returning home from 15 months in Vietnam for a few pot seeds for crying out loud. I broke the law and paid the price but yet I don't or didn't try to put the blame off on someone else or try to get out of it I simply took my punishment like the man I was because after all I knew it was unlawful to possess those seeds.

He was too close to the presidency to give him a pass. The last thing we need is someone in the oval office who has that kind of baggage.

[Never Stop Dancin]

23. cali is correct

Let's not be casting the first stone--how can any of us say we would have acted differently in his situation?