Fed investigation into Edwards mistress $ is for “honest services fraud”

[Adelante]

Frank Perry is retired from the FBI and works for non-profit Foundation for Ethics in Public Service.

Feds probing Edwards affair
Thursday, May 07, 2009 | 11:58 AM

-snip

“It is the FBI that makes a determination of that allegation, to see if it’s credible, specific and coherent enough to proceed,” he said. “I think many people wrongly believe US attorneys generate public corruption cases, but the initiation, the vetting, the working of the case, the FBI is driving that train and it’s done with a true abundance of caution, fairness, and you want to be as firm and fast as you are fair.”

In 2006 and 2007, Edwards’ political action committee paid Hunter $114,000 to produce videos of Edwards. Federal investigators are trying to figure out if those payments violated federal law.

Perry is not connected to the Edwards investigation, but says political corruption cases focus on a federal law - called “honest services fraud”.

“Honest services means that a public official has done something that deprives the citizens of the honest services they expect from public officials,” he explained.

-snip

“It can take some time to build a case,” he said. “And honest services case can take a lot of effort and can be extremely time consuming with respect to going through the financial records and following that money.”

While it appears the investigation is being conducted in Raleigh, Perry says political corruption cases have a lot of oversight - from both FBI headquarters in Washington and the Justice Department in Washington.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6801133

I actually don't see this getting anywhere in the end. Mistress or not, there was a product purchased from a legal company for use by the campaign. The job was fulfilled even if use of the product was limited. The only thing I see tripping them up on this is if the financial records were somehow finagled to wash the cash. I dunno.

Am I missing something? :shrug:

[MADem]

1. Yes, you are missing something.

If I follow you around with a camera, and film you while I'm having a relationship with you, and I slap together the piece-of-shit product as a cover for travelling with you and doing the nasty, then I'm not providing "honest service" to the people who donated money to the campaign for campaign purposes.

If Edwards wrote that woman a check from his own account, that would be one thing. But he used the hard-earned money paid to his campaign by all those people around all those kitchen tables to shlep his girlfriend around--she took up a seat on the campaign plane, she had a hotel room even if she didn't sleep in it, she was paid to make those home-made, piece of shit, flirtatious videos, she no doubt got an expense account for meals and incidentals...and for what? Have you seen the "product?" It's pure crap!

If I sold you a pair of my funky used socks for ten thousand dollars, would you call that an honest transaction? That's the quality of this transaction--actually, not quite--you could wash my socks and wear them! My socks have more value than these piece of shit videos of John Edwards' ass that this woman created.

[Adelante]

2. I think it's subjective, though I agree on the quality

But strip it down and it's a product delivered and paid for. I remember clearly when these things were first introduced and Edwards supporters on DU thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. In retrospect, with subsequent revelations, that's all changed. But in a business sense, Rielle was partners in a company which was paid, right?

[MADem]

6. Is it a "product delivered and paid for," or is it a "cover story" to provide a faux reason

for Madame Screwdelicious to accompany the candidate on the plane?

I don't remember anyone thinking those horrible things were any good. I don't remember any discussion of them until this scandal broke, actually.

The thing is, though--it's not just the videos and that pile of money. Apparently, money was funneled to her through a dead guy who was an associate of Edwards' well after she left the campaign. A campaign worker "took the blame" for the kid when the shit heated up, and the BabyMama was esconced in the same gated community as the Fake Daddy, and BabyMama had dinner with FakeDaddy and his WIFE on occasion. The whole thing stinks of a coverup.

The paternity of the child is, in fact, germane here as well. The paternity, if demonstrated to be Edwards (and if you go by eye, that kid, called Quinn--as in 'quince/quint'--the fifth ...child of daddy...--is the spit image of JE), provides a strong motive for his throwing money at her, as well as motive for his hiding this whole business--from the public, and most importantly, his wife that he lied to about the extent and duration of his affair.

He should have just paid her out of his own stash of money, set up an account, had her sign a nondisclosure agreement--he's rich enough. Instead, he just HAD to have his fun on the campaign donors' dime.

Even the name of her "production company" (Midline Groove....???) sounds rather .... salacious in retrospect. The stuff that made it into the "webisodes" was bad enough...I have to wonder what got left on the cutting room floor?

[Adelante]

9. Yeah, the dead guy money is a different thing

That should go somewhere if they track it. And I certainly hope he gets hit fucking HARD on baby money - pays through the nose.

[MADem]

11. Well, hell hath no fury....it looks like answers will be forthcoming...!

...The ex-senator's former lover - furious at being portrayed as a stalker in his wife's media tour - reportedly is taking revenge and will allow a paternity test for her baby after all.

Rielle Hunter previously refused to allow DNA testing on baby Frances, born in February 2008. Edwards, even after the admitted affair, insisted he wasn't the father.

Her friends said then she hoped they still had a future together and hoped to protect the philandering pol from further ruin.

But on the eve of Elizabeth Edwards' appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" today to plug her new book, the National Enquirer reports that Hunter has changed her mind.

"Now she can see there's never going to be a future with John, and she feels he's lied about his promise to keep Elizabeth from trashing her in the book," an "insider" told the mag.

The Enquirer has had excellent access to Hunter, including tips about where to catch John Edwards sneaking around a hotel in the middle of the night. The exposés drove John Edwards from the 2008 presidential race.



She probably had his number longer than he realized.



http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/07/2009-05-07_edwards_exlover_is_testy.html#ixzz0EqMi1SOw&B

[KittyWampus]

10. To a degree one can say it's subjective. But ultimately, was the final product she delivered

actually used by the campaign or usable by the campaign? IMO, there are content and quality standards to what works as an official Presidential campaign piece on its candidate.

[Adelante]

14. The product was used on the campaign website

And then suddenly pulled. But probably not pulled for reasons of quality, whatever anyone may think of it. Initially they had gotten some good notice. I'm pretty sure I read they were taken down in January 2007, but Sam Stein at HuffPo noticed they were gone in September 2007 when he was working on a tech story and soon after the rumors started. And when he asked to view them, he was given a really hard time by the campaign. Eventually they gave into pressure, but he had to be accompanied by campaign staff when he saw them. If it were a matter of quality, I don't see it happening this way. They might have just said the webisodes turned out to be shit and asked Stein to let it go, but they were nervous and, as it turns out, with good reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/26/edwards-mystery-innocuous_n_66070.html

[LisaL]

59. Hah? Who thought they were the greatest thing since slice bread?

[Adelante]

66. I remember being lectured at the time on how I was an elitist

I had said the videos looked amateurish without the controlled edginess that really good realistic videos exhibit. I didn't see how fabuloso it was that JE was being shown as a "real person" was the claim. Or some shit. :shrug:

[walldude]

3. So we're not going to investigate torture....

but John Edwards affair? That's an affront to humanity! Start the investigations! Spend millions! Special Prosecutors! Trials! Hearings! :puke:

[pocoloco]

4. To the fullest extent of the law!

Evidently you do not realize what damage this could have caused!

[MADem]

7. This is an FBI investigation, not one emanating from DOJ. Apples/oranges. nt

[merh]

19. Bullshit, the investigative arm of the DOJ is the FBI.

When the FBI "has evidence" they go to the DOJ with it and the DOJ asks the federal judge to convene a grand jury so that they, the DOJ, can present the FBI's evidence to that grand jury.

[MADem]

21. OK, so Frank Perry is a big fat liar...or a bullshitter. What's his motive?

Frank Perry spent 22 years with the FBI and is familiar with political corruption cases. He's now retired and works for a non-profit in downtown Raleigh called - the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service.
While the feds are not commenting on the investigation, Perry explained to Eyewitness News how the case will proceed.
"It is the FBI that makes a determination of that allegation, to see if it's credible, specific and coherent enough to proceed," he said. "I think many people wrongly believe US attorneys generate public corruption cases, but the initiation, the vetting, the working of the case, the FBI is driving that train and it's done with a true abundance of caution, fairness, and you want to be as firm and fast as you are fair."

[merh]

25. The DOJ is the one that the FBI goes to when trying to determine

what charges to file, how to pursue the investigation (what laws might be broken). Perry is talking like all cops do, as if they have some certain expertise of the law and know all there is. He shoots himself in the foot, proves how little he understands the law, when he states that "honest services" apply to Edwards. Go look it up, you will see that "honest services" is associated with public office and/or good government.

[MADem]

31. Yes, so? They're still investigating. When they've concluded their investigation,

they'll do that.

What's your point? Why are you so pissed off? Why do you object to an investigation that is plainly merited?

Your attitude towards this matter is .... overly invested.

You seem to be forgetting that there was a federal presidential campaign manager involved in all this, who was a guardian of federal presidential campaign funds that may have been transferred by wire across state lines. There's also a federally tax-exempt charitable fund to ostensibly benefit the poor that may, or may not, have been used to funnel money to this paramour of his.

I sure don't "get" how you can view the funneling of campaign contributions, or the laundering of money through a federal presidential campaign bank account or a charitable account set up to benefit the poor, as anything other than corrupt, and quite the opposite of "good government."

They got Jack Abramoff on "honest services." The law has way more leeway than you seem to believe it has. I think you're the one who needs to "go look it up," actually.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060112/news_1n12compare.html

[merh]

34. My point is, the DOJ oversees the criminal investigations of the FBI

It is not "apples and oranges" as you state - the FBI is the investigative arm of the DOJ and it coordinates with the other federal agencies when pursuing criminal investigations (eg DEA, SS ). According to the South Carolina papers, U.S. Attorney George Holding, based in Raleigh, is conducting the investigation (he has that investigative arm, the FBI, working for him).

I don't get how paying for video equals funneling campaign funds, even if the video sucks. Where did the money come from, was it a campaign fund and/or a PAC (different rules apply to the use and reporting of the money).

[MADem]

37. Read the quote. It says what it says. This investigation is a ground-up, not a top-down, exercise.

Get off the "video." That's only a small part of the total issue.

Get on the purchase of a HOUSE for a woman without any resources or employment, arranged by a (dead) campaign manager. Get on payments of eight, ten, fifteen thousand bucks at a crack, by this same dead guy. Take off the blinders. Get real. The hundred and fourteen grand for the stupid videos is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Fumesucker]

52. $114,000 ... ... .. . .. $12,000,000,0000,000

One alleged fraud is getting investigated, the other is probably not..

Which one is really more important and more harmful to US citizens?

[MADem]

53. Probably, eh? And of course, if one thing is "worse" than another,

then the "less worse" thing should be ignored--is that your logic?

While we're investigating that "worse" thing, we'll ignore the fact that your house got robbed or your car got stolen....because that's "less important," eh?

Many people actually can walk and chew gum at the same time. Many, too, can hold more than a single idea in their heads.

[Fumesucker]

54. Ever had the cops "investigate" a burglary or car theft?

It's pathetic..

And if you think the twelve trillion pumped into the financial sector is going to be actually investigated I have a great deal on some pre-owned bridge property in New York. Small, unmarked bills only.

[MADem]

58. There you go again. Tell ya what, let's not bother doing ANYTHING at all.

Let's just give up, regard any effort at all as "pathetic," hold no one to any standard, ever, because any investigation is insufficient, not good enough, won't happen....

Those that can, do. Those that can't, or won't, whine.

[Fumesucker]

70. Edwards is getting investigated

What you say we continue this conversation when the 12 billion that has gone to the financial sector gets as vigorously investigated?

I won't be holding my breath though.

[MADem]

72. The two aren't linked. At all. Why try to make them so? The point is not made.

Again...walking and chewing gum. It can be done. It often is.

[Fumesucker]

73. But I predict that the government will not "walk and chew gum"..

I frankly don't give a flying goddamn about Edwards, I give a great big goddamn about the twelve billion.

Apparently your priorities are somewhat different.

It's clear that sexual improprieties that really don't make much difference to the average American will be investigated to a fare thee well while nefarious financial goings on that affect every one of us in a major way fly under the investigatory radar.

The Edwards thing is a distraction from what is truly important.

[MADem]

74. That is a separate discussion, though. I predict the government will not land a man on

Mars in the next year, either. That, too, has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

What you are saying, in essence, is that because YOU "don't give a goddamn," then no one else should be permitted to, either. Not terribly progressive, that "do as I say" attitude. See, I'm not telling you that you should attend to this matter to the exclusion of any other. You, OTOH, are saying the precise inverse.

Further, you're trying to falsely insist that my "priorities are somewhat different" because I reject your effort to compare your 12 billion apples to this Edwards campaign finance orange.

I can direct my attention to more than a single issue without much difficulty at all. It's not that hard, really. Most people can. You might try it sometime.

Oh, and if you really want to talk about that 12 billion? Start a thread on it. I'm sure you'll get a few takers to discuss the subject in a great deal of depth if you frame your opening post in compelling and interesting fashion. Running around crapping on topics that you don't care to discuss is not the way the have a real and substantive discussion on an issue you pretend, er, claim, to care about.

And if you're unmotivated, unwilling, or unable to start a thread discussion on what you insist is your favored subject, and these discussions continue to upset you, HIDE THREAD is your friend.

[Fumesucker]

77. It's called "compare and contrast"..

The Edwards thing is a sideshow designed to distract and it seems to be working as intended.

I don't tell you or anyone else what and where to post, why do you feel the need to tell me what I may and may not post?

[MADem]

78. No it isn't. It's called "Try, and fail, to shut down discussion on a small, progressive discussion

board of this particular topic." No mysterious "they" is trying to "distract" and their nefarious plan is "working as intended." That's, well, paranoid. A bit sad, too.

If you're that easily distracted by these mysterious evil geniuses, that's a separate issue entirely, and it's a problem you'll have to deal with.

You might want to reread your scolding posts. You sure are transmitting "Don't talk about this" to the average reader, even if you don't think that is what you are doing. How many posts have you dedicated to "Sideshow" or "Distraction" or "We should be talking about something else?"

Every single comment of yours is on those lines. That said, no one is telling you to stop your continuous complaints--simply pointing them out.

Your goal is plainly to disrupt discussion--and that's your issue, too. It's certainly instructive to see you roll it on out.

[Fumesucker]

79. How am I trying to shut down discussion?

I haven't told anyone what to post or what not to post, unlike you.

I'm just expressing my own opinion, something which apparently annoys you greatly.

Although I liked a great deal of what Edwards had to say, my personal opinion of him was that I would have been mildly surprised to find out unequivocally that he *wasn't* screwing around on the side, he was just too attractive, too wealthy and too glib and smooth.

I also have my own deeply personal reasons for disliking dishonest adulterers and adultery so I'm far from defending Edwards on that count.

An open relationship is another story though, but apparently that is not what the Edwards' had.

[MADem]

82. By complaining about matters that have nothing to do with the topic.

Even though there are plenty of threads on the topic you're griping about in which to vent your annoyance.

Of course, you already know the answer to your question. You're not "expressing" your "own opinion," you're frantically trying to change the subject by denigrating the worthiness of the topic.

I imagine if you and your spouse donated twenty eight grand to this guy's campaign, you might find his conduct a bit more troubling. I'm guessing even the small donors, who gave up desserts or that trip to the movies to give JE twenty five, fifty, a hundred bucks, and the grassroots campaign workers, who gave of their time and energy...those "kitchen table" people probably feel pretty screwed over, too.

[Kansas Wyatt]

5. Like I've said before....

There are/were major banks headquartered in North Carolina. Wouldn't it be wiser for the Feds to investigate what the Hell went on inside these banks for the last eight years, rather than investigating a 'has been & never will be again' to see if his girlfriend delivered "honest services" to his campaign?

Did all of the major banks headquartered in North Carolina and their officers deliver "honest services" to their customers, stockholders, and their contracts before their collapse?

[merh]

8. He wasn't a public official - he was a private citizen running for office

The FBI has been out to get Edwards for years, what's the name of the lawyer they charged and tried because of campaign donations to Edwards? The man was acquitted, but he is not the only one they went after. They tried to get Minor for his donations to Edwards, it is one of the reasons they went after him - his support of the dem candidates.

How can a private citzen be charged with "honest service" fraud?

And honest service fraud is federalism at its worse, even the conservative justice, Scalia, has issues with it.

his Court has long recognized the“basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 350 (1964). There is a serious argument that §1346 is nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct. But "the notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today," Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 476 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and for good reason. It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail. “How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Rybicki, supra, at 160 (Jacobs, J., dissenting).

. . .

It may be true that petitioners here, like the defendants in other “honest services” cases, have acted improperly. But “ad men, like good men, are entitled to be tried and sentenced in accordance with law.” Green v. United States, 365 U. S. 301, 309 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). In light of the conflicts among the Circuits; the longstanding confusion over the scope of the statute; and the serious due process and federalism interests affected by the ex-pansion of criminal liability that this case exemplifies, I would grant the petition for certiorari and squarely confront both the meaning and the constitutionality of §1346. Indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail.

http://volokh.com/posts/1235428800.shtml

[KittyWampus]

12. He was a private citizen taking money from the public while running for public office

And you are smart enough to know that.

[merh]

17. I'm smart enough to read the OP and to reply to comments in same.

He actually was campaigning for office. He thought he had a chance - his obtaining money was not a scheme to defraud and he was not a public official so honest services isn't an element of the offense. Did she supply the videos? If she didn't then the gov has a shot, if she did then how is it that his paying her for the videos was some scheme?

There is nothing that I know of in the campaign laws that tells the candidate that they must go for the cheapest videographer. Are you aware of any bidding requirements?

[MADem]

22. Who supplied the HOUSE that was bought for her in California? What money paid for that?

What money paid for the hotels she met her babydaddy in?

There's more than videography happening here.

[merh]

24. He is a millionaire

He didn't need the campaign money.

Was she wearing a blue dress?

[MADem]

27. Sometimes rich people are awfully cheap. That's how they got to be rich.

They make hay with OPM-Other People's Money.

A famously cheap person was John Kennedy--he'd stick his poorer pals with the bill, often as not. He was known for that failing in his youth.

She was probably not wearing much of anything at all.

[merh]

30. You are so out of your league

Go do some home work on honest services fraud, it might be interesting for you. I know it would be informative.

[MADem]

32. I think you're the one who needs to stop doing the insulting, and start doing the research.

You plainly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not out of my league, you're out of yours.

I provided a link that is instructive elsewhere in this thread. You need to go back to school because your understanding of the statute is misguided.

I remain curious as to why you feel the need to be so confrontationally snarky about this matter, to the point that you're compelled to insult me because I don't share your opinion.

[merh]

36. It is you that has been confrontational.

And you haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You could at least check the Raliegh papers to find out who is conducting the investigation before you spout your "apples and oranges" nonsense. That, like Perry's "honest services" claims, simple shows how uninformed your unreasonable opinions are.

[MADem]

38. You haven't a clue, you're out of your league...and you call ME confrontational?

Please. You've been nothing but snarky, rude and dismissive--and factually inaccurate, too. When you don't have an answer, you have either tossed an insult, brought up Monica Lewinsky, or complained that this investigation is a waste of money. Your opinions, though, are not controlling. Good thing.

My quote from the retired FBI agent was, in fact, from a Raleigh news outlet--WTVD. Go on, go check it.

We all know who the FBI works for--your didactic attitude notwithstanding.

And my opinions, that you dislike, are grounded in fact and law, not wishful thinking or unreasonable anger.

[merh]

42. You have stated no law or fact to support your position.

As a matter of fact, the circuits are so divided on 18 USC 1346 that it is uncertain as to what applies, is there a need to prove a violation of state law before honest service mail fraud can prevail?

You have misstated facts and ignored the law. You don't have the answers because you don't know which fund the payments were made from. Were they his campaign funds or some PAC associated with the campaign? Where they some non-profit or the campaign or some PAC? You don't know.

He had an affair with the woman, she did the videography and was paid for her services. That is about the extent of what is known about this matter.

Again, I wish you and the prosecutors would put your energies toward pursuing the tortures and the war criminals. Shout away all you like. I find posting with you comical, you make me laugh out loud.

[MADem]

44. I've provided you with three links, at least. Why don't you read them?

I have not misstated facts, nor have I ignored the law. Please take the time to read the links I have provided you.

And, for the third or fourth time--get OFF the videos. If you took the videos out of the equation, the guy is still in trouble. There's the matter of a house in California, payments to this woman, all made through his campaign financial manager. Stop ignoring that.

The links I provided, that you apparently don't want to read, have those answers you erroneously claim I don't have.

Your attempts at misdirection won't work, either--first it was insults, then it was Lewinsky, then it was taxpayer dollars, and now it's torture. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know. We can do more than one single thing at a time.

I don't know why you're "laughing out loud," about this, there's nothing terribly funny about this situation. It's a tragedy for the terminally ill Mrs. Edwards, and a humiliation for her children. And it's a cautionary tale for hubris laden politicians who think they're above the law, too.

[merh]

47. I have read your links, they are tabloid press or news articles

or, my favorite, a biochemist that sees corruption everywhere he turns.

Your links have people's opinions and are not legal precedence - they are like the torture memos, written with a slant.

[MADem]

50. Now you don't like the links. What's next?

A tabloid broke this story, or perhaps you've forgotten that. The NYT has been known to lie.

I guess the TV station serving Raleigh makes shit up, too.

Whatever. You're determined to tut-tut and pooh-pooh, for reasons known only to you. This case will press forward nonetheless.

[merh]

56. I challenge your absolutes and your understanding of the facts

and the law. Hell, I challenge your "facts" and discover that the media is what you rely on. The media makes mistakes and only report what is given to them. They write the stories to get coverage, not for accuracy or out of concern for the facts.

There is no doubt the investigation will continue, fools are easily distracted from what is important by stories like the gutter rides of celebrities.

[MADem]

60. You aren't challenging anything. You're simply complaining that you don't "like" my cites.

A challenge involves a rebuttal. "Waaaah, that sucks!" is not a rebuttal.

The media is what I rely on, eh? And you rely on, what, exactly? Voices in your head? Divine understanding that makes itself known only to you? Pretty much everyone here, not on medication, relies on "the media" to some extent. You're just being silly, now. And name-calling doesn't make your weak retorts any stronger.

If you "are easily distracted,"--and apparently, you are, since you keep focusing on that aspect-- by all means limit your input--most of us, as I've said, can walk and chew gum simultaneously.

[merh]

61. LOL, you just don't get it.

My comment regarding "fools" simple provides my understanding as to why the Edwards investigation will continue. But by all means, if the name fits you, then wear it and be sensitive to it. It is you that is distracted, the biggest distraction for you is that someone dare to challenge you.

[MADem]

64. Oh, I get it. Your method of "debate" is to snark, whine and insult.

Beyond that, you've not done much if anything.

[dionysus]

71. nice pwnage

:thumbsup:

[MADem]

76. Thank You! nt

[rainbow4321]

45. The Dem lawyer from Dallas who died recently

Provided some of the money. I'll google the info when I get home but didn't some of Edwards' money go thru the lawyer and to his mistress? There was some huge connection and questionable money flow between the Dallas lawyer, Edwards, and the mistress at the time. But as I said, the lawyer died (cancer) so some answers the feds are looking for may have gone to the grave with him.

[MADem]

46. The dead guy worked on Edwards' campaign--he managed the money.

If Edwards used campaign money, or even kited money through the campaign accounts/hid the payments in campaign accounts, and called, faxed, emailed, IM'd, or wired the lawyer/campaign manager and said "Get this money and give it to Babymama" he's in hot water.

I don't think he'll get much help from his girlfriend, either--she's pissed off: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_mistress_rielle_hunter_dna_test_love_child/celebrity/66637

[TeeYiYi]

75. Without taking sides . . .

. . . I'm gong to suggest that it may come down to intent.

TYY

[MADem]

13. Hello? Campaign finance laws?

Simply put:

The feds are investigating whether former Sen. John Edwards broke any laws - besides those of decency - when he cheated on his dying wife with a campaign staffer.

The US attorney apparently wants to know if the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate paid off mistress Rielle Hunter by siphoning cash from his campaign war chest or programs he set up to help the poor.....Edwards' former campaign finance director, Fred Baron, said he bought Hunter a house in California and also made payments to Young. He claimed Edwards didn't know about the payoffs. Baron died last year.

Campaign finance laws bar candidates from spending donations on personal expenses....."I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in a statement to the newspaper.

....Former Edwards donors told the Charlotte Observer they were disgusted that he might have used their cash to carry on or hush up a fling.

"If they were stealing money to cover up John's personal failings, it is profoundly disappointing," said San Francisco attorney Jim Finberg, who continuted $25,000 to an Edwards fund. "My heart goes out to Elizabeth Edwards. I am sorry this is how she has to spend her last days on earth and how their children will remember their father."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/03/2009-05-03_feds_eye_john_edwards_use_of_.html#ixzz0EqPBjIUT&B

[merh]

15. Hey, did you read the OP? I did

Perry is not connected to the Edwards investigation, but says political corruption cases focus on a federal law - called “honest services fraud”.

They don't have a shot in hell - he can choose whoever it is he wants to pay to do the videos for his campaign. There is no "bidding" requirement, "no lowest price, best bid" hook the gov can claim he ignored.

Did she provide the services? If so, they are just wasting my tax dollars to continue their efforts to destroy Edwards.

He doesn't need their help, he did an adequate job on his own.

[MADem]

16. What about the money for the fund for the poor that may have been diverted?

If I charge you ten grand for a pair of my stinky socks, is that payment made for value received? Wouldn't a sensible person think "Hmmmmm, that smells--aside from the stinky feet odor--like MONEY LAUNDERING to me?"

Have you seen the videos? A high school kid could have done better. They're not worth a hundred bucks, never mind over a hundred grand.

She provided "the services," all right. But those videos were a cover for the services she was providing.

If the government doesn't investigate this, then you can't say shit when a Republican administration fails to investigate malfeasance in their party. You can't even gripe about it. You will just have to sigh, sit back, and say "Oh well, they all do it."

I think we should hold all politicians, no matter what party, to a higher standard. If they cheat or game the system, let it rip.

[merh]

18. LOL, the government doesn't investigate torturers

I'd rather they go after those thugs than to continue with their witch hunt of Edwards.

[MADem]

20. You're playing the apples and oranges game. The "if one, then not the other" routine.

Why not do both? Neither investigation is "done" yet, but you're already envisioning worst-case scenarios.

[merh]

23. Because, Edwards having an affair is not worthy of federal investigation

Just like Clinton's infidelities didn't warrant a special prosecutor and/or impeachment.

He ran for office, he didn't defraud a soul. His campaign gets to decide who they pay for what services. Just because they are not the top of the line services doesn't make the payment for same a crime.

Apples and oranges. Go do some homework on the likes of republicans that violated campaign laws, like US Attorney Lampton bid for office before he was appointed to US Attorney by Bush. Campaign law violations afford the candidate the opportunity to repay the money not properly spent, they don't automatically call for felony charges and/or the waste of taxpayer dollars to investigate the candidate and to judge his spending.

[MADem]

28. Not "worthy?" How much campaign cash did Clinton spend on Monica--remind me, now?

"He didn't defraud a soul." Really? How do you know? How do you know where the money that his dead campaign manager used to buy this woman a house came from? How do you know where the ten and fifteen grand payments that this guy funneled to her over the course of the last few years originated? Did you have access to the books, is that it? Your posts are so authoritative, that's the impression you're creating.

We're not just talking about a single payment for a crappy set of videos, here. There's much more going on than that. If you paid attention to the whole tale, instead of putting your fingers in your ears and screeching "No, no, no!" you'd see that.

And don't tell me to "go do some homework" either. What did I say about politicians? I don't care what party they come from. No one is "exempt." Two wrongs don't make a right, either. If they spend donor funds on hankypanky, the horses, or fur coats for the wife, I have a fucking problem with that.

You're the only one who's whining about "felony charges" and/or "the waste of taxpayer dollars." For all you know, he could end up being fined if (and we can't know unless we investigate) he's found guilty. I'd say a good "fine" would be, oh, the cost of the investigation, plus a hundred grand, give or take. That would work for me.

Like it or not, this is a news story. It's more of one because Mrs. Edwards has decided to go on OPRAH and talk about it, and sell a book about it. Stop trying to be the gatekeeper of what people may, or may not, discuss. HIDE THREAD is your friend, you might want to use it before you blow a gasket.

[merh]

29. LOL, campaign funds, how about taxpayer dollars

that is when "honest services" come into play. Taxpayer dollars misused to hire or promote.

Blow a gasket? LOL, what is wrong, can you not handle reasoned debate or dissent? You are the one that needs to hide a thread, you can't handle the truth and/or a reasonable discussion of the law. You think yourself some expert on all things political and you are not even close.

:rofl:

[MADem]

35. There you go again. You're determined, because you don't like this subject, to

grasp at straws to find reasons to shut this discussion down, even stooping to poorly executed snark. You're wrong about the "taxpayer dollars" too.

I'm betting if it were George Bush funneling money through a PAC for the poor, or a campaign bank account, to a girlfriend, you'd be on the ramparts demanding his head.

Instead, you pooh-pooh, tut-tut, toss stupid and really, pretty childish, insults, and use the little :rofl: man....like that makes your argument compelling.

Sorry, it doesn't. It makes your argument rather pathetic and your POV immature.

The statute is a short one: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." ....To prove wire fraud under the statute, the government must show that the defendants planned to deprive citizens of honest services, it must show intent, and it must show that defendants used or caused someone else to use the mail or a wire communication – such as a telephone – to carry out the plan, according to a book of standard jury instructions published by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.


If DNA demonstrates that the child is his, the difficulty of proving "intent" goes out the window, too.

[merh]

39. Wrong - one has to prove that the services he paid for were not

provided. She did the video tapes and the filming, they existed. You may think they are crappy but that doesn't matter. The work was done.

[MADem]

43. No, that's not true. Get off the video tapes, too. Your fixation ignores the bigger issues.

You lack understanding of the elements of the law. All Edwards had to do was kite money through his federal campaign bank accounts, and tell his campaign chairman, either by mail, wire, phone, email, IM or blackberry, to pay her off to shut her up, and you've got element and intent.

The campaign manager arranged for the purchase of a house for that woman. She has no job. She has no income. But JE's good buddy arranged for the purchase of a house for her.

That had nothing to do with those video tapes.

The campaign manager arranged for payments of cash to be made to this woman, over and above the video money.
Repeated payments. Edwards surrogates also arranged for this woman to move from one house to another, to another.

Your "Nothing to see here, move along" attempts are falling flat. Here, do some reading--you'll be surprised at how the law is applied, I'm betting.

http://tulanelink.com/tulanelink/honestservices_09a.htm

[merh]

48. Again, giving me the link from the biochemist proves what exactly?

[MADem]

51. Complaining that you don't like the links without answering them substantively proves what, exactly?

You've got nothing, but have a nice day nonethesless.

[merh]

55. Just pointing out that a biochemist is not an expert on the law and your source is weak.

You do realize that is how one debates issues, that relying on sources leaves your sources openly to scrutiny?

[MADem]

57. You're not either, and you've not provided anything save your own complaints. nt

[merh]

62. Now who is showing that they don't read all the posts and links

provided?

LOL - poor little thing.

[MADem]

65. But I have read them. And you continue with the snark, because that's all you've got.

"LOL--poor little thing."

I'm neither poor nor little nor a thing, and you're laughing all by yourself. Knock yourself out, now.

[Taverner]

26. My guess is there is a DA who was cheated on once and wants blood

[csziggy]

33. Interesting - I had not read much about Rielle Hunter but her life has been

Very strange. What I gathered from the Wikipedia article on her:

Her father murdered show horses for insurance payoffs, including his daughter's prized show hunter. She was apparently the inspiration for a character in a book - the character was described as "an ostensibly jaded, sexually voracious 20-year-old". She also changed her name several times - born Lisa Jo Druck, also known as Lisa Hunter, Lisa Jo Hunter, and Rielle Jaya James Druck. Her film company wasn't started until July 2006 - five days before John Edwards' campaign cut the first check to it on July 6, 2006. The films were considered innovative, not necessarily in their production quality but for their use as viral marketing on YouTube. They first effectively announced Edwards' run for the Presidency before his official announcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rielle_Hunter

My thoughts - she had to be a screwed up girl to start with. To have a loved horse die would be bad enough, but to find out that her father was behind its murder would be devastating. If in real life she was anything like the character supposedly based on her, she was sexually promiscuous and pretty wild.

The timing of the formation of her film company is very suspect - as if she did not incorporate it until had an arrangement with Edwards. What kind of arrangement is of course what the speculation is about. Whether or not her films about Edwards were good is immaterial since they apparently did serve the ostensible purpose of publicizing his campaign in an innovative fashion and letting people know Edwards when he was not wearing a suit.

I wonder who introduced them, I wonder about her politics (if any) or those of the person who hooked them up. Ever since Monica Lewinsky's roommate's mother turned out to be a Republican operative, I've been suspicious of these kinds of linkages. Unfortunately some of the articles detailing their early associations are too old to still be on the internet.

[NYCGirl]

40. No matter what Hunter's politics are, no matter who "hooked them up," Edwards

always had the option of saying, "I'm flattered, but no, I'm married. Goodbye."

[csziggy]

49. Yes, I am not excusing Edwards any more than I do Clinton

But I wonder about the motivations of the people who got these men together with these women and who got the stories out. With Monica Lewinski, Linda Tripp made sure there would be evidence. How about Hunter? Was there a Tripp equivalent in her background?

[Adelante]

41. I see her as a product of her times

I lived in lower Manhattan in those years. I was older than she and her scene wasn't my scene, but the life she led - sex, drugs and rock 'n roll - was very ordinary. Every generation pours thousands of bright young things into New York City, and they get chewed up and spit out. I give her credit for getting herself off drugs by the 90s and finding her spiritual life. Again, not my scene, the New Age, but certainly one that attracted many. In cities and towns across the country young people played out the same roles as Rielle Hunter did, destructive though the behavior was, unconventional as it may appear from this era, but very ordinary in that era.

She introduced herself to him as I understand it from what Elizabeth says. But perhaps we will know Rielle side of the story at some point. I seem to remember she was never interested in politics.

[Hepburn]

63. Missing element of the crime, IMO

John Edwards was NOT a public official at the time.

[MonteLukast]

67. And...

... too many people around here assume the affair started first, and then the job.

It should be evident from Elizabeth's Time interview that it was the other way around.

[MADem]

69. Elizabeth was lied to by her husband.

He told her "It only happened once" in Dec 06, and was photographed in a hotel room occupied by Miss Druck-Hunter holding a baby in 2008.

I don't think Elizabeth's recollections are controlling, here. It could be that the affair followed, or it could be that the affair started up the video job, but the affair and the job are not the only issues here.

There's the matter of the campaign finance chair feeding this woman money. There's the matter of that same good friend of JE arranging the purchase of a home for her. There's the matter of several payments of cash to her, over and above the video money. There's the matter of members of Edwards' staff aiding this woman to move house and conduct other business.

It stinks. To high heaven.

[chatnoir]

84. According to one of Hunter's friends

the affair began before she was hired to do the vids:

Pidgeon O'Brien: Aside from having the best kiddie-porn name ever, O'Brien is notable because she was one of the many friends Hunter spoke with regarding her affair with Edwards. Rielle told her that "the affair began long, long, long before she was hired to work for the campaign, almost half a year before she was hired to work on those videos," O'Brien told ABC News. According to O'Brien, they were having sex during that time, and that's how she got hired. This "friend" of Rielle's can also be blamed for sharing with the world the most dreadful pet name we've ever heard for a presidential candidate: "love lips."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/08/rielle_hunters_cabal_of_crazy.html

[MADem]

85. Uh oh. That makes the situation worse, still.

That nickname is just ghastly, too. What WAS he thinking? How could he have possibly been that ... stupid?

For under forty bucks, you can run a background check on someone--you'd think he would have gotten a little info on this woman before he entered into a relationship with her. I think the nitwit started to believe his own publicity.

The whole thing is just...icky.




I thought the curious payments of fifteen grand a month were stange enough, and the expensive house, too. This woman certainly knows how to pull strings, it would seem:

Hunter is being paid a reported $15,000 per month by Edwards' former campaign finance boss, who had originally set her up in a $3 million California house.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122008/news/nationalnews/cheat_john_is_still_lying_124045.htm

[chatnoir]

86. Only makes sense considering how amateurish the vids were

He sure didn't hire her for her skills/talent in that dept, that's for sure.

Unreal that he got involved with a flake like that, though, narcissist that he seems to be.

[MADem]

68. They got Jack Abramoff on this, too.

People erroneously believe that the "public official" bit is controlling. It's not. All you have to do is deprive the PUBLIC of honest services, and you're on the hook.

[Optical.Catalyst]

80. Don't forget, If Bush hadn't stolen the election in 2004, John Edwards would be Vice President

If John Edwards was seated as Vice President, none of this would have happened.

[Adelante]

81. How does this apply to the OP?

I'm not sure what your getting at.

[Chisox08]

83. So the Feds are investigating sex again but not torture?