The intersection of politics, the law and the mass media is where I have spent a good part of my professional career. John Edwards could certainly say the same thing, especially these days.
Our careers have overlapped on a couple of occasions. We served in the Senate together where there was nothing much in the way of personal interaction to speak of. He wasn’t that kind of guy. Maybe I wasn’t either. Perhaps, even more to the heart of the matter, it’s not that kind of Senate anymore.
Besides, it was also obvious that the Senate was just a political way station for the ambitious young Edwards. I always thought that these were the kind of guys who made it so difficult to accomplish anything of long-term benefit to the country. I suppose I exempt myself from this destructive obsession because I had no thought or desire to run for president in those days. That particular malady came over me later.
A few years later, each of us having tried our hand at national politics and the public having responded, “Thanks, but no thanks,” we found ourselves both represented by the same speakers’ agency, Harry Walker in New York. The agency used to pair us together in sort of a debate format. Again, not much interaction, everything civil but no drink after the event. (At least now I know that wasn’t just me. The boy had a lot on his hands).
I Just Didn’t Know John
In retrospect, one of those nights on the road sticks out. We were to meet in Nova Scotia to speak to a group; as I arrived, the news in the U.S. was full of the National Inquirer story about Edwards and his love child. Rumors of the story had been circulating for days. I wondered if he would show up for our speaking engagement. No need to worry. He showed up with one of his kids and acted like he didn’t have a care in the world. We did our thing, and if he was worried, it surely didn’t show. The subject of the story didn’t come up, but I concluded that nobody could pull off such a performance if the story were true. Which just goes to show that I just didn’t know John.
A lot has happened since then. After a long investigation, he now sits in a federal courtroom in North Carolina, charged with federal criminal offenses that could get him up to 30 years, although a likely sentence would be much less. The crux of the charges against him is that he and his political campaign organization accepted campaign contributions totaling almost $1 million over the legal limit.
Edwards’ defense is that the money was not for the campaign, but to be used to provide assistance to his mistress and their child and as a way to keep it from Edward’s dying wife. When your defense sounds an awful lot like a prosecutor’s brief, you’re in trouble. Edwards’ does, and Edwards is.
Without dwelling upon the obvious as to Edwards’ long list of misdeeds, let’s just say that through his own actions he has turned himself into one of the most unsympathetic public figures in modern times. (Frankly, long before all of this, I always thought his demagogic “Two Americas” campaign theme was just short of a capital offense.) But, having said all of that, I’m not sure he is guilty of the offenses charged and I’m not at all convinced that he should have ever been charged.
Where Do You Draw the Line?
I think it’s fair to say that conduct like Edwards’ was far from the minds of those who drafted the campaign-finance law in question. The typical case is one where the money goes to the campaign. If it is in an amount that is over the limit, it’s a clear violation. Or the candidate takes money legally given and misappropriates it for his own personal use. In the Edwards case, however, the money never came into the campaign.
The prosecutor’s theory is that the money to take care of the mistress, spent outside the campaign, still had a campaign purpose. It would have certainly hurt the campaign if the affair had become known, but where do you draw the line? Must the subject of the activity covered up have hurt the campaign a little or a lot? What about payments by a candidate’s family friend to treat and keep from public view the candidate’s child who has a drug problem? Should the family friend have been a friend for, say, ten years in order for it to not be considered a contribution? No one knows. There is no precedent.
Law and Morality
When the legal basis for a prosecution is murky and you have a very unpopular defendant, a prosecutor must be especially careful and show restraint. He must leave the unpopularity factor out of the equation. Look at what happened in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. The special prosecutor quickly indicted, while being showered with praise in the media. That prosecution now looks weaker with every newly discovered fact.
Of course Zimmerman was unpopular for a different reason than Edwards, but that’s not the point. One time the defendant may be an immoral jerk. The next time he may be unpopular simply because of the side of the political debate he is on. I’ve seen that happen, too. I believe that Scooter Libby would never have been indicted (in Washington, D.C.) had he not been Dick Cheney’s right-hand man. The rule of law is the bedrock of a free society. Unfortunately, it sometimes falls victim to those entrusted the most with its defense: prosecutors.
The prohibitions of the law and those of morality are not always the same. However, the law is similar to morality in that its proper application is most important when it’s most difficult. Such as when applying it to a fellow like John Edwards.
- Fred Thompson
Good on you for writing this. I deal with a lot of campaigns, campaign finance and compliance with FEC regs. The base charge here, non-reporting of a campaign contribution ($1 million) never passed the smell test. There may be a conviction on a false statement or something like that but these charges should have never been brought because as you say the money never came into the campaign.
where are you when we need you, Fred? a voice in the wilderness speaking with logic and commonn sense…extremely rare these days! God bless you!
While I abhor John Edwards and his sleaze affair, this thoughtful article explains why even the most morally reprehensible act is often not criminal, too bad the public can’t bring a class action against Edwards for being a narcissistic sleaze ball.
Thompson’s analysis is even-handed and well-reasoned. I understand the murkiness of the situation, including the weakness of the charges. I posit, however, that Thompson got to the nub of the matter: Edwards clearly is a sociopath, and his departed wife’s fate has to rest heavy on the mines of the jurors. Does Edwards deserve to languish in prison? Maybe not. Does he deserve to burn in hell? In my opinion, yes!
….Well stated Floyd….
Is your Phd in Theology or English?
I suspect God will take care of the latter no matter what man’s court does with the former.
I believe John Edwards to be guilty of charges. I believe George Zimmerman is being railroaded simply to quiet the loonies of the left who are trying to stir up anger before the election. That and as a way for Jesse and Al to scam some more racebaiting millions.
I agree with all of the commets on this subject of Mr. Sleaze ball Edwards. He may ask the Lord for forgiviness for the acts of adultry that he has commited. But as to weather he will be in his own little space in hell is not up to anyone of us. Altho I do agree that is where he belongs. On the subject Mr. Thompson’s insight into the matter is so well that he makes the matter easy to understand as to the legal aspect of the law.
I worked in politics in Dallas. I did witness women literally trowing themselves at the male politicians. I don’t like it. I don’t approve of it; however, it does happen.
Politicians that are in the spotlight all the time will attract women. HOWEVER, these people MUST REMEMBER who what they are there for; who is always at their side to go through every failure… every success..every illness with them!
When they love themselves MORE than they love those who take care of them when they are sick…when they love the emotional strokes they get from women who they are NOT married to… they need to remember, there is another one just right around the corner to take his place.
It seems quite evident that John Edwards is indeed a sociopath. No matter how much he protests and declares his innocence, I believe he knows if he is guilty and exactly what it is, he is guilty of. Fooling some of his constituents may be child’s play for him, but rest assured that one day, he will have to face his Creator and give an account for his deeds. 1 SAMUEL 16:7 says….. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” God sees our hearts. I shudder to think of the day Edwards, as we all will someday, must stand before the Lord and be held accountable for his actions. Even if he’s acquitted by this court, he still will be judged by God.
Fred Thompson I’m afraid had become one of the “elitites”, aka “good ol’ boys”, and it is just as well he is gone as it is Edwards has mercifully been removed from the senate. RINO democrats are as bad if not worse than liberal (socialist) democrats. Prediction? Easy! Edwards will escape lady justice. This nation is no longer able to govern itself, to wit: One democrat, plus one liberal judge, equals hung jury. Edwards walks! How sad! America is soon destined to the dustbin of history because of his “ilk”, and sympathizers such as Thompson.
Correction: I meant to say RINO *republican~in~name~only”, are as detrimental to our constitution as are democrats (socialist~communist) cronies in our congress. Wake~up America! We are about to lose this once great nation, because the Edwards, Thompsons, and their ilk, in league with a dumbed down electorate, (product of humanist indoctrination in public schools), are voting our freedoms away!
If it was not campaign money, then wound he have been bound to declare that money as INCOME and pay taxes on it. (2010 the limit was $13,000). So why not charge him with tax evasion?
It seems quite evident that John Edwards is indeed a sociopath. No matter how much he protests and declares his innocence, I believe he knows if he is guilty and exactly what it is, he is guilty of. Fooling some of his constituents may be child’s play for him, but rest assured that one day, he will have to face his Creator and give an account for his deeds. 1 SAMUEL 16:7 says….. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” God sees our hearts. I shudder to think of the day Edwards, as we all will someday, must stand before the Lord and be held accountable for his actions. Even if he’s acquitted by this court, he still will be judged by God…. we should almost feel sorry for him.
We have reached the point where there are so many ways to break the law that no individual can be cognizant and avoid stumbling over something. Thus, any good prosecutor can indight anybody they wish.
Doug, your explanation of how easy it is to unknowingly break the law is naive. This character is a lawyer, a student of law, with the morals of an alley cat. I hope he gets his just due, but if not here certainly when he stands before God.
You are correct Fred. Some sins are not crimes. I think Edwards has done far worse to himself than any prosecutor could do.
I agree with the article. And with those who say while he might not have committed an illegal act, he will have to face Jesus and then he will get what is due him. Plus he has earned his humiliation from the public, to where he is one of the most scorned men on the face of the earth. Mr. Thompson’s article was measured, fair and honest, and I hate it when people who are such get condemned because they are not hard core right wingers who go over the line of rational thought to condemn anyone on the left for anything they do. Being a sleazeball is not a federal crime. Cheating on one’s dying wife is not a federal crime. The man will be held in contempt by all decent people the rest of his life and then have to face Jesus, so as far as I’m concerned, justice is done. I would like to see the man rot in prison, but he will rot in hell, and that is good enough for me. But, if he does turn around and really repent, Jesus will forgive and as much as I despise the man, if he should earnestly repent, Jesus and the angels in heaven will rejoice so I hope he does so. That would be one less for Satan to grab.
As a North Carolinian, I am ashamed of John Edwards and his immoral, unethical, possibly illegal behavior. He has been dishonest so long and fooled so many people, maybe he believes his own lies. I certainly never beieved him nor did I believe in his message which was concocted to prey on people’s feelings. I hope he gets some time in jail because we need to send a message that slick lawyers are not above the law. I believe Edwards is a narcissist like another like-minded politician we all know these days. Such a shame that our politicians are not putting the nation first…that their only care seems to be for their own notoriety and bank account. We are all losers when men like Edwards invade government. I respected F. Thompson for the stands he took on issues when he was in the Senate, but those kind of pols are hard to find these days.
Morally he is a pariah, but legally he did nothing wrong. The money in question was donated to John Edwards to do with as he saw fit. Since it was not explicitly spelled out as campaign contributions, then he is not legally guilty. From a moral stand point, he is a horrible person who cheated on his dying wife. That being said though, doesn’t mean he broke the law.
The guy was an immoral scumbag long before meeting the mother of his love child. Any lawyer who would make his name (and score millions of dollars, mostly for himself) “channeling” dead babies and blackening the reputations of innocent doctors, not to mention jacking up malpractice insurance rates that we all have to absorb is lower than your common ambulance chaser.
And his defense seems to be that he didn’t know the law — hey, the guy’s a lawyer, and since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?!
I hope that he at least gets a year, so that he spends at least a few months in prison. I’d pay good money for a photo of him in an orange jumpsuit and shoes with no laces. Or maybe a posse of ordinary citizens and taxpayers can cart him, Octomom and Casey Anthony off together and dump them on a deserted island somewhere — and forget about them!
mostly well written, and understood, but the QC guy in me saw “Besides, it was also obvious that the Senate was just a political way station for the ambitious young Edwards.” shouldn’t that be “weigh station”?
No.
way sta·tion
Noun: A stopping point on a journey
a.k.a. way point
I’ve never had fond feelings for Edwards, personally, nor politically. One thing that confounds me and many others is the total impunity that Members of Congress and various Administrations seem to have regarding not only ignoring violations of 8 USC § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.
Seemingly, our Legislatures have license to not only ignore Federal Law regarding entry into the United States, but they overtly encourage the commission of this crime via various legislation designed to enrich and sustain those aliens that have not complied with law when entering the US.
Perhaps someone, anyone, can explain why our own Federal Government is guilty of violations of US Code? Also, this is not unique to the Obama Administration.
Now I understand the issue, thanks Fred. So, the money was given to Edwards. Buit is about whether the money was given for personal or for the campaign. Then the proof as to the purpose of the donation devolved on the intention of the donor. The testimony of the donor will make or break the prosecutor’s theory that it was for the campaign, when in fact it may not. Will the prosecutor bring this case to court without proof? But, how could the prosecutor have proof until deposition , which can happen only after a court case was filed? Fear to bring this up in court will nit see the light of day on this issue. Rightly ir wrongly, the case has to follow the court system, unfortunately. But no prosecutor should divine moral connotation of any case. This is our system with all its strengths and
deficiencies. But, justice will prevail.
Direct…understandable…reasonable and rightt on the mark as usual. Anita
If it was not a campaign contribution, what was it? If it was a gift, it was income to someone. If it was income, did the person receiving the income properly report it and pay taxes on it?
Fred i right that Edwards is morally wrong, and Fred may very well be right that Edwards is not guilty of the crime he was charged with. However, if that much money was exchanged and not accounted for as income, someone may be criminally responisble to the IRS.
Why wasn’t he or his campaign aid indicted, then, for tax evasion? I’ve never seen any evidence the funds were declared as income, if they were not a campaign donation.