football league and pick'ems for the coming football season.
New members, so if you'd like to join the fun, go to:
User Control Panel - -» Usergroups tab, and join Sports Fans.
Otherwise, you can't see the sports forums.
As always, you can dismiss this announcement after reading.
I don't think that's what the indictment is about. She DID work for the campaign at some point early on as a videographer, and I don't know whether campaign funds were used to pay her. But I think the indictment is for payments made to her after she was pregnant, at least in theory to pay for medical & living expenses, albeit at a rate generous enough to deter her from disclosing the true facts of paternity.Here's a link to the full text of the indictment:[/break1]documentcloud.org/documents/111562-john-edwards-indictment.html]http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... tment.html
Could there be some difference because she theoretically worked for the campaign? Just curious.
He'll have his opportunity to make that argument. Of course, if a corporation did it, it would be freedom of speech to do that.
I was talking to my boss about this very thing this morning and he says that as much as a scumbag that Edwards was he does not believe that he broke the law. He does not see how having a third party pay off your mistress to keep things quiet is a "campaign contribution". Of course his explanation to me was much more colorful because that is just the way he is but the bottom line was Edwards did not break the law.
Should someone running for President have to get a bowl cut? I think someone running for President is likely to spend more on looking Presidential than someone who is not, and that is a legitimate campaign expense. Perhaps Edwards, being something of a fop, has less claim to such an expense, but I don't see it as wholly illegitimate. On the other issue of apparently getting donations to cover up the affair, it seems rather linked to the campaign. After all, if his personal scandal got out, it would nuke the campaign out of existence. If a third party was donating to keep the campaign from imploding with a scandal by providing funds to someone who also worked with the campaign, it seems to violate campaign finance laws to me, at least arguably. A jury might not buy it.If Edwards opts for a judge, though, I would suspect Britty is right. If Edwards can do anything well, it's play to a jury, so if he's guilty as hell, that will be his preferred option. If the law is actually strongly on his side, he would figure that out and prefer a judge.
The haircuts weren't a legit campaign expense either. As I recall, they were a personal expense that mistakenly was paid by the campaign, and Edwards picked up his own haircut bill after that. Whether or not Bunny Mellon actually paid for future haircuts- - I don't see how that could be deemed a campaign expenditure, given that the man would have to cut his hair from time to time whether or not he was running for President.
It seems that Edwards' strategy will have to be that he took $900,000 for the purpose of avoiding the detection of his wife, rather than for the purpose of influencing the election. Good luck with that, John.
The term “contribution” includes—(i) [highlight]any gift[/highlight], subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money [highlight]or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office[/highlight]; or(ii) the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.
IN a devastating act of ultimate revenge, a dying Elizabeth Edwards recorded a bombshell secret videotape for prosecutors – nailing her cheating husband John as he will stand trial on charges that could land him behind bars for 30 years.
That’s the stunning secret behind the federal indictment brought against the disgraced former presidential candidate on June 3 – following a two-year grand jury investigation into whether he illegally used campaign funds to cover up his affair with his then-pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter.
“Elizabeth wanted to exact revenge against John for destroying their 33-year marriage and family by cheating with Rielle,” source close to the scandal told ENQUIRER.
“It was Elizabeth’s idea to secretly record a video and tell what she knew of the affair and John’s horrific betrayal.”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests