tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post1151327658037555657..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: John Edwards Gets Off With A MistrialFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-70956412404470670692012-06-01T11:56:20.904-07:002012-06-01T11:56:20.904-07:00First of all, based on your comment you don't ...First of all, based on your comment you don't seem to understand the concept of 'intent'. It was not a question of proving that something illegal was done,it was a question of proving that Edwards <i>knew</i> about it and sanctioned it.<br /><br />That's how Hillary Clinton got away with Whitewater. There was no question she prepared fraudulent legal documents..but because Susan McDougal and Wade Hubbel kept their mouths shut and did easy time for a few years, with the promise of a pardon and a little somethin' somethin' waiting for them at the end of it, the prosecution was unable to prove she knew the doc were fraudulent and what they were intended to be used for.<br /><br />As for wondering how the prosecutors were going to get a guilty verdict, what makes you think they wanted one? This is a wealthy, prominent Democrat being 'prosecuted' by Obama's Department of Justice. Hello! Note that the two Edwards donors involved were never deposed or made to testify..one conveniently died, and the other, a 101-year-old heiress was never required to.<br /><br />I'm also reasonably sure that a suitable donation to Obama's PAC from Edwards figured in here somewhere.It's how these people do business.<br /><br />As far as campaign finance laws, the solution is not restricting people from donating, or putting artificial limits on donations (not to mention it's unconstitutional). <br /><br />As we've seen, there are all kinds of ways to get around that, The Obama campaign's method of 'bundling' so that even house servants and minor children of wealthy Democrats can 'donate' the $2,300 maximum and their method of deliberately disabling the VISA verification software so that thousands of small donations under the $200 flag can slip in with phony names and addresses can 'donate' off of a few credit card accounts are two of them.<br /><br />The key is restricting how much can be spent, limiting TV ads and limiting the length of campaigns, as the French do.<br /><br />If you can only spend say, $200,000 in a senate race, for example, its nonsense to raise more than that, is there?Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332213651195340500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-92076738313824387042012-06-01T08:00:20.041-07:002012-06-01T08:00:20.041-07:00I'd like to think that this verdict starts a c...I'd like to think that this verdict starts a conversation about how truly insane our campaign finance laws are. Skipping the standard disclaimer about what a piece of shit Edwards is, I simply can't for the life of me understand why Mellon's campaign donation is any worse than anonymous donations, super PACS, 'I approve this message', or any of the other million byzantine campaign finance laws that are on the books. WIth the laws this convoluted, how did the prosecutors ever think they were going to get a guilty verdict?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com