The case against John Edwards

I can't say it enough.   I was wrong about John Edwards, and I am embarrassed that I did not see through his character flaws that brought him down.

John Edwards is a cad of the first order -- but apparently only in the circumscribed area of narcissistic susceptibility to flattery and attention from certain women, to his own feelings of transcendent 'being in love,' and to his blindness in thinking he could get away with it.

The crusading lawyer seeking justice for the underdog, the philanthropist who worked to combat the effects of poverty, and the political campaigner who almost caught on with his "Two Americas" economic populist message -- all of that is also John Edwards, and I still believe that was real.

Like Bill Clinton, John Edwards is one of those men who can do great good, and who can also be very reckless in his behavior in some area of narcissistic vulnerability.

I am still not ready to forgive Edwards for the risk in which he placed the Democratic Party and the whole liberal movement.    What if he had gotten the Democratic nomination for president, without the affair coming out?   And then, two weeks before the election, it did come out?

Sarah Palin would be in her fourth year as Vice President of the United States.   This shows poor judgment of the first order -- at least in this circumscribed area when he personal feelings and narcissistic blindness are involved.   But that is a real risk for a public figure at the level of the presidency.

All this is background to how I'm viewing the ongoing trial of John Edwards on campaign finance violations for not reporting the near $1 million given by two wealthy donors to take care of the mistress problem.

The prosecutors are slogging through day after day of testimony from Edwards' aides about the details of the affair, the effect on Elizabeth Edwards when she found out, etc.

But what does all this have to do with the crime he is charged with:   campaign finance violations?   Those questions come down to this:   (1)  Did these monies actually amount to campaign donations?   (2)  Did Edwards knowingly misuse, or cause others to misuse, campaign donations?

The first question is highly debatable.   Nobody questions that the money was intended to take care of the mistress' expenses and to keep her from talking to the media.   But was this to avoid destroying the campaign or to keep Edwards' wife from finding out?   He says the latter.   The money never went into campaign accounts.   The donors understood they were helping with Edwards personal expenses.

The second question is also highly debatable.   Both Andrew Young and his wife have testified that Edwards told each of them that he had been told by those he believed knew the law that the funds were not campaign contributions.

The government will have to prove (1) that they were in fact campaign contributions and (2) that Edwards knew this and willfully misused what he knew to be campaign funds.

Proving both is unlikely.  So the prosecution is trying to convict Edwards bv swaying the jury emotionally against him.   Portray him as the cad that he was, even dragging his now-dead wife's public humiliation into the record.

I have to admit that I want John Edwards to pay for what he did and for the risk he put the country in.   But isn't this a bit of overkill, dragging all the sordid details of the affair and the wife's humiliation into it?

It really has no bearing on the alleged crime.    Does it mean that the government knows it can't prove the allegations, so it is falling back on the cheap shot of prejudicing the jury so emotionally against Edwards that they will have a hard time acquitting?

Probably.

Ralph