PDA

View Full Version : Demacrook scumbag indicted!



pooltchr
06-03-2011, 09:14 AM
And the left will probably continue to defend him!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_edwards_investigation


Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 09:32 AM
I'm waiting for Charlotte to declare he was a repiglican.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 10:57 AM
The 'left' abandoned their support for this man when the truth came out, or before.

As someone who voted for him in the Florida primary over HRC or O, right before he dropped out of the race, for my part, I still think his message in that primary was the best one, but carry no brief for this flawed and disgraced man, personally.

Now, whether this indictment is sound or not is far from clear, and it may very well be that this should have been handled at the FEC level, as Edwards' counsel maintains.

If it is firmly based in the law as a legitimate criminal matter, then if he's CONVICTED, he deserves whatever sentence is meted out. If the indictment oversteps the facts of the case, and is thereby unwarranted, then his charge should be rebrought in the venue of proper jurisdiction (the FEC), where he should again, if CONVICTED, bear his proper penalty.

Personally, I think his getting supporters to pay hush money is not properly considered a campaign contribution, but then again, I am not an expert on election finance law. So I am content to await the results after two teams of experts make their arguments.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'left' abandoned their support for this man when the truth came out, or before.

As someone who voted for him in the Florida primary over HRC or O, right before he dropped out of the race, for my part, I still think his message in that primary was the best one, but carry no brief for this flawed and disgraced man, personally.

Now, whether this indictment is sound or not is far from clear, and it may very well be that this should have been handled at the FEC level, as Edwards' counsel maintains.

If it is firmly based in the law as a legitimate criminal matter, then if he's CONVICTED, he deserves whatever sentence is meted out. If the indictment oversteps the facts of the case, and is thereby unwarranted, then his charge should be rebrought in the venue of proper jurisdiction (the FEC), where he should again, if CONVICTED, bear his proper penalty.

Personally, I think his getting supporters to pay hush money is not properly considered a campaign contribution, but then again, I am not an expert on election finance law. So I am content to await the results after two teams of experts make their arguments. </div></div>


I don't see how asking his friend to lend him money, is a Federal Case.

I'll be interested in hearing what comes of this, particularly since, my understanding, is that he war marked by a Bush Appointed Attorney General, and we all know what THAT means.

However, I never defend those who fail to keep their marriage commitments, unless the couple has some unknown agreement, about such things.

My only feeling upon hearing this news, was how sad it would be for those children, to lose their mother, and possibly, now their father as well.

Also, interesting, No rightie here ever called any of the many, many Republican Philanderers Scum Bags, particularly whe fellow Republicans gave Vitter a standing ovation upon returning to Washington D.C.

But, we know how that goes. Repub good, Dem, bad.

G.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 11:27 AM
My use of the term scumbag when applied to Edwards goes much deeper than his latest escapades. He was our Senator for quite some time, so I have seen firsthand how he conducted himself.

This is just another in a long series of slimey actions he has made over his career.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My use of the term scumbag when applied to Edwards goes much deeper than his latest escapades. He was our Senator for quite some time, so I have seen firsthand how he conducted himself.

This is just another in a long series of slimey actions he has made over his career.

Steve </div></div>

We got it, steve.


Repub/good Dem/bad.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 11:33 AM
IOKIYAR! (It's ok if you're a Republican!)

I do not support adultery, but it is too commonplace a fact for the male of the species to make that the end-all be-all of judging a public servant's record.

Democrats at that time and the public at large mainly now give Clinton a pass in that regard, and consider his record apart from that moral transgression.

From King David's time, to FDR, to JFK, to MLK, Jr., to Jesse Jackson, male leaders have had feet of clay forever on this subject.

I'd prefer someone with such a transgression who did a good job in office to a wholly faithful man who was lousy at his job.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Whick goes back to my previous post. Regardless of his adultry, my issues with Edwards are more with his underhanded, slimy behavior as my Senator. He screwed the people of our State more than once. What he did with one bimbo is of little importance.

Before he was our senator, he was just a low life ambulance chasing lawyer with a very smarmy reputation. Looks like he continues to live up to his rep!

One of his first trips as Senator of NC was to New Hampshire. And the majority of his time in office was campaigning for the POTUS nomination. But, he didn't quit his job like Palin....he just didn't bother to do it!

He did NOT do a good job as a Senator.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IOKIYAR! (It's ok if you're a Republican!)

I do not support adultery, but it is too commonplace a fact for the male of the species to make that the end-all be-all of judging a public servant's record.

Democrats at that time and the public at large mainly now give Clinton a pass in that regard, and consider his record apart from that moral transgression.

From King David's time, to FDR, to JFK, to MLK, Jr., to Jesse Jackson, male leaders have had feet of clay forever on this subject.

I'd prefer someone with such a transgression who did a good job in office to a wholly faithful man who was lousy at his job. </div></div>

Tap Tap Tap! I do as well.

What Republicans did to this country was disgusting. A witch hunt, that cost this country a fortune, and for what?

Richard Clarke has written about how that witch hunt, negatively impacted Clinton's pursuit of bin Laden, and also what he wanted to do about Rwanda.

I've written here before, that if being faithful to ones spouse must be a prerequisite for maintaining a political office, particularly the Presidency, we'll be severely short on candidates.

However, if campaign money is used to cover up an affair, people should know about such things, and the standard legal remedy should apply, IMO.

I do find it far more hilarous, generally speaking, when it happens to someone like, say, Gingrich, right after all of his bravado and slander of Clinton, while doing the same thing himself, all along.

I think that basically, most people hate hypocrisy, more than they hate human frailties. It's the vast hypocrisy in the Republican Party, which disgusts me so much.

Heven't heard a word about the "Family Values Church" from the righies on here. Didn't see any of them bashing Craig, Colburn Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, gee, the list on the right seems to be much longer, of late. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I got it!

Repubs good, Dems bad.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[I think that basically, most people hate hypocrisy, more than they hate human frailties. It's the vast hypocrisy in the Republican Party, which disgusts me so much.

Heven't heard a word about the "Family Values Church" from the righies on here. Didn't see any of them bashing Craig, Colburn Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, gee, the list on the right seems to be much longer, of late. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I got it!

Repubs good, Dems bad.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G. </div></div>

No, you don't "got it" at all. Edwards had his dying wife by his side as he used her to gain political momentum, then used campaign funds illegally to try and keep his affair quiet. I think that qualifies as both hypocricy as well as misappropriation of funds and campaign finance fraud.

And you still need to come up with something original. The Good-Bad thing has been used to describe you for years. Are you so used to having other people tell you what to think that you are actually letting me do it now?

LMAO!!!!!!

Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 01:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My use of the term scumbag when applied to Edwards goes much deeper than his latest escapades. He was our Senator for quite some time, so I have seen firsthand how he conducted himself.

This is just another in a long series of slimey actions he has made over his career.

Steve </div></div>

You forgot to mention him channeling the dead in court for money.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 04:29 PM
I think I mentioned elsewhere that before he was in the Senate, he was a worthless ambulance chaser. I kinda felt that covered his slimy court activities.

But you are correct...he would show his a$$ for a buck!

Steve

Sev
06-03-2011, 08:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'left' abandoned their support for this man when the truth came out, or before.

As someone who voted for him in the Florida primary over HRC or O, right before he dropped out of the race, for my part, I still think his message in that primary was the best one, but carry no brief for this flawed and disgraced man, personally.

Now, whether this indictment is sound or not is far from clear, and it may very well be that this should have been handled at the FEC level, as Edwards' counsel maintains.

If it is firmly based in the law as a legitimate criminal matter, then if he's CONVICTED, he deserves whatever sentence is meted out. If the indictment oversteps the facts of the case, and is thereby unwarranted, then his charge should be rebrought in the venue of proper jurisdiction (the FEC), where he should again, if CONVICTED, bear his proper penalty.

Personally, I think his getting supporters to pay hush money is not properly considered a campaign contribution, but then again, I am not an expert on election finance law. So I am content to await the results after two teams of experts make their arguments. </div></div>


I don't see how asking his friend to lend him money, is a Federal Case.

I'll be interested in hearing what comes of this, particularly since, my understanding, is that he war marked by a Bush Appointed Attorney General, and we all know what THAT means.

However, I never defend those who fail to keep their marriage commitments, unless the couple has some unknown agreement, about such things.

My only feeling upon hearing this news, was how sad it would be for those children, to lose their mother, and possibly, now their father as well.

Also, interesting, No rightie here ever called any of the many, many Republican Philanderers Scum Bags, particularly whe fellow Republicans gave Vitter a standing ovation upon returning to Washington D.C.

But, we know how that goes. Repub good, Dem, bad.

G. </div></div>

Wonker.

LWW
06-04-2011, 02:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IOKIYAR! (It's ok if you're a Republican!)

I do not support adultery, but it is too commonplace a fact for the male of the species to make that the end-all be-all of judging a public servant's record.</div></div>

Why the deceit?

Neither Clinton nor Edwards were in legal trouble because of adultery.

They were in legal trouble because they committed illegal acts to hide it.

Qtec
06-04-2011, 03:23 AM
As S has already said, there were no illegal acts. I don't see how an outside party paying the living expenses for a candidate's mistress can be seen as a campaign contribution. Edwards never saw a penny of that money.

Q

LWW
06-04-2011, 04:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As S has already said, there were no illegal acts.

Q </div></div>

That is for a jury to decide ... although I already knew you would excuse him no matter what.

Now, back to reality, the money was paid on behalf of Edwards. It was not a loan as Edwards had more than enough wealth to do this on his own.

Edwards did not declare the money as a gift, and it was clearly given to protect his political viability.

Edwards is charged with conspiracy count in a scheme of using $925,000 in private money from others to keep his GF and love child secret. He knew details of the affair would destroy his political chances and destroy his image as a devoted family man.

He faces 4 counts knowingly accepting campaign contributions in excess of legal limits.

He faces one count of giving false statements.

All of these qualify as crimes, or else he couldn't be charged.

Sev
06-04-2011, 05:29 AM
Please dont confuse them with the facts.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 06:06 AM
If there was no deception intended, why did they go to such great lengths to hide their tracks.
One person writes a check, gives it to another person to give it to another, who has his wife make the deposit....

Wait until the evidence starts to come out. It will become obvious to the entire world except you and granny that the money was all about protecting his political campaign.

Steve

LWW
06-04-2011, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wait until the evidence starts to come out.

Steve </div></div>

What is this madness of which you speak?

If there is anything I have learned from, and about, the cabal is that if a democrook is accused no amount of evidence is sufficient for them.

Witness DSK and the foolishness that a socialist forcibly inserting his man sausage into the butt of a poor woman of color doesn't rise to the level of being called anal rape.

Also, don't forget that the same folks were swearing that al Qaeda didn' even exist until Osama was killed ... at which point they celebrated the POTUS ordering the invasion of a sovereign nation without UN approval.

As a corollary, if a conservative is accused they believe that no evidence is needed.

Witness the incessant bleating about how the Bush regime didn't out someone who wasn't a covert agent while they weren't on a foreign assignment.

Gayle in MD
06-04-2011, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As S has already said, there were no illegal acts. I don't see how an outside party paying the living expenses for a candidate's mistress can be seen as a campaign contribution. Edwards never saw a penny of that money.

Q </div></div>

A former Bushy Attorney General started this BS about Edwards.

Note, the ACORN pimp with the camera, got off for all his mischievous law breaking with his illegal recordings and attempts to tap phones in a Federal Office, Landreau's office down in Lousiana, but he got off, thanks to a leftover Bushy appointee.

Nice to know we have a president, and Attorney General of the United States, that are above the standard Repigliocan cover up M.O. for their cronies, huh?

The Justice system hasn't yet been fully fumigated sinced the leftover stink from Bush et al.

I hope Edwards gets off, for the sake of his kids.

Haven't seen aything yet, that looks to me like there is any proof that he broke the law.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Same thing with Weiner. Who cares? So what? No laws broken.

The guy has only been married for six months or so. Probably sent a photo to his wife, that got hacked. Thought the right was on the verge of nervous breakdowns over the deficits. But, there's always time for FUX to distract from the massive boredom of the plastic hand puppet Repiglican candidates.

LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Haven't see a single jobs bill yet! They6're all too busy lying about the Ryann Plan, including Ryan!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
06-04-2011, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A former Bushy Attorney General started this BS about Edwards.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Actually, Edwards started it ... but I understand that you can't make a post without the obligatory <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

I'm betting that in your household, instead of celebrating holidays you have a ritual "BLAMING OF THE BUSH" ceremony.

LWW
06-04-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note, the ACORN pimp with the camera, got off for all his mischievous law breaking with his illegal recordings and attempts to tap phones in a Federal Office, Landreau's office down in Lousiana, but he got off, thanks to a leftover Bushy appointee.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Then why didn't the Obama AG prosecute it?

What's that?

The legal system worked?

And, thanks for celebrating "THE BLAMING OF THE BUSH" with us.

LWW
06-04-2011, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice to know we have a president, and Attorney General of the United States, that are above the standard Repigliocan cover up M.O. for their cronies, huh?

The Justice system hasn't yet been fully fumigated sinced the leftover stink from Bush et al.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Again ... why doesn't your beloved dear leader prosecute these cases?

And, BRAVO, I see you are truly into "THE BLAMING OF THE BUSH" festivities.

When do we get to "FEATS OF STRENGTH" to celebrate?

LWW
06-04-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope Edwards gets off, for the sake of his kids.

Haven't seen aything yet, that looks to me like there is any proof that he broke the law.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif</div></div>

Why would you hope for the legal system to fail?

What's that?

Because he has the golden (D) following his name?

Tell me something I didn't already know.

Sev
06-04-2011, 06:56 AM
I suspect if Edwards loses he will take a dive out a window.

Gayle in MD
06-04-2011, 06:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[I think that basically, most people hate hypocrisy, more than they hate human frailties. It's the vast hypocrisy in the Republican Party, which disgusts me so much.

Heven't heard a word about the "Family Values Church" from the righies on here. Didn't see any of them bashing Craig, Colburn Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, gee, the list on the right seems to be much longer, of late. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I got it!

Repubs good, Dems bad.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G. </div></div>

No, you don't "got it" at all. Edwards had his dying wife by his side as he used her to gain political momentum, then used campaign funds illegally to try and keep his affair quiet. I think that qualifies as both hypocricy as well as misappropriation of funds and campaign finance fraud.

And you still need to come up with something original. The Good-Bad thing has been used to describe you for years. Are you so used to having other people tell you what to think that you are actually letting me do it now?

LMAO!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

AND YOU still hypocritically bahs others on this forum, for doing exactly what you do relentlessly.

Your use of the word, "Demacrook" is fine, as long as the Fooltchr, and his leader is using it, but my use of "Repiglican" is proof of my ill hatred! LMAO!

Your seething hatred, for John Edwards, oh, that's nothing, but my disgust with REPIGLICAN double standards, (Vitter, Gingrich, Sanford, Craig, Graham, Delay, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, proof of my hatred.

Your using the "F." oh, not a problem. Anyone else using it? NO GOOD!

Your hypocracy knows no bounds.

As for Edwards, I never said what he did was fine. I thought it was awful. I hope he gets off, like all of the Repiglicans do, because he has young kids, that just lost their Mother, not that that could possibly impact your vile hatred for the man, which you have displayed on this forum for a decade.

Jealous?

G.

Sev
06-04-2011, 07:00 AM
Wonker

LWW
06-04-2011, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Same thing with Weiner. Who cares? So what? No laws broken.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Weiner says there was, as the hacking of his system would be a crime ... and house rules require him to report said alleged crime to law enforcement.

Besides that. where was your "WHO CARES" attitude on congressman Lee?

LWW
06-04-2011, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy has only been married for six months or so. Probably sent a photo to his wife, that got hacked.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Do you have any evidence of this ridiculous claim?

Of course you don't.

If that's what happened, why doesn't she come forward and save his reputation?

LWW
06-04-2011, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, there's always time for FUX to distract from the massive boredom of the plastic hand puppet Repiglican candidates.

LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif</div></div>

Then why is CNN all over it?

LWW
06-04-2011, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Haven't see a single jobs bill yet! They6're all too busy lying about the Ryann Plan, including Ryan!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

I know, isn't it a shame that in 4 yours of controlling the house, 2.5 years of controlling the White house, and 4.5 years of controlling the senate ... most of it with a supermajority ...there hasn't been one, not <span style='font-size: 11pt'>ONE</span>, bill from the democrooks to help anyone other than their plitical campaign donors.

Sev
06-04-2011, 07:26 AM
I see a Weiner Spitzer ticket in the future.

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I hope Edwards gets off,

Same thing with Weiner. Who cares? So what? No laws broken.

</div></div>

Of course. I would expect nothing less than you giving him a pass.

Your lack of critical thinking skills is amazing. If Edwards were a Republican, you would be demanding his head on a platter!

Steve

LWW
06-04-2011, 08:59 AM
[quote=Sev]I see a Weiner Spitzer ticket in the future. [/quote

That has potential on the democrook side.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[I think that basically, most people hate hypocrisy, more than they hate human frailties. It's the vast hypocrisy in the Republican Party, which disgusts me so much.

Heven't heard a word about the "Family Values Church" from the righies on here. Didn't see any of them bashing Craig, Colburn Ensign, Vitter, Sanford, gee, the list on the right seems to be much longer, of late. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I got it!

Repubs good, Dems bad.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G. </div></div>

No, you don't "got it" at all. Edwards had his dying wife by his side as he used her to gain political momentum, then used campaign funds illegally to try and keep his affair quiet. I think that qualifies as both hypocricy as well as misappropriation of funds and campaign finance fraud.

And you still need to come up with something original. The Good-Bad thing has been used to describe you for years. Are you so used to having other people tell you what to think that you are actually letting me do it now?

LMAO!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

Actually, this is admittedly a 'novel' theory of a crime, because the money was solicited privately for this purpose, not as a campaign contribution, and it neither went into Edwards' campaign funds, nor directly to him at all.

That is, this is a newly minted 'crime,' which didn't exist before a clever argument was made that it fit into the existing law as a crime.

Frankly, we have so many laws that we've all probably committed crimes, unknowingly, and that's quite before creative prosecutors with an improper partisan motive start making sh!t up.

We do not need, and should not applaud, prosecutors abusing their discretion by inventing crimes with novel theories and using it to take down political opponents. Even an acquittal won could ruin a person's life from the extreme expense, and there is total immunity for the prosecutor being held accountable for the tremendous waste of resources. Accordingly, people might even cop a plea rather than go down that ruinously expensive road.

This guy's career is dead meat, and this excessive prosecution is simply kicking him some more when he's down.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Haven't see a single jobs bill yet! They6're all too busy lying about the Ryann Plan, including Ryan!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

I know, isn't it a shame that in 4 yours of controlling the house, 2.5 years of controlling the White house, and 4.5 years of controlling the senate ... most of it with a supermajority ...there hasn't been one, not <span style='font-size: 11pt'>ONE</span>, bill from the democrooks to help anyone other than their plitical campaign donors. </div></div>

Let's see--- most of 4.5 years with a supermajority?

So, at least 2-1/2 years of a supermajority?

But isn't it true that they only had 60 votes for 4 months, maximum?

Your need to gild the lily with distortions and direct falsehoods like that is an interesting personality tic. I'm sure you know it adds to your credibility problem, and yet you still do it? Do you have a theory as to why you do this?

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
Actually, this is admittedly a 'novel' theory of a crime, because the money was solicited privately for this purpose, not as a campaign contribution, and it neither went into Edwards' campaign funds, nor directly to him at all.

<span style="color: #FF0000">As the evidence comes to light, you too may wonder why you were defending him. The money trail was very cleverly disguised...and when the entire purpose of the money was to protect his candidacy from the disclosures that would certainly bring him to a dead stop in his run for office, while you might be able to say it wasn't a "campaign contribution", in reality, it was a "campaign contribution". </span>


Frankly, we have so many laws that we've all probably committed crimes, unknowingly,

<span style="color: #FF0000">Ignorance of the law is not a defense. </span>
We do not need, and should not applaud, prosecutors abusing their discretion by inventing crimes with novel theories and using it to take down political opponents. Even an acquittal won could ruin a person's life from the extreme expense, and there is total immunity for the prosecutor being held accountable for the tremendous waste of resources. Accordingly, people might even cop a plea rather than go down that ruinously expensive road.

This guy's career is dead meat, and this excessive prosecution is simply kicking him some more when he's down. </div></div>

Your last two points seem to counter one another. Why would prosecutors be using the law to bring down a political opponent, if, as you state in the second paragraph, his career is dead meat?

As for the expense, I think that is somewhat reletive. He's keeping his girlfriend in a very nice neighborhood in Charlotte, and owns one of the most expensive personal homes in the state. He is certainly not living pay check to pay check, and as a lawyer, I'm sure he knows how to set up a legal expense fund, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would contribute. We already have another forum member who thinks he should get off. I'm sure she would gladly write a check to back up her words. I suspect you might even join in on the fun.

Steve

DickLeonard
06-04-2011, 11:10 AM
pooltchr a crook is a crook no matter what party he belongs to. I am still waiting for GWB to be Indicted for Insider Trading. Breaking the Constitution every chance he got even tho he took an oath to uphold it.

Now he is getting 15 million a speech, we all know that an Orator he is not so that must be a Kickback from the Defense Contractors he made fat.####

pooltchr
06-04-2011, 12:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">pooltchr a crook is a crook no matter what party he belongs to. I am still waiting for GWB to be Indicted for Insider Trading. Breaking the Constitution every chance he got even tho he took an oath to uphold it.

Now he is getting 15 million a speech, we all know that an Orator he is not so that must be a Kickback from the Defense Contractors he made fat.#### </div></div>

Hi Dick,
While you are waiting, you might want to take a look at how well our congressmen and women have been doing in the stock market. And maybe, if you are so inclined, break it down by party lines. These people do far better than average, letting one suspect that there may be a little access to inside information about pending legislation that might affect various businesses.

Your party seems to do particularly well. I find it hard to believe that it is just blind luck.

Steve

LWW
06-04-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, this is admittedly a 'novel' theory of a crime, because the money was solicited privately for this purpose, not as a campaign contribution, and it neither went into Edwards' campaign funds, nor directly to him at all.</div></div>

It was solicited to save his political career. The fact that he never held it in his hand has no relevance. Money donated to a campaign almost never actually touches the candidate's palm.

Since this money was solicited, obtained, and used for his benefit ... he either has to claim it was a campaign contribution, which he didn't, or claim it as personal income, which he didn't.

Now, if his defense is that this wasn't a campaign contribution ... unreported and beyond the legal limits ... he is pushing himself into a tax evasion conviction.

His only hope is to get a jury of 12 moonbat crazy leftist Oprah watchers on the gubmint dole to sit on the jury. The sad thing is that he may be able to pull that one off.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 07:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, this is admittedly a 'novel' theory of a crime, because the money was solicited privately for this purpose, not as a campaign contribution, and it neither went into Edwards' campaign funds, nor directly to him at all.</div></div>

It was solicited to save his political career. The fact that he never held it in his hand has no relevance. Money donated to a campaign almost never actually touches the candidate's palm.

Since this money was solicited, obtained, and used for his benefit ... he either has to claim it was a campaign contribution, which he didn't, or claim it as personal income, which he didn't.

Now, if his defense is that this wasn't a campaign contribution ... unreported and beyond the legal limits ... he is pushing himself into a tax evasion conviction.

His only hope is to get a jury of 12 moonbat crazy leftist Oprah watchers on the gubmint dole to sit on the jury. The sad thing is that he may be able to pull that one off. </div></div>

Ever heard of gifting? No gift counts as income to the person getting the gift. A gift tax is levied against the giver if the gift exceeds $13,000 per person per year, although a couple could give double that amount.

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:49 AM
How incredibly lame is that.

Throw in the RINO's and Bernie Sanders they still have a super majority in the senate.

Leadership in a POTUS has produced legislation thousands of times with a minority in the senate.

Clinton was a participant in legislation that made the nation prosperous with a minority in congress ... Reagan largely reshaped the nation from a minority position ... so did Nixon and Eisenhower.

But, it has been proven that on every instance you will defend Obama and blame anyone and everyone for his many failures.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">pooltchr a crook is a crook no matter what party he belongs to. I am still waiting for GWB to be Indicted for Insider Trading. Breaking the Constitution every chance he got even tho he took an oath to uphold it.

Now he is getting 15 million a speech, we all know that an Orator he is not so that must be a Kickback from the Defense Contractors he made fat.#### </div></div>

Hi Dick!

Good to see you posting friend.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">we all know that an Orator he is not </div></div>

Is our righties (children) learning?

LOL... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Nope!

As we all know, Lawyers fall within one of the groups that Repliglicans hate, unless, of course, they are Repiglican Lawmakers, who gerrymander Districts, distort the meaning of the Constitution, distort the Constitution so they can use it for their racist, misogynistic, homophobic "Religious" ideologies to dictate, or if they fall into the "Bushy" Category of the politicized DOJ, or WH Legal counsel, used to justify the use of torture, and for holding secret energy policies, behind closed doors, to fill their own pockets with oil money.

The Edwards case is clearly one of those which was promoted by the Bushy Politicization of Justice, and, it will fail.

There is no way they can prove that Edwards didn't seek to hide his horrendous behavior from his wife, and no law against borrowing money from a long time friend, in that effort.

He will win, and the right will cry foul, when he does, eventhough the charges are unprecedented in nature.

In spite of the fooltchr's jealousy and famous hatred, proven over the years, too strong to relent to any assuagement, Edwards does know the law, and would not be stupid enough to refuse any deal, and plead Not Guilty, if he wasn't sure he would win.

Of course, we do have to take into consideration that the trial is being held in Charlotte? Hence, RW hatred and false bravado, may play a role.

But as we know, common sense isn't ever part of Repiglican spin.

Also, you are right, and it is true, Bush and Rumsfeld have both had to cancel trips abroad, due to their War Crimes, for whichh they would have been arrested by International Human Rights, organizations.

I've posted the links, which prove it, but as we all know, the right doesn't read links, unless the links send one to a site of RW hatred, lies and slander, complimennts of a Fux Noise nutjob.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 08:51 AM
Once again, Gayle, you let your partisan, bigoted stupidity shine through. The city of Charlotte in hardly a Republican city. We have a Dem mayor, and both our city council and county board of commissioners are Dem majorities. So to suggest that Edwards can't get a fair trial, while possibly true, would tend to lean more in his favor than against him.

On the other hand, people in Charlotte have been exposed to his slimey activities for years, so I wouldn't expect them to be fooled by the bogus claims that the hundred thousand was just a friendly personal loan.

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, Gayle, you let your partisan, bigoted stupidity shine through.

Steve </div></div>

<u><span style='font-size: 26pt'>WHAT?</span></u>

Are you trying to imply there have been times when Charlotte didn't let her hyper-partisan, bigoted nature to shine through.

Unless and until I see evidence to the contrary, I have to defend her on this one.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, Gayle, you let your partisan, bigoted stupidity shine through. The city of Charlotte in hardly a Republican city. We have a Dem mayor, and both our city council and county board of commissioners are Dem majorities. So to suggest that Edwards can't get a fair trial, while possibly true, would tend to lean more in his favor than against him.

On the other hand, people in Charlotte have been exposed to his slimey activities for years, so I wouldn't expect them to be fooled by the bogus claims that the hundred thousand was just a friendly personal loan.

Steve </div></div>

LMAO, it wasn't a hundred thousand....

but then, we already know you can't read.

I said from the start, what he did was disgusting! But, there is no law against adultery, even if you are running for office, if there had been, Goldwater couldn't have been a candidate for president. Nor, Bush One! Nor Clinton, for that matter, more thann likely, and Eisenhower, would have been one of many forgotten War Generals, not to mention a slew of other presidents, AND Senators, AND congressmen.



Critical Thinking skills? I doubt you ever even heard the term, until I began writing about it on here.

Charlotte NC, was the location of some of the Bushy, politicized A.G.'s, hence, this unusual indictment.

There is no law against a friend, loaning another friend, money.

So, your use of "Demacrook" is fine, but my use of Repiglican, is hate?

Got it!

Dems bad, Repigs good.

You're a flaming hypocrite! Not to mention your proven misogyny!

Stuff it, Bubba!

G.

LWW
06-05-2011, 10:16 AM
He wasn't charged with adultery sweetie.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
LMAO, it wasn't a hundred thousand....

but then, we already know you can't read.


G.

</div></div>

My bad. It was actually $925 thousand!

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/p...s-cover-up.html (http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/politics/united-states/2011/06/04/john-edwards-indicted-in-925k-mistress-cover-up.html)

Sorry for giving him the benefit of the doubt!

Steve

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
There is no law against a friend, loaning another friend, money.

G.

</div></div>

If that is the case, it should be very easy for him to defend himself. Since nobody "loans" that kind of money without some kind of document showing he agreed to pay it back, all he will need to do is produce a copy in court.

Somehow, I doubt if any such loan document exists.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 02:00 PM
Right you are, Steve. There is no claim that these were loans, and so there will be no loan docs for this.

Still, the charges brought against Edwards are unusual and unique, representing a THEORETICAL extension of campaign laws to an area in which they are wholly unproven.

There is an ARGUMENT that the law was broken, but no clear showing that the law applied here until a novel and inventive argument was put forward.

As his attorney says, and despite his admitted interest in defending his client, show me what's inaccurate in his characterization:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A lawyer for former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that the Democrat has broken no law and that the Justice Department's case against him was "unprecedented."

"In the history of the federal election campaign law, no one has ever been charged, either civilly or criminally, with the claims that have been brought against Senator Edwards today," former White House Counsel Greg Craig told reporters.

"No one would have known or should have known or could have been expected to know that these payments would be treated or should be considered as campaign contributions. And there is no way that Senator Edwards knew that fact either," Craig said.

"He will enter a plea of not guilty. He has broken no law. And we will defend this case vigorously," Craig added.</div></div>

And as many articles I've read on the subject mention, it may be impossible to prove their case and meet their burden to provide such proof.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 03:20 PM
Of course his lawyer is going to say he broke no laws. That's his job. But let's look at it realistically. The guy is running for President. He and his supporters know that if news of his affair comes out, it will ruin his campaign, where he was running as a "family man". And then out of the blue, very large amounts of money are given to him to cover up the affair.

He wasn't concerned about his wife discovering the affair, as we have seen by his actions since that time. He was concerned for the impact it would have on his campaign. So money given for that purpose could certainly be considered to be donations to help his campaign.

Sure, the lawyers are going to try and spin it, but in the end, I think most reasonable people know exactly what it was all about.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right you are, Steve. There is no claim that these were loans, and so there will be no loan docs for this.

Still, the charges brought against Edwards are unusual and unique, representing a THEORETICAL extension of campaign laws to an area in which they are wholly unproven.

There is an ARGUMENT that the law was broken, but no clear showing that the law applied here until a novel and inventive argument was put forward.

As his attorney says, and despite his admitted interest in defending his client, show me what's inaccurate in his characterization:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A lawyer for former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that the Democrat has broken no law and that the Justice Department's case against him was "unprecedented."

"In the history of the federal election campaign law, no one has ever been charged, either civilly or criminally, with the claims that have been brought against Senator Edwards today," former White House Counsel Greg Craig told reporters.

"No one would have known or should have known or could have been expected to know that these payments would be treated or should be considered as campaign contributions. And there is no way that Senator Edwards knew that fact either," Craig said.

"He will enter a plea of not guilty. He has broken no law. And we will defend this case vigorously," Craig added.</div></div>

And as many articles I've read on the subject mention, it may be impossible to prove their case and meet their burden to provide such proof. </div></div>

I woudn't be surprised it the judge doesn't throw the whole case out.

Talk about a total waste of tax payers dollars!

Who is going to testify against Edwards?

His famous best friend, campaign aid, is an admitted liar.

Bunny is one hundred years old. I doubt if she will be showing up in court.

The whole things is nothing but a waste of money.
He will be either acquitted, or the whole thing thrown out, IMO.
G.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 06:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course his lawyer is going to say he broke no laws. That's his job. But let's look at it realistically. The guy is running for President. He and his supporters know that if news of his affair comes out, it will ruin his campaign, where he was running as a "family man". And then out of the blue, very large amounts of money are given to him to cover up the affair.

He wasn't concerned about his wife discovering the affair, as we have seen by his actions since that time. He was concerned for the impact it would have on his campaign. So money given for that purpose could certainly be considered to be donations to help his campaign.

Sure, the lawyers are going to try and spin it, but in the end, I think most reasonable people know exactly what it was all about.

Steve </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He wasn't concerned about his wife discovering the affair, as we have seen by his actions since that time. </div></div>

As usual, your statements make no sense whatsoever, and are based on your emotional hatred for the man.

Everything he did was proof that he didn't want his wife to find out about his affair, and the resulting child born.

Was that a decent way for him to act? Hell no! Was taking money from a old friend, in the form of a gift, against the law?

Hell no!

If he was using campaign money, he wouldn't have needed the gift, in the first plalce, and obviously, he has many millions of his own, but couldn't use them, without his wife finding out the whole thing.

This is just another time when you don't know the facts, and don't care to know them.

Automatic emotional responses, don't usually lead to using ones critical thinking skills!/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 07:00 AM
Thank you, Gayle.

You add so much entertainment value to the forum with your off balance, radical, efforts to spin everything that happens in the world to fit into your narrow little scope.

I haven't even had my second cup of coffee, and you have already given me the laugh of the day.

You are a real treasure!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you, Gayle.

You add so much entertainment value to the forum with your off balance, radical, efforts to spin everything that happens in the world to fit into your narrow little scope.

I haven't even had my second cup of coffee, and you have already given me the laugh of the day.

You are a real treasure!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Steve </div></div>

And you're still number one! Don't ask in what.

This case will either be thrown out, completely, or the findings will prove that you, once again, allowed hatred to block critical thinking skills.

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 08:16 AM
Are you as sure about that as you were when you stated that Hillary was going to be the next POTUS?


Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you as sure about that as you were when you stated that Hillary was going to be the next POTUS?


Steve </div></div>

I never said that, I said she was my choice.

IIRC, you were the one full of glee, saying that Democrats were afraid of Palin, BWA HA HA HA!

The Opportunist extraordinaire of all times!

Palin, living proof, that the flyover Tea Party nutjobs, don't have a clue!

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 09:28 AM
And there you go changing the subject again. We were talking about Edwards, not Sarah.

Are you willing to place a small wager on whether or not Edwards case gets thrown out?

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 09:43 AM
And then out of the blue, very large amounts of money are given to him to cover up the affair.

That's one of the key facts, but you've got it wrong-- NO MONEY was given him to cover up the affair. It did not go through his campaign finance structures, and he didn't middle man the money.

It may fall under the status of an independent expenditure, similar to how a third party group can run ads from their own money for a candidate, without their money being within the campaign finance reporting requirements. (It wouldn't be counted as the candidate's expenditure, although serving to further his election chances, of course.)

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 09:54 AM
Nice spin job, but I'm not buying it. Of course the money wasn't handed to him. He needed to personally stay as far away from it as possible. But that doesn't change the fact that the money was to protect his campaign from some very damaging information.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice spin job, but I'm not buying it. Of course the money wasn't handed to him. He needed to personally stay as far away from it as possible. But that doesn't change the fact that the money was to protect his campaign from some very damaging information.

Steve </div></div>

You're the one who is spinning. You continue to deny reality.

The money was to cover up his affair, and resulting child, from his wife.

It did not come from campaign contributions.

It was a gift from a friend.

End of story.

He will not be convicted of any crime regarding campaign finance.

As far as gift taxes, go, I have not heard about them, or if he paid gift tax. I don't think Bunny Mellon would screw up her own taxes, nor would her accountant.

These are not stupid people. Edwards would have cut a deal, if he thought for one moment, he would have to go to jail.

Use a bit of common sense, once in a while, instead of just going on HATE.

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These are not stupid people. Edwards would have cut a deal, if he thought for one moment, he would have to go to jail.



G. </div></div>

And these are not stupid people who filed the charges. They wouldn't have indicted him if they didn't have enough evidence to back up the charges.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These are not stupid people. Edwards would have cut a deal, if he thought for one moment, he would have to go to jail.



G. </div></div>

And these are not stupid people who filed the charges. They wouldn't have indicted him if they didn't have enough evidence to back up the charges.

Steve </div></div>

RW appointed Bushy A.G..

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:48 AM
So, are you up for that little wager?

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, are you up for that little wager?

Steve </div></div>

Just watching you set yourself up to be proven wrong, AGAIN, is enough payment for me.

Steve:
"The deficits don't matter"



LMAO!

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 11:01 AM
In other words, you aren't willing to back up your opinion.

OK, nothing new there. I just wanted you to admit it.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In other words, you aren't willing to back up your opinion.

OK, nothing new there. I just wanted you to admit it.

Steve </div></div>

I stand behind my educated opinion. It isn't necessary to bet against you on it, in order to enjoy showing you up for the partisan hater you are.


You've already been proven wrong on here so many times, I've lost track.

Besides that, I never bet with Repiglicans, because they never admit they lost, when they clearly have.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
G.

LWW
06-06-2011, 04:27 PM
Hubby won't let you waste the butter and egg money?

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 04:36 PM
No, she just doesn't believe what she says she believes.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 08:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
These are not stupid people. Edwards would have cut a deal, if he thought for one moment, he would have to go to jail.



G. </div></div>

And these are not stupid people who filed the charges. They wouldn't have indicted him if they didn't have enough evidence to back up the charges.

Steve </div></div>

Prosecutors frequently overcharge, relative to what they could gain conviction on, to bully the person into copping a plea and jail time. Happens a lot.

I remember Ken Starr's bullying of someone he denied access to counsel, although she requested it, stating that she (and HER MOTHER) would face about 30 years in prison, and any delay in her taking the deal he was offering (immunity, in return for wearing a wire) would mean it was off, and she and her mother would serve hard time.

That was a lie and a bluff, not to mention an offense against proper prosecutorial conduct that could have led to sanctions up to and including disbarment and jail time, except for his unusual office. But he still did it.

LWW
06-07-2011, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, she just doesn't believe what she says she believes.

Steve </div></div>

In her defense, she believes what she's told to believe.

LWW
06-07-2011, 05:11 AM
Documented by?