The Bush administration got rid of federal prosecutors who refused to TARGET Democrats. This whole spectacle with John Edwards, remember, is JUST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE DID use campaign funds to cover up the affair instead of money from other places, like Fred Barnes or his own bank account.

They haven’t yet proven that he did use campaign money to do it, and whether or not he made a sex tape has nothing to do with whether he used campaign money to cover up the affair.

This BUSH PROSECUTOR had marching orders to target Democrats only, and that’s what he has done, going after NC Democrats for things that amount to PERKS in most cases. What Governor, or Lt. Governor, or US Senator doesn’t get “FAVORS” from friends, like flights in their jets or special deals on land? They all do. That’s what being rich and connected is all about.

But again, this prosecutor had marching orders. Edwards targeted corporate America and Wall Street, and spoke out against his own class, and a spectacle is being made of him for that reason also.

Again, even if it ultimately turns out that campaign funds were included in the hush money, at this point in the process, they don’t know for sure that they were, therefore, all of this public scrutiny is just to rub it into his face, that he needs to think twice before he speaks out against the political establishment like he tried to do in his campaign.

And yes, he was stupid to think they liked him. I warned him over and over on his blog in 2004 and 2008, and got banned over and over. He didn’t listen. They were always going to go after him first chance they got, and he gave them one.

@Bunny Mellon:

Apparently Bunny is TOO STUPID to focus objectively on an issue, instead of subjectively on an individual.

It doesn’t matter if this was Newt Gingrich on trial for something he did to one of the 3 wives of his that he cheated on, I wouldn’t give a d@mn because it has nothing to do with a person’s ability to be President, or anything else. If it did, JFK, FDR, Eisenhower, and Clinton all would have been terrible Presidents.

Since when did Americans because such IDIOTS. Most think like Bunny. Can’t focus on anything but “individuals” and gossip. Grow up.

GOD is watching!

@trayntp: Just so I’m clear we’re talking about the same Jonathan Edwards – the one who took on the “establishment” – I’m referring to the one who made millions as a personal injury lawyer, then launched a political career replete with $400 haircuts, went to work for hedge fund firm Fortress Investment Group (after being caught exploiting Main Street he begrudgingly admitted that “making money was a good thing, too.”), and the Jonathan Edwards who opposes gay marriage and even civil unions, thus embarassing his own party base.

Which Jonathan Edwards were you referring to?

@Jake: Agreed. An Ahole hypocrite lawyer to the end.

shame on him, he will be punished

LET’S FACE IT JOHN EDWARDS IS THE SCUM OF THE EARTH. TO DO AND SAY THE THINGS HE DID ABOUT HIS DYING WIFE, I PROMISE HE’LL PAY FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE!!!!!!!

@Jake:

I’m talking about the one that made millions taking on powerful interests that wronged average people who would not have been able to stand up against them without Edwards’ help. Sure, when he won a case for a PLANTIFF by convincing the jury that they had been injured by the other party, which in most cases was clear, sure, he got a PORTION of what they won, but it was only “SOME” of it, not a majority of it. The rest of the money he made came from investing some of what he made on the cases he won representing the little guy against the powerful.

That’s the John Edwards I’m talking about.

As for $400 haircuts, all politicians who ran for office spend more on hair and make up than the average person does, so that’s a point that only idiots focus on. Barack Obama’s campaign was the one that started the “$400 haircut” nonsense while Obama was walking around in $1,500 suits.

How many “REGULAR PEOPLE” do you know who wear $1,500 suits?

ALL CANDIDATES SPEND MORE ON HAIR, MAKEUP AND CLOTHES THAN REGULAR PEOPLE DO.

That is not a scandal unless you’re DUMB.

A man who cheats on his terminally ill wife is a scumbag. That he gets his lover pregnant shows how stupid he is. Has he ever heard of a condum?

TrayNTP must be one of Edwards’ side “pieces”. Defend the little guys ? As a lawyer this guy is the scumbag of all scumbags. Do you want to know who takes fat slobs that stuffed Big Mac’s in their face everyday for 20 years and then blames McDonald’s because they weigh 400lbs ? It’s dirtbag’s like John Edwards ! Everybody always talked about Bush’s and Cheney’s business delaings and net wealth. FACT : Edwards **WAS** worth more than those two combined.

@SCOTT m:

I’m pretty sure he has heard of a condom. Have you ever heard of birth control?

What’s the point?

No one knows the conversations that Edwards and Hunter had. As far as you know, she could have claimed that she was taking birth control. What I do know is Hunter was working on a television pilot about women who steal successful married men from their wives.

Edwards was a moron for what he did, but I don’t know what he was told. Someone who thinks like Hunter does could have had him thinking she couldn’t get pregnant because she was on something.

But of course, most people are simpleminded morons who can’t think about anything deeper than what they can see in front of their faces…like Scott.

Just lock that pile of crap up !

Wondering if his defense will be that Fred Baron paid the bills, as has been reported. The amount might be hard to prove since Mr. Baron (personal injury attorney for asbestos plaintiffs) is no longer with us.

@trayntp: I noticed you avoided any “rebuttal” on Edwards’ involvement in Wall Street, which obviously isn’t a winning argument for you, nor does it support your ‘He took on the establishment’ mantra.

The fact that politicians aren’t “regular people” – hence it’s okay for them to spend more money on hair, makeup and their ensemble than the average person – is precisely the point. How can Edwards be bucking the establishment, fighting for the “little guy,” when in fact he’s a part of it?

Your “PORTION” comment implies that Edwards received just a pittance of lawsuit money, when in fact he made millions. His fortune was built on “helping” wronged people. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t credit him with the same level of altruism that you do. Philanthropic self-interest doesn’t impress me.

And I didn’t say this was a “scandal.” Things don’t have to be a scandal to be illegal.

Your attempts at verbal virtuosity, either putting words in your opponents’ mouths or taking down straw men, are as ineffective as they are shallow. Instead of refuting phantom propositions, or ignoring ones that don’t fit your argument, why don’t you try taking on real ones …