Skip to comments.John Edwards: A jerk, not a felon (Barf Alert)
Posted on 05/28/2011 9:26:23 AM PDT by sr4402
As far as Im concerned, John Edwards is pond scum. Last I checked, thats not a crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The only time she says "Democrat" is in reference to a Democratic Prosecutor who went after Republican Tom Delay (a sneaky aside). So even though Edwards was the Democratic Vice President to the Democratic Presidential Candidate, 'I served in Vietnam', John Kerry - there is no mention that Edwards was/is a Democrat.
It is so much fun to watch these Liberal/Progressive "Journalists" (really Democratic Activists) go through their contortions when having to report something bad about their own. The extreme water carrying here is a great example of liberal/progressive journalistic bias and what happens when one's fawning comes back to haunt a 'journalist'.
“John Edwards: A jerk, not a felon” - ruth
No ruth, he’s not a felon until he’s convicted. Then he’ll be a jerk AND a felon ;-)
Laws and rules are for the little people to follow, Mr. Edwards is special, he does not have to follow the rules like the rest of us.
Hey ... what can I say other than I'm not the evil George
Bush ... or I'd be guilty of doing something really bad
This brings me back to recall George Will’s comment about Clinton. “He might not be the worst president that we have ever had, but he might have been the worst person to have ever been president”. ergo Edwards paraphrasing “He might not have been the worst candidate ever, but he might have been the worst person to have ever been a candidate”
A narcissistic trial lawyer who lied to juries and made a fortune by exploiting the plight of unfortunate children. But he almost became Vice President of the United States of America, because the left has convinced a large swath of society, in a message continuously bolstered by the MSM, that they are the good and compassionate people of the world.
It must have been easy to investigate
Did he take Bunny Mellon’s $700K and use it for campaign expenses?
Or did he use it (and perhaps even solicit it) to support his mistress and child, and then also fail to claim it as income....
A jerk and a felon.
The guy's a gazzilionaire. He could have easily afforded to buy off the mistress with his own money.
The obvious case to which this should be compared is the Clinton/Lewinsky affair from which Clinton, although impeached and disbarred, kept his office and actually emerged with his popularity ratings enhanced. There is no chance that John Edwards, even if acquitted, will emerge from this ordeal so unbowed.
The gravamen of the case against Clinton consisted of a string of serious felonies far worse than that which has been alleged against John Edwards. From a previous vanity:
I believe that Bill Clinton committed high crimes and misdemeanors in trying to fix a civil trial (for money and reputation), that he conspired to fix a court case (with Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), that in furtherance of that conspiracy he suborned perjury (of Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie), conspired to hide evidence, hid evidence (gifts hidden under the bed), and actually committed perjury (too notorious to require recounting). These were all felonies and as such they qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the constitutional standard for impeaching a president. Further, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and by committing a string of felonies he breached his constitutional duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws-which misfeasance constitutes additional impeachable offenses. One need only consider the brouhaha over the alleged misrepresentations made to Congress by Attorney General Gonzales, or the ordeal of Scooter Libby, to understand the gravity of the real offenses committed by Clinton.
In addition to these felonies Clinton committed a string of moral declensions solo which are also catalogued:
What Bill Clinton did was egregious... Bill Clinton... sodomized a young intern in the Oval Office with a cigar and masturbated into the presidential sink; Bill Clinton repeatedly talked dirty to his young intern over the telephone while they mutually masturbated ; Bill Clinton suffered his young intern to fellate him while she was crouched under the presidential desk.
Liberals say that the matter of sexual harassment is all about redressing the imbalance of the power relationship between men and women, between master and servant, and between boss and employee. Of course, the relationship of Clinton and Lewinsky fit this template perfectly. But the Clintons did not stop there, they tag-teamed women who complained of sexual mistreatment (even actual assaults) by Bill Clinton and compounded his original crimes. Gennifer Flowers was made to lie publicly to protect Bill Clinton, to sign a perjurious affidavit denying their relationship, thus establishing a Clinton modus operandi and had her apartment ransacked for her pains, or perhaps for her favors. Kathleen Willey was intimidated professionally by ominous strangers. Juanita Broderick was admonished by Hillary Clinton, the implication clear that Broderick was to remain silent about her rape by Bill Clinton. Other women whose silence and lies could not be assured by intimidation were vilified, publicly humiliated, and discredited as "sluts and nuts".
Clearly, Bill Clintons and moral behavior was more repugnant than John Edwards actions and his criminal activities were also more egregious than the alleged crimes of Edwards. Clinton was also a serial offender and he held a far higher office.
On the other side, we have the history of left-wing legal jihads against Republicans recounted above and recounting now in the article in At Washington Post.
Despite all this, we conservatives are bound to judge this matter in its legal dimension without reference to its appalling moral aspects. Ruth Marcus has it right, the legal case against John Edwards is weak. If that is how the facts and the law come down we conservatives ought to acknowledge it. If the facts are weak, for example the government's witnesses might not prove credible-Bunny Mellon is after all 100 years old-we ought to say there is a reasonable doubt, if there is a doubt.
On the other hand, we are quite free to express our repugnance at John Edward's moral behavior.
That is the way of conservatives. Witch hunts, inquisitions, borking and the kind of disgraceful treatment meted out to Clarence Thomas, is a demagoguery of the kind which should be left to the left.
One final word, because the left failed to do justice in the matter of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, and did others like Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, and Judge Bork grave injustice, is no justification for us to throw away our principles. One bad act ought not to be justified by relating it to another. This is not in defense of John Edwards but in simple adherence to our own values.
Instead of impuging Holding, Ruth, why don't you ask yourself why he was held over? Must have been something that Edwards boy said or done that made boss man pretty mad, huh? Brings me back to Michael Barone's column: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/obama-skirts-rule-law-reward-pals-punish-foes
Where’s the ‘Doddering Old Fool’ Alert?????????????
A felonious jerk
But you sure did a credible job of it.
So that there's no misunderstanding, that was meant as a compliment.
I'm not vouching for the guy who wrote this blog, butI think this is the answer to his question...Edwards won't make a peep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.