Posted on 06/11/2011 5:20:29 AM PDT by NCjim
In a devastating act of ultimate revenge, a dying Elizabeth Edwards recorded a bombshell secret videotape for prosecutors – nailing her cheating husband John as he will stand trial on charges that could land him behind bars for 30 years.
That’s the stunning secret behind the federal indictment brought against the disgraced former presidential candidate on June 3 – following a two-year grand jury investigation into whether he illegally used campaign funds to cover up his affair with his then-pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter.
“Elizabeth wanted to exact revenge against John for destroying their 33-year marriage and family by cheating with Rielle,” source close to the scandal told ENQUIRER.
“It was Elizabeth’s idea to secretly record a video and tell what she knew of the affair and John’s horrific betrayal.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalenquirer.com ...
Dead hand.
How about the evidence her testimony would have led to? She was a lawyer and the prosecutors are obviously lawyers, I have a sense they knew what they were doing.
Isn’t that like a de bene esse that might be admissible under certain circumstances? Like her death? Without the opportunity to cross examine, the testimony itself might not hold up but I’d bet the evidence revealed in it would be quite viable.
I have never been cheated on, so have no way to be sure how I would react, but this woman seems to have used her last energies to be sure her cheating husband really paid the price. How that helps their children is hard to reckon, and one would have hoped that she’d have considered the ramifications on their lives. But it doesn’t seem she did. Both of them thought only of themselves. Poor kids.
And? Forgiving does not mean forgetting. God does not forget our sins, we will still have to answer for those.
Dying doesn’t make her a saint. The two of them hurt many many people and made significant contributions to the mess of medical malpractice. How much has the resulting practice of defensive medicine cost each of us? How many lives have been lost because doctors are afraid of losing their livelihood?
“The guy is a slime ball but she stayed married and supported him while knowing that.”
I totally agree. I was just asking a technical question about testimony.
EE knew everything about the pig, and she benefitted from the income he brought in; she’s no better than he is. Again... I was just asking a technical question.
You wrote: “Mat 6:14-15 (NIV) “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.””
WHEN FORGIVENESS IS A SIN
By Dennis Prager
http://www.dennisprager.com/forgiveness.html
(Reprinted in Reader’s Digest, March 1998, from The Wall Street Journal)
The bodies of the three teen-age girls shot dead last December by a fellow student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., were not yet cold before some of their schoolmates hung a sign announcing, “We forgive you, Mike!” They were referring to Michael Carneal, 14, the killer.
This immediate and automatic forgiveness is not surprising. Over the past generation, many Christians have adopted the idea that they should forgive everyone who commits evil against anyone, no matter how great and cruel and whether or not the evildoer repents.
The number of examples is almost as large as the number of heinous crimes. Last August, for instance, the preacher at a Martha’s Vineyard church service attended by the vacationing President Clinton announced that the duty of all Christians was to forgive Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber who murdered 168 Americans. “Can each of you look at a picture of Timothy McVeigh and forgive him?” the Rev. John Miller asked. “I have, and I invite you to do the same.”
Though I am a Jew, I believe that a vibrant Christianity is essential if America’s moral decline is to be reversed. And despite theological differences, Christianity and Judaism have served as the bedrock of American civilization. And I am appalled and frightened by this feel-good doctrine of automatic forgiveness.
This doctrine advances the amoral notion that no matter how much you hurt others, millions of your fellow citizens will forgive you. It destroys Christianity’s central moral tenets about forgiveness. Even by God, forgiveness is contingent on the sinner repenting, and it can be given only by the one sinned against.
” And if your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him,” reads Luke 17:3-4. “And if seven times of the day he sins against you, and seven times of the day turns to you saying, I repent, you shall forgive him.”
These days one often hears that “It is the Christian’s duty to forgive, just as Jesus forgave those who crucified him.” Of course, Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him. But Jesus never asked God to forgive those who had crucified thousands of other innocent people. Presumably he recognized that no one has the moral right to forgive evil done to others.
You and I have no right, religiously or morally, to forgive Timothy McVeigh or Michael Carneal; only those they sinned against have that right, If we are automatically forgiven no matter what we do, why repent? In fact, if we forgive everybody for all the evil they do, God and his forgiveness are unnecessary. We have substituted ourselves for God.
I host a talk-radio show, and when confronted with such arguments, some callers offered another defense: “The students were not forgiving Carneal for murdering the three students. They were forgiving him for the pain he caused them.” Such self centered thinking masquerading as a religious ideal is a good example of the moral disarray in much of religious life.
Some people have a more sophisticated defense of the forgive-every-one-everything doctrine: doing so is psychologically healthy. It brings “closure.” This is therapy masquerading as idealism: “I forgive you because I want to feel better.”
Until West Paducah, I believed that Christians will lead America’s moral renaissance. Though I still believe that, the day those students, with the support of their school administration, hung out that sign I became less sanguine. If young Christians have inherited more values from the ‘60s culture than from their religion, where can we look for help?
Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster excerpt from Game Change page 3
No one in the Edwardses’ political circle felt anything less than complete sympathy for Elizabeth’s plight. And yet the romance between her and the electorate struck them as ironic nonetheless—because their own relationships with her were so unpleasant that they felt like battered spouses. The nearly universal assessment among them was that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing.
If he takes the stand, it can be used to impeach his testimony. Maybe he can do one of his ambulence chaser summations, like the one that got him rich, to win this case but I doubt it.
If she tells the truth on the video, how is that evil? He is the evil one, lying from the beginning.
Perhaps, but really, if you're that pissed off, who says you are going to tell the truth.
I never liked EE, I though she enabled the whole thing. John-boy's problem was that he got caught, massively caught, in a HUGE public way, and embarrassed the heck out of EE, and that's what really annoyed her.
The only people I feel for in this are the minor children. Everyone else... they deserve each other.
If he was cheating one time, there were very likely a lot more. It is the mentality.
Far as I’m concerned there’s nothing to add to my earlier post. You practice your faith, I’ll practice mine. Have a great day.
I bet Elizabeth Edwards would campaign for Sarah if she were alive.
>> We’re all sinners. She deserved exactly what she got. She enjoyed the fruits of her wretched husbands law practice and the public limelight he brought to her. Her accounts with God will be settled on Judgement Day. Her accounts with the people they mutually hurt are still wide open.>>
AMEN, and that’s the issue here. She clearly made “a deal with the devil” by marrying who she married and she was a willing prop for his fraudulent political image for the fame and fortune it promised her. She is not an innocent victim here in a lot of ways.
I did not know the woman and therefore I am neutral on her personally - but she and her husband did foist a lot of horror on us through their mutually supported public policies - and those horrors are not dead today.
How is it not when you spend your last hours on revenge?
“Sour grapes from the grave are not admissible testimony.”
Wanna bet?
You have a nice a day.
“The defense cannot cross examine, makes for great tabloid news but its not admissible.”
Check your rules for exceptions to hearsay testimony.
Elizabeth Edwards was a dyed in the wool liberal.
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.