The US Department of Justice has given the go-ahead to the prosecution of John Edwards for alleged campaign law violations while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair.
A source has reported that Edwards is aware the government intends to seek an indictment and that he is now considering his limited options. He can either accept a plea bargain with prosecutors or face a potentially ruinous trial.
Edwards has been the target of a federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government would contend these were illegal donations that eventually went to support and seclude his mistress. The government would have to prove that the intent of the donations was to cover-up the affair, if the case were to proceed to trial.
#1
there are two America's asshole. In this one you get indicted
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/25/2011 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
as much as I despise former Senator Edwards, it seems to me that a trial would be a waste of taxpayer resources
of course if Edwards refuses to plead guilty to a lower charge, well then, I suppose it will happen
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
05/25/2011 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
better that he takes the bottle of rye Cosmopolitan and revolver Lady Remington alternative.
Be sure to leave a pretty corpse, Silky, not in the face
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/25/2011 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Should've used the pirate treasure money or the poor people hedge fund money, Silky. But now ya probably got Elizabeth's life insurance money for a defense fund, so you got that going for you. Sure, that's sleazy, but look who we're dealing with here.
So, looking back, was banging Truck Stop worth it?
#5
I recall something about how the wheels of justice grind slowly...
This is good. It's a visible remember to the credentialed class (as Glenn Reynolds refers to them) that they aren't above the law. Combined with the Dominique Kahn affair in NYC, my hope is that the 'elites' get the message that we the common peasants are always watching them. Don't make us bring back the guillotine.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/25/2011 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Iz taint no lawyer but there appears to be at least two possible charges: accepting ILLEGAL donations and then fraudulenty using those donations. Throw in a conspriracy or three, some perjury, and maybe money laudering. Any AUSA worth their salt would have this clown begging for a plea. To paraphrase " We've decided what you are John - now we're just discussing the price."
Posted by: Bangkok Billy ||
05/25/2011 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The queen keeps a lipstick and a handkerchief in her purse. Her aids carry her money, or so I've heard.
I think Mrs. Obama's dress is quite becoming, although in need of a touch of tailoring at the set-in waistband for a perfect fit. Also, the width of the crossed straps brings attention to the shortness of her neck...something easily fixed by that tailor. Otherwise a good choice, quite fitting for the occasion.
#3
Mr Villepin, who has never been elected to public office...
Explains a lot
Posted by: European Conservative ||
05/25/2011 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Getting rid of this air head was one reason I like Sarkozy.
That and the fact that the little guy is making the French a bit tougher in their attitudes about terrorists and killing Frenchmen and things that go bump in the night.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
05/25/2011 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to House and Texas Senate leaders Tuesday -- reportedly in person -- threatening a shut-down of airports if HB 1937 is passed.
The letter claims Rep. David Simpson's (R-Longview) anti-TSA-groping bill is against federal law and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
May 24, 2011
[On U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. Addressed to Speaker Joe Straus, Dewhurst, the House Clerk and the Senate Secretary]
Dear Leaders,
I write with regard to HB 1937, which I understand will imminently be presented to the Texas Senate for a vote.
This office, as well as the Southern, Northern, and Eastern District of Texas United States Attorneys, would like to advise you of the significant leagal and practical problems that will be created if the bill becomes law. As you are no doubt aware, the bill makes it a crime for a federal transportation official ("TSO") to perform the security screening that he or she is authorized and required by federal law to perform. The proposed legislation would make it unlawful for a federal agent such as a TSO to perform certain specified searches for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation. That provision would thus criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations in order to ensure the safety of the American public. The legislation also makes it a crime for a public servant, as defined by the bill, to deny or impede another person in the excercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, knowing that the public servant's conduct is unlawful. As a result, it appears the intent of the bill is to preclude a TSO from turning away from the secure area of an airport someone who otherwise would have been subjected to a pat down as a condition of entry.
The effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to interfere directly with the Transportation Security Administration's ("TSA") responsibility for civil aviation security. 49 U.S.C. §114(d); 6 U.S.C. §202(1). Congress has directed the Administrator of TSA to take "necessary actions to improve domestic air transportation security," 49 U.S.C. §44904(e), and directed him to "prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft ... against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy." ID. §44903(b). Congress has directed TSA to provide for "the screening of all passengers and property ... before boarding," in order to ensure that no passenger is unlawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, explosive, or other destructive substance. Id. §44901(a), §44901(a), §114(e). If the Administrator determines that "a particular threat cannot be addressed in a way adequate to ensure ... the safety of passengers and crew of a particular flight, he "shall cancel the flight or series of flights." Id. §44905(b). HB 1937 would conflict directly with federal law. The practical import of the bill is that it would threaten criminal prosecution of Transportation Security Administration personnel who carry out the security procedures required under federal statutes and TSA regulations passed to implement those statutes. Those officials cannot be put to the choice of risking criminal prosecution or carrying out their federal duties. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law.
If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute. Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.
We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
John E. Murphy
United States Attorney
Simpson included a point-for-point refutation of the TSA letter, which we will post once LSR receives an electronic copy. Below is a portion of the accompanying letter:
175 years ago in the first battle of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, a small band of Texans stood in defiance at Gonzalez [sic], turning back the attempt to deprive them of their weapon of defense, a single cannon.
Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today. The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand up for our citizens in the face of this depravation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?
Time is critical. If the bill does not pass the Senate tonight [Tuesday], it may very well be dead until the next legislative session. Meanwhile, our wives, our children, our mothers and grandmothers, will be rudely violated by federal employees out of control.
#2
The Republicans have a 2/3 majority in the Senate and House. It was that chickenshit RINO Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst who pulled this with the help of the Dems and a handful of RINOs.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
05/25/2011 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Goes to show that just electing more trunks gains you nothing. You need the right trunks.
#4
And again the American People lose. One by one, O'bumble is taking away our rights, and no one is willing to stand up to him. Pretty soon we're going to be down to that last option - the cartridge box. Too bad - this was once a great nation. Too many freeloaders and too few patriots left, I guess.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/25/2011 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Protestors were blocked by capital police, but stood outside the senate chamber for several minutes, chanting: Co-wards, co-wards, Trea-son, trea-son, and shouted slogans accusing senators and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst of being federal pimps and scallawag trash.
They vowed to vote out of office Dewhurst and the senators who opposed passage of the bill.
"I walked through right behind me there was a grandmother little old lady, and she was was patted down," Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."
"Right behind her was a little kid who was patted down. And then right behind him was a guy in Arabian dress who just walked right through. Why are we patting down grandma and kids?"
#8
It isn't just Obama who is doing this but the Federal Government lording it over us and trampling state rights. Just as the EPA thinks it has the power to compel state government to comply with their regulations or the Department of Education dictating terms to local schools, or the NLRB telling Boeing it *must* build airplanes in a forced-Union state.
This is the natural outcome of the 17th amendment under which all representation in congress of the states were stripped away. (Of course the states were stupid enough to ratify it...).
#10
I do recommend the above name and address be sent in to the National Sex Offender Registry. He and the other members Obama's Federal Transportation (groping) Agency.
#11
That Old Boy, Tom DeLay country club arrogant hole just signed the warrant to end his political career, even if he doesn't know it yet. His political future is deader than a roadside armadillo.
Dewhurst is politically DEAD MEAT - he has now proven that he is the Texas version of Fla RINO Charlie Crist, him and Speaker Strauss. We Conservative and TeaParty Republicans in North Central Texas and West Texas are going to run his Austin-Houston RINO ass out of Texas on a rail. There are a ton of people that hate the twerp for acting conservative but being for big government and catering to his Austin buddies in both parties, and now he's got even more of us riled up. We didn't bust our ass state wide and work to vote in a 2/3 GOP majority for him to go squishy and appoint Dems and liberals to legislative committee chairs, and then fold like an envelope under the the federal thumb like this.
He made a huge mistake and is only know realizing it: we got our backs up straight now, and are spittin mad.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
05/25/2011 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
To Kojo:
Don't ever do that again.
We do NOT harass law enforcement officials at Rantburg.
AoS (moderator)
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/25/2011 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Got news for you. When these "law enforcement officials" stopped enforcing the law, they damn well will be getting an ear full. You got that Steve White?
Betty,
We do not encourage or permit anyone to pass on the addresses of public officials to sex offender lists. That's called 'harassment'. It's ethically, morally and legally wrong. It's inappropriate behavior, and we don't do that at Rantburg.
Your argument is just another example of 'the ends justify the means'. I'm used to that in dealing with communists and progressives (but I repeat myself). I guess I have to be used to that as well when dealing with right wing fools such as yourself.
#14
Got news for you. When these "law enforcement officials" stopped enforcing the law, they damn well will be getting an ear full. You got that Steve White?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.