|
Mark Steyn on John Edwards; "A Ravening Justice"
|
|
Topic Started: May 23 2012, 03:20 PM (1,849 Views)
|
|
Quasimodo
|
May 23 2012, 03:20 PM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,130
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.steynonline.com/5005/a-ravening-justice
A Ravening Justice
May 22, 2012
Mark Steyn
To get the obvious out of the way: I loathe John Edwards. I loathe him as a slick ambulance-chasing trial lawyer, as a preening poseur of a presidential candidate, as a multi-bazillionaire "advocate" for "the poor," as a third-rate sob sister peddling faux-Dickensian guff about entirely mythical "coatless girls" lying in their beds shivering at night because their father was laid off at the mill.
(snip)
Oh, and while we're at it, I loathe the American media, whose peculiarly contemptible combination of partisanship, snobbery, and self-neutering of any basic journalistic instinct might easily have led (were it not for the candidacy of Barack Obama) to this preening metrosexual slug's becoming president of the United States.
All that said, his trial is a disgrace.
(snip)
What's wrong with it? First, there is no crime, if that term is to have any agreed meaning. . . So the feds haven't charged Edwards with having a mistress or a love child, but with funding his mistress and love child via illegal campaign contributions. In federal justice, they throw the bookkeeping at you, a time-honored American judicial tradition: If you can't get Al Capone for the Valentine's Day Massacre, get him for tax evasion. The average citizen seems to have a sneaky admiration for this artful sidestepping, notwithstanding that very few individuals gun down large numbers of people, while millions of us are vulnerable to ever-metastasizing definitions of "mail fraud," "wire fraud," and the other catch-alls of federal justice. It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover letter.
Thus, the DoJ case rests on the novel legal theory that, as the "centerpiece of Edwards's candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man," his "family image" and the costs of maintaining it are a political matter regulated under Title 2, Sections 431–455 of the U.S. Code. . . If the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 now covers "family image," what doesn't it extend to? So John Edwards "broke" a "law" that neither he nor anyone else knew existed. Which it didn't, until he came along.
Edwards now faces 30 years in jail, for the crime of getting a couple of pals to pay for his baby's diapers. For purposes of comparison, Anders Breivik murdered 77 people and is looking at 21 years in jail, the maximum sentence permitted under Norwegian law. So Mr. Breivik could be out of jail a decade before Senator Edwards. Scandinavian law is certainly too lenient (I am in favor of hanging Breivik), but U.S. law is stark staring nuts. And there are very few Anders Breiviks, while there are untold numbers on whom the caprices of U.S. justice can and do descend.
When they do, the prosecution has too many advantages. With corporate fraud, the tradition is that, in order to skewer the CEO, the government buys the CFO. Having deemed a politician's "family image" to be in effect a business venture, the feds identified Andrew Young as Edwards's CFO.
Young is a confessed liar whose loyalty to his boss was such that he claimed to be the father of Edwards's baby. But it's remarkable how the offer of federal immunity can wither the devotion of even the most stout-hearted of retainers. Having bought its witnesses, the Justice Department files multiple counts, generally ensuring that jurors wishing to appear sophisticated can dismiss the majority of them while convicting on enough to send the accused to jail for longer than the average European serial killer, and for a crime no one can explain to anybody who isn't a federal prosecutor.
John Edwards lives with the two youngest children of his official government-regulated "family image." Emma Claire is thirteen and Jack is eleven.
They have no mother. For some reason the United States regards it as a priority to see that they be more comprehensively orphaned.
The great English jurist Lord Moulton considered the most important space in society to be the "middle land" between law and absolute freedom, in which the individual has to be "trusted to obey self-imposed law." That is, a gentleman should not lie for political advantage about the paternity of his child. When he does so, it is a poor reflection on him and on those who colluded with him — the Democratic party and the media. What it is not is a crime. As bad as Edwards's behavior is, the Justice Department's is worse. The urge to ensnare in legalisms every aspect of human existence — including John Edwards's rutting — will consume American liberty.
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
May 23 2012, 04:15 PM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,000
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Good one to share Quasi!
|
|
|
| |
|
Joan Foster
|
May 23 2012, 04:24 PM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 13,199
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #427
- Joined:
- Jan 8, 2009
|
Good post but I hope he rots in jail.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mason
|
May 23 2012, 04:38 PM
Post #4
|
|
Parts unknown
- Posts:
- 29,534
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #476
- Joined:
- Jun 2, 2009
|
. I just say -- what are American Elections worth is you can pay off anyone that has anything bad to say about you or can threaten your Political image?
Everyone will be perfect under that scenario - unless the Media has reason to hate you.
.
Edited by Mason, May 23 2012, 04:38 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
abb
|
May 23 2012, 04:51 PM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 39,836
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
It's all about disclosure. I see it up close and personal here on a local level by digging through the finance statements. It tells you who owns whom. And when there is no disclosure, voters are not completely informed.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rusty Dog
|
May 23 2012, 04:53 PM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,239
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #133
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
The US Attorney who brought John Edwards up through the indictment, George Holding, is running for Congress from Raleigh as a Republican.
He doesn't come across to me that way. His campaign started immediately after his retirement, right after the indictment. A full year before it needed to. It was obvious he had some big money supporting his campain.
His entire campaign was negative towards his opponents, the only positive claim was the promise to "cut spending". But there was no vision on how to do that. He just seems sleezy to me. After seeing any of his ads I felt much the same way I felt about John Edwards when he first ran for the Senate here. Just "yuck".
He is not running in my district, but only because we got redistricted.
|
|
|
| |
|
cks
|
May 23 2012, 04:54 PM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,664
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2009
|
Mark Steyn misses the point. Bunny Mellon was willing to do anything to see her crush - Two America Johnny - elected. Two America, for his part, was willing to do anything to make certain that he would be the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was selling an image - perpetrating a fraud - and, he might have gotten away with it. Remember how enthralled those in the press were with Edwards - how we were treated ad nauseum to the "love story" of the Edwards. It was all a farce......but for the National Enquirer, he might be in the White House along with his baby mamma as we speak. His hubris was even greater than Bill Clinton's which says a lot.
Yes, if he is convicted his young children (his two with EE) will be for all intent orphans - he should have thought about that possibility before he decided to get involved with the New Age flake Rielle. They will not be the first to be such, should he be convicted, and they will not be the last. It is sad, tragic for his children, However, that is no reason why, should he be convicted, that he not serve a sentence behind bars.
Edited by cks, May 23 2012, 04:55 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mason
|
May 23 2012, 04:59 PM
Post #8
|
|
Parts unknown
- Posts:
- 29,534
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #476
- Joined:
- Jun 2, 2009
|
. I want to know the truth about Politicians running for office.
I think the implications for the country are Huge. Everything and anything can be hidden if you can move people out, pay them off, and have sycophants paying for them to live in mansions and shop with $400,000 for fun.
Yes, and even for them to claim Paternity for your kids.
. .
Edited by Mason, May 23 2012, 05:00 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Duke parent 2004
|
May 23 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,284
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #366
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2008
|
Steyn is right.. As he makes clear, the issue is not John Edwards but rather the government’s "creative" interpretation of the campaign-finance rules, an interpretation that if ratified will further imperil our freedom: "If the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 now covers 'family image,' what doesn't it extend to?"
Here's an operating principle that has rarely failed me in its application: Subject all government encroachments on the 1st Amendment to the highest scrutiny.. It's no accident that the Bill of Rights begins this way:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That the courts have not invalidated campaign-finance laws tout court as gross violations of the 1st Amendment attests to the decadence of our time, to our failure to attend to Tocqueville's warning of almost two-hundred years ago in his Democracy in America:
After having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Drawing on Tocqueville, Paul Rahe, in his Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift . . . (2009), extends Tocqueville's argument to the 1st Amendment:
[W]e do not need a Federal Election Commission; we do not need elaborate regulations concerning the financing of political campaigns; and we do not need any rules at all restricting when, how, and under what circumstances American citizens may be allowed to speak up with regard to political issues and the merits and demerits of political candidates. The First Amendment was designed to protect political, not commercial, speech, and public debate, not pornography posing as art. Its aim was to rule out the possibility that—in the name of law and order, public integrity, justice, equality, or some other recognized good—Congress and the executive branch would conspire, as they now have, to shut down, restrict, or manage public debate. Its purpose was to guarantee in perpetuity our freedom to seek a redress of grievances, to pursue public office, to support another’s candidacy, and to speak our minds on issues of common concern through any available medium. Without this freedom, the framers of the First Amendment feared, we would be helpless when confronted with public authority. [Italics mine]
If John Edwards "rots in jail" as a result of the government's use of the campaign-finance rules, we will have indulged our dislike of him at a cost far higher than we suppose.
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
May 23 2012, 10:06 PM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,000
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Duke parent 2004
- May 23 2012, 09:21 PM
Steyn is right.. As he makes clear, the issue is not John Edwards but rather the government’s "creative" interpretation of the campaign-finance rules, an interpretation that if ratified will further imperil our freedom: "If the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 now covers 'family image,' what doesn't it extend to?"
Here's an operating principle that has rarely failed me in its application: Subject all government encroachments on the 1st Amendment to the highest scrutiny.. It's no accident that the Bill of Rights begins this way:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That the courts have not invalidated campaign-finance laws tout court as gross violations of the 1st Amendment speaks to the decadence of our time, to our failure to attend to Tocqueville's warning of almost two-hundred years ago in his Democracy in America:
After having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Drawing on Tocqueville, Paul Rahe, in his Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift . . . (2009), extends Tocqueville's argument to the 1st Amendment:
[W]e do not need a Federal Election Commission; we do not need elaborate regulations concerning the financing of political campaigns; and we do not need any rules at all restricting when, how, and under what circumstances American citizens may be allowed to speak up with regard to political issues and the merits and demerits of political candidates. The First Amendment was designed to protect political, not commercial, speech, and public debate, not pornography posing as art. Its aim was to rule out the possibility that—in the name of law and order, public integrity, justice, equality, or some other recognized good—Congress and the executive branch would conspire, as they now have, to shut down, restrict, or manage public debate. Its purpose was to guarantee in perpetuity our freedom to seek a redress of grievances, to pursue public office, to support another’s candidacy, and to speak our minds on issues of common concern through any available medium. Without this freedom, the framers of the First Amendment feared, we would be helpless when confronted with public authority. [Italics mine]
If John Edwards "rots in jail" as a result of the government's use of the campaign-finance rules, we will have indulged our dislike of him at a cost far higher than we suppose.
I need to call Tanya Dixon-Neely for a private lesson or two on this to refresh what memory I might have on this subject.
|
|
|
| |
|
comelately
|
May 23 2012, 10:21 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,566
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #479
- Joined:
- Jun 24, 2009
|
- Duke parent 2004
- May 23 2012, 09:21 PM
Steyn is right.. As he makes clear, the issue is not John Edwards but rather the government’s "creative" interpretation of the campaign-finance rules, an interpretation that if ratified will further imperil our freedom: "If the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 now covers 'family image,' what doesn't it extend to?"
Here's an operating principle that has rarely failed me in its application: Subject all government encroachments on the 1st Amendment to the highest scrutiny.. It's no accident that the Bill of Rights begins this way:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That the courts have not invalidated campaign-finance laws tout court as gross violations of the 1st Amendment speaks to the decadence of our time, to our failure to attend to Tocqueville's warning of almost two-hundred years ago in his Democracy in America:
After having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting on one’s own; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Drawing on Tocqueville, Paul Rahe, in his Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift . . . (2009), extends Tocqueville's argument to the 1st Amendment:
[W]e do not need a Federal Election Commission; we do not need elaborate regulations concerning the financing of political campaigns; and we do not need any rules at all restricting when, how, and under what circumstances American citizens may be allowed to speak up with regard to political issues and the merits and demerits of political candidates. The First Amendment was designed to protect political, not commercial, speech, and public debate, not pornography posing as art. Its aim was to rule out the possibility that—in the name of law and order, public integrity, justice, equality, or some other recognized good—Congress and the executive branch would conspire, as they now have, to shut down, restrict, or manage public debate. Its purpose was to guarantee in perpetuity our freedom to seek a redress of grievances, to pursue public office, to support another’s candidacy, and to speak our minds on issues of common concern through any available medium. Without this freedom, the framers of the First Amendment feared, we would be helpless when confronted with public authority. [Italics mine]
If John Edwards "rots in jail" as a result of the government's use of the campaign-finance rules, we will have indulged our dislike of him at a cost far higher than we suppose.
I tend to agree with you - but there are valid counter-arguments. Such as this:
Normally, such misapplication of laws and rules happens to Republicans or conservatives. This causes liberals, Democrats, etc. to support laws and regulations that encroach on our freedoms and can be used to entrap innocent people - on the assumption that THEY (liberals, anti-American community organizers, etc.) are immune from all of this. Demonstrating to them that two can play this game might reduce their support for this type of laws and agencies that in an ideal world would not exist at all.
When (and if) the time comes to kill the "campaign finance rules" (and other anti-American horrors), John Edwards' fate (if sufficiently terrible) might remind our Democrat friends that they might be next - if this bureaucratic monster is not slain... or it might be my wishful thinking!
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
May 23 2012, 10:33 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,000
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Just "wishful thinking". Governments never stop growing until they fold and start over.
|
|
|
| |
|
Duke parent 2004
|
May 24 2012, 12:10 AM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,284
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #366
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2008
|
- comelately
- May 23 2012, 10:21 PM
I tend to agree with you - but there are valid counter-arguments. Such as this: Normally, such misapplication of laws and rules happens to Republicans or conservatives. This causes liberals, Democrats, etc. to support laws and regulations that encroach on our freedoms and can be used to entrap innocent people - on the assumption that THEY (liberals, anti-American community organizers, etc.) are immune from all of this. Demonstrating to them that two can play this game might reduce their support for this type of laws and agencies that in an ideal world would not exist at all. When (and if) the time comes to kill the "campaign finance rules" (and other anti-American horrors), John Edwards' fate (if sufficiently terrible) might remind our Democrat friends that they might be next - if this bureaucratic monster is not slain... or it might be my wishful thinking!  I cannot subscribe to sacrificing any defendant in a criminal case to a supposedly more important political goal.. Think Reade, Colin, and Dave.. Think George Zimmerman.
If the hyper-conservative Mark Steyn's coming to the defense of a reptilian liberal doesn't impress our Democrat friends, or at least alert them to the looming danger, and if Edwards's former cronies keep their distance from him when he has yet to be convicted, I’d bet only pennies that Edwards's letters from jail would induce his erstwhile buddies to join the Federalist Society or begin disarming the nanny state.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
May 24 2012, 12:29 AM
Post #14
|
|
Deleted User
|
I just have a rather un-enlightened question. What did Edwards to so PO the ruling establishment that they have let this happen to him? Seems like Holder would have derailed this charade long ago. After all, he has done quite well at permitting the railroading of apparently innocent people, and ignoring the apparently guilty people, depending on their political usefulness. What happened to cause the falling out with Edwards? I thank Duke Parent for that quote and that reminder. I tend to agree that preservation of some semblance of a remaining "freedom" is more important than sending Edwards to jail. ( If I recall correctly, it was actually EE's dying wish that their young children be raised by their older sister, was it not?) I wouldn't mind seeing Edwards get "justice".... but I am reminded that if he does not get it in the courts, he will eventually get it, anyway.
|
|
|
| |
|
comelately
|
May 24 2012, 01:26 AM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,566
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #479
- Joined:
- Jun 24, 2009
|
- Duke parent 2004
- May 24 2012, 12:10 AM
- comelately
- May 23 2012, 10:21 PM
I tend to agree with you - but there are valid counter-arguments. Such as this: Normally, such misapplication of laws and rules happens to Republicans or conservatives. This causes liberals, Democrats, etc. to support laws and regulations that encroach on our freedoms and can be used to entrap innocent people - on the assumption that THEY (liberals, anti-American community organizers, etc.) are immune from all of this. Demonstrating to them that two can play this game might reduce their support for this type of laws and agencies that in an ideal world would not exist at all. When (and if) the time comes to kill the "campaign finance rules" (and other anti-American horrors), John Edwards' fate (if sufficiently terrible) might remind our Democrat friends that they might be next - if this bureaucratic monster is not slain... or it might be my wishful thinking! 
I cannot subscribe to sacrificing any defendant in a criminal case to a supposedly more important political goal. . Think Reade, Colin, and Dave. . Think George Zimmerman. If the hyper-conservative Mark Steyn's coming to the defense of a reptilian liberal doesn't impress our Democrat friends, or at least alert them to the looming danger, and if Edwards's former cronies keep their distance from him when he has yet to be convicted, I’d bet only pennies that Edwards's letters from jail would induce his erstwhile buddies to join the Federalist Society or begin disarming the nanny state . These are all true statements and honorable sentiments. On the other hand, backstabbing, perfidy, etc. have their uses: old Niccolò (Machiavelli) was not COMPLETELY wrong. This prosecution appears to be pointless - unless it is an attempt to remind our liberal friends that "what goes around comes around": their attempts to "criminalize" the politics in this country might be dangerous to them PERSONALLY - even to former (vice) presidential candidates. An obvious price is the further deterioration of the legal environment in this country...
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|