Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Mark Steyn on John Edwards; "A Ravening Justice"
Topic Started: May 23 2012, 03:20 PM (1,851 Views)
cks
Member Avatar

DP - your points are well taken.

Granted my knowledge of campaign finance law is very limited - since I never intend to run for any office (eighth grade class president was enough to show me that a life in the political world was going to be a no go), it might very well be the case that the government has over-reached in bringing charges against Edwards. However, what I do not understand is how it cannot be a crime to be taking money (large sums that would seemingly be over the limit as to what a person can contribute to a candidate) from someone that you have been cultivating for political contributions and then suddenly turn around and call it a gift -wouldn't that have to be reported on the recipient's income taxes? Rielle? Edwards? Youngs? Given Bunny Mellon's own words that she wanted to do everything to get Edwards elected, doesn't that make it a campaign contribution?

I am a firm believer (I suppose there is some Calvinist forebear somewhere who left his DNA imprint) that there is a righteous God who punishes those who transgress the laws of man and the Creator.....so Two America Johnny will get what is coming to him for his sins against his wife (who has undoubtedly already been called to account for her own failings), is family, and the citizenry of this country. However, I find it hard to believe that the former junior senator of the great state of North Carolina, did not knowingly subvert laws that allowed him to mount what to many seemed a credible attempt to gain the highest office in the land. That many (read the comments about his trial) still feel that he should still be in politics because he really and truly cares about the poor and downtrodden is both frightening and sad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

cks
May 24 2012, 07:13 AM
However, what I do not understand is how it cannot be a crime to be taking money (large sums that would seemingly be over the limit as to what a person can contribute to a candidate) from someone that you have been cultivating for political contributions and then suddenly turn around and call it a gift -wouldn't that have to be reported on the recipient's income taxes?
Take a look at the "Edwards Plea Deal?" thread of a year ago, in which I noted that gifts, no matter how large, are not taxable income to recipients.. In that thread I also wrote:

Giving Edwards a pass in this case would be a very small price to pay for getting the courts to plunge a dagger into the heart of our absurd campaign-finance laws and regulations. But even if such a long-overdue invalidation of such gross legislative encroachments on our 1st Amendment freedoms were to result from this case, I’d not be surprised were Edwards to get nailed on perjury or false-statements charges of the sort that tripped up Scooter Libby. Funny how we can get ensnared by trying to circumvent government overreach that itself should have been smoked when first proposed . . .

Perhaps the most telling post in that thread came from LTC:. "A lot of people seem to think this case is very weak and quite a stretch."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Duke parent 2004
May 24 2012, 08:42 AM
cks
May 24 2012, 07:13 AM
However, what I do not understand is how it cannot be a crime to be taking money (large sums that would seemingly be over the limit as to what a person can contribute to a candidate) from someone that you have been cultivating for political contributions and then suddenly turn around and call it a gift -wouldn't that have to be reported on the recipient's income taxes?
Take a look at the "Edwards Plea Deal?" thread of a year ago, in which I noted that gifts, no matter how large, are not taxable income to recipients.. In that thread I also wrote:

Giving Edwards a pass in this case would be a very small price to pay for getting the courts to plunge a dagger into the heart of our absurd campaign-finance laws and regulations. But even if such a long-overdue invalidation of such gross legislative encroachments on our 1st Amendment freedoms were to result from this case, I’d not be surprised were Edwards to get nailed on perjury or false-statements charges of the sort that tripped up Scooter Libby. Funny how we can get ensnared by trying to circumvent government overreach that itself should have been smoked when first proposed . . .

Perhaps the most telling post in that thread came from LTC:. "A lot of people seem to think this case is very weak and quite a stretch."
As always - DP, you are there to set my faulty thinking aright. :)

My guess is that the reason for the long delay is that the jurors are having a difficult time separating their feelings about what Edwards did (the catefgory under which I fall - admittedly) from the law (as you and Steyn have so eloquently detailed). But, as the law should prevail, much as I would viscerally like to see Edwards in lock-up, my guess is (and I suppose I should hope) that he walks.


Ah life is so difficult at times......



Edited by cks, May 24 2012, 01:26 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rusty Dog
Member Avatar

"...I noted that gifts, no matter how large, are not taxable income to recipients."

I don't have an opinion on the rest of this -- rather, I have many conflicting opinions, but I don't understand the statement above.

I was under the understanding that gifts over $13,000 annually were taxable. Do these gifts come under another category?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Rusty Dog
May 24 2012, 09:10 AM
"...I noted that gifts, no matter how large, are not taxable income to recipients."

I don't have an opinion on the rest of this -- rather, I have many conflicting opinions, but I don't understand the statement above.

I was under the understanding that gifts over $13,000 annually were taxable. Do these gifts come under another category?
Again, from the "Edwards Plea Deal?" thread:

As Rusty Dog notes, the annual gift-tax exclusion is $13,000 per year per donee. Keep in mind, though, that the recipient of gifts is not subject to tax for amounts that exceed that limit. The tax is incurred by the donor, unless the donor files for the year of such gifts a gift-tax return. That gift-tax return allows the donor to defer the tax, if not avoid it altogether, by subtracting the “excess” from the “exemption amount” allowed each taxpayer at death—the amount, that is, not subject to federal estate taxes. The theory, here, is that were such “excessive” gifts not taxable to the donor, high net-worth individuals could escape estate taxes altogether simply by making life-time transfers of their assets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

IOW; a verdict of guilty would tell us what "is" is, guilty means he just deposited Mellon's gift money in the wrong account ....according to the prosecutor.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
What is to prevent Candidate X from raping someone - then having Bunny Money pay for the woman to be carted off to the islands somewhere and live on the beach with $400k as play money every six months?

Or a woman he raped 10 years earlier, for that matter.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Mason
May 24 2012, 09:34 AM
What is to prevent Candidate X from raping someone - then having Bunny Money pay for the woman to be carted off to the islands somewhere and live on the beach with $400k as play money every six months?

Or a woman he raped 10 years earlier, for that matter.
I can’t think of any jurisdiction, at least in the non-Moslem world, where rape is not a serious crime and adultery is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

John Edwards is one of those unique creeps. A hypocritical deceitful adulterer with a spouse that had cancer and had a baby with his cheating partner. A man who wanted to be President with little moral compass. How did he think he could be President or VP with that hidden in his closet?

Duke parent 2004 makes some good points and it has me re-thinking this case. I really don't know if Edwards broke Election Finance laws and I suspect they are so complicated that the verdict could go either way. I wish politicians had integrity

Edwards was the result of decades of "Me-First" mentality. You might get rich & powerful, but I don't judge a lifetime by how many toys I collect. Rather I try to follow this line of thinking;

My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand.

Thich Nhat Hanh - Buddhist Monk



I sure wouldn't want leave those footprints when I check out of Hotel Earth.
Edited by Baldo, May 24 2012, 11:28 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

DP, I bow to your well-articulated reasoning.

On retrospect. I will take my comfort in Baldo's apt description of this smarmy meglomaniac. Perhaps the very public humiliation of this trial and the knowledge that he is now a pariah, is more tortuous than any jail sentence. Let hiim walk about shunned by his old cronies and mocked by former sychophants.

Okey-doke.

Edited by Joan Foster, May 24 2012, 01:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

If only we'd have had that FREE PILL back then, all of this could have been avoided!
Edited by kbp, May 24 2012, 01:29 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
May 24 2012, 12:52 PM
On retrospect. I will take my comfort in Baldo's apt description of this smarmy meglomaniac. Perhaps the very public humiliation of this trial and the knowledge that he is now a pariah, is more tortuous than any jail sentence. Let hiim walk about shunned by his old cronies and mocked by former sychophants.
In characterizing Edwards as "reptilian," I've probably been unfair to critters that do, after all, snack on rats and other vermin.. I'm not confident Edwards can be compared favorably to any members of the animal kingdom, with the possible exception of tapeworms and a few other parasites.

As much as I respect Mark Steyn, he could have done a better job of expanding the meaning of loathsome as it pertains to Edwards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Duke parent 2004
May 24 2012, 02:03 PM
Joan Foster
May 24 2012, 12:52 PM
On retrospect. I will take my comfort in Baldo's apt description of this smarmy meglomaniac. Perhaps the very public humiliation of this trial and the knowledge that he is now a pariah, is more tortuous than any jail sentence. Let hiim walk about shunned by his old cronies and mocked by former sychophants.
In characterizing Edwards as "reptilian," I've probably been unfair to critters that do, after all, snack on rats and other vermin.. I'm not confident Edwards can be compared favorably to any members of the animal kingdom, with the possible exception of tapeworms and a few other parasites.

As much as I respect Mark Steyn, he could have done a better job of expanding the meaning of loathsome as it pertains to Edwards.
To quote my dear departed father, low-lifes can be characterized in one of two ways - as a#%-holes or a#%-wipes. What is the difference between the two, you ask? The former has distinguishing characteristics - each one is unique. However, anything can be used for the latter.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

cks
May 24 2012, 05:57 PM
Duke parent 2004
May 24 2012, 02:03 PM
Joan Foster
May 24 2012, 12:52 PM
On retrospect. I will take my comfort in Baldo's apt description of this smarmy meglomaniac. Perhaps the very public humiliation of this trial and the knowledge that he is now a pariah, is more tortuous than any jail sentence. Let hiim walk about shunned by his old cronies and mocked by former sychophants.
In characterizing Edwards as "reptilian," I've probably been unfair to critters that do, after all, snack on rats and other vermin.. I'm not confident Edwards can be compared favorably to any members of the animal kingdom, with the possible exception of tapeworms and a few other parasites.

As much as I respect Mark Steyn, he could have done a better job of expanding the meaning of loathsome as it pertains to Edwards.
To quote my dear departed father, low-lifes can be characterized in one of two ways - as a#%-holes or a#%-wipes. What is the difference between the two, you ask? The former has distinguishing characteristics - each one is unique. However, anything can be used for the latter.

Your Father was very wise!

:toast:

I think Edwards fills a dual purpose as an a#%-hole and an a#%-wipe
Edited by Baldo, May 24 2012, 06:09 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Sadly, there are Democrats today who would still support his candidacy, including the lawyers who are defending him. Bunny Mellon knew about the affair, but hated Elizabeth so much she over looked it and gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars to dupe the public. This is right out of Kennedy era politics. She learned at the feet of the very best of the deceivers and at 101 years of age, she still needs an "evening friend" to get her through the night. I would suggest she take off her French designed garden frocks and pluck the vast wasteland of weeds that have infested her own soul.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply