General discussion

I hope he beats the rap. John Edwards.

Not because I approve of him in any way, but because I disapprove of the government's case and certainly don't like the convoluted manner in which they are trying to apply support she received as "campaign contributions" unreported. This smarmy prosecution seeks to expand government powers even further into the private lives of individuals. He didn't break a law, (moral codes yes) when he got his mistress pregnant. It's not against the law to give someone who isn't a candidate some money to live on. No law against lying to newspaper reporters. What if he'd said he had a honey with a bun in the oven? Would they prosecute him THEN if his friends gave her money to live on? No, of course not. Why? Because they'd have no case, therefore they still have no case just because it wasn't known till later.

LINK


<b>Edwards was aware of the private financial support that helped keep the
mistress satisfied and secluded. Prosecutors believe the private gifts
should have been considered campaign contributions since they aided his
candidacy.</b>

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: I hope he beats the rap. John Edwards.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: I hope he beats the rap. John Edwards.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Yeah...nothing going on there

money hidden in a box of chocolates.

- Collapse -
I think you're making a "leap"

assuming that he is charged with lying to the press

The indictment is the culmination of a federal investigation that lasted
more than two years and scoured through virtually every corner of
Edwards' political career. That included his political action
committees, a nonprofit and a so-called 527 independent political group.
It even examined whether he did anything improper during his time in
the U.S. Senate, which ended seven years ago.


I think he also lied to the Federal Investigators (FBI?)

I think the FBI also talked to Edwards.

- Collapse -
I'd have to agree that

it seems a bit of a stretch to call it any type of misuse of campaign contributions on the basis of the fact paying her hush money helped his candidacy by keeping his image squeaky clean.

- Collapse -
I imagine

that the case will depend on the purpose the donations were given.

"But the centerpiece of the investigation has long been the hundreds of thousands of dollars privately provided by two wealthy Edwards supporters"

"Privately provided" seems to indicate the two donors provided the funds, not for the campaign, but privately to, (or for), Edwards for his mistress.

So, if that is what the two donors say under oath in court, then the prosecution case fails, or at least loses much of its force, I would assume.

Mark

- Collapse -
One donor is dead now

But what I understand from limited reading is they provided funds directly to the mistress with assistance from the campaign manager without ever going through the campaign books or accounts.

- Collapse -
IF it wasn't a campaign contribution

then the donors would have paid When a taxable gift in the form of cash, stocks, real estate, or other
tangible or intangible property is made the tax is usually imposed on
the donor
(the giver) unless there is a retention of an interest which delays
completion of the gift. A transfer is completely gratuitous where the
donor receives nothing of value in exchange for the gifted property.


Check the donors tax returns, If they've claimed it then it was a gift? If not...people might get suspicious.

Can you have so much money you don't have to pay taxes on money you give away?

"Bunny" is 100 years old maybe she is giving her lifetime exemption all in one shot. Devil

- Collapse -
Gift limits

Check the tax code. There's a yearly limit you can give each person becoming taxable on anything above that. There's a lifetime limit you can give each person becoming taxable on anything given above that amount. Inheritance laws alter those figures I believe.

- Collapse -
Do you think they claimed it on their taxes?

The donors, that is.

- Collapse -
what does it matter?

It wouldn't have any bearing on John Edwards.

- Collapse -
Hmmm, maybe

A stretch, but maybe no more than how they reached some of his charges.

- Collapse -
There ya' go..that's my point.

OR if it was a "gift" to Edwards just for himself (not campaign related) to do with as he pleases...keeping in mind that

The transferor must demonstrate a "detached and disinterested
generosity" when giving the gift to actually exclude the value of the
gift from the taxpayer's gross income.


Would Edwards be the transferor? Should he have included it in his gross income?

- Collapse -
Why would Edwards even need help?

I've read that estimates of his worth range from 20-60+ million. He could have paid any hush money himself and still kept his same barber.

- Collapse -
Ah, but then he would be totally involved

if his friends do it without his direction or provable knowledge, he can't be responsible for it.

CNET Forums