Speakeasy forum

General discussion

I hope he beats the rap. John Edwards.

by James Denison / June 3, 2011 3:44 AM PDT

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
You are posting a reply to: I hope he beats the rap. John Edwards.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 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.
Collapse -
Yeah...nothing going on there
by JP Bill / June 3, 2011 6:44 AM PDT

money hidden in a box of chocolates.

Collapse -
I think you're making a "leap"
by JP Bill / June 3, 2011 6:57 AM PDT

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
by Roger NC / June 3, 2011 8:08 AM PDT

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
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / June 3, 2011 10:28 PM PDT

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
by Roger NC / June 3, 2011 10:48 PM PDT
In reply to: I imagine

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
by JP Bill / June 3, 2011 10:50 PM PDT
In reply to: I imagine

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
by James Denison / June 4, 2011 12:36 AM PDT

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?
by JP Bill / June 4, 2011 12:39 AM PDT
In reply to: Gift limits

The donors, that is.

Collapse -
what does it matter?
by James Denison / June 4, 2011 12:53 AM PDT

It wouldn't have any bearing on John Edwards.

Collapse -
Hmmm, maybe
by Roger NC / June 4, 2011 12:57 AM PDT
In reply to: what does it matter?

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

Collapse -
There ya' go..that's my point.
by JP Bill / June 4, 2011 1:09 AM PDT
In reply to: Hmmm, maybe

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?
by Steven Haninger / June 4, 2011 3:02 AM PDT

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
by Roger NC / June 4, 2011 6:40 AM PDT

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

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 51,912 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,498 discussions
icon
Laptops 20,411 discussions
icon
Security 30,882 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 21,253 discussions
icon
Windows 10 1,672 discussions
icon
Phones 16,494 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,855 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 15,504 discussions

REVIEW

Meet the drop-resistant Moto Z2 Force

The Moto Z2 Force is really thin, with a fast processor and great battery life. It can survive drops without shattering.