Sunday, April 29, 2012

Obamas Whitewater: Political Vendetta, Persecuting John Edwards

John Edwards
From Denny:  Yeah, like this salacious trial is truly in the public interest.  More like it's in Team Obama's interest of eliminating possible political contenders as well as settling old political scores.

Axelrod, now Obama's "senior adviser" and handler,  is still smarting from when Edwards fired him from his 2004 presidential campaign and has been chasing revenge ever since.  It was foolish of Obama to give Axelrod his wish because now there will be blow back upon Obama, both political and criminal.

Oh, and did I mention how the lobbyists despise John Edwards for his campaign stand to eliminate them?  So, they decided to eliminate Edwards by making sure he is the object of such enduring public scorn and excessive humiliation to ensure he will not rise again as a national politician to thwart them.  Remember, Edwards is starting up a public interest law firm to fight lobbyists that have a stranglehold on our government and is no darling of the lobbyist community.

Maybe, the ruthless government prosecution/persecution and lobbyists think, they will get lucky and find enough jurors to hate Edwards too and send him to jail for 30 years on a law that did not exist at the time of the supposed crime.  If convicted by this farce of a case, Edwards faces 30 years in prison if found guilty on six counts as well as an additional $1.5 million in fines. This is how badly our judicial system and national politics have deteriorated.  It no longer is about the truth of real public interest, the actual law, decency or fairness.

Excuse me for having grown up inside the CIA where the vile and the nasty are every day occurrences so I see this political vendetta as clear as day.  I suppose John Edwards should be grateful Obama, Axelrod and Holder have not yet sent an assassination team against him and his family.

Though, after this case, I would not eliminate that possibility considering their ruthless need for malicious prosecution.  These ugly politics are unworthy of the Democratic Party and, most especially, of a sitting president.  This Team Obama ugliness is the darkest shade of channeling President Nixon again.

To say I'm disgusted with this government case against an individual whose only "crime" was stupid sex with a gold digger is an under statement.  Yeah, that's what you get when you are "new rich."  Edwards did not get the generational family culture of how to handle such situations and see them coming at him.  So, he fell for the "honeypot" scenario the CIA was, and still is, so fond of employing.  It's a regular intelligence technique to procure secret information, bribe the influential or extort money from wealthy married men easily fooled.

For blow back potential of this case just think of Obama's most recent scandal of the Secret Service hiring prostitutes in Columbia.  Obama sends out Miss Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to declare nothing like this has every been reported.  That alludes to the fact that perhaps this Columbian sex scandal is an isolated incident.

Did I mention how the Secret Service sent out a first advance team ahead to vett the prostitutes for the second advance team?  That also speaks to it is a standard practice and a long standing scummy cowboy culture of prostitutes on the taxpayers' dime.  So, please, Mr. Obama and Scumbag Axelrod, quit trying to baffle us with BS.

Back to the Edwards case... He is accused of directing this big conspiracy, using a measly almost $1 million of campaign donors' payments, willingly given separate from campaign funds to help with his personal problem, to keep the pregnant Rielle Hunter from going public.  Edwards' wife was ill for six years with end stage breast cancer, dying in 2010, and Edwards was hoping to keep the affair out of the press to help his wife. Edwards admitted to the affair publicly in August 2008, acknowledging paternity as well.

After all, Edwards already had told his wife about the affair two years earlier, when he was not running for office, and wanted to spare her more embarrassment.  At this point he had figured out he had "done wrong and done stupid" so why compound that bad judgment?

So, what happened this first week of trial?  The prosecution put on the witness stand a really scummy witness, sewer rat Andrew Young, willing to lie about anything and everything because the prosecution gave him blanket immunity, dangled in front of him as his big cheese.

Add to this that Andrew Young is guilty of witness tampering in this case. Yes, this idiot actually called three other witnesses in this trial in order to get their stories all the same, two men and a woman. Young had a sexual affair with the female witness he called to corroborate their stories, so this is really getting bizarre.  What is more bizarre is why did this judge not strike him from the witness list or stop this sham of a trial after that revelation?

From Steve Friedland, an Elon University law professor who attended the trial in Greensboro, N.C.:  "He’s the foundation of the prosecution’s house. Take him away, and it starts to fall apart." 

Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who heads the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, stated that perhaps the prosecution’s goal is for the jury to "hate John Edwards so much they’ll convict him.  The jurors may hate everybody here.  But you’re not going convict anyone on Andrew Young’s testimony alone. They’re going to have to have a lot more."

So, can a reasonable person wonder if the judge is in collusion with the government prosecution because of all the glaring missteps in this trial? Considering how ruthless this DOJ is, did they promise this judge a better job with scads more money, like a political promise of elevating said judge to a federal position?  Like these bribes never happen on the federal level and in national politics.  (Serious eye rolling going on here at this house.)

What did Young admit to doing?  Looks like this sewer slime was a busy guy.  Considering how calculating this guy is also makes a person wonder if he and Rielle Hunter knew each other before introducing her to Edwards.  Were those two really a couple of ruthless con artists, ready to bilk a stupid rich guy caught in their con?

In the end, the defense chewed up Young, exposing his lies of previous statements and inconsistencies in his courtroom testimony and his book.  There were three areas of benefit to Edwards:

* Young admitted donors Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron did not expect anything in return for their largesse, confirming this was not the typical quid pro quo political corruption case the government contends.

* Young confirmed he and Edwards told Mellon her donations were intended to help Edwards with a personal matter.  Any campaign donor knows that is diplomatic speak for paying off the girl friends.

* Young also testified that Edwards assured him the arrangement was legal. So, how can the prosecution use Young to prove Edwards knew this financial support ran afoul of federal election laws?

Young said he took Edwards' money, that was supposed to all go to Hunter and the baby, yet he chose to  keep 80 percent for himself and his wife.  Young complained that Hunter kept wanting to upgrade to more expensive digs and an expensive car.  Yeah, I guess so; it was eating into his con treasure chest.

What did Young do with his unequal share of the take?  He used it to build his dream home that amounted to a worth of $1.5 million. Young also claimed he thought Edwards' money meant for Hunter and the baby was a gift to him so he didn't declare taxes on it.  A gift can only amount to $10,000 not the almost $1 million he stole.  Can this case get any more bizarre, greedy or ruthless?

There is nothing about Andrew Young that is credible or sympathetic.  It isn't much of a stretch to know what the jury is thinking right about now (and what a great link is this video clip).  I'm sure the jurors are flabbergasted the government is prosecuting Edwards' choice in women instead of anything on its merits.  At best, they are wondering about how a close aide and friend set up Edwards from the beginning and was no friend at all.  How could Edwards be so gullible to believe Young's sincerity?  Edwards was played from the start by this guy.

Young also threatened to expose Edwards by releasing the now infamous sex tape with Hunter.  Nothing like a little blackmail and extortion among "friends."  It was a private tape too many people often make, thinking no one but them will view it.  That was gullible too of a man who had run for national office.  He should have seen the perils of that situation.

The sex tape issue was settled in a separate lawsuit.  It was a private tape that Young retrieved out of Hunter's garbage can.  Sure sounds like he always planned to profit by it.  For months Young claimed he did not have the tape and that judge threatened to charge him with perjury if the tape showed up.  Suddenly, the tape does surface.  The government has a copy too.  

Then the suit was settled recently and ALL copies of the tape were to be destroyed.  Funny thing; the DOJ prosecution in this Edwards case now claims to have a copy of the tape that was ordered to be destroyed by a court.  So, why does the DOJ think it's "too big to follow the rule of law"?  And these guys think Edwards should be on trial???

The Edwards team wants to bring two former members of the Federal Elections Commission to testify.  These witnesses can support its claims that the payments were gifts, not campaign contributions. Of course, the prosecution opposes their possible testimony.  It is still the judge's decision as to whether they may testify.  The FEC members could go a long way to help Edwards by emphasizing the complexities of the law.

Have you noticed just how stacked this case is against Edwards getting any justice with a judge giving all to the government's prosecution?  Many potential jurors were dismissed before they started trial because they were prejudiced.  They should have moved the trial out of the area yet the prosecution was adamant, knowing it is a heavily conservative Republican jury pool and the judge went along with that too.

Is it any wonder the current Pew poll shows most Americans are fed up with and embarrassed by their government?  For the lowest level in 15 years, only one in three of Americans hold a favorable view of the government.

From the pollsters: 
“Since Barack Obama’s first year in office, public assessments of the federal government have dropped nine-points, with most of the change among Democrats and independents. In 2009, 61 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independents had favorable opinions of the federal government in Washington, those figures stand at 51 percent and 27 percent, respectively, today.”

A majority of Americans view their government as:

* too divided along party lines
* generally inefficient
* 54 percent view the federal government as corrupt

Clearly, we have a government and a Department of "Justice" that both think they are too big to "follow the rule of law" or the wishes of the voters.  This case is too much like the Whitewater case against Bill and Hillary Clinton.  The government wasted $60 million to paint the Clintons as morally corrupt and undesirables politically.

The public was furious and did not want their taxpayer monies used for this case since it was not in the public interest.  It was in the political interest of the opposing party, the Republicans, so they trudged on for years, wasting taxpayer money on the Whitewater case in their quest to destroy the Clintons.

Fast forward to the Edwards case.  Now Obama and Axelrod believe destroying Edwards and pulverizing his political brand is good for them.  I contend it is not.  Obama has far too many scandals hitting the public awareness:

* Solyndra
* Secret Service sex scandal
* GSA scandal

The Edwards case will only blow up in Obama's face.  This is a common problem with this White House.  They don't know when to get out of a stupid situation while the getting is good no matter how many people like myself try to warn them.  They are too busy playing Nixon style politics to see what is happening all around them.  The public is fed up with this style of negative politics and considers the federal government to be so corrupt it is time to vote out all the incumbents.

And Edwards?  In the end he will beat all six counts and the fines.  Yeah, the prosecution's case stinks that much.  Obama should be embarrassed and ashamed for forcing the public to listen to all this trumped up crap.  Clearly, this is not a classy White House, not by a long shot.

* * * See also:  Obama, Team Obama Unfairly Piling On: Prosecutes Populist John Edwards

* * * See also:  Obama, Team Obama Unfairly Piling On: Prosecutes Populist John Edwards

 Subscribe in a reader to A Truth Journal

* Check out Dennys News Politics Comedy Science Arts & Food - a place where all my other 20 blogs link so you can choose from among the latest posts all in one place. A free to read online newspaper from independent journalist blogger Denny Lyon. * 

Enhanced by Zemanta