A synopsis of the
case: John Edwards used campaign contributions (around a million dollars)
to cover-up an affair he was having while his wife was dying of cancer.
That’s illegal.
Here is a defense strategy his lawyers have hinted they
might pursue:
A difference between “the”
and “a.”
The federal law states that campaign contributions are to
be used solely for the use of
election or re-election of the candidate.
Get that? “the
use,” not “a use.”
The defense team suggests that:
> IF the
only purpose of campaign contributions is to get the candidate elected or
re-elected…
>THEN John Edwards’ spending $1,000,000.00 of
campaign contributions to cover-up his affair while his wife is dying of cancer
is allowable…
>BECAUSE the cover-up would contribute to his
getting elected or re-elected because, after all, who would want to elect a
douche-bag who cheats on his wife while she is dying of cancer? (douche-bag reference added by me.)
Solid, yet evil syllogistic logic if ever I heard it.
Does any of that kind of thinking sound familiar?
Here are some Bill Clinton quotes during the “Monica
Lewinsky” investigation:
“It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is'
is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica
Lewinsky affair
"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
"There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were." –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony
And just for fun:
"Politics gives guys so much power that they
tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that."
–Bill Clinton, to a woman friend while he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford
"I may not have been the greatest president,
but I've had the most fun eight years." –Bill Clinton
Does it sound
like Slick Willy or John Edwards realize they are lost?
chris
For more info about the John Edwards case: Jon Edwards is a bigger DB than I thought he was.
No comments:
Post a Comment