very similar to John Edwards' case.
In fact, both had people spend money to hide affairs. With Edwards, the question is whether the two donors would have given Edwards the money if he were not a candidate or potential candidate for some office. I don't think either had a relationship with Edwards that included tens of thousands of dollars of gifts.
One thing that makes thinking about it tough is Citizens United, but you need to go by the law in place. That law attempted to control the amount of money that could be given to a campaign. With the interpretation Edwards is using, any billionaire or millionaire could contribute an infinite amount of money - by giving it to the candidate, who could then self fund.
Edwards has tried to blame everyone but himself. He had to do this because Elizabeth had a "violent" temper??? (Yeah - wives spending their last bit of energy, with terminal cancer and worrying about their young children should take an affair that betrays the wife in two ways - the obvious and because it throws all their political work in the garbage - calmly and serenely.)
Then he is arguing that the truly unlikable Young was the mastermind of the payment scheme. Edwards had nothing to do with it -- and never made an attempt to support Hunter, help her pay for needed medical services or to support his child. Further down, he blamed Rielle for the baby - calling her a slut. Yet I assume he knows how babies are conceived! It seems hard to believe that he was not at least tacitly involved.
= new reply since forum marked as read
