Why the prosecution of John Edwards was ludicrous

[MindMover]

I have not watched the Edwards trial and I am not intimately familiar with the details of the evidence. But like Amanda Marcotte, I'm glad he was not convicted. I hope the prosecution decides to let it go. Being a horrible person is not a criminal act. If it were, we wouldn't be able to build enough prisons.

But Amanda explains the real reason why prosecutors should close this case. In this day and age, in this era of obscene electoral profligacy, the pursuit was simply ludicrous:

With the news of Karl Rove crowing about how he intends to spend $1 billion in untraceable funds to beat Obama in 2012, it looks particularly ridiculous for the government to waste resources on a showboat prosecution. Even the conservative news magazine National Review had to denounce the prosecution as a waste. John Edwards has been disgraced, humiliated and run out of politics. Bringing the full force of the law down on him on top of it all just seems greedy.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/john-edwards-justice

[Bill USA]

1. When the prosecution spent many hours taking irrelevant testimony

documenting how much Edwards hurt his wife, it was a clear admission that they had no case re his breaking any campaign finance law. If he was on trial for being an ass, he would have been found guilty. But he was being tried for breaking campaign finance legislation. Of this, they failed to provide any evidence.

[rbixby]

2. Funny how dems are held to a higher standard than their 'family values' opponents these things NT

[yurbud]

3. if Republicans were held to the same standards on corruption, there would be no Republicans left in

office.

[Zoeisright]

4. So, so true.

[yurbud]

5. on the other hand, it's hard to call it corruption when it's built into your ideology