John Edwards' defense has always maintained that even if he knew the funds from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron went to support and hide Rielle Hunter and the Youngs, that the funds weren't campaign contributions under the law and since he believed they were not camaign contributions, he didn't willfully, in violation of a known legal duty, violate the law in accepting or failing to report them.
It doesn't seem to me that the details of Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter and his marriage problems resolve the critical issues.
The Government is trying to prove Mellon and Baron provided funds to Edwards for the purpose of influencing the 2008 election – i.e., helping Edwards be elected President of the United States – and that Edwards knew it.
The Government wants to show that Edwards' intent in supporting and hiding Rielle and the Youngs was not to protect his marriage and spare Elizabeth pain, but to prevent the media from finding out, which would torpedo his campaign.
But Edwards lied to Elizabeth when she found out about the affair. He told her it was over when it wasn't. He wanted to prevent her from knowing the affair was more than a one night stand, and especially, that he was the father of the Rielle's baby.
Neither side seems to disagree that Edwards was trying to prevent the media from finding out. The Government argues Edwards' motivation was that if the media found out, it would end his campaign. The defense maintains if the media found out, it would crush Elizabeth and his marriage to know the extent of the of the affair.
These don't seem mutually exclusive. How would Elizabeth find out the extent of the affair, that it was more than a one-night stand and he fathered Rielle's child, if not from the media? What if the jury determines Edwards had both goals -- to preserve his campaign and spare his wife more anguish?
The minute re-telling of the affair doesn't prove the most critical element in the case: Were the donations campaign contributions within the meaning of the Federal Election Campaign Act?
Team Edwards argues:
The monies were not direct contributions to the John Edwards for President Campaign, the monies were not coordinated expenditures made for a campaign-related purpose, and the monies do not fall within the personal use expense regulation.
...The expenses involved were not to satisfy debts that Mr. Edwards was legally obligated to pay irrespective of the campaign; Mr. Baron and Ms. Mellon would have given the money regardless of the campaign; and Mr. Baron and Ms. Mellon made the payments knowing that the monies would not be used for campaign purposes.
Breaking that down, Edwards position is:
- The Government can't show the donors would not have given the money if he wasn't running for President
- The donations were not "unambiguously" related to the campaign. To show they were "unambiguously related to the campaign" the Government must show they are susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than to elect a candidate in a federal election.
- Funds provided after he suspended his campaign in January, 2008 could not have been for the purpose of influencing the election
- The funds were not “personal use” expenses unless the donor would not have paid those expenses irrespective of the campaign. The Government can't show Mellon and Baron would not have made the donations had he not been running for office.
- The funds were not personal use expenses of John Edwards because they went to Rielle and the Youngs, whom he had no legal obligation to support. The personal expenses of Rielle and the Youngs are not his personal expenses since he wasn't legally obligated to repay the expenses.
A “personal use” expense is an expense of a candidate that would exist irrespective of the election. Such an expense must be personal to the candidate or must be an expense that the candidate is legally obligated to pay without regard to the election. In other words, it has to be an expense that the candidate would have to pay if he was not running for office....If the expense is one that Mr. Edwards would not have been obligated to pay or would not have paid if he had not been running for President, then it is not a personal
use expense.
Next, even if the monies were campaign contributions, Edwards maintains he cannot be convicted unless he acted willfully in receiving the monies and willfully failed to report them.
Edwards was told by those administering the funds they were not campaign contributions. Both Andrew Young and Cheri Young testified he assured them the monies were not campaign contributions. To act willfully means to act in violation of a known legal duty. Since Edwards didn't know he had a legal duty, he couldn't have acted in violation of that duty by accepting or failing to report the funds.
The Government is directing the presentation of evidence at trial. It has spent two weeks trashing the character of John Edwards. The judge has instructed the jury this is not about him being a cad, it's about whether he broke the law.
At some point, the jury is bound to get fed up with the character assassination, and want the proof John Edwards committed a crime. It will want more than innuendo and details from which it can draw inferences. The jury needs to be provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The longer the Government avoids presenting such proof, the more it appears it doesn't have it.
