John Edwards: Is the prosecution's grounds out on a limb?

Tweet

Disclaimer: I'm not a right-winger out to crucify Democrats; I'm merely an American who believes in the spirit of the law. (Bottom line: I am solidly to the left of Obama, and was quite ready to vote for Edwards had he been the only viable choice to save the Democratic nomination from Obama. Good thing he wasn't! It's quite complicated, as am I - LOL - but the plan was quite pragmatic, as am I. You can ask me about it if you're really curious.) That said, I am most interested in the opinions of other political junkies on the John Edwards indictment. In short, the prosecution is using a rather novel tactic; i.e.: Edwards received X amount of money from two supporters -- who did not, technically, contribute directly to Edwards's campaign -- as hush money / support / maintenance for Edwards's mistress and their baby. Yet, because the revelation of Edwards's extramarital affair would have destroyed his presidential campaign, these two donations can, indeed, be considered "campaign donations." Do you think the prosecution is going out on a limb with this heretofore untried tactic? In my opinion, the argument is quite valid -- but I am not a judge (nor the grand jury which found enough merit in the charges against him to indict him). If I were prosecuting the case against Edwards, I believe I would take a safer tack: I would go after Edwards on the grounds of tax evasion. (At present, any monetary "gift" over US$13,000 in a single calendar year is subject to a gift tax.) I am not a lawyer -- and while I would like very much to hear from lawyers who are far savvier than I am, I would also like to know what other armchair observers think: Do you think Edwards will be convicted on the grounds presently laid out, or could a better case have been made against him -- and does my idea of tax evasion (as opposed to the six counts with which he is charged -- four of which involve illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy, and one count of making false statements) stand up? Also: Does anyone think this odd "new legal ground" (i.e., treating this as an illegal-campaign contribution case) is a ruse to guarantee Edwards is acquitted?