Legal Commentary

I may be alone in finding the paternity of John Edwards' baby a non-event.  But I've long thought differences in punishment difference between attempted murder and murder were irrational.  

But the far more interesting thing is, of course, the federal grand jury's consideration of whether any crimes were committed in the dealings with Edwards' illicit relationship.  I am not an election law expert (by a long stretch).  So I began to consider crimes unrelated to election law that may have been committed by Edwards and others as large sums of were solicited and used to support this enchantress, Ms. Hunter.

Here's what I came up with -- proving, just in case you needed another example, that the criminal law is drafted so broadly it can (and never should) be fully enforced.

Blackmail: If Hunter made it clear that being housed well (and, wow, was she ever) was a condition for her silence, then she's committed blackmail.  One wouldn't think, certainly, that Edwards is guilty of this crime by paying her, but what if he solicits contributions to pay her off?  What if he (and his conspirators) arrange for the money to come through a furniture company, so that there will be no money trail leading to Hunter.  Has he aided and abetted her in concealing the crime, admittedly a crime committed against him? 

Prostitution: This is the ever-thorny line between sugar-daddy and john -- and an extension of the blackmail question.  If Hunter would have discontinued her relationship with Edwards unless given lavish accommodations and automobiles, does this qualify as prostitution?  Technically, probably.  But under that broad an application of prostitution, every fiance who insists on a ring of certain quality would fall into the category.    

Embezzlement: Let's say campaign funds were used.  As I say, I am not an expert on election law, but I am willing to wager that there's a provision of federal law that forbids the use of campaign funds to support mistresses.  Just guessing here...  But I am not sure you'd need such a provision.  Certainly a campaign has a certain degree of flexibility in deciding how to use campaign contributions, but supporting mistresses seems to be a misuse of the funds donated to the campaign, even if the expenditure is necessary to prevent her from harpooning the campaign by going public. 

Money Laundering:  The funds from a major donor were channeled through a furniture store to avoid the transaction from being detected.

My hunch, however, no true bill.