[Mrs. Don-o]

I think Chapman is right. According to reputable experts concerning the law in question, 90% of them wouldn't have thought the donations were at that point restricted to be campaign contributions. In other words, there's a real ambiguity as to whether these were "for whatever you need, John" gifts.

If there's ambiguity and even the campaign-law experts can't agree, there's no certainty "beyond reasonable doubt" that he was guilty of a crime.

We, too --- every single one of us --- need to protected from prosecution on laws which were too vague for a reasonable person to know what was allowed and what was prohibited. And aggressive, selective prosecution exploiting equivocal legal bafflegab is unjust, even if it's an injustice against a cold-hearted lying adulterer-pustule like Edwards.

As Chapman stated in the final words of the article, "He may deserve to rot in hell. Just not in jail."

[.45 Long Colt]

While it’s fun to see the Breck girl get his comeuppance, I am not comfortable with this prosecution. I am a lawyer (though not an election law expert by any means) and based on what I’ve read, this interpretation of the law is a real stretch. It looks more like a political witch-hunt designed to prevent a 2012 primary challenge. Obama has a nasty habit of sweeping the deck of any challengers. We need to remember that while the affair was unseemly, what the man actually did was make arrangements to take care of HIS OWN CHILD and the child’s mother.

I was against the prosecution of Tom Delay for the same reasons. If what Delay did was a crime, most in D.C. are criminals.