At first blush, the decision to indict former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for conspiracy to accept illegal campaign contributions, given the facts and circumstances, seems like a stretch, to say the least.
The definition of “campaign contributions” has never to date been used to apply in this particular fact pattern — when donations were made to a third party, not to the campaign itself, for the purpose of keeping quiet an embarrassing affair of the presidential candidate as well as a child conceived out of wedlock, all of which, if made public at the time, would have “destroyed” his campaign, according to the indictment.
But on second look, after reading the literal words of the definition of “campaign contribution,” and then the factual allegations of the government in the indictment, it does seem possible that the case could lead to a guilty verdict.
Federal election law defines a “campaign contribution” as “anything of value provided for the purpose of influencing” the outcome of a federal election. The key words to focus on are “anything of value” and given “for the purpose of” influencing the outcome of Edwards’s presidential campaign.
It is entirely possible that the judge will rule as a matter of law that Congress never intended “campaign contribution” to be defined as covering such indirect contributions providing benefits to a candidate seeking to hush up a scandal. If so, then the case will be thrown out and never get to trial or presented to a jury.
However, if you look at the indictment, there are two facts alleged that, if proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, could result in Edwards being found guilty…that is, if the judge lets the case get to a jury.
First, in paragraph 26, the indictment quotes Edwards telling his senior aide, Andrew Young, that he needed to falsely state that he was the father of Ms. Rielle’s child, because “his efforts to win the presidency — and everything he fought for — depended on it.” Also, in paragraph 33, Edwards allegedly decided not to issue a public statement that he was aware of donor contributions intended “to support and hide” his relationship with Rielle from the media. However, significantly, the indictment then goes on to quote him as explaining the reason why he chose not to do so: for “legal and practical reasons.”
If both of those alleged statements are believed by the jury to have been actually stated by Edwards, then it can reasonably infer that Edwards knew that the donations to Rielle were primarily to prevent damage to his campaign, and thus, under the law, could be deemed illegal campaign contributions due to exceeding limits.
So, too, is it utter nonsense to suggest that this case was brought due to a partisan motivation by a holdover Republican U.S. attorney in the eastern district of North Carolina.
The indictment is signed by the highly respected Jack Smith, the chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. And the statement justifying the indictment made by Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer, a strong Democrat and a man of unquestioned integrity, balance and fairness, was most persuasive to me. Breuer stated:
“We will not permit candidates for high office to abuse their special ability to access the coffers of their political supporters to circumvent our election laws … Our campaign finance system is designed to preserve the integrity of democratic elections … and we will vigorously pursue abuses of the kind alleged today.”
As of now, Edwards is presumed innocent until found guilty. But it is just as wrong to jump to the conclusion that he is guilty as it is to question the motives and integrity of the prosecutors for deciding to seek an indictment and allow a jury to decide guilt. Also, the fact such a criminal case has never been brought is not a good reason not to bring it — if the facts and law support doing so.
Stay tuned. I respectfully suggest to the defense team that if a strong Democrat such as Breuer made the difficult decision to approve bringing this case, it’s time to stop attacking the prosecutors and time to refute the specific factual allegations, if you can, contained in the indictment.
Lanny Davis is a Fox News contributor. He is the principal in the Washington D.C. law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, which specializes in strategic crisis management and is a partner with Josh Block in the strategic communications and public affairs company Davis-Block. He served as President Clinton’s Special Counsel from 1996-98 and as a member of President Bush’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in 2006-07. He is the author of “Scandal: How ‘Gotcha’ Politics Is Destroying America” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). He can be found on Facebook and Twitter @LannyDavis.
This weekly column appears in the Opinion section of FoxNews.com, The Hill, the Daily Caller, , Huffington Post and the Jakarta Globe every Thursday.
Lanny Davis is a regular weekly columnist for The Hill. In 1996-98, Davis served as special counsel to President Bill Clinton. He attended Yale Law School with Hillary Clinton in 1969-70 and has remained friends with her ever since. He is the author of the book, "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping With Crises in Business, Politics, and Life," (Simon & Schuster March 2013). Follow him on Twitter at @LannyDavis.