I realize that this is a semantic dispute of absolutely no significance, but I think scrut is wrong here. Lay was found guilty and then his conviction was vacated. So by the simple and standard meaning of the English words involved he was found guilty by a jury and no subsequent events can undo that or invalidate the correctness of the statement that he was found guilty.
As to the John Edwards indictment:
This is kind of cool I think. If I understand the situation a couple of rich old ladies gave him some money which he used to keep his mistress in the style to which she aspired to be kept in, presumably out of love or because he didn't want her spilling the beans so he could run for president.
Is it a problem for him that he claimed that his mistress was actually doing work on the campaign? Did any of the money from the old ladies (beyond their personal campaign contribution limit) get used to pay Hunter while she was doing actual campaign work? The obvious Edwards defense to that is that he was just stone cold lying about the role Hunter had in the campaign and that was all just a ruse so he had an excuse to keep his mistress around and give her money.
But if he now comes forth and claims that Hunter wasn't doing actual work on the campaign could he be charged with misuse of campaign contributions if any of the Hunter money came out of his campaign's general fund? Dicey for him: he needs to admit to being really sleazy to avoid one charge, but then limit how sleazy he admits to being to avoid another. And the feds may argue that this is all moot. Keeping the mistress/baby story secret was an essential aspect of his campaign and therefore money he received to assist with the effort to keep the mistress/baby secret was by definition a campaign contribution.
So far these charges look like a stretch to me, but I am ignoble enough to enjoy the show and the sense of satisfaction that this is happening to a fairly sleazy fellow.
Does anybody have any thoughts about whether Spiro Agnew or Edwards was sleazier?
