I just reread my earlier post on the potential indictment of John Edwards and found it surprisingly persusasive! … P.S.: The WSJ‘s James Taranto argues it’s OK to indict Edwards because Edwards “politicized his private life.” Is that a crime? … P.P.S.: If the problem is that paying to conceal his mistress was a straight-out non-campaign bribe, then indict Edwards under the bribery laws. If they don’t apply to out-of-office candidates, then rewrite them and let Edwards go free. … Also: Kevin Williamson smells “campaign finance police” imperialism. …
Update: If the liberal political establishment had a subconscious, you could say the Edwards indictment was a belated overreaction produced by guilt over having willfully ignored his affair during the campaign, when it mattered. It’s also self-servingly exculpatory–see, we didn’t cover for him! It’s because he broke the law and deceived us! … But I suspect it’s more a case of DOJ lawyers getting some hot docs or email evidence that they think will let them expand their reach by prosecuting an inherently iffy case hinging on “intent.” …