Edwards accepted $57 Million in donations, all the while hiding the fact that he had had an affair, and fathered a child. He knew that public knowledge of this affair would ruin his chances to win in a general election, but it didn't stop him from seeking donations.
Even when the scandal leaked in August 2007 as a blind item, Edwards continued with his run for the White House. It is now alleged Edwards used some of those donations as hush money, and he is under investigation. It makes me wonder if he also used those donations to pay for his hotel rooms and romantic dinners....
But, back to the lawsuit. I would even go so far to say that Hillary Clinton supporters could join in on the law suit. Had Edwards not been a candidate, she very well could have received a good portion of his votes, and perhaps beat Obama in Iowa. (I mean, after all, if you weren’t voting for Obama, weren’t you in fact racist? /snark! But following the twisted claims of the media, couldn’t you assume that Edwards voters would vote for Clinton over Obama, being racist and all…/double snark!)
I do not believe the voters in Iowa who voted for Edwards were racist (I am not like the media and Obama supporters who called everyone racist) but I do think that a lot of his supporters would have voted Clinton over Obama, at that point in the primary. I believe some would have voted Obama, but personally, at that point, I think a lot more would have voted for her.
But, regardless of whether Clinton would have received a majority of Edwards’ votes in Iowa, she did lose delegates because of Edwards, which were given to Obama.
Before the scandal was picked up by the MSM, and after John dropped out of the race, Edwards endorsed Obama thus perpetuating the fraud. He used his influence to throw his weight behind Obama - influence that would not exist had his affair been exposed.
I always wondered why Edwards endorsed Obama, since he seemed to be more in line with Clinton politically and their perceptions of Obama's experience. Personally I think Obama knew about the affair and used it somehow to get that endorsement (and considering the now breaking stories about Obama intimidating and threatening creditors to Chrysler it isn't that hard to believe).
In my unprofessional opinion a case can be made to sue John Edwards for fraud.
"To win a suit for fraud, you must show that you were truly deceived by the misrepresentations given and that you reasonably relied on the statement or act to your detriment. In other words, your reliance on the action or statement affected your course of action. And you suffered harm because of the misrepresentation.Heck, why not throw in the media as well? The media knew about this story, but covered it up.
Though this is the basis for an action for fraud, there is an exception. Exaggerated claims, "sales talk," (e.g., the car salesmen trumpets) or "puffing" are not usually considered fraudulent since the courts view them as statements of opinion, not statements of facts. Half-truths that are misleading are grounds for action for fraudulent misrepresentation.
You must also show that the person making the statement knew it was an outright lie. This element may be a major hurdle to prove because dishonest people are very skillful and ingenious at disguising their statements, knowing the "fine line" to avoid legal trouble or face any scrutiny."
The first apparent print mention of a possible Edwards/Hunter affair appeared in the New York Post. On August 27, 2007, the Page Six feature published a blind gossip item which asked "WHICH political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he'll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture." The mention in the Post started a tabloid and blogosphere investigation that eventually led back to Hunter and Edwards.
Following that blind item, the National Enquirer broke the story. But, the story stopped there. The MSM ignored it.
The claims received little attention in the mainstream press. CBS News journalist Bob Schieffer, asked about the allegations on Imus in the Morning, stated "I believe that's a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it...This seems to be just sort of a staple of modern campaigns, that you got through at least one love child which turns out not to be a love child. And I think we can all do better than this one." Mickey Kaus, a journalist at Slate, speculated that the lack of mainstream coverage was motivated by a desire not to harm Elizabeth Edwards (who was fighting cancer at the time), or that the news organizations were taking a "wait-and-see" attitude pending the results of the Iowa caucuses.The media buried/ignored the story to protect John and Elizabeth Edwards? Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair, and didn't stop John from committing this fraud on the American people. Not even Elizabeth believes John didn't father that baby. I initially felt very sorry for her, but learning that she knew about this, and allowed it to continue altered my feelings about her.
John Edwards painted a picture of who he was, and what he stood for. His supporters believed him, and the image he portrayed, thus donating $57 Million dollars to him. They were truly deceived by the misrepresentations given and reasonably relied on the statement or act to their detriment....reliance on the action or statement affected their course of action. His supporters believed that he had a legitimate chance to win the Presidency. But he didn't.
I'm not saying to sue him for having an affair. But I would sue him for running for President, collecting $57M in donations, and lying to the American people.
The harm suffered by Edwards supporters was being swindled out of $57 million.
One could argue the harm suffered Clinton supporters was the the loss in Iowa, the loss of delegates in Florida, this hit she took in South Carolina, the loss of the delegates Edwards gifted Obama once he dropped out, and the loss of hundreds of millions in donations, because she lost, in part to his being in the race. Her supporters continued to donate, not knowing about the fraud and cover up perpetuated by Edwards, and the media.
Clinton received more votes than any other candidate, but she lost because of the delegates. Delegates that Edwards won through fraud, and were then awarded to Obama.
The media lied, hid the truth, and covered for Edwards. One could argue they buried the truth to control the outcome of a Presidential election.
A whole lot of money was donated during this past primary, hundreds of millions of dollars. Money that was donated in good faith, but was solicited under fraudulent means, without full disclosure, and with a media cover up.
I don't know about you, but I think a good lawyer could make a case out of this.