where it was going, the $700,000? right. there are two sort of big questions here. one, did the money go through edwards campaign committee. if it went through edwards campaign committee, it is fairly easy to trace the money trail, because all of the contributions are recorded and the expenditures are recorded, but if it was simply bunny melon giving money to someone, and then that money passed over to rheal hunter, that is legally a lot harder to prove that a campaign contribution was misused, because you don t have a campaign distribucontribution traditional sense. now, maybe the justice department decides to argue that bunny melon was in effect making a campaign contribution and thus, it should be treated that way, but that would be legally a lot more challenging for the justice department to prove. and then there are those what, 50 voice mail messages that the aide handed over to the justice department, and i would
first, we want to touch on the case of john edwards. that is as you know could be a hollywood blockbuster or mega best seller, but there is nothing meteoric about him other than the rise and fall from politics. and he could be indicted for payments made to his mistress. a plea deal could be reached, because they want him to plead guilty to a felony, but family sources say he is resisting, because of losing his law license and terrified of going to jail. he lost his bid for the presidential nomination, and campaign donations made to his campaign were used to apparently cover up his affair. in the book tell all politician says that bunny melon gave him $700,000 used to keep the affair secret.
sean: campaign finance law. they are looking at laws like honor services which allows prosecutors full discretion shun to charge anybody with anything. they are looking at the hobb s act which requires quid pro quo it requires him to say, i will appoint you ambassador if you give me money. it requires an exchange that s not what we are also looking at are campaign laws and tax laws. which are very loose. we don t know everything. but we do know there are tax laws, because we know he took over $700,000 in personal checks from bunny melon. there there could be tax implications as well as violations of campaign laws. sean: pam, tamara, thank you both. tamara we won t hold it you what you called john edwards.
the judge in his original ruling seeped clear that he expected the obama administration to comply with his ruling. now he has said and ruled that in fact, he wants them to expedite. he seemed to back off a hair. your reaction? sean, what he reaffirmed for all of us, what you and i know is that, we would have to rewrite our united states constitution to make it legal what they are trying to do. and he told them that they need to if they want a stay they have to expedite this seven days to file their appeal expedite this through to the 11th circuit to get it to supreme court as soon as possible. tamara the john edwards case. he denied he had knowledge, approval. now there seeps to be a lot of evidence building. the grand jury has been hearing all this testimony. i i think there s a strong
sean: campaign finance law. they are looking at laws like honor services which allows prosecutors full discretion shun to charge anybody with anything. they are looking at the hobb s act which requires quid pro quo it requires him to say, i will appoint you ambassador if you give me money. it requires an exchange that s not what we are also looking at are campaign laws and tax laws. which are very loose. we don t know everything. but we do know there are tax laws, because we know he took over $700,000 in personal checks from bunny melon. there there could be tax implications as well as violations of campaign laws. sean: pam, tamara, thank you both. tamara we won t hold it you