Attorney General John Edwards

A story from 2003 about Edwards and his pre-politics legal career has always stuck with me.

I used to be a litigation paralegal specializing in "trial technology," i.e. attorneys would give me all the trial evidence (documents/depositions/etc.) for me to digitize and prepare for presentation to a jury.

I'd then go into a courtroom in Suffolk Superior, Middlesex Superior, the old McCormack Federal courthouse building and later the new Federal courthouse on the waterfront, and wire the room up with five monitors (plaintiff table, defense table, witness box, jury box and judge's bench), speakers, etc., for the display of said evidence.

The whole case to be put on by the attorney I was working for would be on my laptop, which would be wired into the monitors and speakers in the courtroom, and I'd sit third-chair during the whole trial and present the evidence for witness examinations, cross-examinations, opening and closing statements. I probably worked 40 trials in this fashion while I worked this gig.

EVERY lawyer I worked for would take a zillion depositions of potential witnesses and/or anyone remotely involved. A deposition, for anyone unfamiliar with the term, is when an attorney sits down with a witness and questions them on the record regarding the case at hand. A court reporter is present and takes down every word spoken on the record, after which the full deposition transcript is copied to every attorney on both sides.

Basically, depositions are done so lawyers can make sure they know everything about the case beforehand...but it also means the other side also knows everything and can prepare accordingly, and it means the judge knows everything because his/her clerk also got a copy of the depo transcript. The only people in the room during a civil trial who don't know everything already are the jury members.

This is standard practice...but not for Edwards.

He never took depositions of opposing witnesses. Ever. He didn't want to tip his hand to opposing counsel, didn't want to let them know what he was planning to say/do/attack regarding the case. Instead, Edwards would get those opposing witnesses into the box and grill them on the fly, taking whatever he got from them and working with it on the spot. Whatever the witness would come out with, he was able to handle it right there and then, off the top of his head. He'd craft follow-up questions, run down new information, and basically handle the interrogation without a parachute.

As a former litigation paralegal, I find that to be incredibly impressive. It means Edwards has amazing immediate-and-total-data-recall abilities, and can think on his feet at light speed. I've never personally seen nor even heard of a trial attorney who works this way, and it kinda blows my mind due to my experiences with the voluminous amount of documentation/data involved in the civil trials I've worked.

Long story short: Edwards for AG.

He's one hell of a lawyer, folks.

Have already suggested this option to Edwards. He'd be the best choice. I doubt he would consider it, just my opinion.

The second he pulls out, his supporters saturate the blogs
saying

"I'm voting for McCain."

and

"A Woman or a Black Person cannot be eleced president."

If this keeps up, Edwards better be thinking about a job
in another field.

Have you stopped abusing the cockerspaniel yet?

We need to bring some legitimacy back to the DOJ, and he's the obvious choice.

;)

McCain will waltz over either Hillary or Obama. This is turning into a goddamn joke.

we're in for something much more heartbreaking. Obama or Clinton will be in the White House, and nothing or next to nothing, will change.

Serious question.

Specifically, how do you calculate an Electoral-College-vote breakdown that favors McCain?

Here's the EC map for '08:

http://www.270towin.com/

I'll be honest, Will: I am electoral college ignorant. However, I can smell the electorate deciding not to chance the future of the good ol' USA on either a shrill woman (not my formulation) or an inexperienced Black man (not my formulation) a fucking mile away. If HRC or Obama were facing Romney or Ghouliani, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but McCain is so easily sold as a war hero, blah blah blah. Americans are sheep with a capital S, and sneakily bigoted as well. This will make McCain's path plenty clear.

If you really want me to outline which swing states I think will bend over, as an ignorant I can do that. But my real point is I feel this thing in my bones. When you add lovable old McCain (loveable for the MSM, not me) to hateable HRC and Obama, sprinkle on some electronic voting malfeasance, season with representative democracy nonsense, simmer with a war that must be won and a fear of liberals running the country, and top with the image of a do-nothing Dem Congress incapable of fulfilling its 2006 mandate? I smell a sick main course of more Puke in the White House.

If Obama were more Teflon or HRC had a higher upside, this would all be different. But two months ago when it seemed the thing was more wide open (Edwards could take Iowa!) and the pukes seriously might nominate someone other than the old POW, I thought the Dems really could overcome the native shortcomings. Now? Not so much.

PS with some consideration, looking at the map, I'd say Obama gives us the better shot since he has in roads to the Midwest. HRC carries states we will carry anyway. But if McCain pulls off PA and OH? It's over.

http://www.270towin.com/

...and click the upper drop-down menu (he one above NY and MI), and select 2000.

Those are the Gore states.

266 EC votes.

Can our nominee win those again?

I think so.

Now, add New Hampshire to the Dem total.

270.

Subtract New Hampshire from the GOP total.

267.

Gore lost NH by a little more than 3,000 votes in 2000...but Kerry won NH by more than 9,000 in 2004.

So.

We win every Gore 2000 state + NH, and that's a victory in 2008. No Ohio, no Florida...just our stronghold states and the newly-blue NH.

Simple math, yo.

:toast:

Not easy...but far from impossible.

We went for Kerry in 2004, carried primarily by Philadelphia (where I live) and some of Pittsburgh, with union guys voting Dem in between. It was by no means statewide. Kerry was kind of doofy, but he was inoffensive and the old union guys were able to vote for him without getting their panties in too much of a twist. Can I say the same for Hillary or Obama? Hell freakin no. I've lived in this state most of my life, and there's a reason they call it Pennsyltucky in between Philly and P-burgh. I have NO FAITH that they would vote for a woman or a black man. Especially this woman and this black man. I think your supposition about winning the Gore states is overly optimistic. However, I do hope you're right.

right now. Perhaps that could be enough. It is mostly based on the war, though, and I fear choosing McCain as the War Legitimizer ("we got it wrong with Bush, but now we can choose the guy we should have chosen back then") will cancel out that general trend. And I can totally imagine the voting electorate (baa! baa!) feeling that sick undercurrent of bigotry that either of our two will carry with them and rushing into the welcoming arms of grandpa John.

We shall see.

He is going to depict himself as middle of the road, as someone the right-wing Republicans don't like and therefore as someone "safe." Read, not female or African-American. Democrats lost the election when Edwards suspended his campaign -- unless Hillary and Obama actually drop out and give their delegates to Edwards somewhere down the line. And that is still a very, very remote possibility. I'm praying for it. Miracles do happen. Edwards remains the only hope for our country. Read the OP.

Ok, I don't feel so shitty right now. Thanks.

just so you know. We need more than just NH to win. Your site will tell you that if you click 2008. And the population has shifted south and west, so red states gained votes.

That bit of info necessitated my deletion of a whole OP.

Gotta do some more math.

I have a feeling Ohio might be within striking distance now that they have a Dem governor and Senator. I worry about Florida. Colorado might be in play, maybe Virginia, Missouri, and Iowa. It'll be tough but doable.

Sorry but you're off base at best and out right being a foolish defeatist Dem at worst. The truth is that Americans like the band wagon always have always will. The hip black guy or the focused woman will beat the old white guy. The Repubs know this and are scared s*itless. The last thing they want is to have a National contest with them looking like a bunch of old rich white guys vs. the new guard (women, blacks, ect) every traditional smear tactic will look either raciest or sexiest they would be froced to run on the facts, DAMN! McCain isn't liked by the base (thus no money), Rush will not root for him, and the popular choice will be the "new blood " (Black Guy or White Woman). Sorry whoever you are you wanted DK to win huh?

Our globalist overlords have told us to clean up our act, or we will be buying goods with cowrie shells.

If the Puggies steal this, it will be with the certain knowledge aht the coalition of the willing will become the coalition of former allies who are willing to risk a second great depression to stop us.

At least, that was my take on the last round of climate talks.

Perhaps we're just pessimists. :shrug: I'd love to be wrong - however, I got my heart broken and put on my big girl pants after 2004. This country is filled with people who will vote directly against their own economic interests to support their own bigotry. If they were that upset about the war, they MIGHT have voted for a white guy Democrat this time around, but a shrill woman (not my estimation as you say) or an inexperienced black guy (not mine, again)? Not bloody likely.

But I have had my heart broken so many times politically, none worse than 2000. The outrages that have gone on since then ... and the US can't muster the energy to learn the truth? That's really the worst wound. We shall see, but I will frankly be shocked to see things turn from this course quickly in 2008.

I've heard this story about him before, and it always impresses the hell out of me!

K&R

Would he ever bring some much needed and overdue respect back to that office!


On edit: Proud to give you the fifth vote for the Greatest Page!

:eyes:

I want Supreme Court Justice John Edwards.

As AG he could only be in office for 8 years tops. But as a Supreme Court Justice he could make change for the rest of his life.

I hope Hillary has offered him this position.

I hope this is his "reward" for contributing his ideas to Obama and Hillary. He's made them both better. AG would just be for the time our new Democratic President is in office. Supreme Court Justice is for as long as he lives (or wants to serve).

I hope he gets what he wants. Even if it means staying at home with his wife and children.

it is something that will come true. I believe that he would be better as AG than VP. As AG he could continue the fight against the Corporations.

:thumbsup:

I hope our nominee wins to get the chance to nominate Edwards for the position.

He did so much for us with the Valerie Plame affair...

What a man.

I'd be ashamed if my country let the perps get away with that.

Would have to be a hell of a deal to drag him out of his house. He doesn't need the money, though, so perhaps it would be for his ego.

For a while now, and please forgive the crass baseball terminology here, it has been my personal belief that Mr. Edwards has been "playing out the string" regarding this election run. The campaign had only barely begun when his wife recieved the grim diagnosis regarding her cancer's return, and I believe Mr. Edwards was (absolutely understandably) unable to commit himself fully to this campaign.

He has other priorities besides politics and campaigning right now, and blessings upon him for 1. Trying to make a difference despite the burden his family is carrying, and; 2. Choosing his family over politics with today's decision.

How do you run for president when the woman you love is as sick as Mrs. Edwards now is. There's nothing squirrelly about all this.

MHO only.

Good lord no! Not Elizabeth's health! Please let it not be that.

I imagine both of them were willing to make the sacrifice but the idea of Elizabeth dying while her husband ran the country, with little time for her, just seemed so sad for them both.

A good husband is a good man.

Elizabeth looked fine to me at the press conference. Maybe he is disgusted that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama took all the wind out of his sail. I did hear recently after S.C. that he was planning strategy on what to do after S.C. so it could be anything. However, for the Edwards die-hard like myself, you can still vote for Edwards delegates on 2/5 and also choose one of the other two, or not.

two weeks or around two weeks before he suspended it. Also, Emma Claire looks quite worried. When Edwards was in L.A., he seemed very quiet. I don't know if he is always like that. Most politicians like to talk to people a lot. He seemed very focused on what he was doing, but disciplined, not really, really talkative.

He can put a case on a track that I rarely understand until we get there...then I think "wow, this guy is a genius" and I get all :loveya: inside. Wait, what were we talking about???

Edwards is sharp and talented. I'd have no problem with him as AG.

I'm still hoping for that. He is so much better than either of the other two.

I'm a court reporter, Will. I've sat in hundreds of depositions so far. If Edwards never conducted a deposition, then he's setting himself up to look foolish and unprepared in front of a jury. Now he's smart, I'll grant him that, but that's a tremendously risky thing to do.

I'm sure he went into the judge's chambers a lot after objections from opposing counsel. I'm sure that ability was both an asset, and a liability at times to him.

It tells me the guy is sharp as a tac, but also has an ego the size of the moon.

I'd still want him defending me though. :)

Precisely. That's what impressed me. Apparently, he did this kind of thing quite often, and won quite often by doing it.

A fine development, indeed.

. . . is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard - "never takes depositions." Urban legend is way too kind.

But he still should be Attorney General - he is highly qualified for the job and would be outstanding.

Justice Edwards also has a nice ring to it.

"Edwards for AG."

He coulda wiped the floor with him. oh well.

How the hell did that happen? Cheney was wrong, lied right in front of him. If John would have smacked him down there....who knows what might have happened? Damn..

I've always counted that as one of JE's negatives....not that it would keep me from selecting him over the other two...but yeah that's always bothered me.

But the idea of JE as AG and Biden as SS? Aw yeah. Count me in on that one

:thumbsup:

I'd like to show some lawyers at my next depo.

Dood, that's cold.

I'm doing three different things right now; I'll do a comprehensive search tonight and dig it up. I believe I read about this in the Boston Globe, but I have to find the right search string to dig it out of the archives.

Sorry. I'll get back to you tonight.

that's an amazing thing, if true. I can't imagine him NOT EVER doing a deposition though. Maybe when he became famous, but when he was just starting out at his firm, I'd imagine he took a few depositions.

but my memory of the article tells me it was a rare thing for him.

AG has been completely politicized and, with Edwards out of the race, the corporations are in full control of the Democratic race. If a Dem is elected, they and their administration (especially the AG) would be controlled by corporate donors.

Why would Edwards want to take a job where his every move is controlled by the corporations he worked against? Remember, he's a trial attorney. Why would he want to take time away from his family to work for a corporate agenda?

As he stated very clearly in his speech today, he plans to go back and work on the things he feels passionately about in the community.

he plans to go back and work on the things he feels passionately about in the community. :thumbsup:

If he's going to do that, that he's just practicing the politics of resentment.

Our country has had enough discord. We need to bring people together again.

right before SC, I thought that there were many jobs well suited to Edwards should he not get the nomination. I certainly didn't appreciate the timing of the rumors though.

Hopefully he will have a place in the next administration.

... and I imagine he might have a thing or two to say about Siegelman's case, eh, Will?

:toast:

- Dave

He's perfect.

he would be a pitbull on the Bush's crap.

...the DEM needs to win in November.

I'm seeing lots of Edwards people out there who aren't planning to vote for the Dem (or at all) in November. That's a shame, because we already know what kind of AG the repuke (either one) would appoint. :scared:

This morning I too, felt like telling someone that I wasn't planning to vote now, "no way, no how!" After all, I'd just been punched in the gut and the disappointment was nearly unbearable.

I'm still crushed, but I'm sure I'll manage to round up enough conviction and passion to help defeat McCain or Romney.

I saw this coming a few weeks ago. I knew I had to have a back up plan but I didn't think he'd pull out before I could vote for him on Super Tuesday. So his announcement made me speed up my decision making. I've thought long and hard and ranted long and hard.

I voted today for Obama in the Moveon.org primary endorsement.

Even I will vote for the Dem, even though I have grave doubts about my party at this point. I will hold my nose and vote. I'm not going to do much more than that nationally, though, I'm going to spend time working for my union, as we have negotiations starting in April and planning sessions begin next week. I think that's the place I can do more good at this point.

Technically, you made a case for sitting Edwards on the Supreme Court (something that will never be, by the way) or at the very least for making him Solicitor General. AGs develop policy & need no litigation skills. For that matter, I doubt you'd even need to be a lawyer to be AG. Insert Alberto Gonzales joke here.

from head to toe. I have no doubts that he would re-establish our Justice Department as one of fairness and that is true to our Constitution. What a tall order after what has been done by the Bush administration!

I hope so much that he sees that this could blend with his goals around abolishing poverty because we need him so much. And also that whomever wins the nomination will understand our need for him there!

and an excellent one. I always suspected that he was more than just a little gifted. He DOES think very well on his feet; gets that look on his face like he is calculating the exact right answer. Thanks so much for posting this. Another astute observation!

any more than they would allow a pro-democracy president.

It's a pleasant thought though.

I feel kind of silly getting caught up in the supposed race. I knew how this was going to come out before it started and then got caught up in "race" after the Iowa caucus. I'm coming back to my senses now. No race, no need to bother watching. Just the illusion of choice. I'll do the checklist of things expected but I don't care to pretend any more that this is anything but a facade. We went Fascist under the veneer of a Representative Republic. When it happened can be debated, hell, people can even debate whether it's happened but I won't. It's happened.

HRC/Big Dog will be okay as President. They were okay the last time and they'll be okay this time, except that we will dog them constantly while viciously slapping down the Repigs. It will be fun and useless and keep us occupied. Idle hands and minds, you know.

:hi:

DOJ, federal experience?

In 1971, Reno was named staff director of the Judiciary Committee of the Florida House of Representatives. She helped revise the Florida court system. In 1973 she accepted a position with the Dade County State's Attorney's Office. During this time, questions about Reno's sexual orientation became a major part of Republican opponent Jack Thompson's campaign against her, who demanded to know her sexual orientation.<4> She left the state's attorney's office in 1976 to become a partner in a private law firm.<5>

In 1978, Reno was appointed State Attorney for Dade County (now called Miami-Dade County). She was elected to the Office of State Attorney in November 1978 and was returned to office by the voters four more times. She helped reform the juvenile justice system and pursued delinquent fathers for child support payments and established the Miami Drug Court.<6>

During her time in Dade County, she was the lead prosecutor in a police brutality case. She was unable to convict any of the four officers charged with beating Arthur McDuffie in 1979.

http://mail.truthout.org/webmail/src/webmail.php

No DoJ experience there. Here's a list of the other USAG's and their career experience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General

Reno made a career as a prosecutor, which is relevant experience in my book.

Would I support him should he be appointed? Absolutely. Do I think he is the most qualified for the job? No.

trotting out Janet Reno in this context just smarts.

Don't get me wrong, he would be a fantastic AG, but I would love to have his passion for social justice applied to the cases that come before the Supreme Court.

Otherwise, he's young and healthy and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

he has had a couple of unexplained seizures...

:shrug:

All a SC justice can do is say whether a law is constitutional or not. They are extremely limited. As AG, he can actively go after those Bush motherfuckers and get their asses thrown in prison. A Supreme Court Justice can't do that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7412057&mesg_id=7412296

:P

Much as many here would like to put that Meme Out and think of it.

Half the posts read like rabid screeds and the other half barely bother to spellcheck, much less fact check. Of course, that's a broad-brush generalization - the other specialty in GDP.

he didn't take depositions of the witnesses? If true, that's damn impressive.

Gonna look it up later tonight; check back for a post on this below.

as I said that's damn impressive. I've worked for lawyers and never known one not to depose his witnesses.

AG would be a great way for John to combine his brilliant skills as a lawyer with his passionate desire to address injustice and give voice to those who lack the means to make the system work for them.

Wonderful idea. He would make one hell of an Attorney General for the US.
:applause:

Sonia

That is why we need him! President is no longer possible unless he is VP which is my deepest wish, but AG would be awesome. He deserves more, but that is so cool. Thanks for sharing that. Thanks a lot.

Unfortunately it'll never happen. The Clintons would never stand for it.
I have no more faith in our system or our party. It is dead to me.

that's exactly what I said about them choosing Edwards as VP. He's just too loose a cannon for that. The illusion won't stand if the actors aren't on board.

that would be...imagine the reaction of all those corporate types who opposed him when he gets confirmed as AG. Edwards would smile that great smile of his and just say "Hello boys I'm back!":evilgrin:

n/t

And I'm not saying that to dis LBJ's record on civil rights, but Bobby knew how to tackle corruption.

And I have a feeling that that would have included early corporate corruption.

Think what a REAL lawyer could do for justice in this country.

(Sorry for the comparison of AGAG to any REAL "mediocre mall lawyers". I apologize in advance to all mediocre mall lawyers.)

First of all, let me qualify myself. I, too, have been and am now a paralegal supporting attorneys engaged in civil litigation. Plaintiff's side. For over 20 years. From case evaluation to case management, development of overall strategy, legal theories and pleading, discovery and analysis of evidence, and if necessary, trial preparation, trial tactics, witness preparation and presentation of the case in chief. I was Trial Team Leader in litigation obtaining the 10th largest jury verdict in USA during 2004 <$280 million verdict in complex business/securities litigation (four cases consolidated for trial) involving both direct and derivative shareholder claims against corporation, corporate officers and corporate attorneys. Kollman v. Cell Tech International, et al. Lead Case: Klamath Circuit Court Case No. 02-03774-CV>.

Now, I do NOT disagree that John Edwards is a legitimate contender for appointment and confirmation as A.G. From what I've seen, he'd do a fine job as the people's lawyer.

However, the qualities which you attribute to John Edwards as an Aphanizomenonominal trial lawyer are not at all what would make him a good A.G., in my opinion. Even if his qualities are those of a superbly effective trial advocate, the A.G. has a stable of U.S. attorneys to handle the day to day prosecution of justice in America. What makes John such an excellent candidate for A.G. is his unwavering commitment to equality, social equity and justice for those who cannot buy a blind lady.

Indeed, I tend to hold his propensity for trying cases, and his unusual success in effecting the client's desired outcome, against him. As trial attorneys, and you, I would imagine, understand - there are several "truths" which evidence themselves in any legal proceeding. There is the truth as the plaintiff knows it. There is the truth as the defendant knows it. There is the truth by which trial counsel hope to persuade, by their decisions to select and exclude certain evidence offered at trial. There is the truth of the evidence admitted by the court for the jury's consideration. There is the truth which the jury determines by way of a verdict. Finally, there is the truth which the trial judge determines is the "correct result" in modifying the jury's determination.

Every trial attorney is steeped in these truths. My experience has been that trial attorneys, over time, become impaired in their natural ability to discriminate between truth and consequences.

On the other hand, as a candidate for POTUS, John Edwards has demonstrated extraordinary clarity of mind and purpose, aligned in pursuit of one truth. It is the characteristics exhibited by John Edwards on the campaign trail, in the rallies for votes, and in the debates on stage, which convince that he has in fact TRANSCENDED the squirmy, pragmatic, utilitarian truths of trial persuasion for which he has been justly honored by the verdicts of jurors.

All this is a somewhat verbose means of reaching my own truth...that I am much more comfortable with elevating John Edwards, the presidential candidate, to the management of America's prosecutorial bar, than I am comfortable with promoting John Edwards, the considered wizard of trial technique and tactics, to the post of people's prosecutor.

I therefore concur in the conclusion you have reached, without adopting the rationale used to deliver the result.

of the last decades' decisions by right-wing thugs --- !!!

But what if you don't really want things investigated? Seems to me that it hinges on whether our side really has any interest in having things investigated or in rule of law, as the other side likes to cackle, mindlessly. I'm having a crisis of faith right now, a crisis that doesn't even seem to be relieved by your previous article about taking the long view. It can't help one whit, that I'm reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress right now, can it?

;)

You caught me. I'm a budding socialist who has fallen in with a subversive anarchist ('scuse the redundancy). I guess this is what I get when I jump into a movement without really, fully knowing my personal philosophy and having it shown to me in so many heartbreaking ways.

But then, this really is all your fault. I became obsessed with politics because of a guy I saw at a teach-in in Austin and he led me to this dangerous den of thoughtfulness (well, except for during the primary wars). Bastid!

woof....woof....woof!

who let the dawgs out

woof....woof....woof


:hide: :yoiks:

We need his reigning-in the corporations stance somewhere.

As A.G he certainly does remind one of Bobby Kennedy though.
He is too valuble an asset not to include one way or the other.

too much like der faderland, deutchland uber alles - but what could you expectof the booooooosh administration.

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Neither HC or BO (or for that matter, and God help us - McCain) will allow their AG to go after their Big Donors.
They will not allow Their AG to go after the Bush Crime Family either - why? When He leaves office next year, ya think Bush is going to shred all of the Surveillance that he has collected over the past 8 years on these people?

Don't Kid yourself. The Fascists have won.

So, what happens next?

Exactly!

If a Democrat is elected in November, John Edwards will be Attorney General. I

I said the same thing a couple of days ago if Clinton or Obama win the GE he will be AG. I think the deal was made after the last debate.

...so lets get a democratic president elected in November!

...partly because Obama offered him the AG spot, and Kennedy gave him his word that he would get him through.

Either is fine with me.

this weekend & takes Super Tuesday.

The youth vote will turnout in record numbers if Obama is the top dog.

I think Bill Clinton would make a great overseas ambasador & Hillary could be the champion of the Senate or aother important position.

Together, you can run this country well & easily beat the Republicans, divided you will fall.

Starting with high-ranking Bush administration officials and cronies.

Imagine an AG who would enforce laws against union-busting, laws protecting consumers and our environment. How about those media monopolies? In many cities, laws prohibiting too many stations under one ownership are being flaunted and nobody is going after the violators. Then there are the drug companies knowingly putting dangerous pharmaceuticals on the market. HMOs denying life-saving treatment. Oil and energy companies engaged in price-gouging of consumers. Blackwater seemingly getting away with murder, according to even the Bush administration's own FBI investigation. And how about the mother of all criminal investigations: 911. Not to mention a criminal probe of Diebold/Premier and other electronic voting machine manufacturers, along with election officials in their pockets. Just for fun, how about an investigation into the GOP itself and its involvement in caging, vote suppression, and withholding/destroying evidence in various investigations?

John Edwards as AG would be the worst nightmare for the GOP and its merry band of thugs and corrupt cronies. Bring him on!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You really hurt my feelings. Especially with the way you used all caps and stuff. Enjoy your stay. Say, want some pizza?

but I'm still going to support him for President come Tuesday.

POTUS!! The American people missed their chance, don't KNOW what he will do, but right now I'm inclined to tell anyone who wants him to be THEIR AG, after what they've done to him... JUST KISS MY WHITE ASS!!

Knowing Edwards, and the things he cares about, he may think he can make THAT difference and will pick up the FIGHT if asked. I can understand this thought process... but it sickens me that FAR TOO MANY, The High & Mighty are doing it to us again! With the WILLING help of FAR TOO MANY!!

And FAR TOO MANY... won't be there for those who are left! Just from my circle of friends and family... we stand solid right now! Edwards will get our vote in the GE! I KNOW some will change their minds and "hold their nose" but I KNOW I WON'T!

I'm a Boomer and I've HAD IT!!

:applause: I love him! What a time and money saver!

Vice-President John Edwards :toast:

for the reason that he can persuade Sen Obama on issues, and of course, if HRC doesn't choose Clark (doesn't that seem like a foregone conclusion?) then it would be nice to have him there, but I think Bill would feel threatened by John, so don't expect John in the VP spot for her, and in fact, I see her picking him for a SCOTUS before making him AG, whereas Obama would do no less than AG. All observation of mho, that is all.

Great OP. :thumbsup:

If not Chris Dodd. Dodd has been stellar on the FISA issues!

JE for VP sounds good to me too! But surely, he would make a wonderful AG, as he is an excellent lawyer for sure.

glc

the more things start to nag at my brain.

For instance, if he never conducted a deposition before trial, how did he request discovery information that would be pertinent to the witness he was questioning?