A grand jury indicted former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on June 3 on six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and false statements. Read the federal government’s case against Johnny Reid Edwards here (pdf). The charges revolve around more than $900,000 used to support Edwards’ mistress and a campaign staffer who claimed paternity of Edwards’ child. Prosecutors say that money, provided by the late Fred Baron and the heiress Bunny Mellon, should have been considered campaign contributions, in which case they were way over the legal limit for a presidential campaign.

Edwards looks ready to fight the charges in court. He told journalists in a brief statement that he “did wrong” but “did not break the law” and “never ever thought that I was breaking the law.” Federal election law is unusual in that violations are only considered criminal if the offending politician knew he or she was committing a crime. So prosecutors will have to prove that the gifts in question should be considered campaign contributions, that Baron and Mellon would not have made those gifts if Edwards had not been a candidate, and that Edwards knew he was breaking the law by submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission. Edwards will contend that he had a longstanding friendship with Baron (who is deceased) and Mellon, and that they would have helped him conceal his extramarital affair from his family in any case.

So far legal analysts aren’t impressed by the prosecution’s case: see comments from Richard Pildes, Rick Hasen and Jeralyn Merritt. A 2002 FEC opinion involving a $25,000 loan to pay a divorce lawyer representing a member of Congress may support the Edwards defense. Looks like Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 was right to say Edwards should wait to see the indictment rather than cut a deal with prosecutors.

The Washington Post editorial board (never fans of Edwards) criticized the “novel application of the law” underlying this prosecution, adding, “It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.” Considering that no one has been prosecuted for systemic foreclosure fraud, making torture official U.S. policy or various other abuses, one does wonder why the Department of Justice has gone down this path. My theory is that the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is looking for a popular case to boost a future political career. The DOJ doesn’t mind the media circus and may even welcome the distraction from more pressing national issues.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend? Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age will remember Lawrence Eagleburger and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who both passed away this week.

UPDATE: J. Andrew Curliss and Joseph Neff report more details about the plea bargaining negotiations preceding the Edwards indictments. Merritt thinks Edwards was right to turn down the government’s offers and predicts that there will be further negotiations before court proceedings begin.