Marriage amendment vote puts national focus on North Carolina - Los Angeles Times

Backers of North Carolina's proposed marriage amendment pray during a rally at the state Capitol in Raleigh. It would strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman. (Allen Breed, Associated Press / April 20, 2012)

PITTSBORO, N.C. — With voting already underway for Tuesday's primary in this moderate Southern state, the discourse has been dominated not by candidates, but by a bitterly contested measure known as Amendment 1.

If approved, it would be among the most restrictive of the marriage amendments passed in 30 states. It would amend the state's constitution to specify: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."

The battle over the measure has turned North Carolina into a national political flash point. Opponents say the amendment is so broadly worded that it would discriminate not only against gays, but also unmarried heterosexual couples.

The outcome could offer an early hint of the state's leanings in November's presidential election: North Carolina, home to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, is an important swing state.

The debate has been fierce. Pro- and anti-amendment activists have held rallies to vie for voters. Ministers have strived to influence their congregants. Lawn signs have been stolen and defaced. And the state NAACP has accused proponents of trying to divide gays and blacks.

Opponents of the amendment have raised $2.2 million, and proponents $1.2 million, mostly for TV and radio ads; a third of the money has come from out of state.

The Rev. Billy Graham has weighed in, preparing a full-page ad expected to appear in newspapers over the weekend. In it, he urges fellow Tar Heels to vote for the amendment, saying: "At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage.''

President Obama has called the Republican-backed Defense of Marriage Amendment divisive, saying it would discriminate against gays.

"It's a hot issue — you hear people talking about it everywhere," said amendment supporter Ray McEntee. He was manning a booth outside a Pittsboro polling place next to a sign that read: "One Man. One Woman."

Early voting started April 19, with turnout running about 30% higher than in the primary four years ago and with especially large numbers of young people voting.

"It's almost entirely driven by interest in the amendment," said David McLennan, a political science professor at William Peace University in Raleigh. He predicts turnout will reach 40% to 45%, unusually high for a primary.

Like amendments in Michigan, Idaho and South Carolina, North Carolina's act would severely limit protections for same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couples, said Maxine Eichner, a family law professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

The measure would threaten domestic partnership health benefits for local government workers and strip unmarried couples of their rights to make decisions for an incapacitated partner, Eichner said.

Supporters of Amendment 1 say unmarried couples would be protected by language that permits private contracts and court actions "pursuant to such contracts.''

**

In North Carolina, the issue does not always break along party lines. The National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People opposes the amendment, but numerous black churches support it, as do many other churches and some conservative Democrats. The state's Libertarian Party opposes the amendment, along with the head of the conservative John Locke Foundation.

More than 75 chief executives have signed a letter against the amendment. Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, told a business forum last month: "If this passes, we're going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years, and think of it like Jim Crow laws.... You're sending a message to the world that we're not inclusive.''

North Carolinians have long considered their state the most progressive in the South. Opposition to the amendment is centered in urban enclaves, such as the Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill area, where support for gay rights is strong.

But wide swaths in the state's east and west are dominated by small towns and rural communities, where conservative Christian values predominate. Those areas vote solidly Republican on social issues such as gun control, abortion and same-sex marriage.

Democrats pushed to have the vote in the May primary instead of the November general election because they feared that a November vote would attract more conservatives, boosting the Republican presidential candidate. The website for Protect All NC Families, which opposes the amendment, says: "A 'For' vote will eliminate healthcare, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partner benefits [and] threaten protections for all unmarried couples in North Carolina."

View the original article here

Supreme Court moves to center of presidential race - Albany Times Union

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court, suddenly at the heart of presidential politics, is preparing what could be blockbuster rulings on health care and immigration shortly before the fall election.

The court, sometimes an afterthought in presidential elections, is throwing a new element of uncertainty into the campaign taking shape between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Sharply divided between four conservatives, four liberals and one conservative-leaning swing justice, the court already is viewed as being nearly as partisan as Congress. Within weeks it will rule on the contentious 2010 Democratic-crafted health care overhaul and a Republican-backed Arizona law that's seen as a model for cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Obama sometimes seems to be running against the court, or at least its conservative members. Whether that will sway voters in November is unclear. The public receives far less information and visual imagery of the Supreme Court than it does of the White House and Congress.

An anti-court strategy by Obama "will fire up his base, but I doubt it will make any bigger impact on swing voters," said Republican consultant John Feehery.

Meanwhile, strategists in both parties are hoping they can turn the upcoming decisions to their advantage — for instance, possibly boosting Democratic turnout among Hispanic voters unhappy with GOP immigration policies or emboldening the Republican base if Obama's landmark health care law is ruled unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court already has played a huge and direct role in U.S. presidential politics. Its 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore settled the bitter 2000 contest by barring a Florida ballot recount, which Democrats hoped would prevent George W. Bush's election.

And the 2010 Citizens United case, also decided 5-4, greatly eased political spending restrictions on corporations and unions. It gave birth to the "super PACs" that are reshaping campaigns by raising millions of anonymously donated dollars for TV ads attacking Obama, Romney and targeted congressional candidates.

By holding well-publicized hearings on the health care and immigration cases — and now writing keenly awaited decisions — the court is stirring passions on key issues in this year's elections. Less clear, however, is how the politics might play out.

Many court-watchers expect the justices to throw out most or all of the health law, which Republicans derisively call "Obamacare." During public oral arguments, the most conservative justices questioned Congress' authority to require all Americans to obtain health insurance.

Romney may be poorly positioned to exploit such a ruling, however. The similar "individual mandate" that he successfully pushed as Massachusetts governor was a model for Obama's federal plan.

"I don't think the Romney campaign will want to make health care a major issue," said Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway. "Every time Romney criticizes the president's health care reform, he opens himself up to the Etch A Sketch attack."

Hattaway was referring to claims that Romney switches back and forth on important policies, erasing and redrawing pages when convenient.

Republican strategist Terry Holt said a court decision overturning the health care law would be an unmistakable setback for Obama.

"It repudiates the singular achievement of this administration," Holt said.

Feehery agreed, saying such a ruling would make Obama "look like a weak president."

But it might help other Democrats, Feehery said. "It takes away a law that is unpopular," he said, "but puts health care back on the agenda for the Democrats, which has been a winning issue in the past."

In the immigration case, the Obama administration opposes Arizona's requirement that police check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.

The law, pushed by a Republican governor and Legislature, has angered some voters, including Hispanics, in battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado.

A number of court analysts predict the justices will uphold parts of the Arizona law but may overturn others. That could energize Americans who want tougher sanctions, including deportation, against millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

"This could prove problematic for Romney," Feehery said, because it would pit his conservative base against much-needed Hispanic voters in targeted states. "If Romney handles it right, by largely ignoring it, it could take out a major source of irritation for Hispanics and maybe help a portion of them see the good side of Romney," Feehery said.

Earlier this month, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, delivered what some considered a misleading warning to the court regarding the health care law.

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example."

White House spokesmen tried to explain that Obama recognizes the court's power to review laws passed by Congress. His point, said spokesman Jay Carney, is that the Supreme Court traditionally has "deferred to Congress' authority in matters of national economic importance."

View the original article here

US Escalates Google Case by Hiring Noted Outside Lawyer - New York Times

The Federal Trade Commission is examining Google’s immensely powerful and lucrative search technology, which directs users to hundreds of millions of online and offline destinations every day. The case has the potential to be the biggest showdown between regulators and Silicon Valley since the government took on Microsoft 14 years ago.

Then as now, the core question is whether power was abused. The agency’s inquiry has focused on whether Google has manipulated its search results, making it less likely that competing companies or products appear at the top of a results page.

A spokeswoman for Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., declined to comment.

Federal Trade Commission officials cautioned that no decision had been made about whether to bring a formal case against Google. But the hiring of Beth A. Wilkinson, a former Justice Department prosecutor who played a lead role in the conviction of the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, immediately catapulted the investigation to another level. The agency has hired outside litigators only twice in the last decade.

“It’s a watershed moment when you hire someone like this,” said David Wales, a former Fed-eral Trade Commission official now in private practice with Jones Day. “This shows Google that if it doesn’t give you the remedy you want, you’re going to litigate.”

Several antitrust experts compared the hiring of Ms. Wilkinson — who has brought about 40 major cases in government and private practice and won them all — to the government’s hiring of David A. Boies to represent it against Microsoft.

“It increases the likelihood that there will be a case,” said Douglas Broder, a law partner at K&L Gates in New York and the author of several textbooks and articles on antitrust law.

The Microsoft case in the late 1990s transformed the tech industry, reining in its most powerful company and allowing for the rise of new companies like Google. Now Google wields the same sort of power that Microsoft once did, and is under the same sort of scrutiny.

It has been involved in one privacy controversy after another over the last year. Indeed, the announcement of the hiring of Ms. Wilkinson — made by the Federal Trade Commission’s chairman, Jon Leibowitz, at a meeting in San Francisco with reporters — eclipsed Google’s formal response earlier Thursday to a fine by the Federal Communications Commission for obstructing a separate investigation.

“In an important case, you want to do a thorough investigation,” Mr. Leibowitz said, calling Ms. Wilkinson “a world-class litigator.”

Ms. Wilkinson is a partner at the law firm of Paul, Weiss in Washington. She previously worked at Latham & Watkins, where she was co-chairwoman of the white-collar crime practice group. Her work at the F.T.C., which will be part-time, begins on Monday.

“Technology is transforming our society,” Ms. Wilkinson said in an interview. “It affects people at every level. As a mother, I see it with my kids. As a professional, I see it affecting our work. And in society, it impacts privacy, competition, our interactions with other people — just about everything.”

She added: “Working on the investigation will be a great challenge. I don’t underestimate Google.”

No one else was underestimating it Thursday either.

Mr. Broder said antitrust cases charging the abuse of a monopoly are difficult to prove.

“There is a lot of very complex economics involved,” he said. “It can be done. But Google will undoubtedly bring to bear tremendous resources itself.”

Any decision about filing a suit is likely to be months away.

David Streitfeld reported from San Francisco. Edward Wyatt reported from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 26, 2012

An earlier version of this article published online referred incorrectly to the number of major cases brought by Beth A. Wilkinson, an antitrust lawyer. They total about 40 of all kinds, not just those in private practice.

View the original article here

China dissident escapes from house arrest - Los Angeles Times

Chen Guangcheng, shown in an undated photo, spent four years in prison after exposing forced sterilizations and other abuses by family-planning authorities. (Associated Press)

BEIJING — The blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng escaped from house arrest last weekend during a rescue operation mounted by supporters, but his whereabouts and condition are now unknown, activists said Friday.

The rescue of Chen, whose plight has attracted worldwide attention, was apparently timed to coincide with U.S.-China discussions on human rights taking place this week in Beijing and the visit next week by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Some reports have suggested that Chen was seeking political asylum and might have tried to flee to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

At least two people who were involved in the rescue from a village near Linyi in Shandong province have been arrested, and family members who were involved in a brawl with local authorities after Chen's escape have been arrested.

Hu Jia, a veteran activist, reported on Twitter that Chen was at the U.S. Embassy, but activists in the United States said that was not the case.

"The situation is very dangerous," Yang Jianli, a rights activist based in Washington, said in a telephone interview. "We don't know if Chen is in a safe place or has been perhaps arrested by authorities."

Details of the rescue operation have not been disclosed. He escaped Sunday from the house where he'd been held the last 18 months. The following day, according to activists who have spoken to family members, enraged local officials stormed into a family house in the village and a knife fight broke out.

"In the middle of the night, they climbed over the wall, kicked in the door and entered," Chen Kegui, the dissident's nephew, told activists in a recorded telephone call. Shuanghou Township leader Zhang Jian, who was in charge of enforcing the house arrest, was reportedly injured in the melee.

Chen Guangcheng, a 41-year-old lawyer blind since childhood, spent four years in prison after exposing forced sterilizations and other abuses by Chinese family-planning authorities. After his release in September 2010, he and his wife were placed under local house arrest and reportedly beaten.

Supporters worldwide have launched appeals on Chen's behalf, many using photographs of themselves wearing sunglasses in tribute to the sightless dissident. In December, actor Christian Bale tried to visit Chen's village but was roughly pushed away by plainclothes security.

"There are many dissidents in China who are facing the same scenario of house arrest, but Chen has received the most attention, and we hope if we resolve his case we can move forward on others," Yang said in the telephone interview.

Yang also said that He Peihong, a supporter who had led the campaign for Chen's release, had been taken into custody at her home in Nanjing on Friday morning.

barbara.demick@latimes.com

View the original article here

Pakistan deports Osama bin Laden family to Saudi Arabia - Times of India

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Britain Reopens the Madeleine McCann Case - New York Times

But a week before the anniversary of her disappearance, Scotland Yard released a statement saying its investigators had uncovered what they believed to be “genuinely new material,” as well as nearly 200 new opportunities for further inspection. Investigators said that they “now believe that there is a possibility Madeleine is still alive,” and have called for the investigation by Portuguese police to be reopened after an almost four-year hiatus.

Along with the statement, the Metropolitan Police released an “age progression” image ahead of what would have been Madeleine’s ninth birthday on May 12. The haunting image of a wide-eyed 3-year-old, relayed worldwide in the weeks following her disappearance on May 3, 2007, has been replaced by that of a 9-year-old with her blond hair swept in a side-part, created in collaboration with her family.

While the initial investigation by the Portuguese authorities was roundly criticized, the British inquiry has been aided by the fact that, for the first time since Madeleine disappeared from her bedroom in the family’s rented apartment in the Algarve region of Portugal, investigators have been able to review material generated by three independent investigations, all in one location.

The detective leading the review said that having access to the Portuguese investigation, inquiries by British law enforcement agencies and the work of private investigators hired by the McCann family presents the team with “best opportunity” of finally solving the mystery of what happened in the seaside resort of Praia da Luz.

Officers have so far identified 195 new items for investigation within the historic material, as well as having developed the new material. A Metropolitan Police spokesman appealed to “anyone who is able to provide direct information as to her whereabouts” to contact the authorities.

Madeleine was just nine days shy of her fourth birthday when she was abducted as she was sleeping along with her younger twin siblings while her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, dined with friends in a tapas bar 100 yards away.

Rewards totaling millions of dollars were offered by wealthy Britons, including J. K. Rowling, the billionaire author of the Harry Potter series, and Richard Branson, the airline tycoon. But the Portuguese police identified only one suspect, a 33-year-old Britain living with his mother in a nearby apartment. They also scrutinized the parents at one point, though it seemed unlikely to most investigators that they would harm their own child, particularly as the twins went untouched.

Despite the publicity created by an international campaign and continued claims of sightings (the latest of which came on the Costa del Sol in Spain last week), the official investigation by the Portuguese police was formally closed in July 2008. At the time, even Portuguese prosecutors faulted the country’s police for failing to uncover any clues in the girl’s disappearance.

In May last year, however, a separate Metropolitan Police inquiry, codenamed Operation Grange, was established after Prime Minister David Cameron responded to a plea from Madeleine’s parents. The objective has been to present to the Portuguese authorities fresh avenues of investigation, with a view to having the case reopened.

The task force, led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, consists of 28 detectives from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command and seven civilian staff who have been working in “close collaboration” with a senior investigating officer from the Portuguese police.

While officers have made two trips to Spain and visited Portugal four times, most recently last week, the thrust of the investigation has been a methodical analysis of more than 40,000 pieces of information already collected.

View the original article here

Demonstrators protest Arizona immigration law outside Supreme Court - Los Angeles Times

People pray during a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images / April 25, 2012)

WASHINGTON -- Imitating the biblical battle of Jericho, a small group marched around the United States Supreme Court to protest Arizona’s restrictive immigration law, which was being debated inside.

With a clutch of white-robed clergy at their head, the 75 marchers moved in silence around the court building, their arrival at each corner announced by blasts from a trumpet. Organizers had hoped for a bigger crowd, but they said busloads of activists were held up in traffic.

Before the march the protesters gathered in silent prayer, their hands raised, while the lyrics of a country song played by supporters of the law, a group of 16 of who were also rallying at the front of the court, wafted over.

Arizona’s law requires police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop if there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally and makes it illegal for undocumented people to seek work. Enforcement of the law has been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Obama administration is challenging the law on the grounds that immigration policy cannot be handled by states.

The crowd protesting the law was a mix of white, black and Hispanic and chanted in English and Spanish. Early in the morning, as the sun was creeping out from behind the marble Supreme Court building, activists prayed and heard stories from people affected by the law.

Dulce Matuz, a 27-year-old illegal immigrant, described how she lost her real estate license when the law was passed. She said she had had a successful business and had sold about 50 houses.

“Some us went deeper into the shadows,” when the law passed, Matuz said, others stood up and said they were “undocumented and unafraid.

Time magazine recently named Matuz one of the 100 most influential people of 2012 for her work campaigning for the Dream Act, which would give legal residency to certain high school graduates who came to this country illegally.

Jim Shee, a retiree from Tucson, Arizona, who is one of the plaintiffs in the case, addressed opponents of the law, telling them he had been stopped twice by police since it was enacted on the grounds that he “looked suspicious.”

In an interview, Shee, who is 72, said he has been taken for Thai, Vietnamese, Native American and Hispanic. In fact, he said, he was born in the United States and has both Chinese and Spanish genes.

“The thing everyone has to realize is this is not just a Hispanic or Latino issue,” he said. “Anyone of color can be affected.”

Twisting that sentiment, Bob Shoemaker, a supporter of the law from northern Virginia, held a banner urging Senator Charles Schumer to drop a bill that would give amnesty to illegal Irish immigrants.

“We don’t care where you’re from, if you’re here illegally, go home,” he said. “We cannot afford to be the dumping ground of the third world.”

ian.duncan@latimes.com

Original source: Demonstrators protest Arizona immigration law outside Supreme Court

View the original article here

John Edwards trial begins Monday with opening statements - Los Angeles Times

Former presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. John Edwards arrives outside federal court in Greensboro, N.C., with his daughter Cate. (AP Photo/Chuck Burton / April 23, 2012)

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Opening statements are set for today in the trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards, as federal prosecutors try to prove that more than $900,000 paid to Edwards by two wealthy benefactors during his run for the White House should have been reported as campaign contributions because the money flowed to his mistress to preserve Edwards' image as a "family first" candidate.

Edwards' defense team is expected to argue that the payments were gifts from wealthy friends and the money was used for expenses unrelated to the 2008 campaign. The fact that Edwards paid his mistress, campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, and helped her through the birth of a child fathered by the candidate, does not mean Edwards had to declare the gifts as campaign contributions, his lawyers say.

Edwards’ lawyers contend that the government's case requires the jury to accept a novel interpretation of a campaign finance law that “has never been the basis of criminal or even civil liability in the statute's history.’’ The defense also plans to call two former FEC commissioners to the stand, who are expected to testify that, under the law at the time the money was paid to Edwards, it was not clear that it had to be classified as a campaign contribution.

Campaign finance experts have said that the violations at issue have been previously handled as civil penalties, resulting in fines and payback requirements for the offending candidates.

“This case is significant both legally and politically,’’ said Kenneth Gross, a Washington ethics lawyer. “This is the first criminal case dealing with an excessive gift, particularly a gift not ever going to a campaign, and spent for purposes seemingly unrelated to a campaign.’’

Prosecutors contend that bills paid by two Edwards benefactors, Rachel “Bunny’’ Mellon, a banking heiress from Virginia, and the late Fred Baron, a Texas lawyer, actually were campaign donations because they were intended to protect Edwards' candidacy, which would have been derailed had the public learned of the affair.

“The charges against John Edwards in this case flow from his knowing and willful violation of the federal campaign finance laws during his campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president,’’ prosecutors said in court filings.

Justice Department prosecutors contend this is a straightforward case of broken campaign finance laws:

“A federal candidate may only accept and receive a limited amount of money from any one individual during an election cycle, and he must truthfully report the money he accepts and receives,’’ the department said in a trial brief.

The former senator from North Carolina has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts related to campaign finance violations. If convicted of all charges, Edwards faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. Opening arguments are scheduled to begin Monday morning and the much-anticipated trial is expected to last at least six weeks.

Critics of the prosecution, while noting that Edwards' conduct was reprehensible, argue that the government is going too far in trying to tie a candidate's personal life to complex campaign finance laws.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that generally supports the Justice Department against politicians charged with corruption, took the unusual step of criticizing prosecutors for pursuing the case. The group contends that the payments were gifts, not campaign contributions, noting that the payments continued after Edwards ended his campaign.

The group cited a 2002 Federal Election Commission decision in which six commissioners unanimously agreed that a loan made to a congressman to help defray the costs of his divorce was not a campaign contribution because the donor and the politician “had a preexisting personal relationship.” The same precedent should apply to Edwards, the group said, because the money came from friends.

“Sen. Edwards’ conduct was despicable and deserves society’s condemnation, but that alone does not provide solid grounds for a criminal case,” the group said in a statement last year.

The trial is starting about a year and a half after Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, died of cancer. Edwards carried on the affair with Hunter while his wife was terminally ill.

Edwards’ defense team has suggested that he did not know about the money from Mellon and Baron. “The government assumes that Mr. Edwards knew about the monies; the evidence will prove otherwise,’’ his attorneys said in a court filing.

It’s unclear whether Edwards, who built a lucrative career as a personal injury lawyer, will take the stand. His defense team includes prominent Washington lawyer Abbe D. Lowell.

Edwards in August 2008 admitted to the affair with Hunter after first denying it.  At the time, he denied fathering Hunter’s child. Then, in January 2010, he admitted he was the father of Frances Quinn Hunter.

A key witness is expected to be Andrew Young, a former Edwards campaign aide who falsely claimed he was the father of Hunter’s child to protect his boss. Young later wrote a tell-all book, “The Politician.’’

The defense is expected to attack Young, saying in a trial brief that the payments by Mellon and Baron covered Hunter's personal expenses “and, much more so, the Youngs' personal expenses, such as construction of their dream home, not Mr. Edwards' expenses.''

Hunter is expected to be called to the stand. Baron is dead. Mellon, who is 101, is not expected to testify, but her attorney may be called as a witness. The exhibits also include voice mails left by Baron and notes from Mellon to Edwards.

Edwards’ eldest daughter, Cate, is on the defense witness list. The case is before Judge Catherine C. Eagles, who was appointed to the bench by President Obama.

David Meeks contributed from Washington.

View the original article here

Edwards Trial Set to Begin, Reopening a Story of a Derailed Political Career - New York Times

Mr. Edwards stands accused of misusing campaign money to hide both an affair with a former campaign videographer and the child they conceived as he made his run for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

The trial in nearby Greensboro, which Judge Catherine C. Eagles of Federal District Court expects to take six weeks, promises to continue the long story of Mr. Edwards’s derailed career and scarred personal life.

But for the government, the case goes beyond the messiness of an affair that Mr. Edwards repeatedly denied, even as his wife, Elizabeth, was suffering from the cancer that eventually took her life in 2010.

Prosecutors have been unyielding in their pursuit of a case that they say represents a clear and flagrant misuse of $925,000 that they argue was used to try to influence the outcome of the election. If he is convicted on all six counts, Mr. Edwards, 58, faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

The government’s case is simple: Mr. Edwards knowingly accepted the money from two wealthy donors and used it to keep information from the public that would have surely torpedoed his presidential campaign. Thus, the money was a campaign contribution and its use a conspiracy.

Mr. Edwards’s legal team rejects that argument entirely: the money was a gift from two friends and was intended to help a candidate they believed in deal with a personal problem. Mr. Edwards, his lawyers say, was not aware of the donations.

They will try to characterize the case as being politically motivated. It began under the tenure of George Holding, a Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on as a United States attorney under the Obama administration to bring the case to trial.

Mr. Holding had long been politically hostile to Mr. Edwards, the defense lawyers say, and hoped the case would help his political ambitions. Mr. Holding retired last year, a month after securing Mr. Edward’s indictments, and then announced he was running for Congress in 2012.

But some political strategists dismiss the defense’s theory as mere posturing. The case has little political relevance, they say, especially so long after the alleged crimes were committed.

“Nobody cares about what’s happening to John Edwards anymore — he’s old news,” said Donnie Fowler, a technology and political consultant who has worked for seven presidential candidates and was a senior adviser to President Obama. “He’s not relevant to the Democrats in Washington or state capitals. And attacking John Edwards for the Republicans would be like attacking George McGovern.”

Still, students of campaign finance will look to the trial for new interpretations of how money from political action committees and other campaign-related donations can be spent, especially as the growing influence of “super PACs” is playing out in the 2012 presidential election.

The government’s legal team, which David V. Harbach II of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section is directing, faces a lineup of high-powered white-collar criminal defense lawyers led by Abbe D. Lowell, a former Justice Department official and Washington insider.

Although the defense strategy has yet to be fully revealed, Mr. Lowell will certainly be looking to lay the groundwork for a potential appeal. It is not clear whether Mr. Edwards will testify or to what extent will participate in his defense.

Mr. Edwards, who deposed Monica Lewinsky during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, was considered such a skilled trial lawyer that others in the profession would rush to catch his closing arguments.

Of course, it will be hard for both sides to keep the focus on the intricacies of campaign finance law when the central story of the trial hangs on a dying wife, an illicit affair and an attempted cover-up thought to be so elaborate that Mr. Edwards persuaded a loyal campaign aide, Andrew Young, to claim paternity and go underground with his own family and Rielle Hunter, Mr. Edwards’s paramour.

View the original article here