trevor potter we'll see you tomorrow at the fec. we'll be right back.cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> stephen: thank you everybody, we will come back, folks. i just want to remind everybody that on friday july first at 8:00 pm, you can see me live at the gaillard municipal auditorium in charleston, south carolina ,to benefit the medical university of south carolina's james w. colbert endowed chair. they provide the chair; i provide the endowed. [laughter] i'll be interviewed by msnbc's jonathan alter and taking your questions. and i'll be spewing such juicy secrets, the first three rows will be provided ponchos. see you there. folks, i love my home town because we know that small town america is the real america. that's where you can still find good morals, a strong work ethic, and primo meth. [laughter] i mean, the high speed chicken feed. so it's time for my latest hometown herotown. this week's hometown hero-town lexington, kentucky! where folks know that there are some things in life worth standing up for. they'd just rather sit down fo

trevor potter we'll see you tomorrow at the fec. we'll be right back.cheers and applause] [ male announcer ] you don't make the world's best chicken by pressing a button. it takes a cook. we're kfc and we've got a certified cook in every restaurant freshly making the colonel's original recipe, today and every day. 11 herbs and spices, hand-breaded, hands down the world's best chicken. today is a kfc day. so bring home a real meal -- 10 pieces of that famous chicken, 3 large sides and 6 biscuits. enough real food to feed a family of four or more, just 20 bucks. today tastes so good. [cheers and applause] >> stephen: thank you everybody, we will come back, folks. i just want to remind everybody that on friday july first at 8:00 pm, you can see me live at the gaillard municipal auditorium in charleston, south carolina ,to benefit the medical university of south carolina's james w. colbert endowed chair. they provide the chair; i provide the endowed. [laughter] i'll be interviewed by msnbc's jonathan alter and taking your questions. and i'll be spewing such

the fec because i have received this actual list of thirteen questions from the fec.now these are complicated legal questions, so i'm going to do what i did in high school when it came to tests: pay a smart kid to sit next to me and give me the answers. [laughter] so please welcome former head of the fec and my personal lawyer, trevor potter. trevor, good to see you. first of all, sarah palin and sara pac can she use her pac money to do what she's doing? basically take a vacation with her family? >> sure, she can because she's not yet a federal candidate. if she were a federal candidate they couldn't use campaign funds for personal use like family vacations. >> stephen: she's getting this money because people think she might become a federal candidate. >> right, that's the joy of the pac you are partway there but not yet a full candidate. >> stephen: so you have to be sort of a pac tease. [laughter] let's go after the questions the fec sent to us. are they watching right now? >> they are very interested in your pac at this moment so i expect somebody is up late at nig

cynthia bauerly is, as i said, is the chair of the fec. she has served on the fec since 2008. prior to that, worked as a staff member in the senate for senator schumer and then on the judiciary committee, rules committee and prior to that, worked as a lawyer in private practice. the fec is an interesting government agency has authority making sure that our federal election system is working properly, but many critics including i think even on the commission recognized the fec itself is not functioning so properly right now. and i'm sure we will be hearing about that. and, of course, the fec has also received some unusual attention from an unexpected source in the last several weeks as comedian stephen colbert has decided to file nonfrivolous petitions with the fec on some strange apparatus struggling issues. i'm sure we'll have a chance to talk about that as well. so without let hand the floor over to you. >> thank you. i want to congratulate public citizen on four years of hard work and good work on behalf of the public. and thank you for the invitation to be here and thank a

here's how he explains it. >> tonight, i await the fec's decision on my super pac.f large bills, too. >> maria? >> what's the real message here? >> the real not so subtle message here, kyra, is the obscene amount of money, undiskmroezed money, that has been allowed in our politics today because of the citizens united decision. that's exactly what has prompted all of the riff that colbert has done on his late night show that has become so popular. it is an obscene amount of money that is corrosive, debilitating our democracy. i think it's bad for elections and the american people. >> sherry? >> you know, i think it's fine if he's drawing attention to this so this is our opportunity to sort of push the limits and see where the problems are, the loopholes are, where they need to tighten up. i'm all for sunlight in that regard. but first and foremost he's doing this for ratings. he's a comedian, a pretend newsman. let's get real. we know what this is for. more power to him. >> errol? >> i think the situation is so bad it almost defies parody. that's what he has proved.

lth e thwh haou oes, s,r ye is veve well e l w pd y iby t l rut d t anit tho . ar fec, er dn red er tr minthst ab.nfn s geuty ir jaico cctin e m "deed >>ea ymo'sve wr:gesar dein5,erng pof hbidlf isdinden keinar nat 8e fly mur ge bn, okmay mi mon eyge craleed ern- aintoe dleanora for rtor "on gl." heau olaashe irmothbid ilea hrry heursm bn er. om lla lee t eybuhat hob son mowa l ain ad. t anicr hest p wth arbof t shg on erng uwo rrlwoad thgiist h iste ohefb storcal hiy. td0senit heeeov rmn thfb klrnhe le d rod an tsbo. thnebe ri site e h edon aitin orntat tg totci ip oheesf le wtr t in om. sofsep ed de soit a dan dito >>neow upe a watit m? w tva nfti bee asinto hehellhe itn abo t, nng? ye ll vo tisy . rekibohe 97henag b na ooholyew pasobo. e apeal lashnvd gbaoir h whgeoln joonyr whhesag thwa pi i depinfnan ohcoy ed wy e hed aitl rkbof cagotheth main n o thty bugat qklrn wh br rod lld ugim o t twe wogr ar had ber o er sssese, poulut o t labi s w too direat y ime yre fngllgeo rnyeaas tos pfuocin mchts pid he s se. tis ho grbo sie a oo he e yoerlho entostlan w ol me pocindteh gup tam bom n

being tried by a bunch of experts like jeff and pete and other people familiar with the history of fec law, there would be no chance of a conviction. there has never been a case like this. i think though for a normal jury if it does go to trial, and of course costill strike a deal, i think a normal jury may see the facts of this case and not care about the history of fec prosecutions can, campaign law finance prosecutions. >> rose: and therefore they would convict him or they would not convict him based on -- >> i think it is a weak case for experts but it may in the end be a strong case for laypeople sitting on a jury who just see the fact pattern. i mean as far as inow there's not much dispute about the cts of the case. about at money was solicited. one thing we know is that andrew young would almost certainly be a star witness. and easily discredited witness at any trial. what we don't know from the indictment, fred barn was one ofhe other major people involved, a democratic fund-raiser, lawyer from texas. he has passed away. what we don't know is who else in the edwards orbit knew

and so he asked for guidance, advice from the fec, and the fec said actually, you can give some personal gifts if the you would have given them, if the person wasn't a federal candidate. another thing that they said was that it allows for gifts of a personal nature, but only if they are customary, and only if you have given them to this person all of the time. so that the government is saying, well, this is very different from what happened here with john edwards and would bunny melon have given him over $700,000 had he not been running for the presidency? and so that really is the ground that the government is standing on. the reason that the defense i think is saying that this is unprecedented is because it is not a statute and not black letter law, and it is just an advisory opinion. and so, it is too soon of course to tell whether or not this opinion will play a large part in the government's case, but i suspect that this is what they are hinging it on. >> sunny standby, because i have questions about plea discussions and versus ultimately going to trial and what could happen beyond

the fec doesn't read the law and we don't decide whether they are constitutional. we have an important but limited role in this process is to administer the campaign finance act, this spending provision of the presidential funding act, and to make sure that the law is being enforced and to develop relations when the statute provides some rules for the agency to do so. so while it is a substantial goal, it is not that of the article for free court to decide the constitutionality of it and it is not that of congress to pass the law in the first place. one of the functions is the disclosure of the act. that is everything that happens in the campaign finance area and the commission that does go through publishing all the reports the committees are filing with us. we review every page of the reports to make sure they are accurate and where we have questions please send a further information to make sure the public record is as accurate as possible. and there's been a lot of this discussion particularly after citizens united, questions about whether we are getting enough

the fec is going to roll out again and ordered to regulate the internet. why is this the month raised -- most brazen one of all? for one simple reason. a year ago, in 2010, they had a court ruling telling them they could not do this. they thought about it and said, we will do it anyway. it is just a court ruling. talk about a brazen this regard, distain for the rule of law. we may not like what courts do all the time, but there has got to be a place where our contests are rep read and thought out. this administration does not just this respect state and federal law, does not just this respect the united states constitution, but they also have no respect for the courts of this country. it is amazing, and this ruling, this order coming up this summer is the most brazen one of all because of that, because they have crossed one more line so brazenly. you there arell attorneys general that got elected in 2010 all over the country who are now stepping up to the plate and playing a role in defending the constitution, the rule of law in their states and our federa

and millions of expenditures that every federal campaign fundraising committee lists on their endless fecrms every year. candidates are already getting away with figurative murder in what they do with the money that they actually report having collected and report having spent. the edwardss' prosecution is not about that money. and i am sure the edwards campaign used that money, the reportedable money to the benefit of the edwardss' family perhaps not as much as the palin family has, but in similar violation of the spirit of the law of campaign finance. the edwards' prosecution is about a separate million dollars that secretly existed outside the reportable amounts allowed. as money increasingly poisons our politics as it gains more and more power over the political process this is no time to sit idly boy when a candidate who has secretly used a million dollars outside of the campaign finance system to preserve and protect his kand daddy is discovered. the prosecutors in the edwards case are not out to teach john edwards a lesson. he has already been humbled. if humbling is not enough for

case when so recently it dropped the case from john ensign, the senator from nevada who lied to the fec about a $96,000 severance payment made to a former mistress. so there's really something incomprehensible about the strategy at the department of justice. >> al derschowiz, greg craig, the attorney for edward, goes along for what you said, an unprecedented prosecution, an unprecedented civil case. no one should have known or should have known or could have been expected to know that these payments would be treated as campaign contributions. is it as clear cut as that? do you think? >> i think he's right. craig is a great, great lawyer. edwards is lucky to have him. this is a criminal stra chutatu. you have to read them narrowly. you can't be create in the criminal law. it has to be clear -- thomas jefferson once said the criminal law has to be so clear that you can understand it if you read it while running. now, you read the statute and it just doesn't seem to cover this conduct. and creativity has no role in the justice system. i would hope greg craig would get it dismissed before i

they were relying, martin, on an be a secure federal advisory opinion, an fec advisory opinion.lly trying to make new law on the back of john edwards and i don't think it's going to work. look, you can't convict someone for being a bad husband, a cad, an idiot, or a disgrace to the democratic party, all of which i'm happy to say here, i'll say it on national television he was. he won't be convicted on this proof in this case under this law. >> you don't believe so? >> no, i don't. i don't think -- look, people don't like john edwards. the jury won't like john edwards but that's not proof that he broke a law, any law that currenly exists on the books. >> now, he apparently and reportedly turned down a plea deal of sop kind. >> yes. >> saying he couldn't possibly leave his children alone. but is it likely that a judge would take that into consideration? >> a judge won't be taking anything into consideration unless we get to a sentencing. children do come into the mix if we ever get there, but i think the prosecution will be back to the table with a better deal for john edwards tha

the fec said, you can have one. this is not really a surprise. the supreme court has opened up the floodgates for various groups. karl rove has a group, bill burton who used to work in the white house has i democrat leaning group that raise all this mon and inject it into the political process before elections. stephen colbert wants to do this because he wants to call attention to the fact there's so much money in politics. so instead of following the money, kyra, i guess we have to follow the funny with stephen colbert. >> i would love to see you on his show. you would grill him for sure. you'd get to the bottom of this. >> yes, i would. >> thanks, jim. >>> next hour we'll have your political updates. you can also go online to our web site cnn politics domg. that's 24/7. that does it for us. we'll be back here tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. eastern. suzanne malveaux takes it from here. >>> live from studio 7, i'm suzanne malveaux. want to get you up to speed for thursday, june 30th. >>> casey anthony's defense team could wrap up today, potentially p

fluch fec >> aquÍ estamos con la torre de jalisco, pablo ramÍrez, mucha copa oro y mucha emociÓn y nos que no quedamos en el casting de los pequeÑos gigantes. >> comenzamos entre panamÁ-el salvador por el Último pase >> los himnos nacionales y zelaya, vÍa penalty empieza marcando minuto 77 con gol de los 10 pasos. >> ¿este es gol? pero ya era el tiempo agÓnico se fueron a los penales. fallÓ jonathan alas por el salvador. pan maÑana. el lo pasivo dea. ganaron 5 por 3 para avanzar. ahÍ estÁ ya bien instalado primera hora. >> era otro pase a las semifinales. >> 4 minutos, le pega john, y adentro que estÁn comiendo, ya ganaba estados unidos. el 2 por 0 dempsey. me quedÉ callÓ do compaÑÍa que siguiera la narraciÓn de fondo. el 2 por 0 despuÉs de la gran jugada. ayer estaba calificando estados unidos ganando a jamaica 2 por 0. fueron los dos semifinalista, el sÁbado habÍan surgido. en una doble cartelera que se habÍa disputado en nueva york, a esta iremos en los partidos de mÉxico-guatemala y la ronda entre honduras-costa rica. >> el mÉxico frente a guatemala. a pesar que perdÍan en el part

the fec is going to roll out again and ordered to regulate the internet.hy is this the month raised -- most brazen one of all? for one simple reason. a year ago, in 2010, they had a court ruling telling them they could not do this. they thought about it and said, we will do it anyway. it is just a court ruling. talk about a brazen this regard, distain for the rule of law. we may not like what courts do all the time, but there has got to be a place where our contests are rep read and thought out. this administration does not just this respect state and federal law, does not just this respect the united states constitution, but they also have no respect for the courts of this country. it is amazing, and this ruling, this order coming up this summer is the most brazen one of all because of that, because they have crossed one more line so brazenly. you there arell attorneys general that got elected in 2010 all over the country who are now stepping up to the plate and playing a role in defending the constitution, the rule of law in their states and our federali