PDA

View Full Version : John Edwards verdict



Gerarddm
05-31-2012, 02:08 PM
Looks like guilty on the lesser count. Five more to go.

Concordia 33
05-31-2012, 02:17 PM
Looks like guilty on the lesser count. Five more to go.

DO you have a link?

This is all I could find and it doesn't say that he was found guilty of anything, only that there has been a unanimous verdict on the Bunny Mellon charge.







[Posted at 2:53 p.m. ET] The jury in the John Edwards trial has only reached a unanimous decision on one charge against John Edwards.The group of jurors said that as of this moment they could only agree on the charge of illegal campaign contributions from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon. We do not know which way the jury decided on that count.Edwards, a former Democratic U.S. senator and presidential nominee, was charged with accepting illegal campaign contributions, falsifying documents and conspiring to receive and conceal the contributions. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.

Gerarddm
05-31-2012, 03:45 PM
Ooops, pardon me, I was working off an early ABC News report. Turns out that it was not guilty on the lesser charge, and now a mistrial on the others.

boatbuddha
05-31-2012, 03:55 PM
As predicted by yours truly, the DOJ once again tried to make a case where there was none.

ljb5
05-31-2012, 03:56 PM
Mark Kirk must be breathing a sigh of relief.

Edwards is a sleaze... but the possibility of 30 years in prison for hiding an affair? Preposterous.

Paul Pless
05-31-2012, 04:09 PM
Edwards is a sleaze... but the possibility of 30 years in prison for hiding an affair? Preposterous.I agree completely. It was a ridiculous over-reach by the prosecutor.

ccmanuals
05-31-2012, 04:12 PM
Did anyone really believe he was going to do jail time? Could you imagine if they went after every politician who misspent campaign funds. We would need to build alot more prisons.

ljb5
05-31-2012, 04:56 PM
I agree completely. It was a ridiculous over-reach by the prosecutor.

On the other hand, if he hadn't gone after him, Republicans would be screaming to the heavans that Obama interceded to block the prosecution.

Wouldn't you?

Paul Pless
05-31-2012, 05:08 PM
On the other hand, if he hadn't gone after him, Republicans would be screaming to the heavans that Obama interceded to block the prosecution.

Wouldn't you?nope

bobbys
05-31-2012, 05:12 PM
On the other hand, if he hadn't gone after him, Republicans would be screaming to the heavans that Obama interceded to block the prosecution.

Wouldn't you?.

I think it was a over reach and i would not scream either..

Nicholas Scheuer
05-31-2012, 05:16 PM
We should consider ouselves lucky the duche-bag Edwards never won the nomination, though to hear the Repubs talk about Obama, they may have LOVED Edwards.

Ian McColgin
05-31-2012, 05:25 PM
He's not guilty on Mrs Mellon's money and it's a mistrial on the other counts.


By David Zucchino
May 31, 2012, 2:01 p.m.
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was found not guilty Thursday on one of the six counts of campaign finance fraud against him. The jury deadlocked on the other counts, and the judge declared a mistrial.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles had sent the jury of eight men and four women back to resume deliberations earlier in the afternoon after the foreman reported that jurors had reached a verdict on one count, but not the other five.

The jurors, already in their ninth day of deliberations, returned after 20 minutes.

The judge asked, "Would further deliberations have any reasonable chance of a unanimous decision on the other counts?"

The foreman replied, "No, your honor."

Edwards, who was handed the foreman's note before it was read by the clerk, showed no emotion upon doing so. When the verdict was announced, however, he smiled, then reached over and hugged his daughter Cate and his parents. He also gave a bear hug to his attorneys, saying, "Thank you, thank you all."

Edwards' father, Wallace Edwards, when asked how he felt, pointed to a big smile on his own face and said, "This says it all." His mother, Bobbie Edwards, said: "We prayed for this, and God answered our prayers."

The government now must decide whether to seek a new trial on the five counts for which a verdict was not reached.

The trial featured two main characters who were exposed in testimony as liars with tarnished reputations -- Edwards and his former aide, Andrew Young.

Edwards lied about his affair with Rielle Hunter and falsely denied that he fathered their daughter. The prosecution portrayed him as a manipulative politician who orchestrated payments totaling $925,000 from two wealthy benefactors to cover up the affair and thus save his campaign from collapsing in scandal.

Prosecutors built their case around Young, who testified under a grant of immunity. Young said Edwards solicited the payments, kept abreast of the scheme and even persuaded Young to falsely claim that he had fathered Hunter's child. But testimony revealed that Young and his wife kept much of the money for themselves, and kept phony records to cover it up.
The money came from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, 101, a billionaire heiress and ardent Edwards supporter, and from Fred Baron, a wealthy Texas lawyer who was Edwards' campaign finance chairman. Baron died in 2008. Mellon, who has failing eyesight and hearing, was not called to testify.

In three weeks of testimony by 24 witnesses, prosecutors focused on the tawdry details of the affair and the attempts to keep it secret. Jurors heard salacious details of trysts between Edwards and Hunter, and descriptions of madcap trips across the country to hide a pregnant Hunter -- and later her daughter -- from pursuing National Enquirer reporters.

The case was unprecedented; no major political candidate has been charged with campaign finance corruption for attempts to hide a mistress. Hampton Dellinger, a North Carolina lawyer who has taught election law at Duke University and who attended the trial, said Edwards is the most prominent American lawyer put on trial since Clarence Darrow.

There was no smoking gun, no body, and not even a distinct crime scene. In fact, the defense argued that there was no crime at all -- only a philandering husband desperately trying to hide an affair from his wife.

Witnesses described how Mellon sent "Bunny money" checks to an interior decorator, Bryan Huffman, who endorsed them and sent them to Andrew Young. His wife, Cheri Young, then deposited the checks in the couple's accounts, using her maiden name.

Jurors heard how some of the money from Baron was spent to support Hunter's lavish lifestyle. With the Youngs and their small children in tow, Hunter was flown to expensive hotels and homes in exclusive neighborhoods in an attempt to escape tabloid reporters determined to expose the affair.

Edwards, 58, a former U.S. senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, was charged with six counts of violating federal election laws. Prosecutors said he "knowingly and willingly" solicited the payments and knew they were illegal. One count charged Edwards with conspiring to accept the payments and to conceal them from the Federal Election Commission through "trick, scheme or device."

The defense said the payments were private gifts intended to hide the affair from Edwards' wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Witnesses testified that Elizabeth Edwards, who died of cancer in 2010, had become increasingly suspicious of her husband, monitoring his bank accounts and phone calls.

Edwards' lawyers mounted a two-pronged defense. They attempted to discredit Young as an opportunist seeking revenge against his former boss. They tried to convince jurors that under federal election law the payments were private gifts not directly related to the campaign.

The chief financial officer for Edwards' 2008 campaign, for instance, testified that the FEC did not require her to report the payments as campaign contributions -- even after Edwards was indicted last year. And a former FEC commissioner, Scott Thomas, testified that in his 37 years of experience with federal election laws, no one had been prosecuted for payments from a third party used to cover up an extramarital affair.

Copyright 2012, Los Angeles Times

Ian McColgin
05-31-2012, 05:32 PM
"Yet another example of Obama's inept Department of Justice." [#9]

Well, there's a dubious stretch. This is the unit appointed by Bush 43 that blew the Stevens case. They do have a new chief now and aside from the laughable over-reach of even brining the charges, they have not been the arrogant clowns they were four and five years ago.

Stupid case. They should bag it now.

wardd
05-31-2012, 05:47 PM
Yet another example of Obama's inept Department of Justice.

bush and cheney should be grateful then

MiddleAgesMan
05-31-2012, 05:48 PM
Yet another example of Obama's inept Department of Justice.

Yeah.

Not only that, but Obama's local representative of his Justice Department (also known as a Judge Penny Haas in Chatham County, GA) had to order the release of a probable child molester and murderer for violation of his right to a prompt trial. ;) Although the crime was committed in 2006 Obama should have been able to get things going in January 2009. His failure to bring this creep to trial for over 3 years is downright unconscionable!

Right, Donn?

Rich Jones
05-31-2012, 05:48 PM
Edwards is a sleaze. But, I'm glad there was a mistrial. Wipes the smug smile off a lot of right-wingers.

Ian McColgin
05-31-2012, 05:49 PM
Gosh Donn, I should have thought your recall of the Stevens fiasco and attention to the course of this trial would do it. I've only access to what's been publicly reported, but at least here we don't have the raised in the trial examples of prosecutorial misconduct that the unit flaunted while loosing a stronger case against Stevens. Anyway, everyone can read the record and decide according to his or her lights.

wardd
05-31-2012, 05:50 PM
Sorry, Ian. Without corroborating information, I don't buy it, and it'll continue to be Obama's inept Department of Justice.


don't follow the news much, do you?

or just selectively?

ljb5
05-31-2012, 07:36 PM
Gosh, Ian...my recall is just fine. I'm still waiting for something to prove "This is the unit appointed by Bush 43." If they work for Obama's Justice Department, they're Obama's Justice Department. They aren't like Justices of the Supreme Court. If Bush appointed them (as yet not established) Obama/Holder kept them on.

Prosecutors aren't political appointees and it's illegal to treat them as such. Bush's justice department got in trouble for purging their ranks for ideological reasons. It would not have been appropriate for Obama/Holder to fire them for no other reason than who appointed them.

ccmanuals
05-31-2012, 08:14 PM
"assuming" it's within their purview. Big leap.

Phillip Allen
05-31-2012, 08:15 PM
I've never really understood what a mistrial is... anybody have an explaination fit for a bricklayer?

Paul Pless
05-31-2012, 08:18 PM
I've never really understood what a mistrial is... anybody have an explaination fit for a bricklayer?

let me help you with that: link (http://www.google.com/)

Phillip Allen
05-31-2012, 08:24 PM
let me help you with that: link (http://www.google.com/)

it won't make your hair fall out if you're nice once in a while, Paul

Paul Pless
05-31-2012, 08:29 PM
I was being nice, or at least helpful. . .;)

ljb5
05-31-2012, 08:30 PM
One assumes Holder and his people, AKA Obama's Justice Department, reviewed, vetted and passed on both the office and actions of the people who prosecuted this case.

I don't know if that is a valid (or appropriate) assumption.

Federal prosecutors are expected to enjoy freedom from political pressure -- freedom even from the appearance of political pressure.

Especially in a case involving a prominent member of the President's party, it's conceivable that they took a hands-off approach.

Consider this: the jury deadlocked on five out of six charges. The prosecutors were able to persuade at least one juror at least five times. That indicates that the case was not completely without merit. If they had acquitted on all charges, perhaps.

Gerarddm
05-31-2012, 08:34 PM
Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic opines:

Indeed, whatever else it means, the mistrial is another courtroom embarrassment for the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder, who won't file criminal charges in the big cases people are talking about (like Wall Street fraud) but who evidently can't get his line attorneys to succeed in these picayune cases no one wants to see brought. That's a bad combination for a justice department, any justice department, because it suggests both a lack of value in prosecutorial priorities and a lack of trial competence. If you aren't going to fight the big ones, you have to land the little ones.

ljb5
05-31-2012, 09:03 PM
That's quite a flip-flop in the course of a few hours. A little "finger in the pundit world" going on?

It's not a flip-flop to point out that someone other than me came to a different conclusion than I did.

I still think 30 years was preposterous. I didn't say I was persuaded.

I was merely pointing out that someone was persuaded. You can't deny that, can you?

What do you suppose Rush Limbaugh and FOX News would say if Obama over-ruled a local prosecutor's decision to prosecute Edwards?

I don't believe for a minute that they (or you) would not be screaming about undue political influence on the prosecutors.

ljb5
05-31-2012, 09:06 PM
How do you guys feel about that Ken Starr investigation now?

Bobcat
05-31-2012, 09:09 PM
I've never really understood what a mistrial is... anybody have an explaination fit for a bricklayer?

It's when the trial does not reach a conclusion. Here because the jury could not reach a decision on the other charges.

tigerregis
05-31-2012, 09:17 PM
Ken Starr should be elevated to the heavens right next? to the Pleiades. Then we would all have a star to navigate the wandering Bark back home.

hokiefan
05-31-2012, 09:40 PM
He will be in a prison of his own making for the rest of his life.
The prison of social, political and professional ostracization, except for the sycohphants adoration, and that means little.

That social prison John Edwards earned by being a sleaze. He deserves it. The charges brought were an overreach.

Cheers,

Bobby

Glen Longino
05-31-2012, 09:49 PM
Ken Starr should be elevated to the heavens right next? to the Pleiades. Then we would all have a star to navigate the wandering Bark back home.

The nearest Ken Starr has come to Heaven is his Throne at Baylor University in Waco, Texas where he presides as a Saint among Southern Baptist sycophants.:)

Keith Wilson
05-31-2012, 11:08 PM
I've never really understood what a mistrial is... anybody have an explaination fit for a bricklayer?In most states the verdict has to be unanimous. If the jury can't all agree, there's no verdict either way, and the judge declares a mistrial. Sometimes they try again with another jury. I was on a jury once deliberating on three charges. We acquitted on one. On the other two eleven of us thought the guy was clearly guilty, but he twelfth guy wouldn't budge. After a while, we all went home. That's a mistrial.

Edwards is a sleazeball, a real piece of work, and his political career is stone dead, but I don't think he has any sycophants anymore. Hokiefan's right though; slimy but probably not criminal.

bobbys
06-01-2012, 10:11 AM
Edwards is a sleaze. But, I'm glad there was a mistrial. Wipes the smug smile off a lot of right-wingers..

I never said anything about that.

In fact there are more negatives from libs here then Reps..

I just think its a bit sad.

bobbys
06-01-2012, 10:16 AM
In most states the verdict has to be unanimous. If the jury can't all agree, there's no verdict either way, and the judge declares a mistrial. Sometimes they try again with another jury. I was on a jury once deliberating on three charges. We acquitted on one. On the other two eleven of us thought the guy was clearly guilty, but he twelfth guy wouldn't budge. After a while, we all went home. That's a mistrial.

Edwards is a sleazeball, a real piece of work, and his political career is stone dead, but I don't think he has any sycophants anymore. Hokiefan's right though; slimy but probably not criminal..

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.

Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Its very hard to grasp the moral standards or lackof from liberals.

Phillip Allen
06-01-2012, 10:28 AM
.

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.

Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Its very hard to grasp the moral standards or lackof from liberals.

I noticed it too but it's like correcting a dog, ya gotta catchem at the time of the act so they can make the association.

Gerarddm
06-01-2012, 11:02 AM
However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.



You people don't get it. Clinton was roundly condemned for his behavior, from left to right, but the crux of his matter was that it did not merit impeachment, no matter how many moralizing Republican hypocrites ( viz, Newt, Henry Hyde, et al ) seemed to think so.


The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.



See my comment, above. BTW, what is 'appertain'?


Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Because he didn't get the votes, and because he cheated on his dying wife and lied about it repeatedly. Duh.


So simple of comprehension even by people with the meanest level of understanding, to use a Patrick O'Brian phrase, but clearly you don't even qualify for that.

hokiefan
06-01-2012, 11:03 AM
.

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.

Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Its very hard to grasp the moral standards or lackof from liberals.

You didn't hear that from me. I don't remember if I commented here or not, but my thoughts were that it really stinks to explain to your daughter that she needs to be way more honest than the POTUS. A sad state of affairs.

Cheers,

Bobby

bobbys
06-01-2012, 11:23 AM
You didn't hear that from me. I don't remember if I commented here or not, but my thoughts were that it really stinks to explain to your daughter that she needs to be way more honest than the POTUS. A sad state of affairs.

Cheers,

Bobby.

Your right its not all libs which is why i refrain from posting some things to rough

Paul Pless
06-01-2012, 11:25 AM
.

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.

Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Its very hard to grasp the moral standards or lackof from liberals.

I think its because despite claims to the otherwise, Hillary did very quickly pull a Tammy Wynette as 'she stood by her man'. . .
Hillary saved him.

bobbys
06-01-2012, 11:30 AM
You people don't get it. Clinton was roundly condemned for his behavior, from left to right, but the crux of his matter was that it did not merit impeachment, no matter how many moralizing Republican hypocrites ( viz, Newt, Henry Hyde, et al ) seemed to think so.



See my comment, above. BTW, what is 'appertain'?



Because he didn't get the votes, and because he cheated on his dying wife and lied about it repeatedly. Duh.


So simple of comprehension even by people with the meanest level of understanding, to use a Patrick O'Brian phrase, but clearly you don't even qualify for that..

Publicly, Clinton had previously blamed the affair on "a terrible moral error" and on anger at Republicans, stating, "if people have unresolved anger, it makes them do non-rational, destructive things"..

So it was Republicans that made him do it?..

Funny i remember the Democrats marching about in defense of Clinton.

How come the "its Personal and between 2 people" argument is not in fashion anymore?.

Edwards did a good job in what he did right?.

Hey Im just trying to find the Moral line with some of you..

Going by this line and what Clinton said..

>>>no matter how many moralizing Republican hypocrites ( viz, Newt, Henry Hyde, et al ) seemed to think so.<<<.

Its always about Republicans...

Instead we had a President teach people certain sex was not sex.

ccmanuals
06-01-2012, 11:44 AM
.

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

The only crime or moral code he broke thats appertain from liberals is being caught before being elected or hindering some one else.

Why did he not continue to run and why is he a outcast from the party now.

Its very hard to grasp the moral standards or lackof from liberals.


That's called a false equivalency.

ljb5
06-01-2012, 12:34 PM
.

I have read he is a Sleazeball a few times on this thread from Liberals.

However when Clinton was messing around we were told its Personal just let him do his job.

This is not a contradiction.

"Sleazy" is not "criminal."

McCain is sleazy. Gingrich is sleazy. Giuliani is sleazy. Edwards is sleazy and Clinton is sleazy.

But this is not "criminal" so you don't score any points for trying to make it criminal or political.

It's a shame you don't understand the distinction.

Ian McColgin
06-02-2012, 09:41 AM
In Edwards' case the prosecutors were not actually investigating Edwards' sex life, just the money used to hide it. In Clinton's case, Starr started investigating what was hoped to be a financial crime and found none indictable, so then switched to an utterly unrelated and increasingly prurient sex investigation. This is another good reason for making porn more available, even mandated for some: to ensure they rack themselves in private rather than in public as such huge and pointless taxpayer expense.

Gerarddm
06-02-2012, 10:47 AM
Bobbys, you are being thick as a brick. Listening to too much Jethro Tull recently? Jeesh.

1. SOME Democrats defended Clinton, to their shame. Most observers of every stripe did not. Some like me were pissed that he threw away the chance to do some sterling things in his presidency because he couldn't control his prurient interest. Clinton was utterly blameworthy.

2. The impeachment attempt WAS about Republicans and hypocritical ones at that. Were you not alive back then?

3. The issue, the LEGAL issue, of the Edwards case involved possible misuse of campaign funds, solely. It had nothing to do with consensual conduct, and if Edwards wanted to be a cheesy sleazeball and cheat on his dying wife then that is between him, his wife, and his mistress.

bobbys
06-02-2012, 01:54 PM
Bobbys, you are being thick as a brick. Listening to too much Jethro Tull recently? Jeesh.

1. SOME Democrats defended Clinton, to their shame. Most observers of every stripe did not. Some like me were pissed that he threw away the chance to do some sterling things in his presidency because he couldn't control his prurient interest. Clinton was utterly blameworthy.

2. The impeachment attempt WAS about Republicans and hypocritical ones at that. Were you not alive back then?

3. The issue, the LEGAL issue, of the Edwards case involved possible misuse of campaign funds, solely. It had nothing to do with consensual conduct, and if Edwards wanted to be a cheesy sleazeball and cheat on his dying wife then that is between him, his wife, and his mistress..

Somehow its always the Republicans fault....

Spin the legal stuff around all you want I understand that what i wish to know is this.

Why is JE a Sleaze as liberals stated here and BC now is the grand old man face of the Democratic party.

Seems libs can pick and choose at whim When Questioned ,Blame Ken Star or Vast right wing conspirators.

From here it appears a Liberals Moral compass is based on what a Democratic politician can do to get votes.

JE not needed, Under the bus he goes.

BC needed to stump for Obama, Wink wink, that SOB Ken Star .

JFK.. Camelot.

I notice no lib ever states theses guys are Sleazes, Its wink wink well thats ole Bill for ya, JFK, Well hes a Kennedy and WAS Handsome..

And again as you state the Only "sin" that exists is based on a Republican be hypocritical.

Thats Hypocritical in itself and much more so.

If you wish to converse with me please knock off the "thick as a Brick" insults as i do not do that to you.

I cannot stand Jethro Tull..

Sorta like the Archie's and Cowsills if that can help ya!