Since I'm not on the jury, and just reading/hearing about this trial from news sources, and not receiving the judges instructions prior to deliberating, my opinion really doesn't count for much. But here's the part that bothers me.
Would Bunny Mellon or other donors to the "hush fund" have donated that money to hide Edwards mistress if Edwards was not running for President?
Edwards may claim that the donated money was to keep Elizabeth from finding out about his mistress and the bastard he had with her, but you can't tell me that either he or his donors were stupid enough to think that his chances of election wouldn't be dead in the water if people knew about Hunter and her pregnancy.
I just cannot believe that Mellon would donate that much money to a nobody two-timer to keep his wife from finding out about his mistress. She only did it because she felt it would get her "points" with a highly-placed politician.
So was it a "campaign contribution?" I guess that comes down to the letter of the law about campaign contributions versus than the spirit of the law. Everybody involved knew full well that what they were doing was very havey-cavey and certainly violated the spirit of the law.
If Edwards gets acquitted, it will basically be only on a technicality.
However, the whole country is fully aware of what a slime-ball he is. There is nothing he could ever do that would get any sort of a decent reputation back. He's saddled with that total screw-ball Rielle Hunter for life. All of his scheming and plotting and attempts at cover up turned out to be for naught. He didn't even get a lot of the money since his great friend siphoned off so much to build his new house.
Personally, I think Edwards, Hunter and Young all deserve each other.
In fact, the Federal Election Commission has already determined the Baron/Mellon contributions were NOT campaign funds. A former FEC commissioner was going to testify to that on behalf of the defense, but the judge wouldn't allow it. (Grounds for appeal...?)
A story at MSNBC suggests the key to a decision is the difference between "the" and "a." Apparently, the FEC statute says monies constitute "campaign funds" if they're given for "the purpose" of improving the candidate's chance of getting elected. The Bush-appointed US Attorney who brought the charges is arguing that, if getting elected was "a purpose" of the contributions, even if it was only a minor purpose, the money still constitutes "campaign funds."
The judge's refusal to allow the former FEC commissioner to testify was definitely a pro-prosecution ruling, but (again according to MSNBC) it seems as if her rulings on the jury directions may be a bit closer to the defense's interpretation of the FEC statute.
It sounds like the defense has some weak arguments and will never be able to get Edwards of of the hook with all the damaging evidence. Edwards is such scum using his own daughter to try and cheat justice.
He used his wife first and now his own daughter.
She can't save him and he is going to some time if the judge doesn't cheat justice because of who Edwards once was.
Is Edwards a jerk? YES. Is is a sorry, no good poster child for marriage fidelity? YES. Should he be forever ashamed of the way he treated his dying wife? YES. But did he break the law? NO. But....should Andrew Young be better investigated and tried....YES.....he's the one that benefitted from all of the money. A $1.6 home built on money meant to hide Hunter. There is bound to be a broken law hiding there somewhere!
I am sorry your hero is going down in flames. He is still corrupt as they come. He sought out the money and knew what he was doing. You only get the benefit of the doubt, so many times. We are just going to give him the opportunity not to practice law, and enjoy the benefits of Federal incarceration. His underling Young was being used, and decided to cash OUT on it, no doubt. (Oh, how hard it is for the wealthy to get good help these days, tisk tisk).Edwards conspired and used whoever he could and it only went so far. People wanted (and still want to give)to give this man power in our Republics name. We saw how he used people for his own ends. Edwards, a true head case.
I agree with you 100%. John Edwards will have to spend the rest of his life facing ridicule for his personal conduct, but shouldn't have to face imprisonment. I am convinced, however, that Andrew Young is the one who definitely should be on trial. I don't understand why the government is so hell bent on convicting John Edwards when Andrew Young is the one who actually benefited financially from this whole scandal.
jgnv: Spend rest of his life facing ridicule? Is this the 'ridicule is punishment enough plea'? The only thing that political manipulators like Edwards understand is force. The force of law stripping him from practicing law because of a felony conviction.
jgnv (love of Jox's argument): Your argument is that the maid/hired-help (Young) snorted the Cocaine (the illegal money sought from Mellon), so don't prosecute the homeowner (Edwards) because it was his Cocaine (illegal money).
There is no way that you can believe Edwards is credible; if he has the moral makeup to do what he did do his wife, he has the moral make up to do what he is accused of. I am a liberal and feel this type of dishnesty by politicians of any party should be punished by jail time
I am disappointed to hear that Edwards passed on such a cushy plea agreement. What was he thinking? His reputation was already damaged beyond repair. An acquittal will not give him back his "good name", so there's no benefit there. 6 months should have been nothing to serve for what he has dragged everyone he knows through. The trial just added to the pain and humiliation that his and Elizabeth's relatives have to suffer, especially his own chidren. Accepting the plea would have been the kindest and most altruistic thing he could have done, no matter if he thinks himself innocent of the charges. The only conceivable reason I can think of for going ahead with trial is if Elizabeth put some kind of provision in her will restricting his visitation if he is convicted of crimes, or if just having convictions on his record would affect his visitation schedule with his children. Otherwise, his professional life is permanently screwed. No one in their right mind would want to work with this guy again, law license or not. He has no integrity at all.
Edwards thinks he is one hell of a hot s(four-letter word)t lawyer. He sure is one arrogant one. If anyone running for public office does show corruption and megalomania, its got to be him. "Before his indictment, Edwards rejected a potential plea agreement with federal prosecutors that would have allowed him to serve as little as six months and keep his law license.". ** This is about Presidential campaigns and money. This case is about the citizens trying to get a handle on the power of money to influence public office seekers. These Edwards campaign lawyers still think they can do any damn thing they want. They will if the public does not stop them. Twelve jurors can tell them their pipe-dream is over. Twelve jurors can torpedo this one boat in the 'political class' " navy.
**These are the statistics about Federal Cases.You have a 234 chance to one in a federal case of being found guilty. That is the record. 234 guilty verdicts for every person who is exonerated (found innocent). I read it in a story about Federal Cases. I need to look up my source and surf the net,find it.
Viewer: No argument that Edwards is arrogant. Most people in public life become that way, but usually they hide it better.
The question is whether the prosecution has shown evidence of guilt. I don't see that they have. They certainly said plenty about the adultery and the lying, and they succeeded in confirming that Edwards is a slimeball. But adultery and lying are not illegal! And neither has any direct bearing on campaign finance violations, which is the crime that the prosecution has charged Edwards.
The long and short of it is that this prosecution lacked mettle from the start, and they failed to show that Edwards committed a crime.
Respectfully josephp5: Alright, You don't see that they have. You interpret legality vs illegality to favor Edwards. You and me are not on the jury. Edwards own statements was that he could use Mellon as a cash cow. He sent his soldiers just like the mafia does to commit his crime. He sought ways to look clean but get the money over the $2,300 limit. Edwards pushed Young to be the fall guy. If it was clean they would not have used deception.
The mens rea, the guilty knowledge,is lacking in this case. Nobody testified that Edwards knew that the money was used for the alleged purpose. The donors, Bonnie Mellon, and Fred Baron, knew their cash was not to be used for the campaign, and that the money was a gift to Edwards, to help with the crisis. Therefore, there is no crime. However, if the jury does not get it right, Obama should pardon him. When the legal system fails, the President, in federal cases, and Governors, in state cases, can correct the imperfection of their respective legal systems, and should act.
Deep BS. Mellon used a deceptive path using Young's wife. They knew they where up to no good. Its the same as when Limbaugh used his maid to cop(score) his illegal drugs(oxycotin) for him.
josephp5:Adultery can be a crime in certain jurisdictions (check the laws on the books) but that is not what he is charged. Hiding and scheming to get over the $2,300 campaign limits in a political campaign is. He sent Young to do it. He set up his campaign to pay for $20,000 a month mansions and $100,000 private jets flights. The hypothetical half of politicians you quote, if they exists, are not head cases (Edwards) doing it in the middle of a political campaign. The sins of others do not excuse the granddaddy of sinners. We have plenty of prison space available for Edwards as an example for all the others you believe out there. Don't worry.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Would Bunny Mellon or other donors to the "hush fund" have donated that money to hide Edwards mistress if Edwards was not running for President?
Edwards may claim that the donated money was to keep Elizabeth from finding out about his mistress and the bastard he had with her, but you can't tell me that either he or his donors were stupid enough to think that his chances of election wouldn't be dead in the water if people knew about Hunter and her pregnancy.
I just cannot believe that Mellon would donate that much money to a nobody two-timer to keep his wife from finding out about his mistress. She only did it because she felt it would get her "points" with a highly-placed politician.
So was it a "campaign contribution?" I guess that comes down to the letter of the law about campaign contributions versus than the spirit of the law. Everybody involved knew full well that what they were doing was very havey-cavey and certainly violated the spirit of the law.
If Edwards gets acquitted, it will basically be only on a technicality.
However, the whole country is fully aware of what a slime-ball he is. There is nothing he could ever do that would get any sort of a decent reputation back. He's saddled with that total screw-ball Rielle Hunter for life. All of his scheming and plotting and attempts at cover up turned out to be for naught. He didn't even get a lot of the money since his great friend siphoned off so much to build his new house.
Personally, I think Edwards, Hunter and Young all deserve each other.
When did that relationship end? (Hint: it hasn't.)
A story at MSNBC suggests the key to a decision is the difference between "the" and "a." Apparently, the FEC statute says monies constitute "campaign funds" if they're given for "the purpose" of improving the candidate's chance of getting elected. The Bush-appointed US Attorney who brought the charges is arguing that, if getting elected was "a purpose" of the contributions, even if it was only a minor purpose, the money still constitutes "campaign funds."
The judge's refusal to allow the former FEC commissioner to testify was definitely a pro-prosecution ruling, but (again according to MSNBC) it seems as if her rulings on the jury directions may be a bit closer to the defense's interpretation of the FEC statute.
:-)!!! (first sentence:)
... "his one-time mistress" ... :-)!!!
( Isn't that what they all say??? :-)!!! )
He used his wife first and now his own daughter.
She can't save him and he is going to some time if the judge doesn't cheat justice because of who Edwards once was.
"Before his indictment, Edwards rejected a potential plea agreement with federal prosecutors that would have allowed him to serve as little as six months and keep his law license.". **
This is about Presidential campaigns and money. This case is about the citizens trying to get a handle on the power of money to influence public office seekers. These Edwards campaign lawyers still think they can do any damn thing they want. They will if the public does not stop them. Twelve jurors can tell them their pipe-dream is over. Twelve jurors can torpedo this one boat in the 'political class' " navy.
**These are the statistics about Federal Cases.You have a 234 chance to one in a federal case of being found guilty. That is the record. 234 guilty verdicts for every person who is exonerated (found innocent). I read it in a story about Federal Cases. I need to look up my source and surf the net,find it.
The question is whether the prosecution has shown evidence of guilt. I don't see that they have. They certainly said plenty about the adultery and the lying, and they succeeded in confirming that Edwards is a slimeball. But adultery and lying are not illegal! And neither has any direct bearing on campaign finance violations, which is the crime that the prosecution has charged Edwards.
The long and short of it is that this prosecution lacked mettle from the start, and they failed to show that Edwards committed a crime.
The prosecution waved their hands a lot and talked a lot about adultery. But they never showed that Edwards knew about the payments to his mistress.
Being an adulterer is not a crime. Neither is lying about it to your wife or the public. If it was, half of our politicians would be in jail!