E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJohn Edwards' defense team argued that the prosecution hasn't shown that Edwards knew about money going to his mistress, Rielle Hunter. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Updated at 6:59 p.m. ET: The judge in John Edwards' federal campaign finance trial rejected a defense motion to dismiss the charges against him Friday, a day after the prosecution rested its case.
|
Lisa Myers, Jay Gray and Michael Austin of NBC News contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook. |
Edwards' defense team argued that prosecutors hadn't proven their case — an assessment many legal analysts agreed with, noting that many of the prosecution witnesses had actually bolstered Edwards' contention that nothing he did in accepting donations from prominent backers to support his mistress was actually a crime.
But dismissal motions are a long shot, and U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles said "we will let the jury decide" in a ruling that NBC News and msnbc.com legal analyst Hampton Dellinger said brought home the "risk of taking this case to trial for John Edwards."
Edwards' lawyers are scheduled to begin presenting their case Monday.
Edwards — the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a former senator from North Carolina — is charged in U.S. District Court in Greensboro with six felony counts of accepting about $1 million in illegal and unreported campaign donations from two wealthy supporters.
The prosecution chose not to call Rielle Hunter, the campaign videographer with whom Edwards fathered a daughter, and Edwards' lawyers haven't said whether they intend to question her on the stand. They also haven't said whether Edwards himself might testify.
The first phase of the controversial case came to a close after two weeks without testimony from a key witness — Hunter, the mother of Edwards' daughter Quinn.
Prosecutors instead introduced a mountain of paper evidence to establish the two points they must prove to convict Edwards — that he knew the money from billionaire heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and the late Fred Baron was being diverted to the "Hunter problem" and that he knew doing so was a violation of the law.
Edwards denies he knew what his former top aide and chief accuser, Andrew Young, was up to, and his lawyers argue that every step of the way, the campaign was careful to keep the money separate from political funds.
Prosecutors called a parade of witnesses they hoped would impeach Edwards' integrity by depicting him as a politician blinded by ambition and hubris.
Even as rumors of the affair swirled in tabloid media, Edwards remained in the 2008 presidential race and was lobbying behind the scenes for a position in the administration of the eventual Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said Leo Hindery, a former Edwards campaign adviser.
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
The testimony showed that even as his career was crumbling around him, "John Edwards persisted in his efforts, if not to become president, to become vice president, attorney general and maybe even a Supreme Court justice," said Stephen Friedland, law professor at Elon University in Elon, N.C.
Other evidence from federal agents outlined lavish shopping spending by Hunter on shopping sprees and trips to Florida, Colorado and California, all bankrolled by Mellon and Baron.
Prosecutors closed their case Thursday by showing Edwards' interview with ABC News in August 2008, in which he flatly denied having fathered Quinn or that he ever asked for money for a coverup.
Edwards' campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri — now the White House deputy communications director — testified this week that she intentionally scheduled the interview during the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games because she knew Edwards would lie.
"The jury has seen John Edwards on video, they've heard his voice on voice mails, they've seen emails from John Edwards, so Edwards is not just seen as the defendant, but he's been very much part of the testimony," Dellinger said of the prosecution's case.
"I think that puts more pressure on Edwards to take the stand when the defense presents their part of the case," he said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
John-less Edwards - is - GUILTY!
I believe that the admission that a "political donor" gave the money is sufficient to call the money a campaign contribution. Gift or not, it was used to keep the truth from the public. The assertion that it was for personal/family reasons is absurd, to say the least. That it occurred during the campaign makes the money inseparable from any other campaign donation. The legal experts are basing their claim that the case wasn't proved on the usual doubletalk that finds distinctions in the verbiage of the law that no reasonable person would accept.`The same sort pf perverse logic gave corporations the right to attempt to buy elections. Corporations can't vote, can they?
May John Edwards be cell Butt Buddies with Blago, they deserve each other........
The worst part is that he'll probably end up getting a slap on the wrist for this. As with most high-profile individuals who come before the court, even if he is found guilty, a judge will end up reducing his sentence to a modest fine.
of???? Being an pig, yes. Have no moral fiber, yes. Unfortunately as screwed up as the campaign finance and oversight is, he will probably not be found guilty of committing a crime. Trading favors for money is a political game that the "lawmakers" are just too good at. The "lawmakers" are all lawyers and they self regulate, only the really stupid ones put themselves in a position of actually breaking an existing law.
All they need to convince is one juror, and I suspect they've done that, and more.
This trial is a waste of time and money.
The reality is that the donors have both stated that they knew what the money was for and never thought it was going to the campaign. Since the money was never intended to be for the campaign it can not be said that it was diverted. In fact the money was even reported by Bunny Mellon on her taxes as a gift to Edwards. Since political donations do not get reported as gifts, it is pretty clear that she knew the purpose of giving the money. The judge should have dismissed the case since the prosecution witnesses basically gutted the prosecution's own case. The judge obviously has an agenda in forcing this case to go to the jury. The judge seems to be showing bias and hoping that the jury convicts Edwards because they find what he did morally reprehensible, not because he did anything that actually violated campaign finance laws. Covering up the affair of course was intended to help his political future, but that does not make the gifts campaign contributions. If everything that is given to a candidate or done on their behalf that helps their political future is going to be considered a campaign contribution than it is going to be an absolute mess. If that is where this judge is steering things then the simple act of giving a speech endorsing a candidate or publishing an editorial endorsing a candidate could be seen as a campaign contribution. If that is where this is headed, then any article or editorial supporting a candidate would have to considered a campaign ad and the advertising value of the space taken up by the article/editorial listed as a contribution to the campaign. Under the letter of existing campaign finance laws what Edwards did may have been sleazy, but it was not a violation of the law.
I call him 'John-less' because as a Christian, he has not followed the teachings of John the Baptist.
Maybe all prosecutors really want is a conviction. With a felony on Edwards' record he couldn't practice law anymore, nor could he hold public office.
As a convicted felon, he could be disbarred. Don't know if he will, but he could be.
a motion to dismiss is very rarely granted; however he is a embarrassment and of low moral character; I believe it will be a hung jury.
RYANinWI; it appears you do not know of the criminal justice system. the judge has no discretion in cases such as this, he is facing a minimum of 20 years to 40 years, the judge must follow the sentencing guidelines , if convicted, which i doubt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this case is not only about whether the money was a contribution or a gift but also about Edwards' intentions while spending it. In other words, he can be found guilty if the belief was that he used the money to hide his affair from the public as opposed to using it to hide the affair from his wife as he claims. Again, I may be wrong, but would not the rationale for this line of thinking be that if he were trying to hide his affair from the public then he would be, through his actions, implying that the money was indeed a campaign contribution? I guess the reason I'm confused is because the above article makes it sound like his aquittal is a foregone conclusion and I actually thought the prosecution did a good job of showing that Elizabeth Edwards was already aware of the affair. That would mean that to buy Edwards' assertion that he was using it for personal reasons would require you to believe that he was trying to hide the affair from his wife for a second time.
On a side note (and this has probably already been said) but can you imagine being the kid? One day you would find out that, not only were you the daughter of psycho Rielle Hunter, but also of one of the most despicable men in political history.
SI
if thats the case, wouldn't the prosecution have to prove that he knew that she knew?
river:
Apologies, but I've been so busy with my personal life that I haven't paid this story the proper amount of attention which is why I began my post with a question. I thought that I had heard that all of the campaign staff were aware of the affair and that they were also aware that Elizabeth Edwards knew about it as well. I know that the prosecution had shown that Elizabeth found out about it when Rielle called the house and she answered the phone. They also showed that the Edwards campaign continued supporting Hunter after the discovery. As for your question, the answer (assuming I have my facts straight) would be yes. That would be the crux of the prosecution's case.
SI
This is all about getting Edwards for cheating on his wife while she had cancer. Even the donors knew the "Bunny" money was to keep the affair quiet. Edwards was an idiot for getting involved in an affair while running for President. You may could have gotten away with that in the John Kennedy days but not any more.
I think that Elizabeth probably thought there was an affair going on but couldnt prove it. Ofcourse the checkbook didn't show it and she could account for all the money but the tabloids were relentless and when Hunter showed up pregnant, that was the final straw. Thats when the whole story was starting to unravel. I also think that Hunter threatned to go public unless she got even more money. Hunter thought she could be either really rich or the next 1st lady. Well she was WRONG
John Edwards would probably get about as much of a sentence, as we here our not-so-illustrious ex-govenor of New Jersey got, after the scandal he was caught in at MF Financial... Naturally I mean Jon Corzine, and the FBI probe into that, didn't even seem to bring up the money he stole from the state of New Jersey when he was our govenor....
These well connected types can have a way to avoid justice; even if their crimes would be sufficient enough to earn them a sentence along side Bernie Maddoff....
While Edwards may be a bottom feeder, I have reservations about telling someone (the two donors) what they can do with their money. If a person wants to dump money into the ocean they should have the right to do so. Edwards is truly a miserable excuse for a human being; this trial may be more a punishment for that failing.
And yet, what's the liklihood they were explicitly told "oh by the way.... I'm going to use your money for purposes related to cheating on my wife, and launching a cover up..." If there was full disclosure as to the intent; but then again if someone would go asking people for money while fully acknoledging that, perhaps that would earn them some kind of an "American's most stupid" award....
In this, if one's going to bring up the side of what the donors do/don't do with their money, the real question is, would it be more likly then that, that they'd have been provided full fore-knowledge that their campaign donations, would be used for these purposes? If not, then we're right back to money having been coughed up under false pretenses....
What a waste of time and government money. The prosecution has a very weak case against Edwards. Not guilty.
This is pay back time from his Democrat buddies... Obummer!
Did Edwards pay taxes on that gift? If he did it might help him to show it was a gift. If not well we make think it was the other alternative.
A lot of lawyers move to dismiss. Why not? They never know when a judge might say I agree.
He'll walk just like Casey Anthony and OJ did.
It isn't a murder trial, but you're probably right.
Nah--OJ was acqitted by a jury of HIS peers (a lot of blacks), and in this case, Edwards will be found guilty, NOT for his 'crime' of covering UP the affair, but for cheating on 'america's sweetheart while she was battling cancer' by a jury of HER peers, (including a female judge.)
TO: MOmaid who wrote:
Yep, and it boggles the mind why prosecutors did not bring that case in Santa Monica which would have been proper jurisdiction, instead of Downtown LA, which was an "optional" jurisdiction.
I can only imagine the Prosecutors did that because they were thinking of themselves in terms of how far they had to travel to court, as opposed to a REAL jury of OJ's peers which would have been selected from the jury pool in Santa Monica, a much more affluent area matching the affluent area that OJ and Nichole lived in at that time.
OJ used to live in Brentwood, which is a wealty neighborhood 5 blocks away from Santa Monica, in LA County.
I was taking crimminal justice 101 in college back when the OJ trial was going on. The teacher (who had formerly been a police detective in FL) had basically announced that if this was the average case, and not one involving a celeb, OJ would have been found GUILTY, and what's more the trial would not have gone on for 60 days, let along longer.
OJ was able to buy "justice" because he was wealthy and because of his celebrity status. He simply could afford the sort of attorney that most anyone else could not (regardless of race). I really do believe OJ bought his way out of a murder rap; but then again Ted Kennedy was also able to avoid crimminal charges connected to the death of Mary Jo Kopechne when he was driving while under the influence; because he was a Kennedy, and people avoided doing the tough investigation. I've heard where the officer at the scene, close to his own death had basically said that his decision not to pursue the matter further "because he's a Kennedy" was the biggest mistake of his life, and something in retrospect he regrets....
Black, white, or otherwise, people who have celebrity status, or the money to buy the sorts of attornies most could only dream of having represent them tend to get a very different experience wrt the judicial system, then everyone else. Most cases don't even get to those long drawn out trials. Based on statistics we were going over, something like 80% of all cases end in plea bargains without any regard whatsoever to whether the prospective defendent might be guilty or innocent.
And for those who might wonder about this; think of what often happens when getting a traffic ticket. How many actually challenge the thing, and how many just pay the ticket, regardless? When you check the box to pay the ticket, if one reads it carefully, that box is a plea of guilty, with the acceptance of the fine. Most people just pay, and don't go before the judge for those to argue the case....
BTW: Paris Hilton's 1 month jail sentence for a REPEAT DUI charge also exemplifies this... Most people, who drink and drive get way more then 1 month in jail. States like New Mexico would confiscate the car, auction it off, and when one can get the car back, they'd have to have an ignition interlock divice installed. Pennsylvania is equally as strict; the jail sentence far from 1 month, is more like YEARS for a DUI rap; for most anyone....
My sister, who runs DNA tests for a living, said the just the DNA evidence alone in the OJ trial would have convicted anyone else.
I don't know why I am losing my faith in politicians.
Must be I'm getting old.
Or smart.
er.
This guy is as guilty as SIN! For him to be found not guilty would be the ULTIMATE travesty and slap in the face to his now deceased wife Elizabeth! And that nasty homewrecking h*bag griezel and her basterd kid ..........you will rot in hell!
Excuse me, why not leave the baby out of it?
dumb mom in ga -
Did you go to school in this country? If so, I think you should refund the monies spent on your (lack of) education. Why do you want the baby to rot in Hell? Let me guess, you're Christian, right?
Edwards should be punished. The child is blameless, you need some anger mgmt classes angry mom!
And your a bigot Steve so what's the difference. What if we stay on topic!!!
As a Christian, I would be very careful about who you condemn to hell, since you apparently have the authority to do so.
So if Bunny Mellon claimed it on her tax return (as stated by someone else on these comments), how about Edwards? Bet he did not claim that gift on his tax return). If he did, he could voluntarily show that it is on his tax return to bolster his position in court. Oh, yeah, he couldn't have claimed it on his return or else his WIFE would wonder where the money went! Prosecution can't force him to do that but the defense sure could use that to prove his position (if that were the case).
he may be guilty of being a cheater, a letch, and a slimebag, but it certainly doesn't look like he is guilty of these charges, whcih have nothing to do with his poor wife's death. I can't see why the testimony about her last painful moments had anything whatsoever to do with whether he did or did not break campaign finance laws.
Angry ...
Please don't take out your wrath on the innocent child. That is ridiculous.
a trial lawyer, a politician, an adulterer, a suspect in a criminal case...
wow...he is the whole package, he should receive a life-time achievement award for this.
Post it in the Barney Frank Hall of Political Fame.
he smoked poles as well?
TO: denver bill 2 who wrote:
What's "Barney Frank" got to do with the Edwards Trial?
American Girl,
Both are lawyers, both are/were politicians, both are/were sexually promiscuous even though in a committed relationship, and both are/were suspects in a criminal case. Which has nothing to do with Edwards' trial, but everything to do with what kind of lying sleazebags the "informed" American voters keep electing.
Bet Barney Frank does not get re-elected this year.
One of five comments on this story, Hmmmmmm. I would say that no one cares about John Edwards plight. He is really an idiot, who screwed his life up so bad he cannot ever undo what he has done.
Too true - I really seldom click on to a story about the sleezebag - but did just now because I'm outraged at the chutzpah of the motion to dismiss on the basis that the prosecutors haven't proven their case. Isn't that what juries are for?????
The "bottom line" or outcome of the case is enough for me.
Yes, he is guilty, but the campaign financing laws and court rulings are so ridiculous, that John could have the distinction of being the only fool ever actually found guilty. Corporations are people?
Does anybody on this site understand that corporations were legally declared "people" so that someone who was injured by a corporation could sue the "corporate person" instead of having to sue, subpoena and try the officers individually or end up having to sue some poor schlub with empty pockets who actually committed the offense?
People as in, have the right to buy elections, freedom of speech and all that. Do you understand that if corporations are people then Mitt R is a mass murderer?
Sorry Johnny, nice try but not going to happen. You are scum and will pay for your misdoings.
Goodnight John Boy!
I can only hope that this "Vermin" of a man gets what he truly deserves.
John Edwards was paid over $ 400,000 while on the board of one of the largest SUB-PRIME lenders in the world. Sub-Prime lenders specialise in people with bad credit, and because of that, they are charged higher rates.
When asked why He was receiving money from an organization that operated like that, Edwards responded,
("I felt like I needed to have a better understanding of poor people.") $ 400,000 yearly so he could understand poor people ???....................DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ?
His wife is battling Cancer while this dirt bag is out bumping bellies with a floozie !
Lets hope the sentence him to 40 years in a septic tank.
Ed what do you have against septic tanks?
Your absolutely right Duane, I was a bit insensitive as the environment of the septic tank, considering Edwards would easily be the largest piece of waste floating amongst his colleagues.
Another case of prosecutorial abuse of power. TOTAL GOVERNMENT ABUSE. This case has "GOP politics" written all over it.
Fail.
Just another piece of sh*t ambulance chaser.....
Yeah, they need to settle this and get him out in time for Obama to replaced Biden for the election. Now that they have nailed down the gay and lesbian vote they need to go for the cheating on wife and get my mistress pregnant crowd.
I think that is George Bush's Fault
*snort* I'm sure he'll be blamed soon.
I know I used to be on of those Obamabots Blaming everyone else but him, but once I started doing my homework and putting the puzzle together and boy Obama is doing an awful Job. well I won't vote for him again.
Hopefully a lot more people will open their eyes to the truth, too many people blindly believing and following a mirage.....let's see him run on his record instead of deflecting attention to non issues each day.
This case would only make sense if the government in bringing this trial had earlier brought John Ensign up with similar charges. After all, the difference between the 2 cases lies only in that the "donors" were Ensigns parents vs. some "friends", and that Ensign himself gave the husband a "hush-up" job lobbying Ensign himself, which is a clear violation (1 year ban on lobbying prior employers in the govt).
I'm not in favor of mates cheating on each other. I have no respect from the outsider that knows he/she is married with kids and having outside sex with that mate. As for as this witch hunt court today on Edwards. I don't see the proven info on sending him to prison. If he was a poor Dude and couldn't afford a good defense lawyer, I would look at a 5 year prison and getting out in two years.
As we all know our court system have different verdicts for the rich versus the poor. It's nothing new, it's just apart of life with our court system in America.
Edwards is a low life and came real close to becoming the nominee.He should of stepped down way before it got to that point.
John did it! He had so much money moving everywhere some of it got sticky, he had no evil intent. This story reminds me of a preist who had a reputation of helping out the poor who came to him for assistance. The priest gave a two hundred to two "homeless" girls who needed to buy a tent for sheltra. I asked the priest if he believe their tent story, he said. I asked the girls what color was the tent? Each girl said a different color, the priest said the girls were probably going to the local bar. But the priest believe he was helping mankind. In a way who gave what for what and to prevent what is just colorful.
This trial is taking too long to convict one of the all-time SOBs, an ambulance chasing lawyer who had his day and totally blew it. He is guilty, I know it and you know it. And yet we go through this sham of a trial with overpaid pontificating lawyers, just like the trial of Casey Anthony, with the real possibility that because of his well-groomed hair and Hugo Boss suits, a jury of his peers (what a real joke) will find him not guilty and he will be freed to live out his life of luxury from ill-gotten gains made from his frivolous lawsuits and his criminal politics.
Amen!
It's time to send a message to all these wealthy politicians, you play you pay!
This is just throwing a single slice of bread and telling the crowd to eat up. He is the sacrificial lamb/poster boy. Satisfy the crowd that politics is cleaned up and go on with life as usual.
The only way this has any significance is if this is the tip of the iceberg and more investigations bring more 'Public (Self) Servents to task.
I won't be holding my breath
I am afraid he will weasel out of this. He has spent years manipulating juries and playing loose with facts and the truth. What a phony.
Edwards is being railroaded.
He got himself in a bind and people just wanted to help him out.
Besides, it happened under the Bush administration.
Good point, it's Bush's fault. I'm sure Obama would see it this way.
He committed adultery, got his mistress pregnant, conspired to cover it up with his rich cronies (and did), and deceived everyone (including Obama) in the middle of an election. Call it what it is. This is more than just a "bind" There are/will be a lot of people hurt here because of this narcissistic, arrogant bas---d and as mentioned above, he needs to be setting in a cell with Blago. Who's administration he is prosecuted under/or not is going to have a lot more weight than who's he committed it under.
again...when you have NOTHING blame Bush...they need an IQ test for people to post here and this numbskull will be the zero point.
I'll say it again...there has to be a special circle of hell awaiting this ambulatory turd.
I hope the jury finds this arrogant rat bastard guilty. Send his a$$ to prison where he belongs.
REALLY... a libral that took illeagal money?? always knew the dems were crooked as all get out
just wait tell they catch up with obama...hes the biggest crook of them all...
typical Ted Nugent cracker
Patriot is the LIEberal poster child for dumbassness....do you have a John Edwards poster you congradulate your self to every night before bed in your mother's basement? I'm not sure who sickens me more the pathetic LIEberal occutard or Edwards...