E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJohn Edwards' defense team is eager to change the focus of the former presidential candidate's corruption trial from sex, lies and betrayal to the fine print of campaign finance laws. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.
ANALYSIS
The judge’s ruling was written on the lawyers’ faces. Last Friday, after Catherine Eagles denied John Edwards’s motion to dismiss the six felony charges against him at the close of the government’s case, the former Democratic senator’s lead attorney sat red-cheeked and grim. To his right, the typically stiff lips of the federal prosecutors curled into small grins.
While Edwards’ request to have the case thrown out for lack of evidence was a long shot, the decision highlights the ever increasing peril Edwards faces and previews what’s to come. The transcript of the argument is a worthy read for anyone whose interest in the trial is more than passing and, thanks to NBC News, it’s available here. For Edwards case followers in a hurry, here are four ways the seemingly routine motion is actually a big deal.
Odds of Edwards going to prison just increased
When Edwards decided to contest the government’s claim that he violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) rather than reach a plea deal, his risk analysis included the hope that a judge would end the case long before jury deliberations began. While such court-ordered judgments of acquittal are infrequent, they are not unheard of. Indeed, in May 2011 a district court judge from the same appellate circuit (the Fourth) stopped the prosecution of a corporate lawyer on obstruction of justice charges because of the government’s failure to prove its case.
As lawyers for John Edwards prepare to launch a defense to charges he diverted campaign cash to fund a love interest on the side, there's one question everyone wants to know: Will he testify? NBC's Lisa Myers reports.
 Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hill, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of North Carolina. |
Edwards’ hope for a similar outcome rested primarily on the novelty of the government’s theory: never before has money from third-parties (Fred Baron and Rachel “Bunny” Mellon) to other third-parties (Andrew and Cheri Young with a smaller amount to Rielle Hunter) led to a candidate’s indictment under the FECA. Last fall, Edwards spent hundreds of pages briefing that argument (i.e, that he had no “notice” that such an arrangement could be illegal and thus no criminal intent) plus other reasons for dismissal…and lost. Last week, Edwards attorney, Abbe Lowell, spent 90 minutes again beseeching Eagles to end the prosecution…and lost.
For years, Edwards the plaintiffs’ attorney fought as hard as he could to overcome opponents’ efforts for judge-directed dismissals so the outcome of his clients’ personal injury claims could be determined by a jury. Ironically, if Edwards the defendant had known for sure that his own case would go all the way to the jury, I’m not sure he would have rejected whatever the government’s best plea deal was.
How judge's ruling was unnerving for Edwards camp
In the run up to his motion argument, Lowell gently expressed to Eagles his hope that she would devote the weekend or at least much of Friday to considering his arguments before ruling. Rather than rejecting the motion after days or hours of pondering, Eagles did so in minutes. Moreover, the judge allowed that the “closest questions in my mind have to do with some of these venue issues” (i.e., did the crimes Edwards is accused of have a sufficient connection to the district where he is being tried). Both the speed and substance of her decision suggest that Eagles has little concern about the prosecution’s theory or the quality and quantity of evidence presented in the government’s case.
Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com
More bad news in battle over experts?
In the face of Friday’s setback, the defense doesn’t appear to be shrinking from its chief argument for dismissal: that the government has not proved and cannot prove “that Mr. Edwards acted with knowledge that his actions would violate campaign laws.” Late Friday, the defense submitted its witness list for Monday. Appearing first: Scott Thomas, the former Federal Election Commission chairman, who is prepared to testify that the prosecution “is without precedent in federal election law and that the FEC would not support a finding that the conduct constituted a civil violation much less warranted a criminal prosecution.” The problem for Edwards is that the government is contesting vigorously the right of Thomas to testify as an “expert witness” and Eagles on Friday suggested she thought several FEC-related issues were “pretty straightforward.” Such phrasing is not suggestive of a judge likely to let the former FEC chair testify broadly. But at this point, Edwards will likely consider it a win if Thomas is allowed to take the stand at all.
Closing arguments previewed
Friday’s motion hearing made something clear and it's bad news for Edwards: Andrew Young’s story sounds better when someone else tells it. Skilled federal prosecutor David Harbach opened his oral argument reading excerpts from Young’s most Edwards-damning testimony. Whether presented via the prosecutor, or Young’s wife, Cheri, the former political aide’s claim that Edwards orchestrated the sex affair cover-up is more compelling when separated from Young's hazy memory and admitted misstatements. Similarly, Harbach was able to transform the testimony of other witnesses potentially off-putting to jurors (such as the long-winded Wendy Button) into an efficient, effective litany of evidence of guilt. While Lowell is holding his own as quarterback of the defense team, Harbach’s ability to serve as a likeable standard bearer for the prosecution’s witnesses has to be making Team Edwards nervous -- very nervous -- as closing arguments fast approach.
Leave a Comment:
The Government BS is endless. It will cost the taxpayers regardless of the decision
Been trying to follow this case and cannot see what this guy did wrong in the first place
What did this guy ever do RIGHT in his entire life???
The guys a scumbag, but that does not make him a criminal. Look, over 60% of the prosecutions case has come down to explaining how he hurt his wife with his cheating and lies while she was dying of cancer. The rest of the case is somewhat flimsy. I'm sorry, but if we were to lock up all the cheating, piece of craps in the USA, that would put about 60 percent of the males in the USA in jail.
dif'net, i agree. however, neither of the two previous comments spoke of illegality: but of wrong and right. that said, there does appear to be a serious violation of election laws over which the court must decide.
Bigpicture, but everyone seems to be forgetting the the two donors, whose money is in question, both testified that the money was a gift and not a campaign donation. I found the prosecutions impeachment of that testimony not all that compelling. As a result, I don't know what I would do if I were on the jury.
dif'net, i do not disagree that this will be an interesting case for the jury to decide. that's what makes a horse race. nevertheless, i stand by my previous implication that i do not believe this guy has ever acted appropriately in the conduct of any aspect of his life or the discharge of his duties. if the court finds that his behavior was unlawful, then, so be it. funny to think about this centigenarian dowager giving her grandpa's money for this guy's romps with his would-be videographer.
This scumbag stole and misused money from the American people. He used tax exempt contributions to his political campaign to harbor his mistress, where he used her for his own gratification. He is a thief and he lied to the government. Don't you ignoramuses try to defend him by saying that he didn't do anything illegal. He did, he is guilty as sin, and he should go directly to prison, he should not pass go, and he should not receive one other red cent from the American people. He is an ambulance chaser from North Carolina who became rich off the backs if the poor of North Carolina, and now you moronic make believe lawyers want to describe him as just a bad man and not a criminal. Well, by God, he is a criminal, and I hope the jury convicts the SOB and the judge puts him in jail and throws away the f**king key.
Well said! Totally agree with you Spendthrif71!
Edwards and all politicians think they are above the law. I can't wait to see his "usually smug" face when they sentence him to some prison time.
The again another lying piece of got away with going to prison ...and she killed her own daughter. Where has common sense and justice gone in this country.
Spendthrift, right on. He single handily doubled the cost of having a child in North Carolina. He took money, used it as his personal stash, never paying a dime in taxes, like it never existed. He's guilty as sin.
He continually took political donations, knowing he was father of a child out of wedlock which would ruin any chance at holding higher office, it always comes out. Every-time he took money from donors he was lying to there face. That is fraud. He lied to government investigators which is also illegal. He never took the 5th, he instead lied misleading investigaters, and hid that million dollars without acknowledging it within his political contributions or as income, another felony. See you in prison John, and I hope your new roommate likes to give haircuts.
Looks like reporter "female" no names is to swayed already ,lip slurs,unable to be steady on feat,and drunk?
"John Edwards was to urp ur was ah der,cant seem to get lips moving ,sway ur" answers.
More than senior moment .
Alchohol & Journalism?
So he was campaigning for president and a couple of his supporters decided to help him out with his infidelity and take care of his mistress. The money was for political purposes, plain and simple. The "oh I didn't know it was against the law" defense, runs counter to the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" message I have heard for 50 years. Besides, this is a lawyer/politician who was trying to perpetrate a lie to gain public office. It should have been blatantly obvious to him that payments to his mistress were illegal. It will also be poetic justice for his poor wife, who had to bear all of this as she died of cancer.
For once in your life, BE A MAN and own up to all your mistakes. All the lying, cheating and now trying to get out of this is an embarassment to your children, especially the little illegitimate one. Plead guilty and serve your time and move on and quit wasting MORE of our taxpayers money and then come home to your trollop of a girlfriend/mistress and live your life in shame. For heavens sake...what a pathetic thing to do to your wife and kids....GOD REST ELIZABETH'S SOUL!! She was the real person in this marriage. I am soooo disappointed in John Edwards, whom I believed might be a decent candidate at the time...WRONG!!!
Look, if the jury decides the money was a gift, then the government can prosecute Edwards for tax evasion. But the evidence must fit the charge - it's not enough for your dislike to put a man in jail.
The evidence fits the charge. My dislike for Edwards will not put him in jail. But, with our screwed up judicial system, and the tendency for pretend lawyers like differnet, the question is will the jury accept the evidence or will they try to read between the lines like differnet, thus letting a guilty man go free? Do you not remember the Casey Anthony trial. She was guilty of murder and a miscreant jury let her go free, in the same way that Differnet wants to argue for Edwards. John Edwards is guilty, the evidence proves it. Now its up to the jury to convict the rotten SOB.
Edwards is a whole package - a trial lawyer, a crook, a politician, a liar, an adulterer, a scumbag, a suspect in a criminal case -
He should win a life-time achievement award, and take this award with him to go to hell - I mean - jail.
WHAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND? Its called using federal campaign money for the wrong reasons, which is a crime. Yes, Edwards is a douche bag on top of that, but going to jail will be because he's a dousche AND a criminal.
Democrats should be cheering this decision as much as Republicans. But no, they won't. Because we live in a country of cultists for political parties.
spendthrift, why are you so hostile toward the people who fundamentally agree with you?
This man betrayed everything he touched,including the law.
A case of someone who had learned early in life that a pretty face and a smooth manner could get him a pass, and never had the internal fortitude to make the tougher choices and take the high road.
differnet - the "donors" did not testify to anything. Their lawyers did. Remember the old joke about "lawyer's lips moving"? ;-)
This story is ridiculous and so is this case. First, the denial is common and is expected to happen in almost every case. Second, why are we wasting my tax dollars on this? Why not pay off the deficit a little or fund social security? Whether he broke the law or not comes down to a very technical legal question. It really shouldn't go to a jury.
and Romney being a bully 50 years ago warrants discussion ?
don't all flawed personalities who seek to be our president deserve to be vetted and discussed -- even well after the fact so that we can learn from our near-misses, too?
Edwards knew dam well what he was doing was immoral, illegal, and outright despicable. He put his family, friends and work associates through hell because of his immature, selfish actions. The "I didn't know" defense just further proves he never plans on being held responsible for his actions. A gutter rat has more social values than the slimy Edwards. Anyone that would publicly defend him, it speaks volumes about their lack of honor and character.
I agree with your entire statement, macman, except the last sentence. Edwards has a constitutional right to a vigorous defense, just like you and me. A defense lawyer frequently must defend scoundrels like Edwards, knowing that they're guilty as sin; but they have a legal obligation to do so. The only thing out of the ordinary about his defense team is that they're extravagantly expensive, but Edwards has the money to buy the best defense possible. In any case, I hope he rots in jail, regardless of his dough.
I think what is laughable is Edwards' claim that he spent a lot of last fall researching and putting into brief form:
Now, c'mon. The man was a lawyer. Did he really think that the equivalent of a third-party bribe was not illegal? I mean, Edwards is a real horse's behind if he thought that argument would fly...
What seems to be lacking on a bribery charge is the quid pro quo. He didn't seem to do anything for the money.
Edward's team states the monies were a gift for personal use...PLEASE show me where "gift" giving required the extensive 3rd party to 3rd party dance.Mellon should testify to save her reputation from such an outragious claim.It makes her look like a worse fool in gifting in such a manner.
I agree Ncopine. I have assumed, ever since her lawyer weighed in saying that her contributions to this clown were gifts, and not political contributions, that she is precisely the type of granddaughter any of us who earns a decent amount of wealth should hope to avoid having. maybe her lawyer did her image a great disservice.
If you had been following the case, you would know that both of the people who gave the money said they were gifts. That's why the prosecuation has spent a great deal of time impeaching Edwards character (not hard to do).
Even gift money has to be declared on your taxes if it is over $10,000 a year - it was not. If it was a political contribution then it had to be reported as such - it was not. So he is either guilty of tax evasion or of using political campaign funds for personal use. Either way the scumbag is guilty. Sure wish I was on the jury but not bad enought to live in NC.
Of course the givers claimed gifts - they must maintain their integrity and they will lie to themselves first and everyone else later. They will stick to their versions to their graves. Just like a cop with a bad bust will go to ridiculous lengths to vindicate their mistake. Their affirmation that these monies were gifts is disingenuous to the extreme.
Any tax liability with a gift lies with the giver, not the receiver. It is up to the giver to file form 709, Edwards is only the receiver, no tax consequences. But I doubt these payments qualify as gifts.
Just another buffoon who thought he was above the law
breadex, what part of never never land do you live in? What did this guy do that was wrong? I'm surprised that Edwards' defense has not tried to define "knowingly" to hide the fact that John-John was actively soliciting money from political supporters to pay for his whore and their love child. If these funds were not political contributions, then Edwards should be tried for income tax evasion. He is intelligent and a highly successful attorney. Pleading ignorance of the law is laughable. Contending it was "just about sex" and he was trying to "protect" his dying wife is equally laughable. Just because he couldn't keep his pants zipped is no excuse for the hell he created for his terminally ill wife, kids, family, friends, associates, political contributors, anyone who remotely thought this clown could be president. Bill Clinton was probably prayed this guy could be president because John Edwards would make him look like one of the apostles. Wonder what John planned to do with this mess if he got elected?
No income tax evasion for receiving gifts. Surprised Edwards did not claim they were "loans"
I will make this brief. I have lived in North Carolina for the last 20 years, and have known since the time Edwards won the case of the little girls guts being sucked out by a swimming pool water intake, that he was a snake wearing clothes. He showed no compassion for her that I could see, but what you could see was the ambition in his face triple when he won millions from that case. Over the years, whenever his name came up, I always said the SOB would show his true colors, and he has. I hope they convict him.
Yeah! No kidding, Craiger and Michael Hart, and people like breadex can't see anything wrong with this guy's actions. Oh man! Where do we even start to heal ourselves?
But he has nice hair, all he ever had.
Both women who gave the money claimed that the money was a gift. The prosecution didn't do the best job impeaching their testimony. That's what this case should hinge on, not whether Edwards is scum - which he is.
If the money was a gift, it qualified for gift tax and the donors could easily prove that they paid the tax by providing their tax returns showing - and paying - the tax. They haven't done that. They either evaded the gift taxes or (more likely) decided on the 'gift' part after he was indicted.
Also, his defense that he didn't know it was questionable is ludicrous because a lot of laws are 'knew or should have known' and as a lawyer himself, plus a political candidate with highly-paid advisors, his claim of ignorance is absurd.
If the jury decides it was a gift, then the prosecution can charge him with tax evasion. Spiro Agnew got nailed for that charge. I have no problem with that. But the charge must be supported by the evidence.
Rather biased title and blurb. Request for dismissal shows their desperation?!? You don't "low-ball" a quote if you actually know the price. It ends up making you look dishonest.
The reason why dismissal requests aren't "routine" is simply because things rarely go to trial unless there is enough evidence to at least warrant a continuance of proceedings. But in this case, the government really hasn't shown any concrete evidence that Edward's knew there was a violation to election law. It looks like he just thought he was taking some cash from people personally to pay off a mistress. Again, he's a total sleaze, but that's nothing to do with violating election laws.
So with no strong argument against him legally, his team was bold enough to consider requesting a dismissal. And that the judge ruled IMMEDIATELY suggests that he/she had ALSO been considering a dismissal as a possibility due to the flimsy legal argument, and had already given the notion much thought.
In the end, the judge decided there might be enough evidence coming out to warrant a continuance, but this sequence of events seems to me suggests that Edwards' position is strong with both the defense asking and the judge having already considered just throwing out the case. I see no "desperation" here.
Still, that the motion was rejected is certainly a bad result for the sleazeball.
Don't ever try to defend yourself in court. You are clearly unqualified. Asking for dismissal is SOP in most cases.
differnet -
Yes it is often moved for a dismissal at the end of the prosecutors case. Most judges tend to prefer letting the jury decide unless the lack of evidence is very very clear.
One more week before the case goes to jury. It should be interesting reading for a few more days.
Please, please, please throw this piece of s - - t in prison!! Get this garbage off the street!!
There is an easy, simple solution to the "gift" issue. A gift of this amount must be reported on Federal Income Tax forms. If the forms are there, it is a gift. If they are not, it is a political contribution. Seems to me a subpoena of tax records is all that's needed.
i think you are exactly right, D.A.H!
What did the guy do wrong? The list is long. Legally though, he directed that campaign dontations be used for his personal reasons (i.e., administering to care and needs of his mistressa and child). Morally, dont't think I have to answer that question and his shame was shown to the nation when they videotaped him trying to hold the bathroom door shut at the same time trying to hide his face. Scarey when you think how close this guy came to being a vice president.
This case may well come down to the following questions:
Was Edwards aware payments to Rielle Hunter by benefactors were solicited on his behalf?
.....and, if so.....
Would Edwards have sought financial aid for his predicament with Rielle Hunter IF he were not involved in a political campaign?
AND
Would Edwards' benefactors have provided such financial aid IF Edwards was not involved in a political campaign?
The answers to the first and second questions can only come from Edwards or individual juror judgment. The definitive answer to the third question will only come from the benefactors. If either the second and/or third answers are "no", Edwards should be found guilty.
Whatever the trial outcome, John Edwards is a foolish and pathologically narcissistic person whose close encounter with our presidency should serve as a lesson to the American electorate and, particularly, the democratic party. Unfortunately, it is not clear how Edwards could have been found out except for the dark underbelly of our news media.
He wanted to be President & he's non-violent, so give him 8 years of community service. He can clean up highways and use that zen-like experience to craft his memoirs and his comeback!
The only thing that the governmnet has proved is that he lied to his wife, covered for a bb(for those who donot know this is born a bastard) baby, a thing his child will bear all her life, because of her dad being a no good. But the case should have been thrown out, no case, but he or andrew young should have paid taxes on the money and young even admitted he built his house with part of the money his wife said they deserved the money give me a break, all involved are no good.
No one identifies Bastards anymore - that stigma is passe. It's gone the way of the "half-breed". Heck, even the PRESIDENT is one!
IRONY! The guy's rich - why not pay gal & others out of his own pocket? People are so foolish; 21 guys are having their careers ruined because one guy didn't want to pay his prostitute - for a LEGAL transaction. Perspective please...
Very sad story....
Whether or not this guy is guilty is really up to a jury, but, what I find shameful is the mob mentality that I see in the comments. If you believe the judicial system is fair and right, then you should also believe that the outcome of this trial will be fair and right. Lynching (verbil or otherwise) is not the American way.
"The judicial system is fair and right"...that's actually not the preponderant theory. Justice is for sale, just like mistresses. And all of these comments are cheap at twice the price. Let 'em rip, you did.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
I'll pitch in for the cases of anal lube he will need, and not for his hair.
Be nice to see him get back what he has been doing to others for years.
the very sad/scary part is this SOB was on the fast track for POTUS or VP plus he has the great hair needed for political office. typical $400 hair cuts on a $.10 head
be that as it may it has to be determined if the big money contributors i/e bunny mellon gave him the dough for a campaign or as a gift. either way theres some illegal stuff goin on
1. he took campaign funds for personal use, bad bad
2. it was a gift and he never declared it on his income tax and the time has run out to file an ammended form so it becomes a fraudelent income tax filing, worse worse
edwards can also fall back on the same claim that clinton and gore made when they took shady campaign money. 'there was no controlling legal authority' what the hey, they jammed it down our throats then and got away with it. seems edwards could make the same claim and pull it off
The guy's a scumbag....however, this is not illegal. If he a) used campaign funds for personal use or b) if this was a gift and he did not pay tax then he should be convicted of whichever crime fits. Being a scumbag is not against the law.
Edwards is a whole package - a trial lawyer, a crook, a politician, a liar, an adulterer, a scumbag, a suspect in a criminal case -
He should win a life-time achievement award, and take this award with him to go to hell - I mean - jail.
He should share a cell with Blago. I want him imprisoned immediately after he is found guilty. Guilty veredict, handcuffs and a long term stay at the Englewood, federal correctional facility.
I would also like to see Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and the Clintons sharing the same jail cell with them. Obama, Biden, and Holder can join them after the end of their term.
Better yet, why not just throw-in every Governor and every state attorney, every Lawyer and every prosecutor in the nation to keep them company.
No room? Send them all to Guantanamo Bay.