E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJohn Edwards' daughter Cate will speak in court as early as Tuesday as the defense team attacks accusations that Edwards accepted illegal campaign contributions. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Updated at 5:50 p.m. ET: Jurors in the campaign finance trial of former Sen. John Edwards won't hear about a federal audit that concluded that almost $1 million used to help conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter did not amount to campaign contributions subject to federal regulation, the judge ruled Monday.
|
Lisa Myers, Michael Austin and Stacey Klein of NBC News and Ben Thompson of NBC station WCNC of Charlotte, N.C. contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook. |
Edwards, 58, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina and the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, is on trial in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C., where he is charged with six felony counts of accepting about $1 million in illegal and unreported campaign donations from two wealthy supporters during his 2008 presidential campaign.
The ruling came after prosecutors objected to testimony from Lora Haggard, who, as the campaign's chief financial officer, was in charge of compliance with FEC regulations. Haggard said the FEC had declared that it didn't consider the money to be campaign contributions.
Haggard testified that she didn't even bother to amend campaign filings to report the payments because the money wasn't used to urge the public to vote for Edwards.
After a long discussion with lawyers for both sides — outside the presence of the jury — U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles ruled that evidence about the FEC audit was inadmissible because it couldn't be determined exactly what the FEC knew or was told at the time.
Edwards' lawyers had been ready to call Scott Thomas, a former chairman of the FEC, who was to have testified about the audit of Edwards' 2008 campaign. His testimony would have been crucial to the defense, said Hampton Dellinger, a legal analyst for NBC News and msnbc.com.
That's because "it would be compelling evidence that, no matter what else you think about John Edwards, there is no reason for him to think that the coverup of the affair was an election law crime," Dellinger said before the ruling was announced.
After the ruling, the defense moved on, calling Harrison Hickman, Edwards' campaign pollster, who strongly denied prosecutors' contention that Edwards was the driving force behind the coverup.
Hickman testified that it was the idea of the late Fred Baron — the campaign's finance chief and one of the two donors who provided the money — to hide Hunter from the public.
Former Edwards aide Andrew Young testified earlier in the trial that Edwards knew the money was intended to support Hunter in seclusion, but Hickman called Young "a liar."
- Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com
- Analysis: Denial of dismissal bid is anything but routine
It remained unknown Monday whether Edwards will testify in his own defense or whether his attorneys will call Hunter to the stand — something the prosecution chose not to do. But the defense announced late Monday that Edwards' daughter Cate — who fled the courtroom in tears at one point during the prosecution's case — could testify as early as Tuesday.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- California faces higher taxes to cut huge deficit
- Gov. Christie's pension issue: Double-dipping in New Jersey
- Edwards case: Dismissal denial anything but routine
- Video: Obama, Romney play up gay marriage split
- Four heading to Christian youth rally killed in plane crash
- Father: 'Miracle' as woman fights flesh-eating bacteria
Leave a Comment:
He isn't a candidate this year, but this kinky kind of personal thing combined with the bad economy might have actually made John Edwards a BETTER candidate in '12 than he was in '08.
"I never paid my mistress off with $1 million to keep quiet, it was my campaign manager or someone else." "Why is there $1 million missing from your campaign coffers?" "I don't know, ask my campaign manager. If there's nothing else, I'll go now." "Where are you going?" "My girlfriend is picking me up in her new car and we are spending the weekend at our new retreat in the country." "How do you intend to remburse the campaign for the $1 million?" "Not my problem."
I am not supportive of John Edwards in any way. But this seems important information for the jury to hear, if they are going to reach a just decision. This case shouldn't be about whether Mr. Edwards is sleazy (my opinion of him), but rather should be entirely about if he has broken the law.
I think the Judge's decision has opened the door for successful appeal, or retrial should the jury convict.
Amazing how you are supposed to get a "FAIR" trial yet ACTUAL evidence is not allowed. this has happened in more then a few cases even where jurors are not allowed to hear about someone who is on trial has committed the same type of crime that they are being charged with 3 or 4 times before. They keep juries from hearing about someone making multiple threats before someone was killed because only the victim had told people they were threatened.
What actual evidence? Didnt you read the article? It said,after some discusion between both lawyers and the judge,the judge determined that there was no way of knowing how much the FEC investigation knew.
Look at what was going on. The defense wanted to call the FEC witlness so they could say "see,the FEC said that it was ok,so Edwards had no reason to think otherwise." Of course,the flip side of that is "See,the FEC said it was ok becuase we never told them what was realy going on" Not so good of evidence. Now,you could make a good argument that perhaps it should have just been left to the jury to decide. However,there are rules of evidence and testimony. I would think THEY would have records of what they were told. Still,the judge said there was no way of knowing,and he knows all the information,not just what we read in the paper. My experience is,judges dont make these determinations on a whim. They dont like being overturned on appeals. If he said the testimony was worthless becuase there was no way to know what they knew at the time,then thats probably the case.
I am not a fan; with that said
The jury should hear ALL the evidence. Justice will not be served in a Kangaroo court like this one is.
Judges make decissions all the time based on their beliefs, thats why there is so many complaints about activist judge. Like those in states that have ruled admendments passed by voters are not allowed, look at the 5th court of appeals they have many many of their decisions overturned. Judges make decisions all the time based on their beliefs not on law.
The FEC ruling can have no bearing because their decision was made on who knows what information....if they reached their ruling based on lies from Edwards people then that ruling has NO place in the current legal proceedings. Unless all the evidence presented to the FEC and all the members of the FEC who participated in the decision making are being brought in this trial to be rechecked and cross examined then their ruling is irrelevant in this trial. So far the Edwards camp have proved themselves to be a group of liars of the worst sort....oh, and now they are putting the blame on the dead guy...classy.
Guilty POS.......pure lying scum.
uh, you CAN read, no? The article said that a Federal Election Commission audit said the money was NOT campaign money, hence, Edward's is innocent of that charge..
How does an FEC audit mean he is innocent. The auditor is just a bureacrat that looks for wrong doing. If he had found it,he would have taken it to the justice deparmend who would have decided if it was worth prosecuting. Just becuase Edwards managed to spin things in a different light and hide the worst of it,does not mean that he did nothing wrong.
Of course,he made a mistake. He co-ordinated the money throuhg his campaign. That matters. He SHOULD have created a PAC. Perhaps "Americans for Hiding John Edwards Skanky Girlfriend and Her Illegitimate Love CHild" (AFHJESGAHILC for short))
The fact is,the money given to her WAS given to her to help get Edwards elected. There is absolutely no doubt of that. If I knocked up some girl at work,no one would give HER a million dollars to keep her mouth shut. Im not running for office. If someone gives (another word for gives is DONATES) money to a campaign with the intended purpose of helping the candiadate get elected,thats a campaign contribution. It does not stop there though. If for instance,someone is running for office and I tell them, "Go rent a office downtown,and tell the landlord to send me the bill" or "Go get yourself some nice suits,and get 1000 dollar haircut so you look good in front fo the cameras and have them send the bill to me" thats a campaign contribution.
Similarly,if I say,"Tell your GF to keep her mouth shut about your illegitimate love child,and Ill put her up in an expensive house,buy her an expensive car and give large cash payments becuase I want to make sure you get elected and this is going to screw it up" thats a campaign contribution.
Those are legally limited in the amounts you can take in. I think its around 2500 dollars. (the most I have ever given is 25 dollars,so Im not really up on exactly the limits) Money taken and spent in coordination with the campaign are campaign contributions. His campaign staff organized this. They coordinated it. They made it happen. It was for the benefit of the campaing that he did it.
What I never understand is that in these circumstances, the woman involved in the affair never gets her dues. If I were Edwards daughters I would sue R. Hunter for the stress caused to my mother while she was alive and suffering from cancer. I think the prosecution should have put Hunter on the stand and let her squirm. She is as much a sleeze as he is and R. Hunter should have no peace in her life for what she did to Edwards wife. I don't even understand what Edwards saw in her as she is not even a pretty woman and definitely has no class. On top of that you know she got pregnant on purpose. No woman today gets pregnant unless she wants to or is just plain stupid to not use protection.
SB... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Look at Prince Charles - Camilla versus Diana. I agree with you about the pregnant stuff. Edwards certainly has made mistakes and this will be something he will regret for the rest of his life.
SB-NEW YOrk: Amen
you must have a conscience to regret.
"She is as much a sleeze as he is and R. Hunter" Wow, talk about being so utterly and completely wrong, the ONLY one responsible for this is Edwards inability to keep it in his pants. Hunter wasn't married to Edwards' wife and she certainly didn't cheat on Edwards wife. that's all completely on John Edwards.
While admittedly it's a terrible and tragic situation that Elizabeth Edwards ended up in there is no one responsible for her plight other than her husband.
jqest = wrong, she hit on a married man whose wife was dying of cancer. She got pregnant on purpose. She is a sl*t and willingly took money to keep her mouth shut. The are both scum. I like the way the defense blamed it on the dead guy, can Edwards go any lower.
Whats his defense? That he is a low-life lying piece of scum?
No its, "I'm a democrat so it's Bush's fault."
If it wasn't a campaign donation then it was a gift, did he pay taxes on it - doubt it. So if he is found not guilty go after him for tax evasion. One way or the other he should get jail time - if for nothing else than he lied and tried to cheat himself into the White House while playing on the sympathy of his wife's illiness. What a sleeze.
wow--everyone just wants to put this guy away. I totally agree that John is scum. However, that is not a criminal offense (yet).
The prosecution has not proven it to be a "campaign" contribution. Even the FEC has said it was not a contribution. As for the taxes you all are screaming about -- yes "bunny" claimed them and if you actually paid attention instead of frothing at the mouth you would see that John got none of the money. Hunter got less than 1/10th of it and the scum who got immunity got more than $800K.
So--again, got off the hate parade and back to the reality of the case.
WHo paid income or gift tax on this money - "contribution"? And she went on shopping spress had a huge expectation from John Edwards to pay for her on everything. She's a bigger piece of scum by sleeping with a married person with a cancer stricken wife.
Is it possible for someone to"spin" this event to make Edwards come out clean?
He's 'unhelpable' is that a word.......,
Since it was possible to spin George Bush as president, anything is possible. On top of that, the coke head was elected twice. Figure that one out.
Why is it no matter what someone does some gbblsmoocher blames it on Bush. I am sure Bush is really the father.
Have any of you been reading any of the previous posts and articles from this farce? Some of you keep asking questins that have previously been answered. It has been reported that both Ms. Mellon and Senator Edwards did in fact pay taxes on that money. As far as tax evasion, just because a person is scuzzy doesn't mean the government can continue to harass the person. Edwards will get his, because what goes around comes around.
Question 1: Let’s see: what other prominent, hypocritical, blowhard politician has engaged in salacious, extra-marital affair(s) (plural intended) during a current spouse’s health crises? Oh, why, its Mr. “Humpty” Gingrich, of course!
Question 2: Which elephant-eared politician so blatantly, ruthlessly and repeatedly bedded his staffer’s wife and then enlisted the help of fellow political cronies (Senator Coburn included) who sought (and used) financial hush-money “donations” from daddy to cover it up? Behind door number two, oh that’s former Senator “Long John” Ensign!
Question 3: Who’s that foot-tapping “pitcher”/“catcher”/“sucker” trolling the MSP bathrooms for a cheap, layover hookup? Why, its none other than Larry “Wide Stance” Craig!
And, in every instance, I’m sure staunch donors felt compelled to “support” their beloved Newtie, Johnny or Larry to help fend off their detractors with “political donations”. Whatever you think of Clinton or Edwards, the putrid nature of their actions is no more pungent than the odor emanating from any one of the other Republican scum and certainly not more criminal. This is nothing but a colossal waste of money in difficult financial times by overly-zealous, sex-starved prosecutors who just love to satiate their prurient interests by investigating the wrong holes!
So the judge has the same GOP taint as the prosecutor. You can sure tell when the fix is in. This case stinks to high heaven. So much for the vaunted American justice system.
If the FEC which is a government agency, says that the money was not a political contribution, and the judge is not letting it in as evidence? Who more would know than the FEC?
I think Edwards is an ass, but enough is enough. We as tax payers will pay a lot more than this for this trial, but let's just keep going. Right??
Sounds like the Judge has made up his mind; wonder how much it cost?
What a bunch of hypocrites you all are.
1) I've never heard of a male with the name Catherine! So it's a she.
2) She decided that the FEC report that said it wasn't campaign contributions were inadmissible.
3) You want him to go to jail for having dallied around with a campaign worker. Yet I can bet that everyone of you defended "I did not have sex with that Woman" Clinton. To bad he didn't do time! And he lied to the entire country.
All this focus on his sleaziness???? Ok, so he's a sleaze, that does NOT make him guilty of violating campaign finance law! If his team got an audit from the government election finance committee ruling that the money was not considered campaign contributions, then I don't get how he can be guilty?!!? And how can the judge not allow the facts to be considered? So they cannot determine what the finance committee knew or did not know, that doesn't change the facts of their ruling - if that's your point, then prove what Edward's team did wrong to keep the FEC in the dark!
And I hate Edwards, by the way!!!
Politics and Libido...dont work together like they once did, it seems..
Hunter will require that amount to raise their child, where it should be left untouched. I feel this may have been a reasonable decision by the judge.
Thinking Americans understand the six charges are about using campaign funds. Clearly the Judge made clear there is no case on the six charges but he is guilty of cheating on his wife and having a child with Miss Hunter. Now for those who just want to send Edwards to jail for none of the 6 changes. The Judge will have to help the Prosecutor out as this is a witch hunt trial and the government has to show face. I know Newt wish he knew Mrs. Mellon to pay his two mistresses, former Senator Ensign and other Law Makers who cheated on their wives and married their mistress and others who are paying child support.
If nothing else the lawyers need to appeal this judges order and have her butt thrown off the bench. She obviously has already decided this case and is obviously prejudicial.
In total agreement. The case is falling way far into conjecture on the prosecutor's part, the judge is obviously prejudicial, the financial facts have been exposed, and what was missing is the crucial fact that Hunter was paid a sum ranging into the two hundred thousand dollar amount for her work. That money has never been added on the record, two hundred grand could indeed pay for her rental and living expenses plus health insurance for the hospital and doctor. The shopping excursion is a normal part of life for a Mother to Be, plus, Hunter's father was an attorney, she doesn't come from a sleazy family background. The conjecture here is near appalling and theatrical, there could be more going on behind the scenes, like Federal officials who want to keep Edwards from reaching for another public office. All is far from Kosher in this circus trial.
John Edwards is a dispicable human being - and whatever punishment he gets he deserves. His mistress isn't any better - just a high priced wh---. They deserve each other!! Too bad his wife died so she could see him do his time and make him pay the rest of his miserable life.
It is obvious that Edwards was never a very good politician, or else he would have the blame for all of this firmly hung around the necks of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Republicans. Best that the Democrats bury this POS forever right now before he brings them down.
Nothing like a crooked judge to spice things up. This jackass must have gotten her law degree off of a match book.
Just another clueless crooked judge.
Hang her..
2008 FEC "Audit" was conducted by a bunch of democrats. The judge isn't crooked. The FEC audit was.
The 2008 FEC was appointed by Bush during his 2 terms you id10t.
I was not there to hear the ruling, but it sounds like that judge just committed a reversible error as her decision was not based on law (judges role) but credibility of the evidence, which is the job for the jury to decide, NOT the judge. This really goes to the heart of the case and probably means, if this was reported accurately (which is always a problem with msnbc) that hes got grounds for an appeal and a new trial.
So this judge does not believe in a fair trial in which all evidence is presented. He is part of the vendetta against Edwards. He is biased and a mistrial should be declared. Every juror has a right to hear testimony that cleared Edwards previously. Justice is certainly blind in NC.
Fair trial? LOL. THE FEC IS A PARTISAN GROUP OF OFFICIALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, the he is a she.
Do you want to know why the judge ruled out the FEC's "audit"?
It was conducted in 2008 and the commission "is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate."
The FEC finding John Edwards "cleared" of wrongdoing is like a drug dealer telling the cops that the crackhead in the back of their car who just spilled crack cocaine all over the ground isn't a crackhead.
In 2008 the FEC would have been made up of Bush appointees, no?
Evidently, this opens up an avenue of appeal, which should be pursued immediately.
If the defense believes it can present its case with other evidence, then they may attempt to do so and appeal any conviction on the basis that the judge made a mistake in excluding the testimony.
the 'good ole boys' network hard at work
another huge expense for the taxpayers and this creep will probably walk anyway
I do not understand the judge's decision. If a federal auditor said the money was okay as a gift, then that should be that. What the judge presumes she did or didn't know is irrelevent. I suppose it will open up a way to an appeal if this trial goes badly for Edwards the Troll.
Were I Rielle Hunter, and found myself in her shoes, I'd have not demanded a new car, isolation in luxury, or money to throw around. Instead I'd have hidden away , and tried to live a useful life. I would have done all I could to protect the man I loved, and to keep from upsetting his wife, even if it meant sacrifice. I wouldn't have posed clothed only in a man's shirt, throwing pouts at the camera. She bears great fault in this matter, along with Andrew Young and his wife (who "appropriated" most of the hush money for a mansion. Neither deserve immunity. Shame on the prosecution for granting it.
Jan, I take from your second paragraph that you would NOT have slept with a married man. If Rielle had taken that position there would not have been a trial in the first place.