E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe judge in the John Edwards trial calls a closed door meeting with jurors on Friday. NBC's Gabe Gutierrez reports.
ANALYSIS
It’s official: Jurors in the John Edwards trial do not think they are deciding a simple case.
If all 12 of the North Carolinians judging the former U.S. senator thought it was clear Edwards broke the law when billionaire buddies Fred Baron and Rachel “Bunny” Mellon supported his mistress and his former political-aide-turned-faux-father of the Edwards-Rielle Hunter baby, they would not be starting a seventh day of deliberations. And it is not just the duration of deliberations that suggests uncertainty; during nearly every courtroom entrance for the past week, jurors have worn furrowed brows and grim visages. They have made specific requests for dozen of exhibits and readily accepted the presiding judge’s offer to have every exhibit – hundreds in all -- brought into the jury room.
Even if the final answer is “guilty,” the time and trouble the jurors are taking to render a verdict suggests that one or more of them will describe the decision of whether to find Edwards guilty of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) as a close call. Which raises the question: Should a jury be making such a call at all, given that the two arms of the federal government that are expert in campaign finance violations – the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section – appear to disagree on whether Edwards’ conduct was unlawful?
- Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
- Full transcripts of closing arguments (.pdf)
- Analysis by Hampton Dellinger
The FEC-DoJ split was highlighted in motions filed just before testimony ended. The defense requested the opportunity to play for the jury a tape recording of the FEC’s July 2011 audit hearing where it closed the books on John Edwards for President, Inc. despite the DoJ’s pending indictment of the candidate. The six FEC Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of closing the books after Commissioner Donald McGahn stated that “I can say it. (The Mellon and Baron money) it’s … my view it’s not reportable (as a campaign contribution).”
 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 also sought to introduce a 2009 Justice Department letter stating that, as a general rule, DoJ would only bring criminal charges in limited situations: “The application of the law to the facts of a matter must at the very least be clear, and there must be no doubt that the (Federal Election) commission considers that the underlying conduct presents a FECA offense.”
Government attorneys opposed Edwards’ motions and Judge Catherine Eagles ruled in prosecutors’ favor. Eagles also denied defense efforts to present two former FEC chairs prepared to testify that in their expert opinions, Edwards’s conduct did not rise to the level of a civil infraction, much less criminal wrongdoing.
Even without the former FEC chairs and the 2011 FEC audit hearing tape, the continuing deliberations are evidence that the “application of the law to the facts” of the Edwards matter is not as far as the jury is concerned. And because the arguments over what evidence would be admitted took place outside the jury’s presence, jurors don’t know what they don’t know about the FEC’s and DoJ’s varying views.
Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com
Meanwhile, critics of the prosecution continue to suggest that if the federal government is going to throw the book at someone, particularly when the criminal statute at issue requires a “knowing and willful” violation, it seems more fair to hit the person in the face rather than in the back of the head.
Of course, the only view that matters is that of the jury. The verdict, and any descriptions jurors are willing to give on how they reached it, will offer a measure of finality (at least pending the outcome of an appeal if the decision is “guilty”) if not clarity.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
A total waste of time and money the government does not have to waste. If it wants to prosecute somebody or see that others do so, I suggest in the first instance everybody possible in the immediate vicinity of greater NY particularly around Wall Street, and in the second that Bush, Cheney, and others be transmitted forthwith to a medium town in the Netherlands, known as the Hague.
I'll second that motion, and, yes, this trial is a huge sink of tax dollars.
Personally I think Edwards is scum for what he did, but since the money used was never earmarked as a campaign contribution, he broke no laws. His career is over, he has been publicly shamed for what he did to Elizabeth, and whis legacy will be one of a disgusting nature. There are, however, War Criminals out there like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Cho, Gonzolez, Ashcroft, et. al. who should be serving life sentences, as their action led to death and torture.
BTW, when the hell is Obama closing GITMO? He signed that executive order on day one right after the Inauguration, yet it remains open :( Just shows that the Imperial Presidency is here to stay unless We, the People stop it, and get Congress voted out and Impeachment hearings for the Fascist Five on the SCOTUS.
I have personal experience with Federal grand juries and I can verify for anyone concerned that the prosecutors give NO concern to how much money is wasted....strike that I meant spent. They need to get that conviction notch on their belts. If we penalized US attorneys for lost cases we would see a lot less frivolous trials and more judicious use of US money.....and fewer attorneys and judges too.
"Government attorneys opposed Edwards’ motions and Judge Catherine Eagles ruled in prosecutors’ favor. Eagles also denied defense efforts to present two former FEC chairs prepared to testify that in their expert opinions, Edwards’s conduct did not rise to the level of a civil infraction, much less criminal wrongdoing."
My theory, which I will repeat here, is that the Defense didn't bother to put on much of a case because if the jury finds him guilty, it will be overturned on appeal, and if he's found not guilty, it's over. It's likely a Win-Win for Edwards.
Edwards is just another liberal scumbag that will get away with his criminal actions because liberals all think they are above the laws the rest of America has to follow.
I'll tell you what - between this and the (second) attempted prosecution of Roger Clemens on federal perjury charges, the Federal Government's attorneys continue to spend money like drunken sailors. The Edwards trial and the Clemens debacle are prime examples of the waste and stupidity by the people put in charge.
And CelticPagan.... it's nice to see the rare comment that attacks both parties equally. Certainly neither the Republicans in charge of the White House from '01-'09, nor the current administration, are beyond reproach!
I tend to agree that this is more of a technical matter regarding actions under existing law, and I'd have more faith in a panel of neutral experts well-versed in that law rather than a jury of average citizens. That he's a scumbag only makes it more difficult to determine whether he actually broke any laws.
Yes, Edwards is disgusting scum. I feel dirty myself because back when he was running for president for a few days I actually considered voting for him. I doubt he actually broke the law, but there are some things worse than breaking the law and he is certainly guilty of those! In his case I certainly hope that what goes around comes around.
Your serious?
@Zankudo...most excellent post...lets not forget that weasel Rumsfeld...he needs a trial for war crimes also.
You people that are claiming this is a waste of money would be demanding justice if this trial was about a republican politician.
I think what we all need to realize is that Edwards is a politican...that alone says lots. If he is to be convicted of anything..then I would think there are what...550 or so politicans in washington that are guilty of something..if nothing else, of accepting huge funds from lobbyist,,which should be consider bribes..at least it would be that if it was any one of us in the middle class.
wow, sounds like someone is a hardcore left wing socialist.
This case sounds fixed to me ... what a waste of tax-payer money.
B.S., Avg Joe. I said the same thing when they prosecuted Ted Stevens ... a WASTE of taxpayer funds.
Zathrose... so can we prosecute the conservatives (Bush and Cheney)who awarded millions of dollars of Iraq/Afghanistan contracts to Halliburton without bidding the jobs? Their not bidding was illegal.
You really shouldn't be so quick to prosecute liberals. Cheney made sure that Halliburton got the awards.
Edwards is a miserable excuse for a human being. However, I question the need/expense for a trial if those donors knew for what their donation was to be used. In a way he is already being punished for his poor decisions.
artsylady - it's hard not to take the trolll bair of posters like Zathrose - but uyltimately you're not gong to be able to change the mind of someone without the ability to think.
Edwards may get off the charges.
Being a Brilliant attorney himself, he knows how to just get by committing crooked acts, without breaking the Law. "A Fine Line".
Scum, yes. Scamming for money for his clients as a Trial Lawyer. Attorneys get 30 per cent of the settlement.
Edwards is no more of a scumbag than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.
@sharon you are spot on. Edwards' acts are reprehensible but not criminal. Bush / Cheney Rumsfeld gang acted criminally. Repubs are so loath of anybody intelligent that they tend to make a big deal of personal behavior but then keep quiet about republican transgressions - how about that governor who fled to argentina on taxpayer dime? Any republican care to remember that?
Did you prosecute him? Why this witchhunt for a man whose life and career is already destroyed and who did not commit a crime.
Sharon/PJ:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.
How long are you going carry on the drumbeat of Public Politicians who no longer are revelant anymore.
Talk about "Stuck in the Past". Move on---there's plenty of fodder to talk about in the Present.
Talk about sick people and scum bags, there are certainly a bunch of them on this blog. How can anyone with an ounce of sanity mumble about war crimes for Bush and Cheney? Obama to this day follows almost everyone of their rulings and programs! Maybe some of you should take the trip and sail to Cuba or Iran!!
Why is this not tax evasion?
There are very small limits of what can be gifted annually.
If ANYTHING, it is Prosecution's main witness that is guilty of income tax evasion, since he pocketed MOST of the money Edwards is being crucified over. Haven't you heard? This is one of the most crooked trials by a Prosecutor going. And all at the tax-payers' expense!
If it was a gift, there's no violation. I'm a Republican and vote mostly Conservative, but the facts are the facts. It's in the jury's hands. Let's see what 12 of his peers say, but from what I have read, at this point, the money seems to have been a gift.
The government should get out of the business of deciding what private citizens can spend on campaigns. Who cares if the koch brothers or sorros want to waste their fortunes playing king maker the bottom line is they can't buy votes only commercials and silence of girl friends. Let them pollute our airwaves and pour millions into a false sense of doing something. the bottom line is your vote and my vote are ours and there is nothing they can do legally to change that.
This is completely absurd. The people who gave the money knew perfectly well what it was being used for. Neither of them thought of the money as a campaign contribution and Bunny Mellon declared the money on her tax return as a gift to Edwards, which she would not have needed to do for a campaign contribution. The funny thing is that if Edwards is found guilty, the IRS should be forced to return the gift taxes that Mellon paid. The other thing that clearly indicated that these payments were not campaign contributions is that they continued even after Edwards had dropped out of the race. The government has wasted an incredible amount of money on this trial that we simply do not have to waste.
The biggest thing that demonstrates that this case should never have gone to trial is that the supposed experts on campaign finance law do not even agree that there was any violation of the law. Since the statute requires that the violation must be knowing for it to be criminal, there is no way Edwards should ever have been charged. If the experts can not agree that it was even a violation, how can anyone possibly say that it was a knowing violation on Edwards part. Add to this the fact that those who wrote the rules, the FEC says it was not a violation and the total absurdity of this trial becomes clear. I do not understand how this fact could be kept from the jury as it would seem to be material evidence pointing to Edwards innocence. I would love to hear the judge's rationale for keeping this information from being presented by the defense. On top of all of this, the fact that the jury has been deliberating for a week now, and it is very clear that the law does not clearly indicate this was a violation. If it takes this long to even come to a verdict, how can anyone think that Edwards could have possibly known it was illegal. Even if the jury does somehow come back with a guilty verdict, which I highly doubt, I doubt very much that it would stand up on appeal. Right now it looks like it may be headed for a hung jury in which case the government should just cut it's losses and decline to retry the case.
The most unfortunate aspect of this case is that while John Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, was fighting her deadly Cancer, Edwards was shamelessly cavorting with his mistress, Rielle Hunter. The funds that were used to keep his aide and Hunter quiet about his affair, grossly misled the public about his image as a "family man." As gifts, were all of the funds that went to support Hunter reported as gifts? Did any of the campaign contribution dollars stream their way to Edwards' "aides and abettors?
The jury will decide the legality of Edwards' embarrassing mess.
@25Walker - That's not the job of the jury. Their job is guilty or not guilty.
I don't think that you'll find anyone who disagrees that Edwards is lower than snail slime but that's not a criminal act.
@JS - I totally agree. The judge disallowing the FEC recording/testimony is absurd. I can't fathom any reason the jury should be denied this information. Unless I'm missing something, this is a total travesty of justice. This guy is a scumbag and his life is over, but this criminal prosecution is a joke.
Overzealous prosecution should be considered a serious crime with real repercussions. It's not a victimless crime.
I suspect one of the posters above, Roy Wilson, hit the nail on the head. This case is one the defense can't lose. Even if the jury somehow decides to find Edwards guilty, the defense has a tailor-made appeal created for them by the judge's ruling on the admisability of the FEC evidence. Given the recent opinions of the SCOTUS regarding the deference lower courts should give to the opinions and rule-making of executive agencies in implementing legislation, so long as their interpretation is a reasonable one (not necessarily the only reasonable one), I can't see how the judge's ruling can stand up on appeal. Clearly, following that guidance from SCOTUS, the determination of the FEC was dispositive of the question of whether these were contributions that had to be reported. The FEC said "No, they weren't" and they said so unanimously. You can't convince me that if the jury knew that they wouldn't have already returned a verdict in this case. In fact, the judge probably would have had to grant a motion for a directed verdict and this would be over. A complete waste of time and money to even try this case after that FEC ruling.
mendy07,
If Edwards' immorality with Hunter was on trial, for sure, he would be headed for the slammer.
However, you have either a selective reading pattern, or your ability to comprehend needs improving.
What is not the "jury's job?"
Did you not see the 2 sentences that asked:
"As gifts, were all of the funds that went to support Hunter reported as gifts? Did any of the campaign contribution dollars stream their way to Edwards' "aides and abettors?"
If the answer to the first question is "NO" and the answer to the second question is "Yes," then Edwards is guilty of the illegal use of campaign funds. After reviewing all of the evidence, it is up to the jury to answer these questions and to reach a verdict.
Do not be so quick to reach a conclusion. You are not sitting in the jury box.
You do not know the answers to the criminal charges.
It is not likely to happen...but, this piece of excrement belongs in jail.
He could use a good ass-whoopin for what he has done, but does not belong in jail for what he is being tried for. Ride your moral high horse some where else.
mr.harley--sorry, but while I deplore John Edwards's behavior, the only "laws" he broke were GOD's. And that is where his punishment should come from.
I feel the money was a gift and Edwards will be found not guilty
How many millions of dollars are going to be spent on something that no one really gives a rats-ass about except the Republican haters.
John Edwards WHO ?
Just like Bill Clinton and the Ken Starr dog and pony show....$300,000,000......and for what?
And you people call yourselves "conservatives" ? Conservatives what?
Jack, I'm a Republican and I don't give a rats-ass about this trial either. Nor did I give a rats-ass about the Clinton trial. I agree, money wasted. On the other hand, spending this kind of money back in 2007 to prove that our current "leader" (cannot bring myself to call him a president) has a bogus birth certificate would have been a great investment. It could very well have opened the door for a more viable democratic candidate. Even if that candidate had been Edwards, as long as the office was properly represented, what he does with his pecker is between he and his wife. I don't care.
You are scaring me ani4ani!...The birth certificate debackle AGAIN???????......
I am Apolitical.....Have watched both parties for decades.
I used to think that the Dem were gutless and never take an organized stand against anything, and that is why they lose at everything.
I also used to think that the Rep were organized, smart and tough.
But this birth certificate debacle really makes your party look unhinged....If you want to destroy Obama do it with facts.......the birth incident makes the Rep look a little desperate.
It is like the John McCain/George Bush battle where Karl Rove "whispered" that his adopted daughter was from an affair....Very slimy indeed...And here we are again.
Jack, after reading your post, I concede, the birth certificate thing was and is a bit of stretch. And until Obama came along I too was mostly Apolitical. In my opinion, neither party had much to offer in 2008, I just can't believe that someone with as many gaps in their past, with their radical religious affiliation with pastor nutcase, with documented dislike (Michelle) of this country and total lack of experience, was the best the democrats could offer. I've always wondered how much pressure was put on Hillary to bail.
This November promises to be as much of a crap-shoot as the last election. For the record, I'm not a big Romney fan either.
wouldnt it be great if those of us who were apolitical until sometime between four and twelve years ago could simply be allowed to remain so, without the party animals driving us crazy with their grotesque and criminal mishandling of our precious country?
"On the other hand, spending this kind of money back in 2007 to prove that our current "leader" (cannot bring myself to call him a president) has a bogus birth certificate""
Stupid Birther loser. I bet you bitched up a storm before he showed it to the world and now you just claim it bogus. Care to explain your proof its bogus? Did he also have the paper announce his birth faked from out of country because they all knew someday he would be President of a country he didn't live in? And yes loser he is the President even if you don't want to call him that.
c'mon, ed. i agree with your view of the nonsense represented by the "birthers". however, if you would read on, this guy you so mercilessly launched into in such an uncivilized and unrelenting way admitted to being wrong about that. why do you think that a constant attack is the way to go? please chill out and keep your powder dry for the legions of truly ineducable posters here.
Ed, I would like your take on the "birth certificate" issue. On the certificate the Obama people brought forth, he was listed as "African-American". That was in 1964. The term African-American was first used, in print, in 1984, in a Times Magazine article. Your thoughts?
He is not listed as african-american on his birth certificate -- his father is listed as african, his mother as caucasian (no race listed for Obama)
Not on the copy I saw in Newsweek. The race of a live-birth child is always listed.
John Edwards: The Democrat's answer to Newt Gingrich. Total, worthless scumbags both.
As to whether or not Edwards belongs in jail, I make no judgment. I haven't seen all the evidence (or lack thereof) nor am I a legal scholar.
This man is repulsive!, the posterchild of government politicians.
Agreed. Still does not make him guilty.
Isn't this a gift to Edwards (it was for his benefit) and if so doesn't he have to pay taxes on it?
According to someone above (don't know this for myself), Rachel Mellon declared it as a gift and paid gift taxes on it. I don't think that the recipient of the gift would have to pay taxes on it if the giver paid taxes on it. Don't know for sure, just thinking common sense...then again it is the IRS so who knows.
Another two-faced politician.
Next we learn water is wet.
How long will American taxpayers put up with these bogus lawsuits??
By all accounts the money was a gift, Taxes were declared on it as a gift long before charges were filed and the money was never sent to, recieved, or meant to be a campaign contribution.
We all watched as Rangel was railraoded through a 20 year IRS audit, A 20 year personal audit, and over $20 million of taxpayers money was spent to find out,,,,,,,He was guilty of NO crimes (basically proving him the most honest politician in DC) Even then Republicans could not let it rest until they made history,,,,,,The first person EVER censured in Congress without committing a single crime. Ending in a $10k payment to the IRS (including fines) to a man who makes 10's of millions per year,,,,,,$20 million to investigate a $1000 tax mistake????
Republicans are the biggest money wasters on the planet!!!!!
Rangel is A THIEF of the highest order. He "forgot" to report income from a condo rental and sale of Carribean property. Crook.
Funny how its Obamas DOJ that is pushing the case, yet it is the Republicans fault..
Partisan politics at its best by Bo...
I wish I could get an answer to my question. How was he charged at all given Bunny Mellon paid a gift tax on the money to the IRS??????????????????????????
This has become the new "bad publicity" machine for the Republican party, Bring any charges regardless of evidence and regardless of outcome,,,,,,,,LIES
The only real problem is, MILLIONS in taxpayers money is going toward these BS charges that come before every single election
DOJ pushing case is run by eric "the Red"holder of shamwow's regime.
Another useless folly to waste taxpayer dollars on.
Remember when the DOJ used to prosecute real cases? Watergate and Iran-Contra?
Now they are the pecker cops. Bill Clinton's "cigar sweetener" and Edwards "piece on the side".
Don't worry. Your tax dollars are policing sex habits everywhere. Sleep sound tonight America. The pecker police are guarding your life.
Let's not forget the screwing of Scooter Libby.
Look, the jury is doing it's job. None of us heard all the evidence. While I'm gravely concerned because the testimoney of the Mellons and the Barrons say that the money was a gift, I wasn't there to hear if the government was able to impeach their testimony. I'll sit back and let the 12 citizens who heard all the testimony decide. Thankfully, the system works when people actually decide to take part in it.
Unfortunately, the jury wasn't allowed to hear all the evidence. They not only didn't hear from the Mellons and the Barrons, they also didn't hear from the FEC who already ruled it wasn't a campaign contribution and therefore didn't have to be reported. Does anybody seriously think the jury would still be deliberating this case if they had heard that little piece of evidence? If they somehow decide to convict Edwards, the judge's ruling on the FEC evidence will be overturned in a heartbeat on appeal and (yet) another trial ordered. Hopefully, the DOJ attorneys will decide they can't win it once the jury hears the FEC ruling and agree to dismiss the case at that point.
If this was a gift and not a campaign constribution, did Edwards report the $ as personal income? If so, then it was not a campaign contribution. If it was a gift / personal income, did Edwards report the gift on his income tax return? If not, let the IRS deal with him.
a gift is not taxable as income in the Unitd States.
BiGpicture,
What? Are you kidding me? All income is taxable in the US. Nice try.
watt. i suggest you ask a competent advisor. you would be wrong in the case of a bona fide gift made in the case of detatched and disinterested generosity. i am not kidding you
watt, ALL income is taxable? You'd better change accountants,-----quick.
Big Picture- high much?
Well, Srich, if you don't want to check it out for yourself, i would be curious to know how much income tax you paid needlessly on all those holiday and birthday gifts you got over the years. just keep doing it, though. maybe the rest of us who don't pay taxes that aren't required will get some sort of break.
Enough- we are speaking of cash here...educate yourself, then speak. Here is a link with regard to "family members" and yearly nontaxable IRS rules.
http://www.ehow.com/info_12103719_much-money-can-gift-family-member.html
Poor Srich. your own article even states in bold headline that the gift tax applies to the giver (i.e., NOT the receiver). why are you wasting everyone's time being a fool? as someone famously said, in misplaced, stupid condesension, High much?
Hey jury do the right thing and send this piece of @!$%# to prison with plenty of vaseline so he can get what he gave to the american people.
Jury trials in this country are getting scarier as time goes by, competent ones don't want to be on them and one with preconceived notions are abundant. A jury of your peers is a joke and a crap shoot at best.
thats why people like the ambulance chaser edwards use panel specialists to pick out good and bad peers on a panel. basically they only want stupid people with pliable minds sitting on a jury. why do you think they give out a questionaire before each trial. those are specifally made to weed out the common sense people. you are then left with morons and csi fans. i know i took one of those questionaires i immediatly knew i was being checked out. those questionaireas are all approved by the defense lawyers before given. guess what i was voiyered in 5 cases and was excused on all 5. never went back to another a total waste of time. i have been called twice more since that first experiance just mailed in a excuse.
Niki--the irony is, I BELIEVE that the defendant has the right to be tried ONLY by a judge. I'd a lot rather take my chances with a judge that with a bunch of yahoos who admitted they don't read the paper or watch the news on TV.
8 men and 4 women...enough said. Thats why its taking so long. If it were 8 women and 4 men they would be done.
i would not trust a one dollar bill as a tip if they worked at the justice department after 3 plus years of holder. everything they do is a warped version of the law. using the commerce clause a obscure law from the depression era to regulate banks across state lines to force what ever they want down our throats. the time has come to remove the law or actually redefine it to stop allowing the total take over of our lives thru the federal goverment. in the past 60 years democrats have used this law to force all kinds of federal laws to force us to kow tow to washington. we are slowly but surely turning ourselves into the districts where the capital (washington) rules over us. yes we are turning into the hunger games goverment!
Everyone knows this guy is a lib, lawyer, low life piece of scum no matter what the jury says.
Common Man--exactly. However, he is not on trial for being a lib, a lawyer, or a low life piece of scum.
The article mentions that the FEC (Federal Elections Commission?) closed its investigation of this mess and that alone raises the question of whether this should be decided by a jury. HMMMM. The FEC is made up of politicians who are appointed by politicians and charged with regulating politicians. Who in their right mind would think the FEC should be allowed to decide this?
Whether any of us like it or not, whether any of us agree with it or not, the FEC is charged with establishing the rules governing campaign contributions and related campaign financing matters. Just like the FCC makes the rules on radio and TV broadcasting and related matters, the FEC has jurisdiction in this area. According to SCOTUS, federal courts are supposed to give great deference to the rules made by such agencies in implementing legislation. They are considered the subject matter experts and unless their interpretation is completely unreasonable, they have the final say. In this case, the FEC determined the money was not a campaign contribution and therefore wasn't reportable as such. Unless you can show the FEC ruling was unreasonable on its face (good luck with that since it was unanimous ruling!), their ruling clearly shows Edwards had no intent to violate the law. How could he if he relied on the FEC ruling? Any conviction in this case will get overturned on appeal. The judge should have admitted the evidence (it's clearly relevant), in which case the jury probably would have been back in less than an hour with a "Not Guilty" verdict.
It's sad that people are so interested in judging other people's love lives. Therein lies the crime.
mishmash, If you think that's really what this is about, you need to get out more.
I just hope they clear him in time for him to jump in the presidental election.....he still looks a better choice than Romney or Obama.
why he was hide and aviod his marriage his feel want running be become president of but they found him tht shame !!!!! tht hurt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Helen, Whhhaaaaat?
Stanboy--Thanks! I was afraid it was just me!
naw...I said the same thing when I read helen's comments MOmaid... actually, the first thing I said was...wtf?!
Like others here, I also think John Edwards is scum. But I served on two criminal trial juries, one where the prosecutors thought they had an open-and-shut case and got lazy in officially providing evidence. For example, a manager who was robbed was continually kicked by a suspect and all he could clearly describe was his attacker's brown boots. The raided the suspect's home and found the brown boots, but never presented even a photo of them in court - instead providing a ski mask and other irrelevant things. They said they found "tan" boots. So in deliberations we wondered what happened to the brown boots. A combination of incompetent prosecution left us deliberating for days, though we finally found the guy guilty. In the hallway, after the trial, the police showed us pictures of the brown boots and other pieces of evidence. We were angry we didn't have that from the start.