E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTODAY's Savannah Guthrie and NBC's political director, Chuck Todd, debate the possibility of the Justice Department seeking a retrial in the John Edwards case and whether a political comeback is likely for the former presidential hopeful.
ANALYSIS
By not losing on any of the six felony counts for which he was being tried, John Edwards won the biggest victory of his political and legal life on Thursday. A mistrial on five counts and an acquittal on one resulted in a clear -- if not complete -- legal vindication and a likely fatal setback for federal prosecutors seeking to convict the former U.S. senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee for allegedly violating the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Arguably the most famous American lawyer since Clarence Darrow to face a criminal trial, Edwards may well see the inside of a courtroom again, but as a still-licensed attorney rather than as a criminal defendant facing retrial.
Having followed the investigation and prosecution since its inception in 2008, having attended pre-trial hearings in 2011 and having witnessed the entire 2012 trial, I offer the following seven takeaways on what happened, why, and what’s coming:
The government’s case can only get worse. The trial that just ended represented prosecutors’ best opportunity to obtain a conviction. The U.S. Department of Justice’s failure to prevail on a single count had nothing to do with the quality of the lawyers involved. David V. Harbach, from DoJ’s Public Integrity Section in Washington, D.C., and Robert J. Higdon, with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Raleigh, N.C., both did a masterful job.
- Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
- Full transcripts of closing arguments (.pdf)
- Analysis by Hampton Dellinger
 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. |
Harbach and Higdon knew the law and the facts. They were prepared and skilled in their direct and cross examinations. Their closing arguments were powerful, indeed eloquent. They clearly earned the respect of presiding U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles and virtually every important evidentiary ruling went in their favor. And yet they still came up short. Moreover, it is likely the government’s key witness -- former Edwards aide turned Edwards accuser Andrew Young -- would do even worse in a second trial where he could be cross-examined not only about statements in his sex scandal tell-all, “The Politician,” but also his days of first trial testimony.
Even if prosecutors could obtain a conviction, would it survive on appeal? What was easily overlooked in the daily theatrics of the trial -- and even without Edwards or his mistress, Rielle Hunter, taking the stand, there was courtroom drama by the barrelful – was how vulnerable any conviction of Edwards would be to reversal on appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and then likely the U.S. Supreme Court, could question whether there was sufficient evidence of Edwards’s criminal intent in a case where the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a “knowing and willful” violation of FECA. Plus, the correctness of the trial judge’s ruling that “the government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money [to cover up the affair] was to influence the election” would be scrutinized on review.
TODAY: Rielle Hunter writes tell-all book
And, as the Citizens United decision epitomizes, federal judges and justices are now extremely skeptical of campaign-related spending restraints in the absence of actual or likely political corruption. The lack of any evidence of a quid pro quo in the Edwards’s case, would have brought the First Amendment implications of the prosecution into the foreground on appeal, along with a host of other credible grounds for a conviction reversal.
John Edwards may be many bad things, but he’s no Rod Blagojevich. Disconcertingly youthful hair aside, comparing Edwards to the former Illinois governor now in federal prison after being retried on political corruption charges in 2011 isn’t fair. First, Blagojevich’s initial trial resulted in a conviction on one count. Edwards of course was just acquitted on the sole count where the jury reached unanimity.
After more than four weeks of testimony and nine days of deliberations, jurors in the John Edwards trial were able to reach consensus on only one of six counts, finding him not guilty of receiving campaign contributions from a wealthy heiress. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.
More important, Blagojevich was accused of engaging in classic quid pro quo political corruption – essentially offering an incredibly valuable official act (appointment to a U.S. Senate seat) in exchange for support for his re-election campaign. As noted above, In Edwards’s case there was no allegation – none – of a quid pro quo. One of the affair cover-up funders was Rachel “Bunny” Mellon. A near centenarian at the time of her payments to Andrew Young and his wife, Cheri, (only a fraction of were passed along to Hunter), her ambassador appointment days were surely over. The other funder, Fred Baron, had no designs on Attorney General or other high office as far as we know. Neither sought an earmark or any other official act.
This would have been a very different case if it wasn’t the first of its kind. Having assisted with political corruption investigations and efforts to uphold campaign finance restrictions during my years in the North Carolina Attorney General’s office, I naturally side with “clean campaign” types, some (but not all) of whom supported the Edwards prosecution. But what supporters of the government’s case generally failed to acknowledge was the lack of any clear legal precedents in favor of indicting and trying Edwards, something I pointed out months ago.
Full trial coverage from NBC News and msnbc.com
/
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
Politicians – even deeply flawed ones like John Edwards – deserve to know what the rules are before they are indicted for breaking them. As one critic of the case told me recently: it’s one thing to ask jurors to throw the book at a defendant, it’s another to ask them to write it first.
Left hand (DoJ) meet right (FEC). While the prosecution was above reproach in terms of courtroom conduct, the absence of a finding by the Federal Election Commission of even a civil violation related to Edwards’ conduct was striking. As discussed in a prior post, DoJ’s typical practice has been to only bring criminal charges in situations where the FEC saw wrongdoing at some level; before a criminal case is brought, “There must be no doubt that the commission considers that the underlying conduct presents a FECA offense,” the Department wrote in 2009.
The Edwards jury got a glimpse into the FEC’s satisfaction with the Edwards campaign filings, and even that small view may well have been decisive. While the FEC is a very different agency than DoJ, the less aligned the two are on campaign finance probes the more likely Edwards-like trial losses will continue to occur.
Making an oft- maligned profession look good, part 1. Lawyers are often derided, but it wasn’t only the prosecutors who acquitted the profession well. The defense team – D.C.-based Abbe Lowell, aided by North Carolinians Allison Van Laningham and Alan Duncan -- was similarly stellar. Maybe even more important than the skillful advocacy was the degree of civility and professionalism displayed by attorneys on both sides, both to their co-counsel and to their adversaries. The stakes in this case were sky high for the defense and the prosecution: Edwards’ liberty on one side, the ability of the DoJ’s Public Integrity section to obtain a conviction in a high profile trial on the other. And yet the battling advocates were almost unfailingly courteous and respectful to each other. It’s the kind of courtroom decorum lawyers should exhibit every time but too often don’t.
Making an oft-maligned profession look good, part 2. Another frequently poked-fun-at group -- the mainstream media – also acquitted itself well at the Edwards trial, save for one unfortunate allegation (“the flirting juror”), which was later retracted. I was particularly struck by an effort to ensure an accurate record of the proceedings that began almost immediately. Despite all the competitive pressures to be the first media member to race out of the courtroom and proclaim the latest trial twist, reporters and producers (print, radio and TV) would immediately circle up at each break and compare notes with each other, all in effort to ensure that witness’ testimony, lawyers’ arguments, and the judge’s rulings were reported as close to verbatim and 100 percent correct as possible. Because the trial was not televised, it was only the assembled press that could provide a picture of what transpired. The picture of media competitors collaborating to make sure everyone got the story right is one I’ll never forget.
I’m a lawyer first but I enjoyed assisting with the reporting and analyzing of the Edwards trial. It was an honor to assist NBC, MSNBC and of course msnbc.com with coverage of the case. Above all, thanks to you the reader for taking the time to consider my take.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
The verdict on the verdict is another low-life piece of scum broke the law and got away with it. This seems to be a pattern for these people.
Two words: jury nullification.
Bottom line: There was no gun found in his hand.
What does it matter what you & I think? ... John Edwards is FREE! ..
Common and Sally - what aren't you seeing? Or did you post first and then read the article? The man is scum but he didn't break the law.
While Edwards is a scumbag, the facts still stand:
1) The FEC had already investigated the "donations" and had determined that no rule or law was broken, let alone an indictable criminal offense. The FEC had already officially closed the books on that. The judge refused to allow the current head of the FEC or either of the two previous heads of the FEC to testify to that effect.
2) The IRS had already ruled that the donations were legally gifts and had collected gift taxes on them. If Edwards had been found guilty, the government would have had to refund the gift taxes it had already collected after reversing its ruling. This had the potential to effect a huge number of gift tax donors.
3) The money that was intended for the galpal mostly was embezzeled by the two star prosecution witnesses (around $700k) and used to build a mansion for themselves. So Edwards intention that it all go to her was never realized in the first place.
4) The prosecution attempted to portray Edwards as an asswipe to get a conviction. Unfortunately, being an asswipe is not a criminal offense and is very difficult to prove objectively.
5) At the time of the primary, donations by individuals were limited to $2500. Since then, but prior to the start of the trial the SCOTUS gave us the Citizens United decision that would have allowed the donations and would have provided the ability to even keep their identities hidden, so no such crimes would have been possible under CU.
Edwards well knew that even if he was convicted of one or more of the charges that he would have easily walked free on appeal. There simply was no evidence that he knew or intended to do anything illegal. It may have been true, but the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution and they produced no smoking gun, not even a pea shooter. I am sure that a number of the jurors felt that he deserved to be convicted of something, but that just won't ring the bell in our justice system. An appeals judge would not have entertained the charges for even a second and would have considered the whole sleezebag prosecution approach as invalid.
I think the notion of bringing John Edwards to trial in the first place was a Joke. Andrew Young should stand trial for taking most of money for himself. At the end Andrew Young was the sole beneficiary. I hope the house he built will serve as a constant reminder of his hypocrisy, lies and greed.
In my personal opinion, the whole legal question centered around the prosecution's contention that "the" as stated in the law could have been legitimately read as "a". This is a legal absurdity since "the" and "a" have very different meanings.
According to the dictionary, "the" (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an ): the book you gave me; Come into the house. The law says that "the" purpose of the donation must be political in nature to convict. The prosecution claimed that it was enough if "a" purpose of the donation ....
This is a very bizarre way to view law. It is tantamount to saying that you can read "right" as "wrong" and not substantially change the meaning. It really takes a stupid lawyer to make a claim like that. Or a lawyer on a personal or political vendetta.
The prosecutors should have their licenses pulled for even attempting this travesty. They are guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge who allowed it should be sanctioned for judician misconduct.
John Edwards is still a scumbag.
Suprise he got away with it..... But then again what do you expect when the chief accuser had his hand in the cookie jar.....
Mendy07, Now you know, he MUST have used some of that money on that women. Come on now!!
Really? What evidence do you have that the jury didn't get to see?
Here's the verdict on the Verdict: the case against him was presented, fully, without any evidence excluded by the trial judge. The jury heard and saw everything prepared and presented by the prosecution. The jury found that there wasn't enough evidence to convice on even One Charge. So ---- not guilty.
That's how the system works. Let's hope, for your own sake, that if you are ever accused of a crime, and you go to trial, that you are not convicted if there's insufficient evidence to convict you in spite of there being sufficient information there to make the jury dislike you. Man-up, and stop being a coward!
John Edwards: just another rich guy who got off better than he would have if he'd been poor or middle class.
Whoa whoa whoa... wait a second. John Edwards cannot be just another rich guy. He's a liberal and a democrat. Which means he looks out for people. I always thought rich guys were just white old republicans... at least that's what the MSM tells me on a daily basis.
You're not suggesting that regardless of an "R" or a "D" following someone's name they're all power hungry out of touch millionaires are you?
_
My big question is simple. If you are given large sums of money there are laws that define what it is. Was it a gift? Was it a campaign contribution ? Was it income? Now the big simple question. Did anyone pay taxes on that money each time it changed hands? If it wasn't a campaign contribution and used illegally then it had to be a gift or income. Both are taxable at some level. Sounds like a few people got away with tax evasion to me.
Devil's Son - i agree with you ... at the very least sounds like tax evasion
I would agree. If they could prove he got the money in his hand and did not pay taxes on it -- which apparently they could not do here. It appears that this Mr. Young actually got the money --and spent i ton Edward's mistress. Mr. edwards did not actually spedn the money in this manner. As far as he being treated better than a middle-class or poor working man on trial-- well, I am sure that is true (rich guys can afford better lawyers than poor guys) -- however, they would not have been tried for the same charges as Edwards was being charged with-- which was that the money was "illegal/unreported campaign contributions" --How many poor guys are given $1million from friends to help cover up his mistress's baby? If he was being tried for being a two-timing, scumbag who was cheating on his dying wife -- he would have been found gulity -- but that was not the charges, they could not proven the "campaign fraud' na the money trail was umclear.
@Devil's Son,
The two donors both paid gift taxes on the money per the IRS. The FEC had already determined that it was a gift and not a campaign contribution and closed the books on the Republican National Committee complaint.
@The Painful ...
It appears that the money went to Mrs. Young under her maiden name and was spent from her account. From all indications, about $700k of the money was embezzled by the Youngs and spent on building a $1.7 million dollar mansion. My guess is that the Youngs will be on the hook for tax evasion. The donors paid gift taxes on it and the Ms Hunter paid income taxes on what she got. No money really passed through Edwards' hands as taxable income. It went straight from the donors to Mrs. Young to Ms. Hunter.
The poor or middle class never would have been tried as John Edwards has been. No one would care that you're having an affair, or that your Aunt Rita gave you money to cover it up. No law was broken. What part of that do you not understand?
Yo Hampton....
I feel smarter after taking the time to consider your take.
Good job.
Now he is just a poor excuse for a man.
I'd never trust that man again. He is so disingenuous, and has no respect for his family.
He can call this a win if he wants...to me, he lost years ago. Hope he just slips into nothing-hood and we never hear about him again. But that's not the way things are done, in this day in age. Speaking engagements, book deals, then the movie, and finally running for office again...with a yet a newer wife by his side.
Agreed. I almost vomited when I heard him blabbing about 'Quin'. Perhaps he was trying to reduce the blame she will feel as an adult for her mom and her birth ruining a family's life at what was already a low point - their mother having cancer. However, did he EVER think that he would inflict a knife through the hearts of his real kids.
Yet another massive waste of taxpayer money. Those Republicans are sure good at spending my money! Poorly!
Could it be that you failed to notice that the Department of Justice is currently under the control of the Democrats?
Ted,
I'm sure Richard was being sarcastic, not serious. If he really was serious, he sure is out of touch.
No, not sarcastic. This federal lawyer who brought the suit in the first place is running for congress as a Republican. Read the news people.
Now THAT is an oxymoron; lawyer & integrity in the same sentence LOL
Thanks for your opinions, Mr. Dellinger. Your observations and analysis are very valuable into a case where the trial was not televised for all to see. We may not like Mr. Edwards for what he did, but when the FEC refuses to take any action (and they are the arbiters of Election behavior) it foreshadows that a judicial trial probably is not warranted and is a WASTE OF MONEY. The Constitution guarantees that people can not be tried on laws which do not yet exist and the law can not be applied retroactively. If there were no rules against what happened concerning funds to Edwards supporters being funneled to a mistress then the law can not take exception to that activity, regardless of how classless we might think a politician is.
He IS guilty of being one of the attorneys who took a heaping helping of the tobacco settlement.
here is what we established
1. He is a cheater on his wife, although not illegal, he is 100% a cheater confirmed.
2. He lied to his wife and to the american public about alot of things, so he is 100% a confirmed liar.
3. He says that his mistress was paid off with his personal money that he had to hide from his wife and did not use the millions of campaign money that all politicians have learned to manipulate.
So another lying cheating @!$%# politician that is supposed to work for the citizens, learns how to evade the the rules set in place to keep this from happening and the stupid sheep want more proof that he did something illegal.
Now him and Clinton can smoke cigars, and drink to "getting away with it".
His poor wife! That scank, Reille Hunter or whatever her real name is a trashy, homewrecking whore.
And Gingrich, and Vitter, and Weiner, and Ensign, and Souder, and Sandford, and Craig, and...
His wife was so much more better looking than Reille. I thought she was ugly to be honest.
How much did it cost John Edwards to get the verdict he recieved?
There were numerous lawyers and former prosecutors who did not believe this case should ever have been prosecuted - there simply was not enough evidence to convict. The case was so flimsy that Edwards, a former trial-lawyer, decided not to testify because the prosecution had not proved it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
At least some of the jurors believe Edwards was guilty of some of the charges, but there was not enough evidence to convict. The jury did it's job. Time to move on.
If we ever hope to control our crime rates we need to empanel juries imbued with the concept that the intent of the law should take presidence over the letter of the law! John Jay explained this very well- " The law was made to serve the people, not the people to serve the law! "
Lawyers. Ugh...
@ctmitch2003,
The not-so-stupid jury members were not convinced that what he did was against a currently written law, nor were they convinced that there was quid pro quo or a "knowing and willful violation". These are the conditions that had to be met, right? What he did was questionable, definitely showed a lack of character, and proved to me that I don't want him in government. I would never vote for him after all the lies and evasions, and the way he treated his wife. But, being a creep isn't illegal. Being an adulterer and a liar isn't illegal, nor is concealing one's mistress from the family and the public. Insults are not required. I did not get the feeling that the jury members rushed to judgement or that they didn't convict him simply because he was rich.
no offence taken, my point was to say his actions are intolerable as a politician, and we continue to allow our reps to get away with it. I have nothing against him personally, I don't even know him. It just seems that common sense is more rare than plutonium.
Looks like a turd. lawyer/politician
Smells like a turd. liar/cheater
Uh, I'm willing to take my chances and say it is a turd.
Your points were well taken and you speak the truth but sometimes you have to stand up and try to make an example out of them. No one can be so naive to think that ALL politicians don't know how to break rules without getting caught or we would not have enough prisons. Of course they do get to make the rules.
I work with turds/liars/cheaters every day. So far it's not illegal to be any or all. I do have to shower at the end of the day.
I give the jury credit. They were not allowed to hear the FEC's findings and they still could not convict. If the FEC testimony was allowed there would have been not guilty verdicts on all 6 counts
I agree with Not A Fan -- the guy may not be a role model of moral-behavior, but he didn't do anything illegal. You don't like him, don't vote for him. The guy doesn't stand a chance of getting elected to anything at this point. But he didn't beak any law - except some silly fairy-tale "sins", that shouldn't be brought in to the conversation anyway.
I don't know..... he would get my vote for : scum of the decade, bottom feeding testicle barnacle, and maybe pimple on the but!t of humanity......... but certainly nothing in government.
Edwards = Crook
Face up to it. This guy is a low down horse's a$$ but this entire trial episode has been nothing but a total waste of taxpayer dollars. Let the prima donna drop into oblivion. It will cost nothing and if he ever claims to hear a calling to run for any other office remind him that no one trusts him since the cold blooded a$$ abandoned his cancer stricken wife for some chippie.
Good riddance.
The problem with this trial, it should never have happened, did you not see Bunny's interview long before edwards was ever charged. She said that she gave this money to him on a personal level. The other rich due, he was just friend helping a friend. The prosecution knew all this and tried anyway. I am not an Edwards, fan even though I voted for him as a Senator, he was the better choice at the time. You have to prove your case and prove they did not do. Slim bag, whatever he is all and more than you all can name. Underneath it all he is probably not sorry for what he did, most men are not. But that is called life sometimes.
Another liberal dirtball walks because of one too many liberals on the jury..
@Karen you must have very little respect for people in your party by accusing them of not being fair and impartial jurists. lets see if i have this right-- conservative view Accused = guilty even if no proof of his guilt. How do you know? It was on FOX news and after all he is a liberal.
I admit he is a dirty, old, rotten douche bag, but I didn't want him to go to prison as the children by Elizabeth would be left without their father.
You say that like it would be a big loss to them. I had the same kind of father. I can assure you - it would not be a big loss.
Rubbish. Edwards got off because he's a politician. He stole money from his political campaign to try to hide his disgusting behavior with his bimbo. She's got to be the best paid sex worker in the business.
He got off because the jury did not find the evidence against him to be compelling. The right wing fools on this forum will just have to suck it up.
You worry about some campaign contributions and seem to forget that Bush and his cabal of neocons were responcible for 9/11, the Iraq war and the collapse of our economy. They should all be tried for war crimes and treason. See videos below. They are quite illuminating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgABDdU7yD8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-TLwK4_0g4&feature=related
@Noladude, you really need to go back and read! This should have NEVER made it to a court room. I hate Edwards, that is my choice. Did he cheat on his wife? Yes, plenty of men do and thats between him and his wife. This entire case was, did he get campain money and use it to hide his affair? The answer to that is NO!!! People gave Andrew Young money, and HE gave it to the bimbo!!! Weather Edwards knew of this, who knows, but the transactions were between Young and the bimbo. And from what I've read, of the $1.8Million, Young kept $1.6Million of it himself on crap for his house!!!
Just another piece of garbage attorney politician that got away with tax payers money. Think our country isn't out of whack! This is the type of politician that rules our lives. Just think it could have been worse, he could have been our President........But don't worry we have one of his cronies in Barack O'bama the Muslim.
This is just one more example of the difference between rich man/poor man justice in this country! It would certainly appear (now that the republican Kraken has been let loose to do anything it wants) we will see no changes to the current trend of class warfare until there is a revolution, and the people have to rise up against the established fat cats in industry and politics to level the playing fields literally. Keep pushing the envelopes you morons and see where it gets ya. You better start paying attention to history and see just how far you think you can push starving people.
He is a toal pig for going on about that bastard brat of his ... boo hooo... 'Quin' .. who is the offsping of a devilish whore he likely is the cause of the demise of Elizabeth Edwards.
The thing that I don't understand in all this is why the IRS is not getting involved. Regardless whether or not the scumbag did anything illegal with respect to the election laws, what he did do was accept gifts of about $1 million for his own benefit.....did he ever declare these amounts as income and pay income tax on these amounts? If they were not election $'s then they were taxable gifts given to him by wealthy individuals!!!! Pay the taxes on this money if it wasn't a tax exempt political contribution!!!!!!
It depends. If each gift was below the IRS thresh-hold for taxable gifts, then the total amounts that the gifts added up to are not relevant.
Really - I appears you just want to get him for something, anything, just like the Clinton witch hunt. That started with Whitewater and ended with Lewinsky. The Republicans resorted to illegal wiretaps to gather their evidence and all it amounted to in the end, was a case of infidelity.
Bush and Cheney lied their a$$es off about WMD and started a war, using WMD as the excuse, which will cost over 3.5 trillion dollars and the loss of over 4500 soldiers, as well as 360,000 with brain injuries. Here read some stats.
Zionist warmongers like Ken Adelman and the Zionist Washington Post pushed the war in
an editorial titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq.” Jewish supremacists Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz told you that Iraq would “Welcome us as liberators.” Iraq became
the longest war in American history. Here is a report from USA Today: “Pentagon
officials estimated for the first time Wednesday that up to 360,000 Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans may have suffered traumatic brain injuries.” Now that’s
not counting tens of thousands who have suffered maiming, amputations, or death
in this war based on lies.
Why aren't you worried about the fiasco above? Incidently, the WMD lies were initiated and spread by that Zionist media and AIPAC, which is how many of our politicians made unfounded claims about WMD.
Talk about a backwards subtitle...how about Edwards benefitted from the fact it isn't even illegal anymore (Citizens United) and probably wasn't before?
I say use our tax dollars and re-try him like would happen to any common person.
Really..... Do you know what the word scumbag refers to? You demean yourself by using language like that in a public forum...You are entitled to your opinion...no matter how lame it may be...but I must ask....Didn't your momma never learn you nothing ?Oh. I forgot...she never did...that is why you are a Tea Party member.