For Edwards, One Not-Guilty Verdict and a Mistrial on Five Charges

New York Times ^ | May 31, 2012 | John Schwartz

[dead]

The funny thing is that his actions were never in question. He did the things he is accused of and nobody denies it.

The question of guilt hinged on whether or not it is legal for a politician to take money for his political campaign and spend it on hushing up his whore.

This jury couldn't decide if that's against the law for a politician.

They should at least have to set up a separate whore-hushing fund, just to maintain an ethical appearance.

[norton]

"Now he can run for President in 2016. He will be a shoo-in for the nomination. Dems love the corrupt, the liars,and adulterers. Edwards is the whole package."

I hear he was bjorn in Sweden and his real father was a Russian diplomat.

Don't discount anything, he's still got a shot at 2012.

[samtheman]

I’m not big on campaign finance law to begin with. I’m pretty sure most of it is a bunch of crap. Let the buyer beware should apply to morons giving money to Silky Ponies or a Black Jesus.

On the other hand, what happened to Tom Delay? What would the verdict in this case have been if this were not John Edwards but Herman Cain?

It’s the double standard that I don’t like.

I think all these laws (or pretty much all of them) should be totally scrapped.

But they are on the books. Democraps should have to obey them too.

[thulldud]

The question of guilt hinged on whether or not it is legal for a politician to take money for his political campaign and spend it on hushing up his whore.

If he had been a preacher, he would have been shipped off to jail in a plain brown wrapper.

[Leep]

For now, until I learn more, let me summarize with the thought that if John Edwards is not found guilty of violation of campaign finance laws, NOBODY EVER WILL!

---

Maybe no Democrat will.

[MindBender26]

Actually, this is not as bad as it seems.

#1. Another defense will cost him at least another million dollars.

#2. His witnesses are now locked into their testimony, which the DOJ and Fox, etc. will now have months to discredit.

#3. The public hates mistrials. The jury pool will be even more against him next time.

Smart defs cut a deal after a mistrial. Stupid ones get convicted the second time around.

[KansasGirl]

I just knew this was gonna be the case when it was announced they could only reach a unanimous verdict on one count.

[Paladin2]

It’s extremely difficult to nail a greasy ‘rat.

[CharacterCounts]

There are two reasons most defendants are convicted on the second try.

1. The prosecution gets an opportunity to fix its case.

2. The prosecution does not go forward with on a new trial in many cases where it determines it evidence is too weak.

This case may very well fall into the second category.

[Fast Moving Angel]

Dayum. I was kinda hoping he would get to share a cell with Rod Blagojevich — they could do each others’ hair.

[onyx]

Yep. Typical corrupt democrat skates.

[bgill]

As if anyone couldn’t see a mistrial coming what with all the jury antics.

[ConservativeStatement]

I had a female friend from North Carolina who first warned me about Edwards and his appeal with women. She was a college student (or recent grad) at the time but told me that women there, not just college-age, absolutely were enamored with him and mainly because of his hair. I thought she was kidding at the time but she was solid in her observation.

[Notary Sojac]

Look, John Edwards is lower than the hairs on a centipede's belly. You will get no argument from me on that.

But the law he is accused of breaking is a bad law, a law which no one should be convicted under.

So I'm pretty conflicted here.....

[BlazingArizona]

I’m also applauding the verdict. Edwards is a slimy adulterer, but that’s not a bigger crime than carjacking. Te Department of Justice loves these show trials of celebrities on vague charges. Adultery, like steroid use in baseball, is not a matter that the DOJ needs to spend public money on.

Let this be our opening to cut the DOJ’s budget until it is forced to prioritize the cases it prosecutes/

[eyedigress]

I don’t have a serious problem with this. It would be hard for me to justify an OJ “not guilty” and Edwards getting locked up for some shaky FEC violations. They have done what was needed to do. Go home John.

[StarFan]

2. The prosecution does not go forward with on a new trial in many cases where it determines it evidence is too weak. This case may very well fall into the second category

Not sure if the case was all that weak. Apparently whatever the defense wanted included/excluded was okayed by the Judge so it made it difficult for the Gov't to present all evidence, so says someone from the Prosecutors office. AP reporting that they will not retry this case.

[StarFan]

2. The prosecution does not go forward with on a new trial in many cases where it determines it evidence is too weak. This case may very well fall into the second category

Not sure if the case was all that weak. Apparently whatever the defense wanted included/excluded was okayed by the Judge so it made it difficult for the Gov't to present all evidence, so says someone from the Prosecutors office. AP reporting that they will not retry this case.

[SeaHawkFan]

Another idiot jury.

None of the checks in question were made payable to a campaign account. That being the case, what crime did he commit in regards to this charge? By all accounts, this was the prosecution's strongest charge.

This was an easy verdict to reach.

[SeaHawkFan]

Not sure if the case was all that weak. Apparently whatever the defense wanted included/excluded was okayed by the Judge so it made it difficult for the Gov't to present all evidence, so says someone from the Prosecutors office.

Actually, the prosecution got just about everything they wanted in and the defense didn't get anything they wanted either in or out.