Posted on 05/31/2012 1:35:00 PM PDT by C19fan
The jury in the federal campaign finance case against former Senator John Edwards said Thursday that it had found him not guilty on one of the six counts against him, and the judge declared a mistrial on the others.
The verdict came on the third count, which involved donations from the heiress Rachel Mellon. Mrs. Mellon gave more than $725,000 to help Mr. Edwards during his 2008 presidential campaign, during which large sums were spent to cover up an affair between Mr. Edwards and a former staff videographer, Rielle Mellon, with whom he conceived a daughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
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.
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.
If he had been a preacher, he would have been shipped off to jail in a plain brown wrapper.
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.
#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.
I just knew this was gonna be the case when it was announced they could only reach a unanimous verdict on one count.
It’s extremely difficult to nail a greasy ‘rat.
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.
Dayum. I was kinda hoping he would get to share a cell with Rod Blagojevich — they could do each others’ hair.
Yep. Typical corrupt democrat skates.
As if anyone couldn’t see a mistrial coming what with all the jury antics.
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.....
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, the prosecution got just about everything they wanted in and the defense didn't get anything they wanted either in or out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.