Posted on 06/13/2012 1:58:05 PM PDT by Justaham
The Justice Department announced Wednesday it will give up its criminal case against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, NPR reports.
In May, a deadlocked North Carolina federal jury found Edwards not guilty of one charge of accepting illegal campaign donations. The group couldn't reach a decision on five other felony charges, including one alleging that Edwards knowingly used $1 million in secret campaign donations from wealthy donors to support his mistress. Edwards could have faced 30 years in prison if convicted.
Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a statement that the Justice Department put forward its best case. "The jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict on five of the six counts of the indictment, however, and we respect their judgment. In the interest of justice, we have decided not to retry Mr. Edwards on those counts."
The prosecution was short on proof that Edwards knew about the payments or that he knew that accepting them was illegal. "As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case," Melanie Sloan, director of the campaign finance watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics told the Associated Press after the trial. "All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that Edwards is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
THE SKANK SKIPS!!
Now they can move onto much more productive things like Roger Clemons and steroids, while the country careens over a fiscal cliff.
He was going to be let off anyway. When they said a jury member was flirting with him; I knew the fix was in to let him off.
Good. Get the government out of campaigns! If I want to gift thousands to hush up my favorite politician’s scandal that’s my business.
Along with Bill Ayers and his wife.
No surprise here.
“The prosecution was short on proof that Edwards knew about the payments or that he knew that accepting them was illegal. “
So he claimed them as a personal gift on his taxes?
Good. Get the government out of campaigns! If I want to gift thousands to hush up my favorite politician’s scandal that’s my business.
If your favorite politician needs thousands to hush up a scandal, you shouldn’t be voting.
My understanding is yes the payments were treated as gifts and gift taxes were paid on them.
My understanding is yes the payments were treated as gifts and gift taxes were paid on them.
Okay, so it probably was kind of gray. Maybe the verdict was reasonable.
Edwards is a moral slimebag, but this was never a good case. Typical corrupt prosecutors looking for headlines.
“Okay, so it probably was kind of gray. Maybe the verdict was reasonable.”
Actually, it was a no-brainer. The standard under the law is whether the contributions were made with the purpose of influencing a federal election. Not the SOLE purpose, merely a purpose, recognizing that any contribution might have multiple motivations (e.g., presumably it’s easier to secure contributions from family and friends than perfect strangers, but does not make them any less of a political contribution?).
Thus, all the jury had to do was ask a simple question. If Silky Pony weren’t running for president, do I believe these “friends” of Edwards would have kicked him $1 million to help him out of a personal jam? The question answers itself.
Now that he is off the hook, maybe he’ll be offered the #2 slot replacing Biden. I’m sure the MSM and the Libs would back him to the hilt if he was. Dems have no shame.
If there wasn’t an income tax law this case wouldn’t even have existed. Just look at how much of our taxpayer money was spent on this crap.
“The standard under the law is whether the contributions were made with the purpose of influencing a federal election. Not the SOLE purpose, merely a purpose, recognizing that any contribution might have multiple motivations...all the jury had to do was ask a simple question. If Silky Pony weren’t running for president, do I believe these ‘friends’ of Edwards would have kicked him $1 million to help him out of a personal jam?”
There’s another question all juries should ask themselves: is the law just? If it isn’t they have no legal or moral obligation to convict. Since it is none of the business of government what monies are or are not intended to influence an election, Edwards ought by right to go free no matter what the law says.
Get government out of election funding!
I’m convinced. You should’ve prosecuted the case.
“Since it is none of the business of government what monies are or are not intended to influence an election, Edwards ought by right to go free no matter what the law says.”
As one just asked to serve on a jury, I have to disagree. If a law bothers me, I should lobby my legislator(s) to change it. But so long as a law is on the books, I think it’s my moral obligation as a juror to apply the law as at is written, not as I wish it were written. For 12 jurors to effectively take the law into their own hands, as you describe, is a recipe for chaos, IMHO.
I’m no defender of campaign finance laws. But until they’re overturned, everyone needs to follow the same set of rules. Otherwise you end up with a system that rewards lawbreakers. Is that really the world you want to live in?
“If a law bothers me, I should lobby my legislator(s) to change it.”
You can do that. But the legislator is not sovereign. You are, at least theoretically. Most of the time we have to rely on representatives to inact our will, according to the republican system we’ve set up and in which I believe. Juries, however, are the one instance in which the sovereign citizen directly touches government power. It is here you can and should effect your will.
“so long as a law is on the books, I think it’s my moral obligation as a juror to apply the law as at is written”
Well, you’re wrong. No principle of law or morals trumps your sovereingty, unless we switch to some other justification for government. I suggest you read up on the term Jury Nullification.
“For 12 jurors to effectively take the law into their own hands, as you describe, is a recipe for chaos, IMHO.”
No, chaos is the law as handed down to us from above. That’s a perfect term for the kind of life lived knowing at any time you could be guilty of any number of laws of which you’ve never heard. We have an overabundance of them, as people from every ideology seem to agree. Jury nullification is an important check on government-inspired chaos. They go too far sometimes, and it’s our job to slap them back in line. Not just on election day, but in the jury box as well.
“Otherwise you end up with a system that rewards lawbreakers”
Why shouldn’t it, if the laws are unjust?
“Is that really the world you want to live in?”
That is the world I live in. Jury nullification is from time out of mind.
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.