Skip to comments.Justice Department drops remaining charges against John Edwards
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 ...
Hmm, now he’s free to run against Obama, LOL.
Gee, if he was a republican do ya think—————??????
He’s and upstanding member for the leftist ruling class. You didn’t think he would actually serve time, did you?
Amazing, Scooter Libby never did anything wrong in the first place.
Pretty tough to build a case against driven snow no matter what the circumstance I guess.
There really are Two Americas, after all.
Democrats have the backs of Democrats. What further proof do you need to show how utterly corrupt that part is?
Democrats have the backs of Democrats. What further proof do you need to show how utterly corrupt that party is?
He may be amazingly slimy, even for a tort lawyer and a politician, but that's not against the law, AFAIK.
Sure, I’ve got lot’s of senile rich old lady friends who would give me $1 million because they are awed at my beautifully cut hair.
Of course the fact that I’m running for President is totaly inconsequential!
Now with Elizabeth dead, Hunter and kid doing well, maybe Edwards has time for a new career as OJ’s caddie, or maybe even getting a date with the newly fat, yet single, Casey Anthony
I just hope his fortune is substantially reduced after paying legal fees.
The truth is that there are a thousand millionaire idiots in America....who’d donate secret money to some political figure like this, and not care. Just make up a story about some hidden girlfriend, and they’d hustle cash to you or write out a check.
So It Can Concentrate All Its Efforts On Sheriff Joe
John Edwards and Jon Corzine free as birds while Mr. and Mrs. George Zimmerman languish in jail. That’s pretty much all you need to know about modern-day America, right there.
Great! Now Maobama can select him as his running mate!
This sounds like it should have been a slam dunk with the damning evidence. The “jus’ dis” department must have really zealously prosecuted this one. /sarc
The Edwards cooked trial result is bait for the Pubbies’ campaigns — and should not be risen to. Thanks Justaham.
I know I shouldn’t end my sentences with prepositions, but will continue to.
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 politicians scandal thats 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 werent 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 its 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.