SA210
04-23-2012, 04:56 AM
Ok, he cheated on his wife, he lied about the affair and the child he had with his mistress. We all know that, and I don't condone what he did.
Whether you like him or not, and most I'm sure hate him...Is he guilty of campaign finance fraud?.. hatred aside.
As many know i don't think his affair and lying about it has anything to do with how he would have run the country or his political beliefs. We see that Arnold had an affair and love child.. California survived, Bill Clinton cheated, Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, the list goes on.
People want him punished for his affair.
And it's no coincidence in my opinion that the US Attorney who first started this proceeding is a Republican looking for higher office., who also from what I read reported by Rachel Maddows show that Edwards and the Republican US Attorney "crossed paths" in years prior.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/maddow-john-edwards-being-singled-out
DELLINGER: There's no question that it's an inconvenient fact for the government. There's never been a case like this before. This is not Blagojevich selling a senate seat. This was not an ambassadorship for sale. A lot of folks have wondered what could have motivated this type of prosecution. It is a fact that the U.S. attorney, a staunch Republican who is able to stay in office, thanks to the Republican U.S. attorney scandal stayed in office during the first two years of the Obama administration. That U.S. attorney indicted John Edwards and stepped down and started running as a Republican for congress. He and Edwards crossed paths in the years past. I think there's a discomfort with a novel prosecution and the pivotal role played by someone who decided to play the candidate. He may be the next U.S. senator from North Carolina.
MADDOW: Has he made an issue of the fact that he brought their prosecution against John Edwards in trying to build his political career? Has he been campaigning on it?
DELLINGER: It's exhibit A.
This isn't the normal case, and no case sets precedents. The money never went to his campaign, and never touched his hands. Their key witness is Andrew Young who also LIED that he was the father of the child, so he has his own credibility issues and wasted no time in trying to get rich off of his own book on the matter.
Again, hate aside..Did he commit campaign finance fraud, and secondly will he be convicted?
I say no he didn't. On a conviction..That's tough, it all depends on what the jury is convinced of and if their personal hate for the guy interferes and whether or not the Judge allows the 2 FEC Chairmen to testify for Edwards. I do know many political experts, even haters of Edwards think the case is a sham.
What's your honest opinion? Any lawyers have an opinion?
Real discussion, no childish crap. It is important, tax dollars are being spent on this. More than what they say Edwards used lol
Let's see the fighter he always claimed to be. They offered him a deal, take a few months in prison and he retains his license to practice law. Edwards turned it down and will face up to 30 years if convicted now. Wow.
Cheater, yes. Criminal, no. We shall see..
I say he walks.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57418496/john-edwards-incredible-gamble/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ndn-video-page,0,3091608.htmlstory?freewheel=90921&sitesection=sechicagotribune&VID=23615037
------------------------------------------------------
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/22/11342372-five-big-questions-as-the-john-edwards-trial-starts?lite
You've heard of "blended families"? This case features two "blended trial teams." Edwards has churned through nearly a dozen lawyers but has settled finally on the threesome of Washington-based Abbe Lowell and North Carolina lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham. The latter two joined Team Edwards just a month ago, but they know well the key fact witnesses (Edwards, his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and political aide-turned-legal nemesis Andrew Young), having represented Hunter in her civil lawsuit against Young over possession of the infamous "sex tape." Lowell has led Edwards' defense team since August. The eleventh-hour addition of Duncan and Van Laningham seems to have gone smoothly, but the test will come when the jury is in the box. How much of a role will Lowell (and Edwards) let the local lawyers play? (I predict a big one, particularly for Van Laningham.)
The prosecution trial team has been more stable, but it is also a Washington-North Carolina mix. Two lawyers are from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department in Washington, and the third, Robert Higdon, is with the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh, N.C. Combining "Main Justice" and "Main Street" federal prosecutors proved disastrous in the Ted Stevens case. Public Integrity needs this prosecution to be scandal-free. (I predict it will be.)
Beyond the two legal teams, there is the larger issue of the extent to which U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles will rein in or let loose the lawyers in terms of both the pace and the substance of their work.
Will the former Federal Election Commission members get to testify?
Two former FEC chairmen, Robert Lenhard and Scott E. Thomas, are prepared to testify that Edwards' conduct does not violate civil law, much less criminal. Eagles has so far denied prosecution efforts to bar their testimony but has instructed Edwards' counsel "not to address [FEC] expert testimony during opening statements." Whether the commissioners ultimately testify, and to what extent they are permitted to opine, may ultimately be more important than whether Hunter or Edwards take the stand.
Does the jury focus more on the facts or the law? On what this case is or what this case isn't?
There are many ways to view the Edwards case, but here are the two most salient to my mind: The prosecution will want the jury to focus on the facts and what the case is about. The defense hopes the jury fixates on the law and what the case is not about.
Here's why. Edwards' personal conduct (cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and lying about it) is abhorrent. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in "off the books" activity in the orbit of a political candidate should be troubling to all but the most laissez faire observer. The more the jury focuses on the facts of what did happen, the more likely is a conviction. Conversely, the strength of Edwards' defense lies in the lack of legal precedent (i.e., law) for a criminal prosecution based on the pattern of facts present here and how his actions differ from the typical political corruption cases (i.e., quid pro quos, excessive and unreported donations that pay for TV ads, get-out-the-vote or other direct campaign support, or lobbyist-sponsored lining of a politician's pockets). The more Edwards is able to introduce evidence (through the former campaign regulators or otherwise) about the legal novelty of the charges against him, the better his chances.
How well will the jury understand the case?
The Edwards case is no ordinary whodunit. When a death is ruled a murder, there's no doubt someone committed a crime. The jury's role is then limited to deciding whether or not the defendant is the perpetrator. In the Edwards trial, the jury must first decide whether key facts are established (What did Edwards do? What did he know?). Then it must determine whether those facts constitute criminal activity. I've worked on campaign finance lawsuits as an attorney, taught election law as a professor and followed the Edwards investigation and prosecution closely from the outset. Maybe I'm alone in finding the issues of law and fact implicated by this case complex (and at times confusing), but I doubt it.
What will the jury instructions and the verdict form consist of?
Because of the case's complexity and its likely duration of a month or longer, the jury instructions and the verdict form that will close the trial could be of paramount importance. So far, they have received little attention. But as the trial winds down, expect heated arguments (oral and in written, and outside the presence of the jury) between the prosecution and the defense over the precise wording of each.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-john-edwards-trial-set-to-begin-on-campaign-finance-charges-20120422,0,4182763.story
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that generally supports the Justice Department against politicians charged with corruption, took the unusual step of criticizing the prosecution of Edwards. The group contends that the payments were gifts, not campaign contributions, noting they continued after Edwards ended his campaign.
Whether you like him or not, and most I'm sure hate him...Is he guilty of campaign finance fraud?.. hatred aside.
As many know i don't think his affair and lying about it has anything to do with how he would have run the country or his political beliefs. We see that Arnold had an affair and love child.. California survived, Bill Clinton cheated, Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, the list goes on.
People want him punished for his affair.
And it's no coincidence in my opinion that the US Attorney who first started this proceeding is a Republican looking for higher office., who also from what I read reported by Rachel Maddows show that Edwards and the Republican US Attorney "crossed paths" in years prior.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/maddow-john-edwards-being-singled-out
DELLINGER: There's no question that it's an inconvenient fact for the government. There's never been a case like this before. This is not Blagojevich selling a senate seat. This was not an ambassadorship for sale. A lot of folks have wondered what could have motivated this type of prosecution. It is a fact that the U.S. attorney, a staunch Republican who is able to stay in office, thanks to the Republican U.S. attorney scandal stayed in office during the first two years of the Obama administration. That U.S. attorney indicted John Edwards and stepped down and started running as a Republican for congress. He and Edwards crossed paths in the years past. I think there's a discomfort with a novel prosecution and the pivotal role played by someone who decided to play the candidate. He may be the next U.S. senator from North Carolina.
MADDOW: Has he made an issue of the fact that he brought their prosecution against John Edwards in trying to build his political career? Has he been campaigning on it?
DELLINGER: It's exhibit A.
This isn't the normal case, and no case sets precedents. The money never went to his campaign, and never touched his hands. Their key witness is Andrew Young who also LIED that he was the father of the child, so he has his own credibility issues and wasted no time in trying to get rich off of his own book on the matter.
Again, hate aside..Did he commit campaign finance fraud, and secondly will he be convicted?
I say no he didn't. On a conviction..That's tough, it all depends on what the jury is convinced of and if their personal hate for the guy interferes and whether or not the Judge allows the 2 FEC Chairmen to testify for Edwards. I do know many political experts, even haters of Edwards think the case is a sham.
What's your honest opinion? Any lawyers have an opinion?
Real discussion, no childish crap. It is important, tax dollars are being spent on this. More than what they say Edwards used lol
Let's see the fighter he always claimed to be. They offered him a deal, take a few months in prison and he retains his license to practice law. Edwards turned it down and will face up to 30 years if convicted now. Wow.
Cheater, yes. Criminal, no. We shall see..
I say he walks.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57418496/john-edwards-incredible-gamble/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ndn-video-page,0,3091608.htmlstory?freewheel=90921&sitesection=sechicagotribune&VID=23615037
------------------------------------------------------
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/22/11342372-five-big-questions-as-the-john-edwards-trial-starts?lite
You've heard of "blended families"? This case features two "blended trial teams." Edwards has churned through nearly a dozen lawyers but has settled finally on the threesome of Washington-based Abbe Lowell and North Carolina lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham. The latter two joined Team Edwards just a month ago, but they know well the key fact witnesses (Edwards, his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and political aide-turned-legal nemesis Andrew Young), having represented Hunter in her civil lawsuit against Young over possession of the infamous "sex tape." Lowell has led Edwards' defense team since August. The eleventh-hour addition of Duncan and Van Laningham seems to have gone smoothly, but the test will come when the jury is in the box. How much of a role will Lowell (and Edwards) let the local lawyers play? (I predict a big one, particularly for Van Laningham.)
The prosecution trial team has been more stable, but it is also a Washington-North Carolina mix. Two lawyers are from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department in Washington, and the third, Robert Higdon, is with the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh, N.C. Combining "Main Justice" and "Main Street" federal prosecutors proved disastrous in the Ted Stevens case. Public Integrity needs this prosecution to be scandal-free. (I predict it will be.)
Beyond the two legal teams, there is the larger issue of the extent to which U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles will rein in or let loose the lawyers in terms of both the pace and the substance of their work.
Will the former Federal Election Commission members get to testify?
Two former FEC chairmen, Robert Lenhard and Scott E. Thomas, are prepared to testify that Edwards' conduct does not violate civil law, much less criminal. Eagles has so far denied prosecution efforts to bar their testimony but has instructed Edwards' counsel "not to address [FEC] expert testimony during opening statements." Whether the commissioners ultimately testify, and to what extent they are permitted to opine, may ultimately be more important than whether Hunter or Edwards take the stand.
Does the jury focus more on the facts or the law? On what this case is or what this case isn't?
There are many ways to view the Edwards case, but here are the two most salient to my mind: The prosecution will want the jury to focus on the facts and what the case is about. The defense hopes the jury fixates on the law and what the case is not about.
Here's why. Edwards' personal conduct (cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and lying about it) is abhorrent. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in "off the books" activity in the orbit of a political candidate should be troubling to all but the most laissez faire observer. The more the jury focuses on the facts of what did happen, the more likely is a conviction. Conversely, the strength of Edwards' defense lies in the lack of legal precedent (i.e., law) for a criminal prosecution based on the pattern of facts present here and how his actions differ from the typical political corruption cases (i.e., quid pro quos, excessive and unreported donations that pay for TV ads, get-out-the-vote or other direct campaign support, or lobbyist-sponsored lining of a politician's pockets). The more Edwards is able to introduce evidence (through the former campaign regulators or otherwise) about the legal novelty of the charges against him, the better his chances.
How well will the jury understand the case?
The Edwards case is no ordinary whodunit. When a death is ruled a murder, there's no doubt someone committed a crime. The jury's role is then limited to deciding whether or not the defendant is the perpetrator. In the Edwards trial, the jury must first decide whether key facts are established (What did Edwards do? What did he know?). Then it must determine whether those facts constitute criminal activity. I've worked on campaign finance lawsuits as an attorney, taught election law as a professor and followed the Edwards investigation and prosecution closely from the outset. Maybe I'm alone in finding the issues of law and fact implicated by this case complex (and at times confusing), but I doubt it.
What will the jury instructions and the verdict form consist of?
Because of the case's complexity and its likely duration of a month or longer, the jury instructions and the verdict form that will close the trial could be of paramount importance. So far, they have received little attention. But as the trial winds down, expect heated arguments (oral and in written, and outside the presence of the jury) between the prosecution and the defense over the precise wording of each.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-john-edwards-trial-set-to-begin-on-campaign-finance-charges-20120422,0,4182763.story
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that generally supports the Justice Department against politicians charged with corruption, took the unusual step of criticizing the prosecution of Edwards. The group contends that the payments were gifts, not campaign contributions, noting they continued after Edwards ended his campaign.