Patterico's Pontifications

5/31/2012

Edwards Verdict?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:24 pm

Have looked at a couple reports and the situation is fluid and confusing but I’m opening a thread for discussion. Sounds as though they may have a verdict on one of six counts but are still deliberating on the other five.

UPDATE: Not guilty on one count; mistrial on other five.

135 Responses to “Edwards Verdict?”

  1. Fox Radio reported one guilty verdict and 5 hung counts. Then they retracted that any verdict had been announced on the one count the jury reported they had reached.

    Jury was sent back to continue deliberations per Fox Radio.

    Ed from SFV (68921e)

  2. Whatever it will be the MSM will let this story drop faster than a rock thrown into the Potomac.

    Harrison (916bde)

  3. This is nonsensical. The IRS should have gone after him for taxes, interest and civil penalties, at taxpayers’ “we taxpayers”, profit (200%?) instead of cost.

    nk (875f57)

  4. This is so much less interesting than Romney appearing at Solyndra. Brilliant move today by him. :)

    Psycotte (077749)

  5. This trial doesn’t sit well with me.

    JD (8e63c8)

  6. It is racist to talk about President Vampire Capitalist flushing $535 million of taxpayer money down the drain by lending it to his politically connected friends at poorly conceived solar panel maker Solyndra which predictably failed and cost more than 1,100 people their jobs.

    daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9)

  7. the situation is fluid

    5 hung counts

    I thought this was the Coliseum article for a second.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  8. True, JD, he is a wretched nazgul who should torn apart by rapid wolves, but there was no case.

    narciso (494474)

  9. One count acquittal. Mistrial for the other five.

    Ed from SFV (68921e)

  10. carlitos (1) how did your study of Svensmark’s hypothesis go that weekend? (2) what conclusions did you draw and why? (3) will you review this article about Svensmark’s most recent peer-reviewed paper: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” published by the Royal Astronomical Society?

    Specifically, Svensmark explains his reasoning and research about (1) how the Earth’s changing position in the Milky Way galaxy and also the Sun’s changing properties drive climate change, and (2) how these drive biodiversity, including the differing types of gases used by organisms in respiration, and (3) total biomass, and (4) both atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels.

    Your thoughts?

    Random (fba0b1)

  11. I spent that weekend frolicking with girls like the ones in that coliseum article.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  12. Carlitos is my idol.

    JD (395555)

  13. “This trial doesn’t sit well with me.”

    It’s a total joke.

    Trying politivcians for being corrupt makes about as much sense as trying lions for being carnivorous

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  14. @ Carlitos–

    Dogs like to frolic.

    On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog.

    elissa (db8634)

  15. Of course all those liberals in NC found him innoceny. Er wait…

    tye (e66ed7)

  16. tye- was there a point you were attempting to make, or was that just an half hearted drive by? If you were trying to make a point what was it?

    elissa (db8634)

  17. This was not bribery — buying favors from an elected official. It was a friend buying off a girlfriend of a married man. You can make a crime out of anything. I think I violated some EPA rule because I did not sanitize my shoes with the perfectly correct mixture of sodium hypochlorite.

    nk (875f57)

  18. elissa, your business, but I would not waste time on tye.

    nk (875f57)

  19. “tye- was there a point you were attempting to make”

    The only point that guy has is the one on top of his head.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  20. “This is nonsensical. The IRS should have gone after him for taxes, interest and civil penalties, at taxpayers’ “we taxpayers”, profit (200%?) instead of cost.”

    I agree completely. Campaign finance laws are BS. This should have been a tax case.

    Mike_K (326cba)

  21. That’s really cool. Now, we like it when the IRS attacks political rivals.

    It isn’t Zombie Reagan anymore – it is Zombie Nixon.

    Jamie (ee4a20)

  22. I think Edwards was acquitted on Count 3, the count involving funds provided by Bunny Mellon. Wasn’t that the count where the prosecution had its strongest evidence? If so, it doesn’t bode well for a retrial but it’s good news for Edwards and maybe those poor American kids he’s always talked about:

    “I really believe (God) thinks there’s still some good things I can do,” he said. “Whatever happens with this legal stuff going forward, what I’m hopeful about is all those kids that I’ve seen, you know, in the poorest parts of this country and in some of the poorest places in the world, that I can help them, in whatever way I’m still capable of helping them.”

    Edwards also said that while he doesn’t believe he did anything illegal, “I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong.”

    “There is no one else responsible for my sins,” Edwards said. “I am responsible. And if I want to find the person who should be held accountable for my sins, honestly I don’t have to go any further than the mirror. It’s me. It is me and me alone.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  23. It’s for the children.

    elissa (db8634)

  24. That’s really cool. Now, we like it when the IRS attacks political rivals.

    Jamie is kind of a douche.

    JD (c3946e)

  25. ‘“I really believe (God) thinks there’s still some good things I can do,” he said.’

    Speak out on behalf of the oppressed Silky Ponies of the world?

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  26. Not guilty on one count and “mistrial” on the others.

    Pony’s punishment
    he’ll have to stare in mirror
    and see evil guy

    Colonel Haiku (e2362b)

  27. steaming pile of sh*t
    will be what he sees… but wait
    Pony is in there!

    Colonel Haiku (e2362b)

  28. ‘“I really believe (God) thinks there’s still some good things I can do,” he said.’

    Meaning, “I need to win me some more lawsuits based on junk science. I mean I need to win some more lawsuits based on junk science for the children, not for me.”

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  29. Does the jury get to judge the law as well as fact? Because not guilty is probably quite right on the law.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  30. And he spoke of the future, suggesting he wasn’t preparing to leave the public spotlight.

    …Edwards also said that while he doesn’t believe he did anything illegal, “I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong.”

    If the doesn’t want to leave the public spotlight, maybe he can now co-host a show on CNN with Elliot Spitzer. He certainly listed the required qualifications at his post-trial press conference.

    The thing is, I don’t believe this sordid episode has killed his chances with the Democratic party. Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate even knowing the guy was a fraud. The story is that Edwards told Kerry that he had never told anyone about how he curled up on the morgue slab next to his dead son. And Kerry had a cold chill run up his spine, as Edwards had told him the exact same story before. It turns out Edwards traded a lot on his dead son’s memory.

    Then Kerry still chose Edwards to be his VP. I don’t know what you have to do to ruin your future with the Democratic party. Apparently being 0/32s Cherokee to get Harvard to hire you as a “woman of color” won’t do it.

    But then, I also don’t believe we’ve heard the last from Anthony Wiener, either.

    Steve (958caf)

  31. “Then Kerry still chose Edwards to be his VP.”

    Yeah, well everyone wants a Silky Pony in the family.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  32. “Because not guilty is probably quite right on the law.”

    Ah, hell. He ain’t guilty of anything more than cheating on his dying wife and robbing the taxpayers blind.

    If we start jailing politicians just for that, the prisons will soon be full and Washington empty.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  33. I can still see where the Kerry-Edwards bumper-stickers, used to be.

    mg (44de53)

  34. “And Kerry had a cold chill run up his spine”

    What happened? Did someone threaten to put a tax on his yacht?

    He scares pretty easy, considering he’s a battle hardened veteran.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  35. It was when Edwards was describing his son’s death, and he was forgetting that he had already said it. Nothing to blame a man for. Kerry can go have his 57 flavors.

    nk (875f57)

  36. Does the jury get to judge the law as well as fact? Because not guilty is probably quite right on the law.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/31/2012 @ 3:49 pm

    nk (875f57)

  37. Does the jury get to judge the law as well as fact? Because not guilty is probably quite right on the law.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 5/31/2012 @ 3:49 pm

    Of course. The jury, or judge, looks at the law and the facts and how they fit together. If they don’t fit, you gotta acquit.

    nk (875f57)

  38. If you mean does the jury think the law is wrong … no we do not do that here. Scotland’s the place.

    nk (875f57)

  39. You know sometimes I wonder is there any point to this exercise;

    http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10100&Itemid=331

    rob guccione (494474)

  40. John Edwards is a scumbag on a variety of levels, but I don’t think he should go to prison for these alleged campaign contributions “shenanigans.”

    I think anyone should be allowed to give as much money as they see fit to any political candidate’s war chest—it’s the American way.
    Certainly, it should have to be reported that Joe Blow gave a billion dollars to Candidate X, but the federal government shouldn’t prohibit Joe Blow from giving the money to Candidate X.
    It should be left to the electorate to decide if the money is “dirty” or whatever.

    These unfortunate trials (Tom DeLay, John Edwards) are the serpentine webs that are spun by virtue of the liberal insistence that people are not allowed to legally give as much money as they choose to the political candidate of their choice.

    That’s why it’s so funny to listen to all the liberal fans of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Laws screaming that it’s not fair that the Silky Pony was charged with a crime.

    After all, it’s a violation of federal law to sneak across the border with drugs, but the feds don’t bring down the hammer on that—they’re too busy hyperventillating about how much money Bunny Mellon gave to the Silky Pony !

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  41. If he runs again, all you’ll hear from the NY Times is that he was acquitted.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  42. “If I want to find a person guilty of sins, honestly I don’t have to look any further than the mirror.”

    – John “Silky Pony” Edwards

    Wherever the Pony finds himself, a mirror is usually close at hand.

    Colonel Haiku (7f120a)

  43. Yeah how about that Romney. I never thought he’d win me over. Someone got Romchambeaued today.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  44. 35. “And Kerry had a cold chill run up his spine”

    What happened? Did someone threaten to put a tax on his yacht?

    He scares pretty easy, considering he’s a battle hardened veteran.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 5/31/2012 @ 5:59 pm

    Here’s an article in Time magazine in which Kerry’s campaign manager, Bob Shrum, describes how Kerry recounted the incident.

    Edwards told Kerry how he climbed up next to his son, hugged him, and promised that he’d work to:

    …make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html#ixzz1wVFeb2SM

    Edwards I suppose thought he’d impress Kerry with his “empathy,” as if that qualified him to be his veep. Kerry told Shrum he was shocked, not impressed, as Edwards had told him the same story years before in almost the exact words. Shrum uses the word “chilling” in his account, but that could have been his characterization and not a direct quote from Kerry. But I’m sure Kerry used words to similar effect as chilling.

    What’s even more chilling is that he walked out of the courtroom and used similar words as he talked about God’s future plans for him in “public service:”

    “I really believe (God) thinks there’s still some good things I can do,” he said. “Whatever happens with this legal stuff going forward, what I’m hopeful about is all those kids that I’ve seen, you know, in the poorest parts of this country and in some of the poorest places in the world, that I can help them, in whatever way I’m still capable of helping them.”

    Mr. Two Americas is still talking as if anyone will believe he isn’t in it just for himself. It’s the same act he’s been putting on his entire adult life and he stuck to the script when he left the courtroom today.

    Steve (958caf)

  45. I note that some (*cough* Politico *cough*) are suggesting that Edwards can rehabilitate himself and re-enter public life. They have their 7 suggestions, I have mine:

    1. Go to rehab in Tijuana.
    2. Join Marion Berry’s staff in DC, perhaps as the guy who walks back asinine comments.
    3. Become ethics counsel for the DC schools.
    4. Become ambassador to Mali.
    5. Move on to Zimbabwe.
    6. Then Syria.
    6. Come back to the US as a corpse seasoned diplomat and try that run at the White House again! The press will love you!

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  46. What did his late wife, God bless her, call him: Breck Girl?

    As for his affair with the blonde bimbo: Man and woman … a baby … that’s how we stayed around.

    nk (875f57)

  47. as Edwards had told him the same story years before in almost the exact words.

    Maybe it’s an obvious point, but this schtick of Edwards’ is obviously well rehearsed, and something he used on a regular basis while telling his mark that he had never told anyone before.

    And the guy’s so shallow and self-absorbed he’d promptly forget who he pulled this act on.

    He strikes as me as still so shallow and self-absorbed he can use a variation of the script to get back into the good graces of his party and its base. I’m not convinced he’s entirely wrong.

    Steve (958caf)

  48. Edwards had lots of time to practice his delivery, it being something you need a mirror for.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  49. scumbaggery wins
    yes it’s true it often does
    until it doesn’t

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329727.php

    Colonel Haiku (7f120a)

  50. I don’t need to look farther than the mirror, to find a sinner, either.

    And it’s not the sins I do not repent, it’s the sins I plan.

    Eloquence and erudition and talking pretty and having a pleasant demeanor and good grooming and a white smile are not sins. Not giving your baby your name, may be.

    nk (875f57)

  51. Yup the Feds will drop the idea of a retrial faster than a turd falling off a tall moose.

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  52. And it’s not the sins I do not repent, it’s the sins I plan.

    There’s one sin I don’t plan on committing. The sin of ever allowing this shyster to get elected to public office if it’s at all in my power.

    Steve (958caf)

  53. Yup the Feds will drop the idea of a retrial faster than a turd falling off a tall moose.

    Believe it or don’t the turd hits sooner falling from a short moose. Galileo.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  54. BTW, is there anyone who thinks, had Edwards been elected, that the Dems would have done anything other than defend him? They only go after him now because it’s free.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  55. Off topic: Storobin wins! After more than two months of counting, David Storobin finally won disgraced Democrat Carl Kruger’s seat, and becomes the first ever Russian in the state senate, the first ever Republican from that area, and the first Jewish Republican from Brooklyn in many generations. Unfortunately he’ll have less than a month to sit in the senate before it dissolves, and in November the district will disappear.

    Milhouse (312124)

  56. Ah, hell. He ain’t guilty of anything more than cheating on his dying wife and robbing the taxpayers blind.

    If we start jailing politicians just for that, the prisons will soon be full and Washington empty.

    Comment by Dave Surls

    Oh, please! Oh, please! Let it be soon!

    Dianna (f12db5)

  57. I don’t need to look farther than the mirror, to find a sinner, either.

    And it’s not the sins I do not repent, it’s the sins I plan.

    Devastating statement.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  58. Not everyone does.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  59. Damn God.

    In the last eight months, I have spent three of them in hospitals. I have lost a foot and half an eye. Come within reach of me, Jehovah/Yaveh/Lord/Eloi/Thee mou.

    nk (875f57)

  60. It’s midnight at Oasis Michigan, and I am being as big an idiot as I can. Thank you for putting up with my blathering and sniveling, Dana.

    nk (875f57)

  61. hang in there, brother

    Dustin (330eed)

  62. “And it’s not the sins I do not repent, it’s the sins I plan.”

    I find if I spend less time thinking less of myself and less time thinking of myself, life goes better.

    daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9)

  63. Life lives herself. Participate. Say, “Thank you, for one more day”?

    nk (875f57)

  64. the federal government doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case

    but that applies to all the cases anymore

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  65. Mr. nk as long as you’re here doing the commentings I think you’re hanging in there like a banshee

    which is a lot of hanging in there really

    so, keep doing that plus whatever else feels appropriate

    I didn’t know about your foot I hate that for you

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  66. DRJ, I think you’re right (#22 — 5/31/2012 @ 2:57 pm) that the count on which the jury acquitted Edwards was widely viewed as the one on which the prosecution had its strongest evidence. One could argue that that actually cuts in favor of seeking a retrial on the mistried counts, because it suggests that this particular jury was being irrational (and that one might hope for a different result from a different, more rational jury).

    Even were that true, however — even if this jury was irrational — double jeopardy of course will prevent re-trying Edwards on that count, so what’s left is, presumably, less likely to result in a conviction even from a rational jury. It’s the prospect of only being able to re-try their (comparatively) weaker claims that is likely to deter prosecutors from seeking the re-trial. And with that count thrown out, some of the evidence that was relevant only to it during this trial may be excluded as irrelevant to the remaining counts being re-tried.

    Were I czar, I would keep the current campaign finance disclosure laws, and clarify them in several respects (e.g., explicitly endorsing the prosecution’s “multiple purposes are okay” argument, effectively codifying Judge Eagles’ interpretation in the jury instructions). I would eliminate, however, the dollar limitations. Thus, if someone like Bunny wants to give someone like Edwards $850k to keep a bimbo eruption from torpedoing a campaign, that would be completely legal — so long as it was fully disclosed. It’s the cover-up that is the crime, the means by which the candidate is attempting to commit fraud upon the voting public. And that’s exactly the public purpose that Bunny Mellon was undoubtedly trying to frustrate when she conspired to conceal the payments. As the prosecutors noted in closing arguments, the system did work remarkably well with respect to the two $400 haircuts that were paid from campaign funds: Edwards had to disclose those payments, and did so, thereby immunizing himself from any liability for campaign finance violations; but he should have paid, and did in fact still pay, a political price by people whose opinions of his “two Americas” theme were dashed by the $400 haircuts.

    Beldar (f9a493)

  67. Connect the dots. The point I was making was that, had the trial been located in a more liberal state, you would use that as your scapegoat. You can’t do that… so what other conspiracy are you going to use as an excuse?

    tye (1781ad)

  68. Beldar,

    I agree, as long as the note on the check says “given to cover up his affair with a bimbo.”

    :)

    Dan S (cdeb05)

  69. People don’t care about truth and justice. They care about groups and allegiances.

    Random (fba0b1)

  70. Connect the dots. The point I was making was that, had the trial been located in a more liberal state, you would use that as your scapegoat. You can’t do that… so what other conspiracy are you going to use as an excuse?

    Comment by tye — 6/1/2012 @ 4:04 am

    That it was the right outcome by the law? Quit projecting, asshat.

    JD (395555)

  71. I love that republicans tend to be moral relativists while heartily trumpeting an opposite view.

    tye (58844e)

  72. Beldar,

    I agree with your point about how campaign finance laws and disclosure should work.

    And anyone who is interested in the legal aspects of the Edwards case should read Beldar’s blog.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  73. It does bother me, that Edwards did not stand up straight and say, “I have a daughter. I will care for her and for her mother”.

    nk (875f57)

  74. Nk, that was the worst of it for me, too.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  75. It does bother me, that Edwards did not stand up straight and say, “I have a daughter. I will care for her and for her mother”.

    Comment by nk — 6/1/2012 @ 6:53 am

    Nk, that was the worst of it for me, too.

    Comment by Sarahw — 6/1/2012 @ 7:04 am

    He’s probably worried that could establish a precedent. I’m sure they’d get pretty expensive if only you could add them all up.

    Random (fba0b1)

  76. Forsaking all others. The promise least kept, these days. But none of it the baby’s fault.

    I have seen daddies bringing paternity suits to have their child recognized as theirs. Voluntarily subjecting themselves to support.

    Poor men. Working 14 hours a day.

    I will not speak for Elizabeth.

    But Octavia raised Mark Anthony’s children from Cleopatra.

    There are men and women with souls. And some only with a mirror.

    nk (875f57)

  77. 75. It does bother me, that Edwards did not stand up straight and say, “I have a daughter. I will care for her and for her mother”.

    Comment by nk — 6/1/2012 @ 6:53 am

    76. Nk, that was the worst of it for me, too.

    Comment by Sarahw — 6/1/2012 @ 7:04 am

    There were lots of worsts for me. Beginning with failing to take care of his child. Continuing with Edwards attempt to get his aide, Andrew Young, to take responsibility for his mistress and child by pretending he was having an affair with hunter. Including to roping Young’s wife into the plot. And then extending to his defense that Young was the one who was lying.

    The bottom line is he treated everyone involved like dirt; his wife, his mistress, his employees and their families, and the child. All so he could, as Beldar put it:

    …commit fraud upon the voting public.

    In effect, Mr. Two Americas was treating the entire nation like dirt so he could pursue his personal ambitions.

    And I still think it’s pretty bad that he prostituted the memory of his son, Wade, so he could advance his career.

    If he’s going to use the death of his son as a well-rehearsed prop for political self-promotion, how would you expect him to treat an inconvenient love child that could do nothing but get in the way of him getting what he wanted? He treated her exactly as I would have expected.

    As far as the talk about how we’re all sinners goes, well and good. You won’t get an argument from me. But I don’t see why that should make me a dupe and believe a man who, as I pointed out above, continued the same transgressions that got him into hot water in the first place during his trials.

    Especially when he leaves the trial and holds a press conference in which he indicates he doesn’t want to leave the stage. Using almost the exact same language that he used to prostitute his son’s memory when he was trying to worm his way onto the Kerry ticket.

    I believe in redemption; I think Charles Colson was a prime high-profile example of it. But I see no sign that Edwards has changed his self-absorbed, self-serving ways.

    Steve (958caf)

  78. I should have said “beginning with him cheating on his wife.”

    Steve (958caf)

  79. He should buy her a pony.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  80. Interesting explanations from some of the jurors. They heard the evidence and are the ones who get to make the decision, but “He didn’t get the money, so I just don’t think he was guilty” isn’t convincing.

    It sounds like at least one juror treated Edards’ mistress Rielle and his daughter Quinn as nothing to him. Of course, sometimes he acted like they were nothing, but they weren’t or he wouldn’t have given them money.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  81. Interesting indeed, DRJ. Essentially the jurors are saying Edwards couldn’t be guilty because he laundered what would have been an illegal contribution through his aide.

    Steve (958caf)

  82. I think I should add that the juror who said “He didn’t get the money, so I just don’t think he was guilty” never even understood the fundamental elements of even the defense argument.

    Edwards never denied receiving the money. He just denied it was “for the purpose” of paying for his campaign. It was, he claimed, for the purpose of keeping the affair a secret from his wife.

    Not that anyone with two brain cells to rub together doubts for an instant that it was for the purpose of keeping the affair a secret from the electorate.

    Steve (958caf)

  83. I don’t know why this had to be so convoluted. He had the money, he could have cut the check. From concern about Elizabeth, because she was dying?

    But … it’s still just a tax issue.

    nk (875f57)

  84. I mean, he should have given money to Hunter, to protect Elizabeth from distress.

    nk (875f57)

  85. That was way more incoherent than normal, “tye”. It is like you felt compelled to write those words, regardless what was being said.

    JD (092622)

  86. nk,

    There have been reports that Edwards couldn’t use his personal bank accounts to pay Rielle because Elizabeth monitored his bank, ATM and cell phone use. That hurt Edwards because it’s a big part of why they needed a scheme, and why it came out and was prosecuted. Ironically, however, it also may have helped Edwards because it enabled his defense attorneys to claim the scheme was designed to mislead or defraud Elizabeth, not the law.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  87. I suspect John Edwards will be a powerful officeholder in the future.

    He will be given trust and power over this nation’s problems. Just like all the other people who are trusted yet are leaving our kids with trillions in debt, as though they are not trustworthy stewards after all.

    Prove me wrong, USA.

    Dustin (330eed)

  88. What’s up with this “tye” characcter?

    Brain damage?

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  89. “I suspect John Edwards will be a powerful officeholder in the future.”

    Either that, or a famous prostitute.

    Not that there’s much difference between the two.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  90. 89. I suspect John Edwards will be a powerful officeholder in the future.

    He will be given trust and power over this nation’s problems. Just like all the other people who are trusted yet are leaving our kids with trillions in debt, as though they are not trustworthy stewards after all.

    Prove me wrong, USA.

    Comment by Dustin — 6/1/2012 @ 9:22 am

    Yet, if the press reports are accurate:

    Edwards couldn’t use his personal bank accounts to pay Rielle because Elizabeth monitored his bank, ATM and cell phone use. That hurt Edwards because it’s a big part of why they needed a scheme…

    So we know his wife didn’t trust him with the money. Or to keep his pants zipped, which is clearly why she’d have to keep such a close eye on the money and his cell phone. And he proved her right; she couldn’t trust him.

    And yet, Dustin, I’m afraid you’re right. A man who’d betray his wife, have an affair and a child with another woman (anybody believe given the above this is his first affair?), try to force his aides to help cover it up with what must be close to 7 figures in other people’s money, won’t have any serious problem getting put in charge of some treasury full of other people’s money.

    Steve (958caf)

  91. My posts are easily interpreted by people who possess basic reading comprehension skills…

    tye (7e73d5)

  92. “tye” is having a moment.

    JD (092622)

  93. George Zimmerman’s bond was revoked and he’s back in jail.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  94. For what?

    JD (092622)

  95. The judge said Zimmerman misled the court about his assets at the bond hearing, because Zimmerman failed to advise the court he had access to $135k in funds donated online:

    Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said the fact that Zimmerman and his wife never used the money for anything indicated “there was no deceit.”

    “I do think that the Zimmerman family was acting with the constraints they thought they had,” O’Mara said after the ruling. “I don’t think that they had free access to that money and I think that was evident by the way that they used it and didn’t use it.”

    Prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda described the Zimmermans’ testimony as “misleading.”

    “This court was led to believe they didn’t have a single penny,” said De la Rionda. “It was misleading and I don’t know what words to use other than it was a blatant lie.”

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  96. My guess is the Zimmermans thought that money was for their defense, i.e., attorneys, but they should have told the court. These high-profile cases have so many twists and turns that no one learns in law school.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  97. Does that mean there will be a re-hearing of the bond issue?

    JD (092622)

  98. I don’t know if there’s a right to bond (or a bond hearing) in Florida, but the defense can ask for a hearing and the court will probably set one. I assume the defense will try to convince the court that Zimmerman and his wife didn’t think that was their money so they didn’t disclose it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  99. “The judge said Zimmerman misled the court about his assets at the bond hearing, because Zimmerman failed to advise the court he had access to $135k in funds donated online:”

    One thing is for sure. Zimmerman, aside from being indigent, is a class A moron.

    Definitely too stupid to be allowed to carry a gun.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  100. How could George Zimmerman think that that money – which hadn’t even been totaled up or accounted for yet – the web site had been put up less than two weeks before – could be used for bail??

    Is it something that could legally be forfeited if he skipped bail?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  101. Bunny Mellon paid gift tax on the money she gave Edwards – this possibly interfered with a claim it was a campaign contribution.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  102. Indigent

    1. lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty

    JD (092622)

  103. “Earlier in the case, Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, had characterized his client as indigent…”–Christian Science Monitor

    If his own lawyer claims he’s indigent, that’s good enough for me…until I know better.

    Of course, if you’re living off $200,000 in handouts you’ve recieved, most people probably wouldn’t swallow the indigent claim, once they found out about the $200,000.

    That’s especially true of irate judges.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  104. Eighth Amendment, incorporated through the Fourteenth, but it’s the weakest of all prisoner rights. Bail can be denied if there is a danger the defendant will flee the jurisdiction, in a capital case (which this one is not), or, under relatively recent decisions, the defendant poses a danger to the public. My view is that law of the case does not apply, and bail may be granted at any time even though it has been denied before.

    But, DON’T LIE TO THE JUDGE.

    nk (875f57)

  105. “But, DON’T LIE TO THE JUDGE.”

    Sage advice.

    And, if you simply must lie…don’t get caught.

    That’s even more important.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  106. Zimmerman’s lawyers, at his first bond hearing, should withdraw, or be made to withdraw. Your fault or not, if you are in a situation where you CYA by calling your client a liar, GTFO.

    nk (875f57)

  107. Don’t lie in court, ever. These guys, are trained lie detectors. Judges, and lawyers on both sides. And twelve jurors that you will never fool all at any time.

    nk (875f57)

  108. any *one* time

    nk (875f57)

  109. “calling your client a liar”

    I don’t think his lawyer is calling him a liar, just a simple-minded idiot. Which is about the only defense that has a chance of working, anyway.

    “Zimmerman also surrendered his passport to authorities as a condition of being released. But in their papers, prosecutors said Zimmerman had a second passport which he still has. The second passport was a replacement for the first, which reportedly was lost.”–LAT

    Georgie, Georgie, Georgie, you are a wicked and forgetful lad, if the prosecutor and the LA Times got it right.

    I almost never make predictions about stuff like elections and court cases, but I will say that this old boy ain’t helping hisself any.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  110. Good Allah

    JD (092622)

  111. “I assume the defense will try to convince the court that Zimmerman and his wife didn’t think that was their money so they didn’t disclose it.”

    Probably not, seeing as how O’Mara has already ackowledged that $50,000 was spent on things like living expenses for Big Bad George.

    At last that’s what the papers reported last month.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  112. Dave,

    The number one thing in lawyering is that a lawyer must exercise independent judgment on behalf of his client, including independence from the client’s own judgment. Short way, “Control the client”.

    nk (875f57)

  113. Are they retesting TYrayvon’s body for the purple slurple or whatever it’s called?

    daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9)

  114. You’re right.

    Neither George nor Trayvon helped themselves, any. Trayvon fell on the knife’s edge, George is teetering on it.

    Life and freedom are such precious things. To lose them like this?

    nk (875f57)

  115. Georgie, Georgie, Georgie, you are a wicked and forgetful lad, if the prosecutor and the LA Times got it right.

    Always a dangerous thing to do, as other outlets like CNN are reporting that O’Mara told the judge that Zimmerman had given him the second passport, and it was an oversight that he (O’Mara) didn’t hand it in until Friday. Whether the reporter meant today or last Friday isn’t clear. But CNN is reporting the judge seemed to accept that explanation.

    As far as the defense funds from the website, O’Mara said in April that it was in a trust fund that the Zimmermans didn’t control but that his attorney’s control.

    Whatever turns out to be the case, the judge probably figures he can’t be seen to cut Zimmerman any slack. If he sees his job, too, as to prevent riots. So I don’t see the judge giving Zimmerman any breaks, even if as O’Mara says the prosecution has mischaracterized the situation.

    Steve (958caf)

  116. Anyway, I just watched a video of Judge Lester revoking bond. He wasn’t too concerned about the passport thing, but he wasn’t too happy about the money situation, which is why George is currently residing in the county lockup.

    Man, that Zimmerman is an idiot (I also believe he’s a stone cold liar…though not a very good one).

    Too bad his idiocy led to a 17 year old kid getting shot and killed.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  117. “…other outlets like CNN are reporting that O’Mara told the judge that Zimmerman had given him the second passport, and it was an oversight that he (O’Mara) didn’t hand it in until Friday.”

    That probably explains why the judge wasn’t overly concerned about the passport thing in the video I just watched. Sounds pretty weak to me, but if the judge buys it, then so be it.

    “As far as the defense funds from the website, O’Mara said in April that it was in a trust fund that the Zimmermans didn’t control but that his attorney’s control.”

    The judge seemed pretty firm on the idea that that money should have been reported, and that it was Zimmerman’s fault that it hadn’t been…hence the revocation of bond.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  118. “So I don’t see the judge giving Zimmerman any breaks…”

    I wouldn’t either. The defense was supposed to hand over Zimmerman’s passport and report all assets available to Zimmerman as a condition of bail, and they failed to do so.

    Breaktime over.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  119. ‘Zimmerman spoke of the second passport while in the Seminole County Jail in a phone call to his wife that authorities recorded, Corey said. Court records provided a partial transcript:’

    ‘Zimmerman: “Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.”‘

    ‘Shelly (sic) Zimmerman: “I have one for you in safety deposit box …”‘

    ‘Zimmerman: “OK, you hold onto that.”‘

    ‘Prosecutors have informed federal authorities about Zimmerman’s second passport in case he attempts to use it “to flee the country,” Corey said.’

    ‘But Lester appeared to accept the explanation from Zimmerman’s lawyer that his client had given him the second passport, and the lawyer simply forgot to hand it over to authorities until Friday.’–CNN

    Well, Judge Lester certainly is a trusting soul.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  120. O’Mara has no credibility with the court, anymore. Unless the credibility is that he will sell Zimmerman down the river. He, and all his associates, need to go.

    GEORGE, GET A GOOD LAWYER!

    nk (875f57)

  121. Fred Thompson wrote this about the Edwards’ case on May 25th, long before the jury reached a verdict:

    I think it’s fair to say that conduct like Edwards’ was far from the minds of those who drafted the campaign-finance law in question. The typical case is one where the money goes to the campaign. If it is in an amount that is over the limit, it’s a clear violation. Or the candidate takes money legally given and misappropriates it for his own personal use. In the Edwards case, however, the money never came into the campaign.

    The prosecutor’s theory is that the money to take care of the mistress, spent outside the campaign, still had a campaign purpose. It would have certainly hurt the campaign if the affair had become known, but where do you draw the line? Must the subject of the activity covered up have hurt the campaign a little or a lot? What about payments by a candidate’s family friend to treat and keep from public view the candidate’s child who has a drug problem? Should the family friend have been a friend for, say, ten years in order for it to not be considered a contribution? No one knows. There is no precedent.

    Thompson concludes the prosecutor shouldn’t have indicted under a “murky law” just because he had a “very unpopular defendant.” Given the result, it’s hard to argue with that.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  122. Well, Judge Lester certainly is a trusting soul.

    Judge Jeeter Lester?
    I thought that shiftless ol’ guy
    had died years ago

    http://youtu.be/whh1Fnlz70A

    Colonel Haiku (69b979)

  123. In the Edwards case, however, the money never came into the campaign.

    I don’t see how Thompson can say this, DRJ, considering one of Edwards campaign staffers was acting as he conduit. How can anyone say that the money never came into the campaign if Edwards details one staffer to funnel money from a contributor to another staffer.

    Which Rielle Hunter was at least earlier in the campaign; she’d been hired so she could collect a salary from the campaign and travel with Edwards.

    And also Young was collecting a salary to be Hunter’s chaperone from the campaign, and keep Hunter out of sight, out of North Carolina, but available for Edwards.

    As a matter of fact, while Young was collecting his campaign staff member’s salary for his primary duty of riding herd on Hunter and funnel a contributor’s money to her, at one point Young, his wife, and Hunter were all living together in several thousand dollar/month rental in California. Paid for by the campaign.

    How is it possible to say that the money never went into the campaign? It was merely unreported.

    As a matter of fact, I personally found it quite damning that when asked why he did it, Young testified he wanted to see his friend Edwards get elected. And Bunny Mellon, we’re supposed to believe, was paying all that hush money for a different reason than Young was acting as a courier disbursing it to Hunter?

    Steve (958caf)

  124. Bunny Mellon, apparently set it u as a miscelaneous fund, to deal with any expenses like haircuts, wardrobe, not directly affiliated with the campaign,

    narciso (494474)

  125. Steve,

    I’ll give you my best guess. The FEC defines a campaign contribution as “anything of value given to influence a Federal election.” It can be money, services, or any contribution but the goal has to be to influence an election.

    I think the Edwards’ defense argued that Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron gave money to help Edwards keep a secret from his wife in order to save their marriage. If the jury believed that, and I assume they did on Count 3 (Mellon’s payment in 2008), then I assume the jury decided there was no intent to influence the election and thus no contribution.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  126. By the way, Beldar has been all over one aspect of this topic. The defense argued for a jury instruction that, for Edwards to be found guilty, the jury must find that influencing an election was the sole reason Mellon/Baron gave Edwards money. However, the prosecution argued for a jury instruction that said influencing an election doesn’t have to be the sole reason for giving money and it could be given for more than one reason. The judge gave the jury the prosecution instruction.

    Thus, because of this instruction, Edwards could have been found guilty if the jury found Mellon or Baron paid money for more than one reason, e.g., to help Edwards protect his marriage and to help him get elected/influence the election. By finding for Edwards on Count 3 (Bunny Mellon’s payment in 2008), the jury must have found the payment was made solely to help him protect his marriage so there was no intent to influence an election, and thus no campaign contribution. My guess is the jury wasn’t sure about the motives on the other counts.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  127. Well they do have to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t like punishing aspects of thought, and would prefer to focus on actions.

    Who the hell thinks we know others’ motivations “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Do we know our own motivations to that high of a standard?

    Random (fba0b1)

  128. I remember reading that FEC rule, re the ethics complaint about the race that shall remain nameless, filed by CREW, on that and a similar event, they decided the better part of valor was not to prosecute, there were no apologies however, for those who had been slandered by those unscrupulous actions,

    narciso (494474)

  129. I think the Edwards’ defense argued that Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron gave money to help Edwards keep a secret from his wife in order to save their marriage. If the jury believed that, and I assume they did on Count 3 (Mellon’s payment in 2008), then I assume the jury decided there was no intent to influence the election and thus no contribution.

    If they believed that, there was no basis for it.

    The testimony and the evidence, including Mellon’s handwritten notes that accompanied her checks, showed Mellon intended those checks to aid the campaign. As a matter of fact, the only testimony I’m aware of that touched on what Mellon knew about the purpose of these checks was that she hadn’t been told about the affair, so she couldn’t have believed the checks were going to cover up an affair. The only evidence I’m aware of indicates Mellon thought the money was to help out John Edwards.

    But the comments of the jurors themselves don’t show they bought the defense’s argument. Of the jurors who have spoken, at least one indicates that she didn’t think Edwards could have done anything wrong because he didn’t personally receive the money.

    As if every candidate personally handles every check.

    This law may be poorly written, or the prosecutors did a lousy job, I don’t know. But the larger issue is this; what is the purpose of campaign finance laws? If the point of these laws is to keep corrupting influence out of politics, what could be more corrupting than a large donor providing hush money to keep a damaging personal secret out of the news. Not only would the politician be beholden to the donor, but the donor would (had she known the money was going to keep an embarrassing secret out of the news) have had blackmail-quality information on him if he had won.

    I’m not going to give my personal view on what I believe about this particular law. Just this. If the law is as Fred Thompson says, murky, then whose fault is that? It seems to me these campaign finance laws are an intentional joke. You simply can’t prosecute politicians for violating them. This is as clear an example of a situation that as corrupting as possible, and it isn’t even covered by the law.

    I have to conclude that’s on purpose. The laws that exist for a stated purpose are written in such a way they can’t possibly fulfill that purpose.

    I believe that goes a long way to explain why Obama-bundlers have received billions in loan guarantees, and that contrary to the laws these beneficiaries are taken care of first during a bankruptcy rather than the interests of the taxpayer who are supposed to be first in line. And why Obama-bundler John Corzine seems to be in no danger of going to jail or even being investigated, despite “disappearing” Madoff-level amounts of money.

    Steve (958caf)

  130. If they believed that, there was no basis for it.

    The litigator’s lament.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  131. Perhaps, DRJ.

    But the verdict isn’t even my major beef. This whole sorry episode was the very definition of corrupt. It was the epitome of corruption. I can’t imagine any actions that could possibly have been more corrupt than those described at this trial. And yet, there was nothing at all illegal about it. It tells you all you need to know about the people who write these laws and their attitude toward corruption.

    Essentially, they don’t believe corruption should be illegal, as long as they’re legislating and enforcing the laws it won’t be, and we’re supposed to be stupid enough to buy their excuses and be fooled by whatever ineffective laws they pass that are designed to only appear to be aimed at fighting corruption.

    “No controlling legal authority” indeed.

    Steve (958caf)

  132. “I don’t think God is through with me,”–Silky Pony, after the trial

    I reckon he’s got some ‘splainin to do, all right.

    I wouldn’t want to be In Pony’s shoes when he tries to walk through them Pearly Gates.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  133. The judge seemed pretty firm on the idea that that money should have been reported, and that it was Zimmerman’s fault that it hadn’t been…hence the revocation of bond.

    The judge wasn’t so sure about that when he was informed about the money last month:

    Judge delays decision on Zimmerman contributions Fri April 27, 2012

    Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda on Friday asked Lester to increase the bond in light of the donations. But the judge said he would delay ruling on the request, in part because he does not know if he has authority to say how the money can be used.

    …O’Mara said he learned about the money this week as he and Zimmerman were trying to shut down Zimmerman’s website, Facebook page and Twitter account to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and other problems.

    “He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts, and I asked him what he was talking about,” O’Mara told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday. “He said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about … $204,000 that had come in to date.”

    I’ve never said Zimmerman was the sharpest tool in the shed, given he made statements to the police instead of invoking his right to remain silent and asking for his attorney on the night of the shooting.

    But it’s hard for me to see how he was attempting to lie to anyone given his attorney, and later the court, only found out about the money when Zimmerman asked his attorney for advice on what to do with the money.

    Here’s the transcript of the bond hearing in part one, two, and three.

    It seems there are two key points. On transcript one they ask Zimmerman’s wife about assets. But O’Mara asks:

    O’MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    As shown on transcript two of the original bond hearing, while questioning Zimmerman’s mom, the state clearly knew about the money coming into the website:

    DE LA RIONDA: And you don’t have any knowledge of the web site, do you in terms of the money?

    As well they should have know; the bond hearing was on April 20. Here’s a Fox News report from April 9, nearly 2 weeks before his bond hearing and indeed before he’d even been charged:

    George Zimmerman website asks for money as shooter faces possible charges in Trayvon Martin case

    George Zimmerman’s attorney, Hal Uhrig, confirmed to Fox News that the website, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, was in fact produced by the real George Zimmerman…

    For his site, he said he created a PayPal account, “as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. … I reassure you, every donation is appreciated.”

    O’Mara keeps saying this whole thing is a simple misunderstanding. It certainly appears that Zimmerman’s prior attorneys, Uhrig and Sonner, knew about this website and paypal account. They also quit as counsel a day after this news report when they lost contact with Zimmerman after he went into hiding.

    It may well be that the “simple misunderstanding” O’Mara keeps talking about is that the former attorneys advised Zimmerman about how he could use the money. And that when O’Mara took over the case he wasn’t aware of what uses Zimmerman thought he could put the money to, money O’Mara was clearaly unaware he had at all.

    But again, I don’t see any dishonesty on the Zimmerman’s part since their attorney at the time was confirming the existence of this website to news outlets. Seriously, you can hardly call a paypal account on a website that’s featured on news broadcasts a “secret slush fund.”

    On the other hand it looks like the prosecution ambushed the defense. I’d like to know when they had the recordings that they believed showed some sort of deception.

    Steve (958caf)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7175 secs.