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.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Hot Air
Big Journalism
What They're Saying
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | Jun » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
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.
Comment by Ed from SFV (68921e) — 5/31/2012 @ 12:44 pm
Whatever it will be the MSM will let this story drop faster than a rock thrown into the Potomac.
Comment by Harrison (916bde) — 5/31/2012 @ 12:46 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 12:58 pm
This is so much less interesting than Romney appearing at Solyndra. Brilliant move today by him.
Comment by Psycotte (077749) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:05 pm
This trial doesn’t sit well with me.
Comment by JD (8e63c8) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:06 pm
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.
Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:23 pm
I thought this was the Coliseum article for a second.
Comment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:28 pm
True, JD, he is a wretched nazgul who should torn apart by rapid wolves, but there was no case.
Comment by narciso (494474) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:30 pm
One count acquittal. Mistrial for the other five.
Comment by Ed from SFV (68921e) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:37 pm
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?
Your thoughts?
Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:43 pm
I spent that weekend frolicking with girls like the ones in that coliseum article.
Comment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:53 pm
Carlitos is my idol.
Comment by JD (395555) — 5/31/2012 @ 1:58 pm
“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
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:03 pm
@ Carlitos–
Dogs like to frolic.
On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog.
Comment by elissa (db8634) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:03 pm
Of course all those liberals in NC found him innoceny. Er wait…
Comment by tye (e66ed7) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:06 pm
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?
Comment by elissa (db8634) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:11 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:13 pm
elissa, your business, but I would not waste time on tye.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:15 pm
“tye- was there a point you were attempting to make”
The only point that guy has is the one on top of his head.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:18 pm
“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.
Comment by Mike_K (326cba) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:21 pm
That’s really cool. Now, we like it when the IRS attacks political rivals.
It isn’t Zombie Reagan anymore – it is Zombie Nixon.
Comment by Jamie (ee4a20) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:29 pm
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:
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:57 pm
It’s for the children.
Comment by elissa (db8634) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:01 pm
That’s really cool. Now, we like it when the IRS attacks political rivals.
Jamie is kind of a douche.
Comment by JD (c3946e) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:01 pm
‘“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?
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:09 pm
Not guilty on one count and “mistrial” on the others.
Pony’s punishment
he’ll have to stare in mirror
and see evil guy
Comment by Colonel Haiku (e2362b) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:40 pm
steaming pile of sh*t
will be what he sees… but wait
Pony is in there!
Comment by Colonel Haiku (e2362b) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:43 pm
‘“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.”
Comment by peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:43 pm
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 (d22d64) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:49 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 5/31/2012 @ 4:50 pm
UPDATE: Not guilty on one count; mistrial on other five.
Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/31/2012 @ 5:38 pm
“Then Kerry still chose Edwards to be his VP.”
Yeah, well everyone wants a Silky Pony in the family.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 5:41 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 5:46 pm
I can still see where the Kerry-Edwards bumper-stickers, used to be.
Comment by mg (44de53) — 5/31/2012 @ 5:51 pm
“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 (46b08c) — 5/31/2012 @ 5:59 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:11 pm
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
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:17 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:21 pm
If you mean does the jury think the law is wrong … no we do not do that here. Scotland’s the place.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:23 pm
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
Comment by rob guccione (494474) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:40 pm
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 !
Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:56 pm
If he runs again, all you’ll hear from the NY Times is that he was acquitted.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/31/2012 @ 6:57 pm
“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.
Comment by Colonel Haiku (7f120a) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:03 pm
Yeah how about that Romney. I never thought he’d win me over. Someone got Romchambeaued today.
Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:05 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:
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:”
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:09 pm
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
corpseseasoned diplomat and try that run at the White House again! The press will love you!Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:14 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:14 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:14 pm
Edwards had lots of time to practice his delivery, it being something you need a mirror for.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:17 pm
scumbaggery wins
yes it’s true it often does
until it doesn’t
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329727.php
Comment by Colonel Haiku (7f120a) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:19 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:28 pm
Yup the Feds will drop the idea of a retrial faster than a turd falling off a tall moose.
Comment by Comanche Voter (dc4fc0) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:33 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:35 pm
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.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:49 pm
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.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/31/2012 @ 7:52 pm
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.
Comment by Milhouse (312124) — 5/31/2012 @ 8:10 pm
Oh, please! Oh, please! Let it be soon!
Comment by Dianna (f12db5) — 5/31/2012 @ 8:35 pm
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.
Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:38 pm
I know.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 9:54 pm
Not everyone does.
Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:04 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:05 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:11 pm
hang in there, brother
Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:12 pm
“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.
Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:13 pm
Life lives herself. Participate. Say, “Thank you, for one more day”?
Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 10:44 pm
the federal government doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt in this case
but that applies to all the cases anymore
Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:12 pm
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
Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/31/2012 @ 11:37 pm
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.
Comment by Beldar (f9a493) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:15 am
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 (1781ad) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:04 am
Beldar,
I agree, as long as the note on the check says “given to cover up his affair with a bimbo.”
Comment by Dan S (cdeb05) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:19 am
People don’t care about truth and justice. They care about groups and allegiances.
Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:51 am
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.
Comment by JD (395555) — 6/1/2012 @ 6:03 am
I love that republicans tend to be moral relativists while heartily trumpeting an opposite view.
Comment by tye (58844e) — 6/1/2012 @ 6:17 am
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 6:46 am
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 (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 6:53 am
Nk, that was the worst of it for me, too.
Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 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.
Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:10 am
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 7:23 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:
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:08 am
I should have said “beginning with him cheating on his wife.”
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:09 am
He should buy her a pony.
Comment by carlitos (49ef9f) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:16 am
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:18 am
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:33 am
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:44 am
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:07 am
I mean, he should have given money to Hunter, to protect Elizabeth from distress.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:09 am
That was way more incoherent than normal, “tye”. It is like you felt compelled to write those words, regardless what was being said.
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:17 am
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:17 am
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 (330eed) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:22 am
What’s up with this “tye” characcter?
Brain damage?
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:24 am
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 9:26 am
Yet, if the press reports are accurate:
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 11:26 am
My posts are easily interpreted by people who possess basic reading comprehension skills…
Comment by tye (7e73d5) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:40 pm
“tye” is having a moment.
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:53 pm
George Zimmerman’s bond was revoked and he’s back in jail.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:53 pm
For what?
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 12:55 pm
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:
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:00 pm
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:03 pm
Does that mean there will be a re-hearing of the bond issue?
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:08 pm
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:27 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:37 pm
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?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:41 pm
Bunny Mellon paid gift tax on the money she gave Edwards – this possibly interfered with a claim it was a campaign contribution.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/1/2012 @ 1:43 pm
Indigent
1. lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:02 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:28 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:28 pm
“But, DON’T LIE TO THE JUDGE.”
Sage advice.
And, if you simply must lie…don’t get caught.
That’s even more important.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:31 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:33 pm
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.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:37 pm
any *one* time
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:39 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 2:49 pm
Good Allah
Comment by JD (092622) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:01 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:07 pm
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”.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:07 pm
Are they retesting TYrayvon’s body for the purple slurple or whatever it’s called?
Comment by daleyrocks 0/32 Cherokee (bf33e9) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:10 pm
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?
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:13 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:32 pm
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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:38 pm
“…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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 3:44 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:04 pm
‘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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:18 pm
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!
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:18 pm
Fred Thompson wrote this about the Edwards’ case on May 25th, long before the jury reached a verdict:
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:21 pm
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
Comment by Colonel Haiku (69b979) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:42 pm
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?
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 4:57 pm
Bunny Mellon, apparently set it u as a miscelaneous fund, to deal with any expenses like haircuts, wardrobe, not directly affiliated with the campaign,
Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:03 pm
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:31 pm
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.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:44 pm
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?
Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:47 pm
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,
Comment by narciso (494474) — 6/1/2012 @ 5:53 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:18 pm
The litigator’s lament.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/1/2012 @ 8:30 pm
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/1/2012 @ 10:40 pm
“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.
Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/2/2012 @ 12:11 am
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
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:
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:
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
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.
Comment by Steve (958caf) — 6/2/2012 @ 4:39 pm