The John Edwards trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


TheHeretic -> The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 11:52:27 AM)

Ok. A guy who turns out to be a trashy lowlife rises to political prominience. Old story, that knows no party restrictions.

In this case, of John Edwards, former Senator, two-time Presidential contender, and a previous nominee for the Vice-President, a twist developed that it puts squarely into legal territory, and has him facing up to 30 years in prison, plus fines. He received large sums of money from donors, that went to hiding the girlfriend and the baby. He says the cover-up had nothing to do with the campaign, and was all about sparing his ill wife the distress. The government contends that hiding the events were a campaign activity, because such a disclosure would have negatively impacted his chances in the election, and that the funds were used illegally. I don't think it is possible to sever the two.

If the jury finds him guilty (and there is no telling what a jury may do, sometimes), what sort of sentence should he get? A year (less or more) in a minimum security, "club fed," type prison, fined, and sent away on probation, into to obscurity and disgrace (while still fabulously rich, of course), or should he catch a heavy sentence, and serve hard time?

Here's a summary of the case, in a PBS report from a couple weeks ago
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/edwards_04-23.html




Moonhead -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 11:55:59 AM)

If it could be proven that the campaign contributions were the instrumentality of a crime, then confiscating them would be fair enough. Not sure that could be managed in this case, though...




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:03:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

If the jury finds him guilty... what sort of sentence should he get?



1)  A $1 Million dollar donation (in the name of Elizabeth Edwards) to The Breast Cancer Research Foundation

2)  Shaved head (no need for any more $400 haircuts)

3)  10 years in prison (with no lube)

[:)]





Lucylastic -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:19:49 PM)

For the first time in P&R thread I agree with MSLA.
But then I think "white collar crime is way under prosecuted and time/fines are ridiculously low




Aylee -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:34:04 PM)

Crap.

I agree with MSLA and Lucy.

The end times are here.




Lucylastic -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:37:10 PM)

Oh Gawd help us!!
LOL




Moonhead -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:39:14 PM)

The Aztec calender is running out...




TheHeretic -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:41:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA


2)  Shaved head




I actually like this idea. On TV. Add tar and feathers, and a big fat fine, and I'll say no jail at all.

Now if we can't have a public head-shaving, followed by tar and feathers, then he should do time. No need to throw him in with the Blagojevich level of corrupt officials, so a couple years raking the golf course sand traps from minumum security, plus a fine.




Hillwilliam -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 12:43:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Crap.

I agree with MSLA and Lucy.

The end times are here.

Same here.




SternSkipper -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 1:12:01 PM)

quote:

For the first time in P&R thread I agree with MSLA.
But then I think "white collar crime is way under prosecuted and time/fines are ridiculously low


You should watch history channel more. There's a show called "Amercan Pickers" they find marginally valued antiques in rubbish.

It don't know even ONE person who doesn't think that John Edwards didn't do a number of things both wrong and probably illegal.

Frankly if somebody implies he is innocent of all things alleged, I wanna be the one holding the mirror under their nostrils to make sure they're still breathing.




SternSkipper -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 1:13:16 PM)

quote:

Same here.


Same here, except I feel the need wash carefully afterward.




DarkSteven -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 2:13:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

He says the cover-up had nothing to do with the campaign, and was all about sparing his ill wife the distress. The government contends that hiding the events were a campaign activity, because such a disclosure would have negatively impacted his chances in the election, and that the funds were used illegally. I don't think it is possible to sever the two.



Thanks for the linked article. From the article: the prosecution's case:

"Well, key to the government's case is proving that Edwards not only knew about the money, but he directed essentially a cover-up to keep the public from finding out about his affair, not motivated by hiding the affair from his wife, but to influence the outcome of an election.

Under federal campaign finance law, essentially a donation under the government's theory is any money given to influence the outcome of an election. And they say that is certainly what Edwards was trying to do. Edwards' lawyer contend he was just trying to hide the affair from his wife and avoid humiliation."

The defense's case:

"That the money -- yes, that the money flowed through Young, that Edwards never touched the money, that Young took that money, deposited it in a personal account, and used most of it not to care for Edwards' pregnant mistress, but to build a $1.5 million mansion outside of Chapel Hill."

I can't see any of the defense's arguments holding up. There's no question that Young used the money under Edwards' direct orders, and that Young was used to try to hide Edwards' presence (here as well as being the child's father). Edwards and Young were so stupid that they carefully kept Mellon's money in a dedicated account instead of using it as a general purpose fund. Had Edwards simply kept the money for himself, and paid for Hunter's expenses out of the same account he paid for everything else, it would be very hard to convict him. But the fact that he had a dedicated account is strong proof that the sole purpose of the contributions was to hide Hunter. Stating that he used the money to build a mansion and it's complete coincidence that Hunter lived there, is ludicrous.

I think he's toast. And rightly so. I still cannot deal with someone who foisted paternity off on an aide, a married one at that.




DarkSteven -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 5:47:19 PM)

I talked with my sub about the Edwards case. She's a lawyer.

Her take is that he's dead meat on all defenses except one - what the intent of the subterfuge was. If it was, as the prosecution states, for his campaign, it's over. But if it was considered to be for hiding from his wife (and other non-campaign purposes), he'll get acquitted. Obviously, there are elements of both, but the jury will have to pick one or the other (although she mentioned that there have been juries that convicted on a lesser charge in ambiguous situations, where that was permitted).




servantforuse -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/6/2012 7:29:53 PM)

Edwards is a smart guy. A sleazebag but a smart guy. There is no way that he didn't know what was going on with those campaign funds. I agree with the others..




thompsonx -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/7/2012 7:31:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Crap.

I agree with MSLA and Lucy.

The end times are here.



This is like... too strange...
Add my name to this list




Iamsemisweet -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/7/2012 7:40:04 AM)

Mine too.

Well played Mayans, well played.

Elizabeth Edwards was a class act, she deserved better than this piece of shit.
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Crap.

I agree with MSLA and Lucy.

The end times are here.



This is like... too strange...
Add my name to this list






lovmuffin -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/7/2012 7:47:40 AM)

Oh good....we all agree. Lets all get naked, dip ourselves in gravy and dance on the roof singing "This Land Is Your Land".




Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/7/2012 8:03:58 AM)

He belongs in jail as do a number of scumbucket politcans who break the law with impunity.




kalikshama -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/7/2012 8:50:56 AM)

I agree that Edwards is a scumbucket. I've been very vocal on other parts of the boards with my opinion of married cheaters.

However, I am not convinced he broke the law if the funds used were solicited for hiding the mistress and totally separate from campaign contributions.

Regarding Young:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/john-edwards-defense-depicts-andrew-young-money-hungry/story?id=16219752#.T6fuJC_XVy4

April 26, 2012

John Edwards' defense team battered the credibility of a key prosecution witness today, getting Andrew Young to admit that he double dipped on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expenses while hiding Edwards' pregnant mistress.

Defense lawyer Abbe Lowell also raised doubts about a series of statements that Young has made, and bolstered the defense's argument that Young used Edwards' sex scandal to enrich himself.

In a barrage of questions, Lowell suggested that Young volunteered to claim paternity for Edwards' pregnant mistress to make Edwards more indebted to him, and raised the possibility that it was Young who alerted the National Enquirer to the scandal, a suggestion Young denied.

Young is a crucial witness for the prosecution which accuses Edwards of using illegal donations from two supporters to hide the pregnancy of mistress Rielle Hunter during the 2008 presidential campaign. Edwards, who twice ran for the presidency, could be sentenced to 30 years in prison if convicted of the charges.

Young has testified that he was assigned to keep Hunter hidden even after Edwards dropped out of the presidential race because Edwards was angling for a top spot, possibly vice president or attorney general.

Today was the second day of Lowell's grinding cross examination and he wrested a damaging admission from Young who conceded that he sought reimbursement from one of Edwards' wealthy backers -- Fred Baron -- for expenses already paid by another wealthy backer -- Rachel "Bunny" Mellon.

In March 2008, Young has testified, he provided Baron with a spread sheet of expenses he had incurred for the cover-up totalling more than $200,000.

"Were you trying to suggest to him (Baron) that you were in the hole for $200,000?" Lowell asked.

"I think that is fair to say, yes," Young replied.

What Young didn't tell Baron is that he had already paid the expenses with Mellon's money which totalled $725,000.

"All of these [expenses] were incurred at time when you had hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mrs. Mellon?" Lowell asked. "Yes sir," he replied.

"Isn't the very reason you didn't tell him (Baron) was because you wanted to solicit him and you didn't want him to know you had already gotten three quarters of a million dollars from her?" the lawyer asked.

"No sir," Young answered.

Young has testified that the reason he didn't tell Baron about Mellon's money is that Edwards had instructed him to keep each donor in the dark about the other.

Baron gave Young $335,000 to cover Hunter's expenses, records show.

Young was building a house at the time and he conceded during testimony that "a substantial amount," of Mellon's money went into finishing a house he was building, and the plans expanded to include a swimming pool, to wire the house for audio and digital, and put a guest room in the attic.

Lowell also focused on Young's contention that Edwards lobbied him to handle the pregnancy scandal by claiming paternity. The request was made, Young has claimed, in a phone call from Edwards on Dec. 13 while Young was shopping for an aquarium in a Petsmart store.

The deciding factor in agreeing to the charade, Young has said, was seeing a Newsweek magazine that had Edwards on the cover with the headline "The Sleeper," suggesting he could still win the presidency.

But Lowell produced evidence that the magazine cover was actually dated Dec. 24, and asked Young whether the Petsmart version was a made-up story.

"Wasn't claiming paternity a way for you to get Mr. Edwards to further indebted to you," Lowell asked.

"That was not a thought process at this point. It was putting out a fire," Young said.

In another effort to chip away at Young's credibility, Lowell had a flurry a questions about how the National Enquirer found out about the pregnancy, which eventually ended Edwards' political career and his marriage.

"Were you the source for the National Enquirer?" Lowell asked. "No, sir," Young replied.

"Do you know the National Enquirer's phone number?" the lawyer asked. "I do," Young said.

"Have you ever made a phone call to the National Enquirer?" Lowell asked. "I have," Young answered.

Lowell dropped the subject without offering any evidence.

Edwards' defense team also tried to establish that Edwards sought money from wealthy donors to hide the pregnancy from his wife Elizabeth Edwards, not to finance his presidential ambitions. Mrs. Edwards had earlier become aware of the affair with Hunter and had told her husband to break it off.

"It wasn't as if the campaign and the media were going [through the records,]" Lowell said to Young. "It was Mrs. Edwards. The person he was trying to avoid finding out about [the affair] was Mrs. Edwards."




Winterapple -> RE: The John Edwards trial (5/8/2012 9:33:34 AM)

FR
The money spent to cover up the mistress wasn't from
campaign contributions. I think he'll be
acquitted.
I don't think he should go to jail he didn't do
anything illegal, assholish but not illegal.
But, yeah I'll go along with the shaved head
thing.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.298828E-02