Prosecution of the ignoble John Edwards closes.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I would have thought misuse of campaign funds for personal gain unrelated to their legitimate use wouldn't be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.

The issue is whether these were ever intended to be campaign funds. It would appear that they were donated to him with an understanding that they would be used for personal purposes and not on the campaign itself. I do not pretend to be an expert on federal campaign laws - they are highly technical and I don't work in that area - but I would find it very surprising if the mere fact that a person is running for office means that he can't accept gifts which are not campaign funds, and use them as he deems appropriate. The legal commentators on the Edwards case all seem to agree that the prosecution's application of the campaign laws is something of a reach.

I am sufficiently incensed with Edwards that I can't get all that upset with his prosecution, but it does seem like a waste.

 

[woolfe9999]

Republicans hate him because he's a Democrat who acted like Republicans and Democrats hate him for the same reason.

I don't think so, actually. I think dems hate Edwards far more than Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer. There must be a reason for this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The issue is whether these were ever intended to be campaign funds. It would appear that they were donated to him with an understanding that they would be used for personal purposes and not on the campaign itself. I do not pretend to be an expert on federal campaign laws - they are highly technical and I don't work in that area - but I would find it very surprising if the mere fact that a person is running for office means that he can't accept gifts which are not campaign funds, and use them as he deems appropriate. The legal commentators on the Edwards case all seem to agree that the prosecution's application of the campaign laws is something of a reach.

I am sufficiently incensed with Edwards that I can't get all that upset with his prosecution, but it does seem like a waste.

Yet the donations were submitted as campaign funds from what I've read. They were then taken for another purpose. Now if the parties agreed to this deception it's still illegal. It intentionally uses campaign finance to circumvent legal means of providing funds. This would be the donor and Edwards conspiring to transfer income via a tax free method. Thats tax fraud. No, unless money changed hands without Edwards knowing how a fortune landed in his lap hes in trouble. Considering his background it's hard to imagine him not knowing the likely problems with that action.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why would the government care what he uses campaign funds for? It's not government money... it's private money...

 

[woolfe9999]

I think you're right about the jury and the finding of doubt.
He's way sharp to not find the means to isolate him from the transactions and one lies and the other swears to it and yet another simply plays dumb. Hard to break up a conspiracy like that when each is not intimidated by the Government's folks.

I'm not sure if defense actually objected to any of that under 401 or 403 but failing their objection the court should have sustained its own objection unless it comes in under 404 character... I've not really a clue actually.. Well, other than if it was my butt on trial I'd challenge anything and everything and in front of the jury (but the PoS issue would have been moved outside the jury) up to the point of further alienating the jury..

It wouldn't come in under 404. I'm not even sure how it meets the basic relevancy requirement of 401. Why was it relevant how hurt his wife was over this? This trial is about the use of private campaign donations to conceal the affair. Perhaps the theory is that the more upset his wife was, the more motive he had to use the funds to conceal the affair? However, he wouldn't have known how upset she was until after she found out. Anyway, it seems like a prejudicial bombshell that should have been kept out under 403 to me. I'd be very surprised if there was no objection, and in fact, I'll be very surprised if they don't appeal a conviction based on the overruling of the objection.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It wouldn't come in under 404. I'm not even sure how it meets the basic relevancy requirement of 401. Why was it relevant how hurt his wife was over this? This trial is about the use of private campaign donations to conceal the affair. Perhaps the theory is that the more upset his wife was, the more motive he had to use the funds to conceal the affair? However, he wouldn't have known how upset she was until after she found out. Anyway, it seems like a prejudicial bombshell that should have been kept out under 403 to me. I'd be very surprised if there was no objection, and in fact, I'll be very surprised if they don't appeal a conviction based on the overruling of the objection.

In a court the character and truthfulness of a person are fair game as I understand especially if it's related to the situation. It's not illegal use in a vaccuum but with a reason. Showing what lengths a person has gone to to hide the truth might factor in to the credibility of the accused. Thats my guess.

 

[Thump553]

Yet the donations were submitted as campaign funds from what I've read. They were then taken for another purpose. Now if the parties agreed to this deception it's still illegal. It intentionally uses campaign finance to circumvent legal means of providing funds. This would be the donor and Edwards conspiring to transfer income via a tax free method. Thats tax fraud. No, unless money changed hands without Edwards knowing how a fortune landed in his lap hes in trouble. Considering his background it's hard to imagine him not knowing the likely problems with that action.

This is so erroneous on so many bases it is frightening.

-there are no income tax charges here whatsoever

-Whether the funds were submitted as campaign funds, or were personal gifts to Edwards, is THE MAIN FACTUAL ISSUE on trial here and is hardly conceded-in fact it is vehemently denied by the two contributors and Edwards.

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't think so, actually. I think dems hate Edwards far more than Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer. There must be a reason for this.

I'll tell you why. He was looking to me to be my choice. I liked his message. The hair thing kind of gave me the creeps though. To think that he might have gotten the nomination him knowing that this shit was going to come out eventually. If he had been nominated and then this came out, it would have been all over for the Democrats getting in the WH.

It's called betrayal.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It wouldn't come in under 404. I'm not even sure how it meets the basic relevancy requirement of 401. Why was it relevant how hurt his wife was over this? This trial is about the use of private campaign donations to conceal the affair. Perhaps the theory is that the more upset his wife was, the more motive he had to use the funds to conceal the affair? However, he wouldn't have known how upset she was until after she found out. Anyway, it seems like a prejudicial bombshell that should have been kept out under 403 to me. I'd be very surprised if there was no objection, and in fact, I'll be very surprised if they don't appeal a conviction based on the overruling of the objection.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. If he had testified (which he may yet), his credibility would obviously be relevant, and potentially the video might be admissible to show that he is a person who lacks veracity. Since the defense has not even started its case, I find it hard to see how this evidence was even relevant to any contested issue, and it certainly strikes me as significantly more prejudicial than probative.

I actually attended a presentation a few months ago by Edwards' lead defense counsel, Abbe Lowell. VERY impressive guy. Edwards is in good hands.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is so erroneous on so many bases it is frightening.

-there are no income tax charges here whatsoever

-Whether the funds were submitted as campaign funds, or were personal gifts to Edwards, is THE MAIN FACTUAL ISSUE on trial here and is hardly conceded-in fact it is vehemently denied by the two contributors and Edwards.

I didn't say that there were income tax charges did I? BTW Edwards doesn't have a child from his mistress. His vehement denial isn't worth much. If money was sent to his campaign and entered as such then used for another purpose then it's a criminal violation of there was a private understanding or not. If it was a gift for something not tax exempt and taxes weren't paid then that is tax fraud regardless whether charges are brought or not. Is that really such a difficult concept?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think so, actually. I think dems hate Edwards far more than Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer. There must be a reason for this.

Then perhaps I speak only for myself. I am a liberal and all of them were too, and each one of them slimed what I am. Naturally I can do nothing about what they did but all of them make me sick. I experience what conservatives call revulsion, the likely result of a brain defect. For some reason or another i don't make exceptions for party. To hold different standards based on that would in my opinion make me a hypocrite. I have a rule about that. The only time I get to be a hypocrite is if I'm unaware of it.

 

[WackyDan]

I don't think so, actually. I think dems hate Edwards far more than Bill Clinton or Eliot Spitzer. There must be a reason for this.

Come to North Carolina... He is universally hated here and many also felt the same about his wife, who while portrayed as a saint in death thanks to her husband's behavior was a rather snobby, uptight, rich bitch.

 

[Moonbeam]

I didn't say that there were income tax charges did I? BTW Edwards doesn't have a child from his mistress. His vehement denial isn't worth much. If money was sent to his campaign and entered as such then used for another purpose then it's a criminal violation of there was a private understanding or not. If it was a gift for something not tax exempt and taxes weren't paid then that is tax fraud regardless whether charges are brought or not. Is that really such a difficult concept?

If it's that clear then the jury will probably convict.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If it's that clear then the jury will probably convict.

And acquitted if the evidence shows otherwise.

 

[LunarRay]

I would have thought misuse of campaign funds for personal gain unrelated to their legitimate use wouldn't be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.

It's not... IF it can be reasonably proved. There are the elements of having a Guilty Mind (mens rea) along with the bad deed.. The Government did not show, as far as I can see, that Edwards knew and thereby possessed a guilty mind. I'm not sure they proved that the bad deed occurred either... Having the girl flown all over and secreted in various locale cost money but the money might not have been campaign money... The one fellow fixed his house with some of those funds.

I think when the State brings a case they should be bringing it based on being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Assuming a jury will convict because a person is the lowest form of life is wrong... Can they prove the elements of the crime... Everyone knows he's a PoS...

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, I thought the same thing. If he had testified (which he may yet), his credibility would obviously be relevant, and potentially the video might be admissible to show that he is a person who lacks veracity. Since the defense has not even started its case, I find it hard to see how this evidence was even relevant to any contested issue, and it certainly strikes me as significantly more prejudicial than probative.

I actually attended a presentation a few months ago by Edwards' lead defense counsel, Abbe Lowell. VERY impressive guy. Edwards is in good hands.

Being a former trial attorney himself, I'd expect him to retain highly competent counsel, not only because he has the money but because he can personally vet prospective counsel.

Anyway, the fact that he has highly competent counsel is why I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a strong objection to this. It may even be reversible error given how incendiary this stuff was. Trial judges do get wide discretion on 403 rulings, so who knows.

 

[LunarRay]

It wouldn't come in under 404. I'm not even sure how it meets the basic relevancy requirement of 401. Why was it relevant how hurt his wife was over this? This trial is about the use of private campaign donations to conceal the affair. Perhaps the theory is that the more upset his wife was, the more motive he had to use the funds to conceal the affair? However, he wouldn't have known how upset she was until after she found out. Anyway, it seems like a prejudicial bombshell that should have been kept out under 403 to me. I'd be very surprised if there was no objection, and in fact, I'll be very surprised if they don't appeal a conviction based on the overruling of the objection.

They played the card that his political ambitions motivated the crime. I suppose the court felt that a secondary motive of hiding the facts from his wife somehow and logically dove tailed with the primary one but that presumes probative out weighs prejudicial and like you I can't swallow that or the logic of the link.

Edit: I actually love this stuff... I should have sat for the Bar but alas only one of me and too many options to pursue...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They played the card that his political ambitions motivated the crime. I suppose the court felt that a secondary motive of hiding the facts from his wife somehow and logically dove tailed with the primary one but that presumes probative out weighs prejudicial and like you I can't swallow that or the logic of the link.

Edit: I actually love this stuff... I should have sat for the Bar but alas only one of me and too many options to pursue...

Your life is too short eh? I know how that is.
This might make a decent criminal mystery novel. Now if we could link a fictional plot of this to a murder at the Kentucky Derby...

 

[woolfe9999]

They played the card that his political ambitions motivated the crime. I suppose the court felt that a secondary motive of hiding the facts from his wife somehow and logically dove tailed with the primary one but that presumes probative out weighs prejudicial and like you I can't swallow that or the logic of the link.

Edit: I actually love this stuff... I should have sat for the Bar but alas only one of me and too many options to pursue...

No, you made the right decision to not sit for the Bar. Trust me. Law practice isn't all cool cases and fascinating mysteries. In fact, virtually none of it is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, you made the right decision to not sit for the Bar. Trust me. Law practice isn't all cool cases and fascinating mysteries. In fact, virtually none of it is.

Thats true of most things. I know a fellow who made a fortune with IP law and retired fairly early. Now he does things which he considers worthwhile but aren't money makers.