Home » Edwards verdict

Comments

Edwards verdict — 7 Comments

  1. Mark Levin was vehemently saying, at the top of his radio show, that as much as Edwards’ conduct was slimy, it wasn’t illegal. And that if we stand for the rule of law, we should apply it impartially.

  2. Eh. I’m still basking in the warm glow of SpaceX’s spectacularly successful flight of the Dragon.

    Noted space historian James Oberg said that last Thursday’s berthing with the ISS was one of the top ten days in the history of spaceflight.

    Here’s a pretty picture with some wild camera lens flares. Click the link under it and you can have the hi-res version for your very own.

  3. The whole thing started with the National Enquirer’s busting the Hunter issue.
    Which is to say that Edwards’ double life left not a hint of a wisp of a gossamer thread of a possibility that may have come to a member of the MSM, under the door, over the transom or by registered mail that could have been followed up to the end. Nope. Not one. Except to the National Enquirer.
    From which we deduce either the MSM was tanking for Edwards or only the Enquirer has any investigative mojo any longer.
    Pick one. There aren’t any others.
    It isn’t scruples about sex. The NYT had the resources to fake up a bogus story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist.
    That said, when the feds want you, they can find something, if only by threatening a potential witness with thirty years for some crime nobody knows is illegal, or at least legal-fee bankruptcy.
    Whether Edwards broke some arcane campaign finance law is, obviously, a matter of legal opinion and when things are this cloudy, the just verdict is “not guilty”, now go someplace down wind, you slimy bastard, change your name and never come out in public.
    Oh, yeah. And don’t forget the dems wanted this guy for veep or pres.

  4. Richard Aubrey – MSM was not tanking for Edws; they were tanking for BO. Keeping mum meant that Hillary and Edward split the working blue collar white vote. That pushed in BO – the rest is history.
    Remember the song playing when BO took the victory stage in Iowa?
    That’s when I left the party and became an Indie.

  5. If I understand the charges correctly, count 3 accused Edwards of receiving illegal campaign contributions, which were allegedly illegal because they were too large. Since the existence and size of the payments weren’t disputed, it would appear that the jury could only acquit on the ground that the payments, which were used to buy off Edward’s mistress, weren’t campaign contributions.

    But at least some of the remaining counts allege that Edwards used campaign contributions illegally, something that’s only possible if the payments were campaign contributions in the first place.

    Does Edwards have some way to prevent a second trial on counts that presuppose that the payments were campaign contributions? (I do this stuff, but not in the U.S.)

  6. RodW: I don’t think it will come to that, because I don’t think prosecutors will ask for another trial. The only verdict in this one was not guilty on Count 3, and I’ve read that indications were that the majority were leaning towards not guilty on the other counts. The expense and time for a new trial does not seem worth it, I think.

  7. He may not have been guilty, but this trial may be some indication that even the best connected can be brought before the bar. Maybe, just maybe, they will bring Corzine up on charges for the MF Global fraud and theft. I hope the Enquirer is on that case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>