John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

There has always been reasonable doubt about John Edwards.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

I am inclined to believe Edwards’ attorney when he says:No court has interpreted the definition of “campaign contributions” this broadly, and all Edwards has to do now is create a “reasonable doubt.” Remember, John’s wife Elizabeth was fighting cancer at the time. A highly successful trial lawyer like Edwards will easily persuade a jury that the sole purpose of hush money was to hide his affair from his wife — and had nothing to do with his political campaign.

Yeah, well, after the numerous lies and coverups that Edwards has engaged in, me thinks that Edwards will have anything but an easy task in getting a jury to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he's saying. The man has next-to-no credibility left. His character and reputation is all but shot. People will tend to look at him through the lens of someone who will say anything and everything to keep himself out of prison.

The man is better off with a non-jury trial.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

Yeah, well, after the numerous lies and coverups that Edwards has engaged in, me thinks that Edwards will have anything but an easy task in getting a jury to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he's saying. The man has next-to-no credibility left. His character and reputation is all but shot. People will tend to look at him through the lens of someone who will say anything and everything to keep himself out of prison.

Those are the people who Edwards' attorneys will have to earn their money keeping off a jury. Potential jurors will be strongly reminded that they are to decide this case on its specific and relevant evidence - and to not be biased by their attitudes towards his past actions in making their judgments.

If they fail to do so, that would give Edwards an opening to appeal a decision against him. I think TuNnL's "reasonable doubt" assessment is prescient.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

Those are the people who Edwards' attorneys will have to earn their money keeping off a jury. Potential jurors will be strongly reminded that they are to decide this case on its specific and relevant evidence - and to not be biased by their attitudes towards his past actions in making their judgments.

If they fail to do so, that would give Edwards an opening to appeal a decision against him. I think TuNnL's "reasonable doubt" assessment is prescient.

Maybe, maybe not. But as I said before, Edwards' defense team won't have an "easy" task. As even you put it, they're going to be earning their money on this one.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

But as I said before, Edwards' defense team won't have an "easy" task. As even you put it, they're going to be earning their money on this one.

Indeed. No matter how the trial plays out, the "court of public opinion" has sunk his career, reputation and legacy (with plenty of help from the man himself).

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

He's chosen the extra stupid road of taking this matter to trial when he could have ended it already with a plea and staunched the blood flow, instead he could be looking at a prison term. It all hangs on if the court buys his side that it was hidden just to keep it secret from only his wife. He's been stupid from day 1 and now stupid may well usher him into a jail cell for years. Can I get a hallelujah?!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110604/...ation_pitfalls
Edwards' attorneys counter with an argument that could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife.

If the JD blows this one they'll have lost the public's little faith remaining in them.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110604/...ation_pitfalls
Edwards' attorneys counter with an argument that could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife.

It's a good thing for John Edwards that you're not his attorney.

How does emphasizing that last statement provide a suitable defense for Edwards? If anything, it would give the impression to jurors that the former senator was desperate enough to do anything to conceal the affair, even if it means using hush money. (Who's kidding whom? You want to keep a mistress with your love child from spilling the beans to your wife? That will definitely involve the exchange of money, Ron.)

Look at the video of this article. Edwards is claiming that he had no knowledge of anyone (i.e. Bunny Mellon and the late Fred Baron) forking over cash that was being used as hush money. Furthermore, he's claiming that he never once solicited his supporters for hush money. If he's caught in a lie on this, that's it. Edwards will have no shred of credibility remaining.

[TuNnL]

Re: John Edwards’ Affair Fallout

If the JD blows this one they'll have lost the public's little faith remaining in them.

IMHO, they’ve already blown it by bringing the case against Johnny. This case will set precedent, and I believe the courts will shy away from trying to make history heading into an election year. The prosecutors specific claims are that the “hush money” should be considered “campaign contributions.” Unless the checks were written out specifically to the campaign, or they were deposited in campaign accounts, Edwards should have a fairly easy case of acquittal on these charges. Even the anti-liberal Fox News agrees:

Edwards Case No Slam Dunk for Prosecutors, Legal Experts Say

Published June 04, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Federal prosecutors seeking to prove that John Edwards used campaign funds to hide his pregnant mistress during his 2008 presidential run will have their work cut out for them.

Two crucial witnesses are dead. Another is 100 years old. A fourth, former Edwards aide Andrew Young who initially claimed the baby was his before coming clean in a tell-all book, was recently held in contempt of court.

And the government’s case revolves around an untested legal theory that the $950,000 given to the two-time presidential candidate by two of his close friends to hide his affair should have been considered a campaign contribution.

Edwards’ attorneys counter with an argument that’s reprehensible but could raise reasonable doubts with a jury: He was only interested in hiding the affair from his cancer-stricken wife, who died in December.