Prosecutors give closing argument in Edwards trial

[shawn703]

Source: Seattle Times

Prosecutors used John Edwards' own political rhetoric about the two Americas in their closing arguments Thursday, saying he was a seasoned politician who flouted campaign finance laws meant to give the rich and the poor an equal say in elections.

Edwards is accused of orchestrating a scheme to take about $1 million from two wealthy campaign donors to hide his pregnant mistress Rielle Hunter while he ran for the White House in 2008. During that campaign, Edwards often talked about the two Americas, referring to the wealthy and those who live paycheck to paycheck.

"Campaign finance laws are designed to bring the two Americas together at election time," prosecutor Bobby Higdon said. "John Edwards forgot his own rhetoric."

Prosecutors also recounted Edwards' announcement on Dec. 30, 2006, to run for president.


Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018228625_apusedwardstrial.html

[1monster]

1. Given that both the IRS and the FEC ruled that Edwards broke no

laws regarding the questioned donations and that the judge excluded that evidence, if John Edwards is convicted, he has ample grounds for an appeal.

Given that the IRS and the FEC both ruled the donations were personal gifts to Edwards and not campaign donations, the charges should have been dropped with predjudice at the beginning of the trial.

[Lex]

3. Right. And even though he's jerk (to put it mildly), the prosecution hasn't proven its case

and all I've learned by following the local news on this is that Andrew Young and his wife are just about as creepy as Edwards.

[grasswire]

4. how could that evidence be excluded?

It *is* evidence of no criminality. How can it be excluded?

[happyslug]

6. Rulings by the FEC and IRS are decsions of LAW not FACT

As decisions of LAW, reserved to review by the Judge. The issue for the Jury is did Edwards do an act that violated the statutes he was charged with. We have to remember under our system of Justice, issues of law are reserved to the Judge, but issues of FACT is reserved to the Jury. Thus the decisions of the FEC and IRS as to the LAW is NOT relevant to deciding the FACTS of this case. Thus the determinations of the FEC and the IRS were excluded.

[grasswire]

8. well, there is a trump to that tradition

Under our system of justice, it is absolutely the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. It's called jury nullification.

So I think that your statement: "We have to remember under our system of Justice, issues of law are reserved to the Judge, but issues of FACT is reserved to the Jury." is not *quite* accurate.

(Not that nullification is appropro in this instance.)

Just sayin'.

[happyslug]

13. Very rare, esepecially in Federal Cases

You must understand HOW a jury is selected. In most state system, the county Jury Commissioner calls up potential jurors from that county. In rural counties you can get members who think like the Defendant on the Jury for the County as a whole supports what the Defendant did. This is what happen during the Civil Rights Movement, the all white rural juries agreed with the Defendant killing of African American "Agitators" and thus ruled them "Not guilty".

On the other hand, FEDERAL JURIES tend to be pulled from a much broader area, generally including at least one URBAN county. Thus it is much harder to get a jury who believes what the Defendant believes. Without the self-identification, Jury Nullification does not occur (can occur, but almost unheard of compared to Juries who identify with the Defendant). Thus in many of the Civil Rights Cases involving the same facts that a Jury acquitted a Defendant on state charges, a Federal Jury will tend to convict, if the acquittal was the product of Jury Nullification.

This is a FEDERAL TRIAL with a FEDERAL JURY. Most Federal prosecutor are careful enough to make sure people who identify with a Defendant does NOT get on a Jury. Between the larger pool of Potential jurors and more money to spend on the case, it is unheard of a Jury Nullification on the Federal level.

Side note: I did NOT address that technically Jury Nullification is NOT the law anywhere in the US, but does occur. The problem is the last rash of such nullification was doing the Civil Rights Movement. What the Juries did upset a lot of people, leading to changes in HOW a jury is made up (Including increase number of minorities in the Jury Pool).

The last case where someone brought it up was the OJ Simpson Murder Trial. The Jury members themselves shot down that concept, for they simply said that after all was said and done, the prosecutions did NOT prove Murder I and given that Manslaughter was NOT an option, they had to acquit.

Sorry, jury nullification is more an urban legend nowadays, it could occur but I doubt the jury will do so given how juries are picked today, especially in Federal Cases.

[grasswire]

15. I don't think you understand the concept of jury nullification.

It is the citizen's last defense against tyranny, and it is actively being suppressed.

[JDPriestly]

9. What is the jury instruction in this case?

What precise facts is the jury charged to decide?

Does the jury instruction include the elements of the laws under which the charges are brought? And do the elements as the judge stated them in his instructions to the jury contradict or restate or agree with the FEC decision's interpretation of the law?

[happyslug]

14. I have NOT followed the case that closely, but the issue did he break the law?

The under lying statute is the key, what does it says and WHAT DOES THE JUDGE RULE IT MEANS IN THIS CASE. In many ways the real fight is NOT what is going on in front of the Jury, but the fight over instructions to the Jury. The instructions may very well decide how the jury rules (Please note Jury Instructions are questions of law and thus appeal-able) .

In many ways the actual trial is a side show, the real fights that decides a case tend to be over who gets selected as a juror and what are the instructions to the Jury. Both decides how the case is to be presented and often how the case is decided.

[JDPriestly]

16. I agree.

[karynnj]

7. IF that is completely true, then the problem is that McCain/Feingold was very poorly written

It means that anyone can give a "gift" directly to any candidate to use as they will. This would give all these new BFF incredible power - and likely access to the candidate if he/she wins.

Now, one observation that makes it clear that this was NOT the intention was all the media - and rival candidate's assertions that Kerry could not get more than the maximum donation from his billionaire wife! ( If this was an issue - and it was in 2004, where there is no chance that she is buying access to the candidate, why can Baron and Mellon give nearly a million to their buddy Edwards. (There was also concern in NY that Spritzer got a lot of money from his wealthy father.)

Now, if the law is written to not preclude gifts directly to the candidate, there is really no limit on campaign contributions.

[JDPriestly]

10. There is a big difference. Kerry was not allowed to receive unlimited CAMPAIGN

donations from his wealthy wife. But, he was allowed to live on her properties and enjoy food purchased with her money and entertain with her money. In other words, he was allowed to use her money to support his personal lifestyle.

That is the issue here. Was Edwards using the money for his campaign? Or was he using it to support his lifestyle and the life of Rielle Hunter?

I have questioned from the beginning why Rielle Hunter needed so much money from Edwards. Was she extorting money from him in fact? I am not accusing her. I am wondering what happened there.

Certainly he should have paid her reasonable child support, but how much would that have amounted to? Seems she asked for a lot more than that.

[karynnj]

11. Once money is given as a gift, can you really say where it goes?

No other husband (or wife) was restricted from using the spouse's money - so this was atypical and a sign of how much the powers in the party and media were against Kerry. No one looked to see if Hillary Clinton could show that her earnings were greater than the amount she lent the campaign. In fact, it exceeded her book sales and her Senate salary. At that point, it was Bill Clinton who made many millions speaking and with his book.

The point I am raising does not mean the $$ have to be used on the campaign. Would you be ok with elected officials getting very large sums of money from people as gifts?

As to Rielle, it looks like the goal was to keep her happy enough that she stayed out of sight. You could call it extortion, a bribe or blackmail - - or it could have been offered by people close to Edwards before she thought to do any of this. At that point, it seems Edwards was also still holding out the future possibility that they could be more than friends.

[JDPriestly]

12. As with the Clintons and Kerry, the point at which a gift becomes a political

donation is difficult to identify. That is one of the things that makes campaign finance laws that do not entirely make the financing of a political campaign a matter of public money fall short.

As for Rielle, once she was pregnant, she and Edwards were more than friends, like it or not. A father has a responsibility to support his child. But whether Edwards had a duty to support Rielle in the style that she wanted to be supported and that cost so much money is a different question. Just what Edwards really wanted to do about supporting Rielle will only be known once this trial is definitely over -- which could take years and years.

One thing is certain, Rielle and her baby will not benefit if Edwards goes to prison or has to pay hefty fines or both.

[graham4anything]

17. Vitter has nothing to do with this

What does Vitter have to do with anything about Edwards? (Same with bringing Kerry or Hillary into this.) NOthing.

Edwards is a 1% posing as a populist he never was, flaunting the law to his own gain while lying left and right like a Rainman does.(as he has done his whole adult life). IMHO

As for Reile, Edwards has 10s of MILLIONS(or is it 100s?) of dollars in personal income/wealth

Why didn't Johnny just pay it out of his pocket?

You do the crime, you do the time. This isn't about sex.
And Johnny should man up and marry her if he is found guilty (much like some members of the armed forces get married before going overseas, just in case). ...that way Reile will be taken care of (it's called a joint checking account/credit cards.I am sure if he gets a jail term, it won't be too long, just long enough to make the point much like Bush did to/for Scooter

[cali]

5. yes, we're a screwed up country but that ain't evidence for it