home

John Edwards : Not Guilty on One Count, Mistrial on Others

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:15:30 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards trial (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: Huge loss for the Government. The verdict is not guilty on one count, jury deadlocked on others. Edwards spoke after court:

While I do not believe I did anything illegal, or ever thought I was doing anything illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that was wrong and there is no one else responsible for my sins," Edwards said on the courthouse steps.

"I don't think God's through with me. I really believe he thinks there's still some good things I can do and whatever happens with this legal stuff going forward, what I'm hopeful about is all those kids that I've seen, you know in the poorest parts of this country and some of the poorest parts in the world that I can help them," he said.

[Original Post Below:]

The jury in the John Edwards trial has reached a unanimous verdict on Count 3 charging receipt of illegal campaign contributions from Bunny Mellon in 2008.

It did not reach a verdict on other charges. The defense has asked for a mistrial on the other five charges, and for the Court to accept the verdict on Count 3.

The Judge has told the jury to keep deliberating on the other five charges. She will give an "Allen Charge" also known as a dynamite instruction.

What's the difference between Bunny Mellon's contributions in 2007 and 2008 that cause them to reach a verdict on one but not the other? And not reach a verdict on the Fred Baron counts, the conspiracy count and the false statement charge?

< George Zimmerman: Adds a Lawyer to Team | Why the Jury Acquitted John Edwards on Count 3 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Edwards : Not Guilty on One Count, Mistrial on Others | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm hoping the jury comes back in a short while (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    and tells the judge they are deadlocked on all other counts.

    NOT Guilty on (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    count 3, hung on all the others.

    HURRAY!

    Parent

    Not guilty on count 3 (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by nicdanger1 on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    And a mistrial on the other 5 counts...

    Hallelujah!!! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:27:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Good. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:29:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank goodness... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Anne on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    I will be interested to hear what the jury has to say about their decisions.

    For now, it seems that in spite of the judge's best efforts to lead the jury where the feds wanted them to go, enough of the jury were smarter and not as easily influenced as many thought they would be.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    That's pretty much a win for Edwards. Is there wherewithal to retry Edwards? Can team Edwards ask for a different judge or review of her rulings before a retrial?

    Parent
    Pretty much? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    That's a total win, IMO, given the way the judge did her absolute best to stack it against him.

    CNN commentators, at any rate, think it's vanishingly unlikely they'll try to re-prosecute.

    Parent

    Well, I should hope not. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    As most regulars here know, I'm certainly no fan of the blow-dried Mr. Edwards, but this trial proved to be a particularly malicious bit of business on the U.S. Attorney's part. To paraphrase Getrude Stein, there was no there there.

    Clearly, a guilty verdict would have required an almost willful misreading by the jury of the available evidence in order to convict Edwards.

    I truly believe the prosecutors knew that, which is probably why they tried mightily to turn this trial into a courtroom referendum on the defendant's personal shortcomings and failures as both a husband and family man.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:38:23 PM EST
    Of course that's why the prosecution went into the gutter.  If they stuck with the law then it's even more clear that there is no "there" there.

    I'm curious as to the the jurors' reactions when they find out that the FEC had declared them to not be reportable campaign contributions and the judge withheld that information.

    Parent

    Probably like (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    Some of the jurors in the OJ case who would later find out things that were left out of the state's case (i.e. Ron Goldman's blood all over the passenger seat foot area of the white Ford Bronco, etc).

    Parent
    Well, it's not an out an out acquittal. (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    An appropriate response, however, upon re-reading my comment would have been "duh!!". Pretty brilliant insight on my part. I was just reacting I guess.

    Parent
    What a waste of government funds, not to (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    mention the personal funds for Edwards' defense.  When are we going to try Bush and Cheney, et al???

    Yes, it re-affirms the (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    faith we place in juries.

    Parent
    when? (none / 0) (#44)
    by star on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:21:02 PM EST
    When are we going to try Bush and Cheney, et al???

    Well maybe when we can prosecute Obama for his "kill list"..
    After reading the NYT article, I am aghast at the spin of the hypocritical dems.. 17 yr old girl is picked to be shot from the sky by this president!!

    There is NO way I can bring myself to the polling booth to pull the lever for this guy , who sits with a list in front of him and be the judge jury and executioner. I HATED bush for much less.

    History is not going to be kind to Obama over this.

    Parent

    I can't wait to get (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    To a computer and blog about this. Few more hours till I can.

    We'll keep it warm for you here. :) (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:16:49 PM EST


    Parent
    It seems your analysis (none / 0) (#26)
    by indy in sc on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    under your "Juror Issues" post was spot on.  Edwards' counsel must have known that the juror issues were working in their favor and therefore they took no actions until the jury came back with their verdict (and non-verdicts).

    Parent
    "God is not through with me" sayeth J.E. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    "...what I'm hopeful about is all those kids that I've seen, you know in the poorest parts of this country and some of the poorest parts in the world that I can help them,"

    John the Penitent is going to now go about helping the children.

    I'll be sure to watch for that.

    I always sd. he's smarmy. Just my humble (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:14:20 PM EST
    opinion.  But, perhaps he's had a come to Jesus moment.  

    Parent
    There are (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:16:51 PM EST
    two politicians to whom I had an instant aversion: Edwards is one.
    Obama is the other.

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:05:59 PM EST
    As I recall, he's had about 25 come to jesus moments.

    Parent
    You never know, #26 could be the one (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    John Newton, a despicable wretch & slave trader, went through an epiphany where he learned the meaning of forgiveness & redemption

    He, of course was the author of "Amazing Grace," one of the most haunting and beautiful hymns ever composed.


    Parent

    Tis true, NY, you never know (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:35:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Shoot... (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    He jest may be another one of them Charles Colson guys.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    He "jest" may be

    You mean Chuckie didn't really "see the light" in prison?

    Parent

    He's responsible for " to save a wretch (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:47:36 PM EST
     like me" (2 nd verse)?i

    Parent
    Jesus to John: (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    "You here again?"

    Parent
    Perhaps Ms. Mellon will help out. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:15:19 PM EST


    Parent
    If he does will you apologize? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    I still think he cares about the poor and poverty issues.

    Parent
    I will (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    definitely apologize.

    It won't change my opinion of him though.

    Parent

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:12:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:51:19 AM EST


    Parent
    He did a lot of good (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:48:03 PM EST
    before he entered politics.  That, and his message of Two Americas" is why I supported him at the beginning of the primaries.  

    He was a terrible husband.  Got that.  But I think the sarcasm is a bit unwarranted.  He had a life before Hunter, you know.

    Parent

    Did he do other good in addition to (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:50:08 PM EST
    being a plaintiffs' class action attorney?

    Parent
    Ah, that's right (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:52:12 PM EST
    That would be a problem for you.  It is far from a problem for me.

    Parent
    What's the answer? (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:56:59 PM EST


    Parent
    As Mona Lisa Vito said (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    in My Cousin Vinny, "That's a bullsh!t question" :)

    As a plaintiff's attorney he did a lot of good.  Your question is like saying, "other than that great child you raised, what good are you as a parent?".

    And, once again, I find myself defending him because people somehow insist on seeing him (and others) as one-dimensional.  

    Parent

    Per Wiki, his biggest case involved a lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    againstlawsuit against a swimming pool drain cover mfg. for failure to warn. During closing argument he told the jury about his som Wade, who had recently died. In what court of law is this proper closing argument?  Forgive my rant.  

    Parent
    ::shrug:: (4.50 / 2) (#74)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:20:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Was that the sum and substance of (4.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    his closing argument, or do you imagine that it was only part of that argument, and was about making the connection to a jury by speaking from experience about the depth of loss one feels when a child dies or is irreparably injured?

    Are you going to argue that prosecutors don't try to make that connection in their effort to get convictions?

    Please.  I think you can spare us the moral outrage over defense tactics, especially when what we are looking at in this case is prosecutors doing everything they could to argue for what a despicable person Edwards was in his personal life.  And getting help from the judge.  In what court of law is that a proper argument?

    I have no idea what's in Edwards' future, but whatever wrongs he's committed, in his personal and/or professional life, he gets what all of us get every day when we get out of bed: the opportunity to be our best selves, to do whatever it is we do as best we can, to make a difference in someone's life, to be a force for good, even if that's just in some small way.  That you or I or John Edwards were a terrible person yesterday, or last week, or for months and years on end, doesn't foreclose the possibilities that are before us every day.

    Will whatever good he does going forward negate the wrongs he did in the past?  I don't know why that has to be the metric if what he does now makes some positive difference in someone's life - whether those "someones" are his children or strangers.

    He has to live with the pain he's caused; he has to live with the losses in his life.  I hope he comes to terms with it, that those he loves can come to terms with it.  What I think about it is about as irrelevant as it gets; the only thing that matters to me is that today, in a courtroom in North Carolina, a jury rejected the prosecution's efforts to convict John Edwards for the crime of being a d-bag.  They rejected the judge's efforts to put her thumb on the scales of justice.

    It's too bad you seem to be of the same mind as the prosecution in this case, more interested in getting even than getting justice.

    Parent

    Bravo, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:54:49 AM EST
    Clap, clap, clap, clap!

    Parent
    Me too, (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:53:11 AM EST
     Beautifully stated, Anne.

    Now, if I may, add my two cents.

    Throughout this trial and jury deliberation, and even before it started, almost all of us here on TL shared the feeling of disgust and anger that John Edwards' reptilian behavior emoted. And yet, when the not guilty verdict was received here there was an immediate, almost as if one, exhalation of joy and thankfulness. Why?

    It certainly wasn't because we loved John Edwards and were happy that our friend would be going home a free man. No, it was because throughout this trial we shared the feeling that a terrible injustice was being perpetrated in "our name." Not only was "our" Justice Department wasting scarce resources pursuing  misplaced and unprecedented charges but that they were doing it in such a mean spirited, disproportionate, and ham-fisted manner that it gave new meaning to the term, "shocks the conscience."  

    And, the exhilaration at the verdict? It wasn't because John Edwards won. It was because Justice had won. After what we've been going through here in our country, at least this once, the "people" prevailed.

    Weird, isn't it? We witness a proper verdict in a trial none of us are involved in, and we go nuts with joy!

    And that, my fellow journeymen, is the difference between us, and "them."


    Parent

    Bravo to (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    you too also.


    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:15:20 AM EST
    It's too bad you seem to be of the same mind as the prosecution in this case, more interested in getting even than getting justice.

    That's not at all what she said.

    Some around here are not that well-acquainted with Edwards' past pre-campaign it sounds like. Sure the 'two americas' was a good soundbite but that's all it was if you look at his actual political record.

    Parent

    And what is it, exactly (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:00:08 AM EST
    about his "actual political record" that warrants this unusual level of vitriol from you, Dr. Molly?  

    As far from grace as that man has fallen, I'm still shocked at the level of vitriol from you and others.  Now, mind you, I've dished out my fair (or maybe unfair, who knows) share of criticisms and insults.  

    I was shocked and furious at his thinking that his actions were not a disqualifying factor in his candidacy.  And frankly I was astounded when I read that his wife felt the same.  Jeebus, what if he had gotten the nomination?  Were they insane?  But he didn't.

    However, there was a reason why I supported him in the primaries initially.  I haven't forgotten about that.  No one has ever completely represented my views.  No one ever will.  But he was the only with a populist message at the start.  The only one.  HRC became more populist has time passed and O tried to pass as one, but Edwards was saying part what I wanted said from the very beginning.

    He wasn't the first person to betray or disappoint me and he won't be the last.  And I can get all sanctimonious about that or I can remember that my life hasn't been exactly blemish-free.  There are those who could have chosen not to forgive me.  Or I could have chosen not to forgive them.  We could have written each other off years ago.  Thankfully we got over it.  First with forgiveness, and then much later with the "forget" part of that.

    He's not my husband or father.  How his family deals with what he's done is their private business.  None of mine.  I'm, very very sorry for the pain that he's caused his family.  I have a great deal of compassion for them all.  But I'm not livid that he was unfaithful to his wife.  That is their private business.  I am (or was) livid at the potential for damage when it came to Presidency.  Turns out he wasn't the only that could the Dems vis a vis the Presidency.  Which is another story altogether.

    I respect your right to view this -- and everything else -- through your own personal lens. In the past (and likely in the future) you and I agree on a great deal.  I don't expect that we would agree on everything, but I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked the... well, vitriol.  

    Parent

    Not vitriol. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    I just don't give him a pass, and I never bought his populist schtick on the campaign trail. Look at his whole record.

    Just because I disagree with you about him, doesn't make it vitriol. Straw.

    Parent

    So, in short, (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    nothing he does will ever be considered on its own merits, but will always come from a place of ego and arrogance.  

    I'm just curious about one thing: do you see any value in him having raised the income/wealth inequality issue in this country to the national stage, or does that have no value because you have deemed the messenger an arrogant egoist?

    I think all politicians have huge egos - they all do what they do as much for the personal adulation they get and the spotlight they soak up as they do for whatever good accrues to the people they claim to serve.  Barack Obama, loving and faithful husband, by-all-accounts good father, has a track record too, one that includes a lot of really ugly things done in the names of the American people: drone attacks, kill lists, secrecy, oh-so-cozy relationships with Wall Street and banksters - where's his integrity?  Does his personal life allow his professional actions to be seen through a rosier lens, becoming just a "difference of opinion" instead of being commentary on his essential character?

    As sj has said, I don't condone what he has done in his personal life, but whatever opinion I have about it is irrelevant to my life.  What is relevant to me and my life are our government's choices in what kinds of things it will devote resources to, choices that do ultimately affect all of us.  And I care about the perversion of justice, as well; how much justice is there in going after Edwards, seemingly without a case, and devoting more personnel to it than it has authorized to look into foreclosure fraud - something that has affected untold numbers of people and set the housing market on its ear?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    it's definitely vitriol.  I'm actually shocked at the level of it.  Since it's your personal opinion you don't see it that way.  And I still don't see you justifying your statements about his "actual public record".  I'm not trying to a "gotcha".  I expect you have a basis for your viewpoint.  I'm genuinely curious what it is.  


    Parent
    Hey, I'm not the one who started the insults (none / 0) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    in this thread.

    I just have never liked the guy nor bought his campaign shtick, so none of this was a surprise to me.

    If you don't know his voting record, look it up, you should. I'm done with this. I don't have to justify my opinion of him to you.

    Parent

    ummm.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    Hey, I'm not the one who started the insults (none / 0) (#124)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:34:32 AM EST

    in this thread.

    Well... actually, you kind of are:

    What arrogance. I've always thought he was a scurvy dog.

    As to his voting record, I am satisfied with no one's voting record in toto.  I reviewed his overall record back when I chose to back him in the primaries.  Some things I liked. Some things I didn't.  I didn't see anything there that was any more disqualifying to me than the other candidates had to offer.  If he was scumbag, then they were all scumbags.

    Parent
    I was talking about personal insults (none / 0) (#127)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    to commenters, not opinions about John Edwards.

    Hey, I don't like him, and I think his work life AND his personal life belie what a jerk he is.

    You are free to have your own opinion, see ya.

    Parent

    No comment. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:01:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    As if!  :)

    Parent
    Just to myself. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:34:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Seriously, do you (3.50 / 2) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:53:23 AM EST
    have even the faintest clue what that case was about?  It sure doesn't sound like it.  Read up on it, and then come back and sneer about what Edwards did on it.  Really.

    Parent
    He betrayed one hell of a wife (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:51:32 AM EST
    He'll never "recover" from that in politics, and maybe he shouldn't.  He will alway be cringe worthy though because of what he so willfully did to Elizabeth.  We all loved her.  That deal was a package deal, but he does seem clueless that at this time it looks like she may have really been his better half.

    Parent
    Can I say something about that? (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    I have been a huge admirer of Elizabeth Edwards. Huge.  A couple of years ago when I heard she was going to be on Oprah, I recorded it.  She was smart, funny, articulate... all the things I expected.  What I didn't expect was how stony she was toward the (then) baby.  She refused to acknowledge that the baby was innocent.  And she clearly was going to hold it against John if he chose to have any contact with the child.  

    I guess that's why I wasn't surprised when I read recently that she was a terror on the campaign trail.  Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Elizabeth later softened her tone toward (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    Quinn. I saw an interview where she acknowledged that Quinn was the sister of her (Elizabeth's) children, that John had paternal responsibilities and Quinn was an innocent in all of the mess.

    I can understand her anger and denial. My god, the woman was dying. She had been publicly humiliated by her husband, the most intimate details of her life spread around for all to gawk at and comment upon. She must have felt so powerless in her own life.

    I can even understand why she pushed ahead with the campaign. She was dying. Her life was crumbling on just about every level. The push for the presidency was something she could focus on and hang onto. Pushing on was the wrong decision, IMO, but I get it. And if Elizabeth was demanding and sometimes difficult on the campaign trail, well, so what? She was dying; her entire life was unravelling. Also, I do not believe all the cr@p that Halperin and the other guy wrote in their book about the campaign.

    She must have been terrified for the future of her children, especially the two little ones. I imagine she was horrified at the thought that Rielle Hunter might become a mother figure to her kids.

    Parent

    I'm glad to hear it (none / 0) (#132)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    Elizabeth later softened her tone toward (none / 0) (#131)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:01:56 PM EST

    Quinn. I saw an interview where she acknowledged that Quinn was the sister of her (Elizabeth's) children, that John had paternal responsibilities and Quinn was an innocent in all of the mess.

    And I get your point about her feeling powerless in her own life.  I would imagine that is not a state she was accustomed to.

    I guess it relates back to a comment I made ... [waves hand]... somewhere on recently.  Everyone has feet of clay.  Expecting someone else to always live up to our standards is pretty unrealistic, when we ourselves can't even live up to our own standards.

    Parent

    I can in honesty tell you (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    I would need to do much meditating and unknotting of my emotions if I were in her shoes.  I don't think that any healthy person has all of their boundaries violated like that and walks on water through all of it unscathed.  I think I'd be stony too for awhile until I was able to sort it all out in my heart, have my crying and dark hours of the soul, taking my leave of my marriage, getting to the healthy place for me and getting to the other side.

    Parent
    I get that (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:28:43 PM EST
    I do.  But when you were that fragile did you go on national TV and try to publicly shame your husband for failing you?

    Please understand -- I still think she had some amazing qualities.  But no one is lily white in this little drama* here is all I'm saying.

    ----
    * and I'm just calling a "little drama" for lack of a better term, not because I think anyone overreacted.  Because I don't really.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    God is not through with me

    What arrogance. I've always thought he was a scurvy dog.I just hope we don't have to listen to him anymore.

    Parent

    Oy, back atcha (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:09:07 PM EST
    Do you think God (if you believe in God) will throw him away because of his past sins?  Or do you think God (if you believe in God) will have a purpose for him?

    I think God (since I believe in God) is through with none of us.  No matter how many laurels or sins we have acquired, God (since I believe in God) will always have a purpose for us. To me it sounds humble, not arrogant.  

    And I don't care if ever hear from him again.  The rest of his life is between him and God (since I believe in God).

    Parent

    I'm with you (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    He seems to have rather basic human failings, as well as having done some good things.  He has the ability to give aid to others less fortunate, if he means to do this and does this I can't hate him.

    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    the way he (Edwards) phrased it.

    God is not through with him...
    Like he knows what God is feeling or doing.

    He could say that he is going to try to get closer to God  - or do "God's work" - or something similar. At least he could claim some authority on that subject.

    But I have to agree with Dr. Molly:

    That quote feels like something Pat Robertson would say.
    (He and God are tight.)

    I hope that Edwards actually goes about giving money to poor children in this and other poor countries. Why not? Good luck to him and to them.

    But I don't believe that he has an ounce of genuine humility in him.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:01:17 PM EST
    again.  The way he phrased it?  Seriously?  If he had said he would do "God's work" someone would have rolled their eyes over that.  It might even have been me.  Because that sounds sanctimonious.

    My view of God (since I believe in God) is that He/She/It is through with none of us.  Our most recent good work should not be our last good work.  And our last sins should not define the rest of our life.  Frankly, I appreciate the phrasing as it is in alignment with my view of God.  Or one aspect of my views, anyway.

    I didn't see him issue his statement so I'm not making a judgement as to how it was delivered.  Nor do I think that matters.

    And btw, showering money is not the only way that one does good.

    Parent

    I must (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by lentinel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    agree with you about my suggested alternative, "God's work".
    Who can presume to know what "God's work" might be.
    My eyes would have rolled also.

    I also agree that showering money is not the only way that one does good. (Although it couldn't hurt.)

    But that's the message I got from his statement about "helping" the children in the poorest parts of this country and some of the poorest parts in the world.

    But maybe he meant some other kind of help.
    I assumed he meant money.

    Parent

    Um, no... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:17:15 AM EST
    what I think is the Tebow-like statement 'god is not through with me yet' is ridiculous. and fully in keeping with edwards' history.

    that's MY opinion. we are all entitled to one.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 06:43:13 AM EST
    thank you for telling me 3 times that you believe in god. not sure why that was necessary.

    Parent
    Because I was (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    pretty sure that someone would bring up Tebow and use that as a spring board to make a judgement about the "proper" way to talk about or display one's faith.  And here, on this blog, it's usually those who don't believe in God who get condescending about how a public figure discusses personal faith.  And when that's the case I would appreciate that information up front and know that I could ignore them rather than getting personally offended at their ignorance.  IMO

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    And here, on this blog, it's usually those who don't believe in God who get condescending about how a public figure discusses personal faith.

    I don't agree that's what happens on this blog.

    I also don't see it as a condescending. I see it as everyone has a right to their opinion - and, in my opinion, Edward's Jesus talk is pretty hypocritical (and convenient) given his actual behavior in life.

    In any case, I got that you believe in God the first time you said it.

    Parent

    Depends on (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    which side of the condescension one sits, I suppose.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#121)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:32:30 AM EST


    Parent
    At last (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    something about this situation we can agree on.

    Parent
    It's interesting to me to see how that (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 07:02:30 AM EST
    statement of Edwards has been interpreted; you see it as arrogance, which I'm sorry, I just don't understand.

    Maybe you see that because, at bottom, you believe Edwards to be a wholly arrogant person, and can't imagine there is a humble bone in his body.  That there is nothing he could possibly have learned from the experiences of the last four years, and he must be poised to jump right back into his old habits.

    Maybe you've got Edwards pegged; I guess time will tell.

    "God isn't through with me yet" doesn't have to be a statement of arrogant belief in Edwards' own importance, you know.  It could be a statement of his belief that perhaps he's not finished learning some lessons.  And why is it so reprehensible to believe, if he does, that there just might be some good he can do in the world - I mean, it's not as if the world couldn't use another person trying to do some good.

    I don't know, for me, I think a lot of this has to do with people believing that they should get to pick and choose which people get redemption and which ones don't.  That Edwards should have to continue to suffer for the sins he committed against his family, even as we've had two presidents now - Bush and Obama - who, even as they were/are faithful husbands and fathers, good friends and people of faith, have shown a stunning indifference to human life, to the rule of law and the suffering of the least among us.  

    I don't presume to judge anyone's relationship with their higher power; it's kind of grating to see just how many people think they should.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:07:08 AM EST
    I don't know, for me, I think a lot of this has to do with people believing that they should get to pick and choose which people get redemption and which ones don't.  That Edwards should have to continue to suffer for the sins he committed against his family, even as we've had two presidents now - Bush and Obama - who, even as they were/are faithful husbands and fathers, good friends and people of faith, have shown a stunning indifference to human life, to the rule of law and the suffering of the least among us.  

    I don't presume to judge anyone's relationship with their higher power; it's kind of grating to see just how many people think they should.

    No, no, and no.

    It's just that, in my worldview, what matters is integrity and how you treat others IN THIS LIFE. It's far too easy to be a dishonorable scumbag, and then claim you're a sinner and talk about God's forgiveness.  That's what we see all the time with the bible-thumpers.

    I also believe that anyone who claims that 'god isn't finished with me' has some serious ego issues.  That's MY opinion only.

    Parent

    "He who is without sin..." (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    and all that.

    Parent
    Again, MY opinion and MY worldview, (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    which I believe I'm as entitled to as you are yours.

    What matters to me is integrity and how you treat others, not invoking Jesus' name after the fact.

    Parent

    But we will cause now he is a victim of (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    government over reach.  

    Parent
    Perhaps he wil go quietly into that good night. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    I hope.

    Parent
    He could be a good public defender... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    ...and countless people need non-courtroom legal representation who can't afford it. I hope John Edwards becomes the most well-known non-profit lawyer of all time, personally. I'll never vote for the man, but he's skilled and there are people who need his skills. I'll be happy if his third act involves public notoriety. It'll just need to be earned, not bought.

    Parent
    Weeeeeell, somehow I doubt it. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:31:47 PM EST
    I hope John Edwards becomes the most well-known non-profit lawyer of all time, personally.

    I feel pretty confident that anything he does in the future will involve making money.

    Parent

    Hey... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    ...I've been against him from the start. Just being aspirational here!

    Parent
    And I feel pretty confident (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:56:38 AM EST
    you're typing through your nose.

    Edwards has vastly more money than anyone will ever need.

    Parent

    wev (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:19:14 AM EST
    He sure does, and you might want to think about how he got it, and how that jibes with his concern for the poor, then re-consider your own nose.

    I was responding to the notion that he might now start doing non-profit work. My opinion is that that's not likely.

    Parent

    He's BEEN doing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    non-profit work for many years, Dr. Molly.  And "consider how he got" his money-- what, it's a bad thing to help people like that little girl whose intestines were sucked out of her body by an unprotected swimming pool drain the company knew was dangerous and refused to fix?  I don't get it.  As far as I'm aware, the guy never once represented the rich and powerful, only the "little people" who got screwed.


    Parent
    that's also true of me (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:15:32 PM EST
    I feel pretty confident that anything he does in the future will involve making money.
    Does that make me a bad person?

    Parent
    No it doesn't. straw. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:19:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Does Mr. Edwards have an active status (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    w/@ least one state.bar association?

    Parent
    oy (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:14:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Answer: (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    North  Carolina State Bar:
    Status    Inactive
    Status Definition    The lawyer has voluntarily petitioned for this status, which renders
    the lawyer not currently eligible to practice law in North Carolina.
    Discipline   
    No public discipline.


    Parent
    Yikes. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:26:18 PM EST


    Parent
    NCSBA FAQ: (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    18: How do I return to active membership in the North Carolina State Bar after being granted inactive status or from an administrative suspension?

    You must petition to be reinstated as an active member of the State Bar. You must complete and file the appropriate reinstatement petition (determined by the length of time you have been inactive or suspended) with the membership department of the State Bar (petitions and instructions available under the "Membership" heading on the Forms page).The reinstatement petition must be accompanied by the appropriate reinstatement fee, the membership fees for the year in which you seek reinstatement, and any other fees or obligations owed to the State Bar or the Continuing Legal Education department. See 27 NCAC 1D, Rule .0902.

    Parent

    Maybe he will sue some federal (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    employee (not the prosecutor) for alleged  violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.  

    Parent
    Section 1983 (none / 0) (#80)
    by Peter G on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    by its terms, only applies to state actors, not federal.  Non starter.  And the prosecutors have immunity from suit anyway.

    Parent
    Bivens. (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:50:03 PM EST


    Parent
    "And the prosecutors (none / 0) (#134)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    have immunity from suit anyway."

    Parent
    Which is why I assumed he won't (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    name the prosecutors as defendants.  He's a smart lawyer, after all.  

    Parent
    Was he? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:23:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Best not to ask me as this is a defense (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:36:22 PM EST
    blog.  I do really wonder how the Edwards' campaign manipulation of the Mellon contributions passes the straight face test on these charges.  But, of course, that is not the burden of proof.  

    Parent
    What is your opinion of the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:43:06 AM EST
    CREW statement?

    Parent
    Oh, yes (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:58:20 AM EST
    He most certainly was.  I doubt you can find any knowledgeable attorney, except maybe a GOP extreme partisan, who doesn't think so.

    Parent
    or maybe a prosecutor (2.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:45:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Even the prosecutors (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    I've heard/read think this was a lousy case and probably shouldn't have been brought.


    Parent
    Yes, well, you do that (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    because he's been active in that effort for quite some years now, whether it crossed your personal radar screen or not.

    If you're going to heap scorn and ridicule on somebody, best be a little bit better informed.

    Parent

    He became active in that effort (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:21:12 AM EST
    while running for office.

    I think our radar screens are fully functional.

    Parent

    Not a good husband (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:23:17 PM EST
    Not a great father in some important areas,   not Presidential material, but in the world of politicians and money not proven to be criminal either in the eyes of a jury no matter how badly the judge tried to railroad him.

    statement from CREW (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    That's Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (link):

    Today, in response to the not guilty verdict/hung jury in the trial U.S. v. Edwards, CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan issued the following statement:

    Today's verdict in the trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards isn't just a black eye for the Department of Justice (DOJ), it's a knockout punch for the once vaunted Public Integrity Section. As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case. All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that Edwards is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him.

    It is all the more astounding DOJ brought this case, given the Department's refusal to prosecute other politicians, such as former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Don Young (R-AK), and now-deceased Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), all of whom engaged in much clearer crimes. Further, the Department botched its last prosecution of a high profile politician, now-deceased Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).

    It is hard to imagine DOJ will retry Edwards, but given the choice to bring this case in the first place, anything is possible. You'd think DOJ would recognize there are more pressing issues confronting our nation than whether Roger Clemens took steroids and John Edwards hid his mistress, but maybe not. DOJ should apologize to the American people for wasting scarce taxpayer dollars and focus resources on serious matters like the widespread mortgage fraud or the financial crisis that harmed millions of Americans.

    While this case is over for Edwards, federal candidates remain in a quandary with little guidance as to what is and is not a legitimate campaign expense. If Edwards could be prosecuted for failing to report third parties' payments to his mistress, there is no telling what else the Department will consider a campaign contribution. DOJ should immediately issue guidance on this point and explain if and when candidates can rely on the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. criminal justice system requires fair notice of what is and is not against the law. Sadly, DOJ seems to have forgotten this fundamental American precept. Luckily, the jury remembered.
    Thank you (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:00:09 AM EST


    Parent
    If the defense is asking the court to accept... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    ... the one verdict, could one assume the defense knows what that verdict is?

    Good question. In CA state court, (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    the attorneys and judge don't know the verdict until the clerk is sworn and reads it to everyone, including the jury.  Wonder what the rule is in fed. court.  

    Parent
    More likely to me that it's a gamble... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    ... based on the lawyers thinking "there's no bleeping way any jury can convict on Count 3" and/or eye contact winks and subtle thumbs ups from jurors as they walked in the courtroom.

    Parent
    Smiles from a juror directed at Edwards (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    would do it.  Where are twitterers when we need them?

    Parent
    From wikipedia, typical Allen instruction... (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:37:09 PM EST
    ... "Members of the Jury:
    I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.

    This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.

    Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.

    If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.

    You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

    You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
     I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you."

    No wonder 23 states reject this instruction. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others.


    Parent
    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    That's a horrible instruction, and offers unofficial license to a majority on a jury panel to bully and belittle the minority into compliance.

    Make no mistake about it, majorities have been known to get it entirely wrong in the past about issues, and that fact doesn't change just because people happen to sit on a jury.

    Let's put it this way: 71% of Americans prior to the Iraq War thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Did that substantive majority opinion render the other 29% of us "wrong" and / or "unreasonable," simply because we failed to make an impression upon the majority?

    Parent

    The instruction should be renamed the (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:00:11 PM EST
    "get over yourself, you are NOT Henry Fonda" instruction.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    And that is only one reason to be repelled by the instruction.  

    Parent
    Jury just sent ANOTHER note to judge ~4pm EST (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:02:52 PM EST


    Not guilty (none / 0) (#24)
    by downtownted on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    NG on Count 3, Mistrial on remainder

    Edwards dodges a big one. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:48:16 PM EST


    I'm sure there will be a book (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    You can read all about it!

    Parent
    We he marry Hunter now? (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:00:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I watched his statement on the courthouse steps, (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    his voice broke when saying that he loved his daughter Quinn.  He had already talked about his other children and how much they meant to him.  Don't know or care too much if he has a relationship with Ms. Hunter, but I do hope he is a good father to their daughter.

    Parent
    Much wailing and gnashing (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    of capped teeth by some of the talking heads about Edwards speech on the Courthouse steps.  Howard Fineman's head exploded in HD---about his take that Edward's thinks he can re-ener politics. Bob Shrum, his senate campaign manager and early supporter, was equally incensed.  It seems that these political experts want to distance themselves, rather than be gracious enough to, at least, cut some slack given the stress and strain of this federal trial.  

    Parent
    It's not like Edwards said he wanted public office (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by magster on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:52:53 PM EST
    again. He can't be trusted with power.

    But he is talented and if he wants to spend his life redeeming himself in a different role from politics, great.

    Parent

    Let's see what he actually does. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:54:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I would prefer (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:58:31 PM EST
     to leave it up to the voters as to whether "he can('t) be trusted again."


    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:06:50 PM EST
    Presumably Magster is a voter. And, regardless, it's a given that the voters will decide whether he can be trusted again. Magster was clearly giving his/her opinion on Edwards' trustworthiness, not attempting to officially bar his run for office.

    Parent
    I agree, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 08:15:00 PM EST
    sometimes, with our counter-snark weapon on hair trigger alert, we shoot first, and aim....well, maybe never.

    appreciate the head's up

    Parent

    That's why I don't listen to the talking heads. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Angel on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    I saw the statement on the courthouse steps and I didn't think he was saying he wanted to enter politics again. Those pundits are nothing but blowhards parsing statements to fit their own agenda.

    Parent
    It sounded like he wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by star on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:24:00 PM EST
    I was a bit put off by him after the trial. He was "acting" like he used to when he was 2 timing. and it certainly looked like he was trying to worm back into public good graces.. an Pol usually does that for only one reason ;)

    Parent
    I honestly don't think (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:48:13 AM EST
    he's so deluded beyond redemption that he has the slightest thought that he can get back into politics.  I don't think the idea was even on his radar when he spoke this afternoon.

    Parent
    Per NYT: (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:42:20 PM EST
    Mr. Edwards closed his statement by saying that he believed that God was not finished with him yet and that he would spend the rest of his life trying to be the best father he could and work at how he could serve impoverished children in the United States and around the world


    Parent
    John Edwards : Not Guilty on One Count, Mistrial on Others | 135 comments (135 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment