In an apparent rejection of a plea bargain, former senator and 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards has been indicted on six counts of conspiracy, campaign contribution violations, and false statements. If he goes to trial, he is obviously risking a jail term. However, the case of the Justice Department is no slam dunk and presents novel legal theories that will offer strong appellate arguments if allowed by the trial court. This will make the pre-trial motions even more important than usual for the defendant. The two-year investigation has now led to a warrant (below) for his arrest.
The indictments are based on money given to support Edwards’ mistress Rielle Hunter by friends and donors of Edwards. The government is insisting that such money should have been reported as campaign contributions — a novel claim. The government will have to show not only that such money constitutes reportable campaign contributions but that Edwards had the requisite knowledge and intent.
Part of the problem for Edwards is his high-profile status. While people often talk about celebrity justice as preferred treatment, the opposite is true. Prosecutors are often drawn to high-visibility cases and the public watches for any evidence of lenient treatment. The result is often harsher treatment for celebrities. I have serious question as to whether this case would have been given such work and time — let alone a trial — for someone who is less visible and less disliked (due to his cheating on his late wife as she struggled with cancer).
If convicted of a felony, Edwards would lose not just his freedom but his license. The plea deal likely demanded the sacrifice of his license. This must have been an ironic and bitter factor for Edwards. Edwards is reportedly interested in starting a public interest law firm. It was likely an effort to redeem himself and his name with skills that made him one of the nation’s more successful trial attorneys. The prosecutors, therefore, were not only likely asking for jail time but the elimination of the only avenue he had for personal and professional redemption.
The government is expected to rely on an advisory opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission, which asserted that a gift to a candidate for federal office would be considered a campaign contribution. That decision involving a party named Phillip Harvey was handed down on June 14, 2000. Harvey asked for the opinion on whether his giving money to be likely candidate for office would be a campaign contribution if the recipient was not going to use it for campaign purposes. That is not exactly the strongest legal basis for a case and I can find no actual federal case on point. What it can show is constructive knowledge that, absent a rejection of the claim in a federal case, such contributions were viewed by the FEC as a campaign contribution. In this case, the defense is likely to argue that this was not an effort to hide money from the FEC but to hide an affair from Edwards’ wife — a classic motivation.
Part of the practical problem for Edwards is that the jury is likely to be more entranced by the sordid details than the legal definitions. This is actually a case that should turn on these distinctions, but it likely to become a matter of credibility on the stand. The government is likely to frame the case as a factual matter, offering detailed testimony from witnesses. In such a case with reprehensible underlying conduct by the defendant, the government always has a considerable advantage. For that reason, the defense may want to stipulate to as many of these facts as possible to avoid the in court testimony. In the end, however, the defense may have to attack cooperating witnesses like former Edwards aide Andrew Young and risk getting bogged down in the details of the affair.
One witness, however, may not testified due to her age — 100-year-old philanthropist Rachel “Bunny” Mellon of Virginia. The other key witness,attorney Fred Baron, will certainly not testify because he is now deceased. The defense can argue that this presents an added disability for the defense and should create reasonable doubt in the circumstantial evidence presented by the government.
Count One is a conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. 371.
Count Two is the illegal campaign contributions charge under 2 U.S.C. 441a.
Count Three is a second illegal campaign contribution charge under 2 U.S.C 441a.
Count Four is a third illegal campaign contribution charged under 2 U.S.C 441a.
Count Five is a fourth illegal campaign contribution charged under 2 U.S.C 441a.
Count Six is a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Some of us anticipated the final charge which is a standard basis against politicians in Washington, D.C. It is often said that politicians are more often indicted for how they respond to scandal than the underlying scandal itself. The problem with these charges if that it is an all-or-nothing package. The jury is most likely to accept or reject the counts in toto. If convicted, that could lead to a lengthly potential jail sentence for Edwards, though these counts should run consecutively.
Here is the Edwards warrant: JE_arrest_warrant
Here is the indictment: John_Edwards indictment
The (in)famous photo alleged to have been of Anthony Weiner is UPSIDE DOWN. When turned right side up, the whole context changes. The body part in question takes on a whole new appearance. Not the table leg that had been cropped out is visible in the uncropped version of the photo, and is the dead giveaway. If that is Anthony Weiner, then so am I.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2011/06/that-photo.html
Excellent point. And the media are also guilty of going after every new shiny thing and ignoring the real news. Weinergate is another example.
So much for Briepart doctoring photos.
Weinergate Bombshell: New Woman Comes Forward Claiming Cache of Intimate Photos and Online Communications with Beleaguered Congressman
A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”
The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.
BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com were approached regarding this information more than a week prior to the separate, independent event of Friday, May 27, 2011, when a link to the now-infamous “gray underwear” photograph appeared publicly on Rep. Weiner’s Twitter feed.
We will be updating BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com throughout the day with photographs, timelines, and other clarifying details. However, we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature.
steve k. sez: “Going after Edward’s is using celebrity as convenient distraction for the public compared to unresolved events such as the Arnebeck assertions.”
*********************************************
Excellent point. And the media are also guilty of going after every new shiny thing and ignoring the real news. Weinergate is another example. Just as Congressman Weiner starts to expose the ethically challenged Clarence Thomas’ failure to disclose conflicts of interest and his wife’s income we have this new, curiously timed bit. Thomas even lied about his wife’s income, even to the point of checking the box that said, “No spousal income.” But, the media knows what is REALLY important: A PhotoShopped picture that may or may not be Anthony Weiner’s drawers.
Trying to figure our what the Obama Justice Department pursues might as well be predicted by throwing darts at a dart board. While Edwards conduct is certainly less than admirable, most of this case is really a stretch. From what I’ve read on this, the government is making such a novel claim that a defendant could not be possibly be reasonably expected to have an expectation that their acts were in fact illegal. And the government relying on an advisory opinion by the FEC? One of the most partisan and ineffectual bodies that presently exist? This case is off the reservation.
How about using Justice Department resources or the FEC looking into the assertions made in Cliff Arnebeck’s King-Lincoln Bronzeville v. OH Sec. of State case and and the death of Mike Connell, related election fraud in Ohio in 2004?
Going after Edward’s is using celebrity as convenient distraction for the public compared to unresolved events such as the Arnebeck assertions.
Swarthmore mom,
I had not accessed Powerwall before. That is a very good news catalog site.
I think Edwards simply thought he was so powerful that could do what he wanted when he wanted and perhaps he considered that the hush money paid could be easier covered-up than using his own money (re: tax reporting, hiding those funds from Mrs. Edwards, et cetera).
Although not a lawyer, from my reading, I think the case against Edwards is better than 50:50.
I would have voted for this man had the truth about him not been revealed in time.
Typo?
If convicted, that could lead to a lengthly potential jail sentence for Edwards, though these counts should run consecutively.
Perhaps you meant ‘concurrently’?
Although in these two Americas, what is consecutive for some is often concurrent for others – especially for those whose views on economic and social equality pose if the slightest challenge to the power and prestige of the dominant class.
I don’t understand why Edwards did not use his own vast personal fortune for these expenses.
john edwards has nothing to worry about
just ask don siegelman
Something occured to me today and I have been thinking about it. John Edwards is a top-tier plaintiff’s attorney. He has made a fortune helping ordinary people sue rich corporations. This makes him a Very Dangerous Man in the eyes of the power establishment.
Paul Minor, a Very Dangerous Plaintiff’s Lawyer in Mississippi, is in prison right now on what many legal experts consider to be a trumped up charge. Try to convince me it is not punitive when they would not even let Paul visit his dying wife or attend her funeral.
I an not a conspiracy theorist type, but this does not pass the smell test.
As I said earlier, I am waiting to see indictments on some war criminals. I suspect I will have a long wait. It would do me good to see the puppet-master Cheney and his ventriloquist dummy, Bush the Lesser frog marched off to the hoosegow. Karl Rove needs to be perp-walked past the press gaggle as well.
What John Edwards gets in court will be 1 on a scale of 100. The other 99 he dumped on his wife and children.
Just because someone is a slimy scumbag does not mean that thy don’t sometimes speak the truth.
In pointing out that the US justice system is two tiered, Edwards was speaking the facts just as does Glen Greenwald at least once every week.