Criminal law, Politics

Edwards Indicted . . . But How Strong Is The Case?

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

69 thoughts on “Edwards Indicted . . . But How Strong Is The Case?”

  4. I’m not comparing him directly to Tiger but how the women lined up one by one.

  5. bdaman, Your diaper guy, Vitter, did not resign. How can Weiner be like Tiger Woods if he has never met the people involved?

  6. The woman says she has 200 sexually explicit messages from Weiner from a Facebook account the Democratic politician no longer uses.

  8. Bdaman:

    man you are good. So Wiener did send his wiener. And it probably wasn’t his wiener but a plastic wiener. So not only does he not have a new career in porn but he has lost his seat.

    I guess Humma isn’t going to be playing that tune on the ole flute any more.

  9. 1, June 6, 2011 at 9:47 am

    We now know the pic came from his account. If he’s not that well endowed the dildo is the ONLY explanation.

  13. OS,

    Why anyone would take anything that “man” (and I use the term loosely) says is a complete mystery to me. He’s a time and again demonstrated propagandist and liar (specialty: lies of omission and context shifting). Going to him for “the truth” is like going to Mengele for genetic counseling – simply asking for trouble.

  14. I do not believe anything that Andrew Breitbart writes. He has a long history of making up stuff and manipulating pictures and videos. What else do we need to know to impeach his credibility? Or lack thereof. He is a muckraker, and if there is no muck, he makes up his own mud.

  15. I’ll wait to hear the women show up one by one like they did with Tiger Woods.

    The following photograph was allegedly sent to the young woman from AnthonyWeiner@aol.com via BlackBerry on Wednesday, May 4, 2011, under the subject, “Me and the pussys” (note cats in background):

    http://biggovernment.com/

    Looks like he’s got a boner in this one too. Looks like he might be a little under the influence his eye’s are glossy and red. He could be tired, he is a congressman with a busy schedule.

  16. Blogger “stef” knows a lot more about twitter, yfrog and some of the other networking sites than I do. He did a prodigious amount of research. It is pretty clear the whole sordid matter does not pass the smell test.

    stef wrote about his findings here. I am not going to try and interpret his account of what he found. The reader can go to the source. This is long and highly detailed, making for some slow reading:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/04/982102/-Breitbarts-#TwitterhoaxWhat-We-Know-Now?detail=hide

  17. Yea that was back before all the sexual harassment stuff. That’s why I said many many years ago. Remember it takes two to tango but your right. I was told a supervisor once that if I had an employee like me I would of fired myself along time ago 🙂

    Here’s a restaurant joke that’s appropriate. Do you know what the difference is between medium and rare.

    Hold your index fingers apart about six inches and thats medium. Spread’em out to twelve and thats rare 🙂

    We now know the pic came from his account. If he’s not that well endowed the dildo is the ONLY explanation.

  18. If anyone working for me pulled a prank like that they would be out of a job so fast it would make them dizzy. Not funny, sexist and a firing offense.

    As for your dildo theory, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not specious speculation.

  19. O.S. it reminds me of a prank I played many many years ago. I was a manager for a restaurant. We had silverware rolled up in a napkin that would go into a clear long round bag. The waitresses would blow the bag up and call it a blow job to go.
    One day I took one and blew it up and shoved it in my pants. I proceeded to walk around the waitress station until the giggles started. I was then approached by a waitress who called me out and said it was a silverware bag. I said no that’s me and walked away. Later on after the morning rush was over she happened to be in the breakroom. I happened to have an erection at the time and walked back there. She again told me to take the silverware bag out of my pants that everyone knew what it was. I dared her to grab it to see for herself. She did then got up screaming it’s him, it’s him. You wouldn’t believe how many waitresses were had after that. 🙂

    It’s possible he shoved a dildo in his pants.

Comments are closed.