John Edwards will never be president. He will never get a cabinet appointment. He is no longer a defendant. What is going on in his life is no longer any of our business. Meanwhile, he has a new child to raise. He has a new family. Edwards and Hunter chose the spotlight, but the little one didn’t. Nor did Edwards’s other children with his deceased wife.
Of course, the counterargument is that John Edwards does not want to be left alone. You know what? That’s all the more reason to leave him alone.
If he broke federal law he should be prosecuted regardless of whether he will never be pres or has a new child. He was alleged to have used campaign funds (the Bunny money) to cover up his affair so as I see it, he has connected his personal and private life.
But he was acquitted, or at least hung a jury. He’s an innocent man, if perhaps an immoral one. End of line.
Can they retry him for the counts the jury was hung on? I imagine it depends on the situation, but I thought that in most instances, one could theoretically be retried on “hung” counts.
They can, at least sometimes, but it is largely perceived to be unlikely due to the weakness of the case. The legal experts were saying that getting a conviction would actually shift the window on what the law says is impermissible. In other words, what they were saying Edwards did, others have not been convicted of. I don’t think they go for that twice.
(I wasn’t against the prosecution at the outset, but the more I read about it, the dicier it became for me.)
I’ll admit; the case seems pretty dicey to me, but I haven’t really read up much on it.
“But he was acquitted, or at least hung a jury. He’s an innocent man, if perhaps an immoral one. End of line.”
Burt, you off all people should know that acquitted/hung jury =/= innocent.
Not talking about the prosecutors. The trial is over. If they choose to retry him, then it’s news again. I am operating under the assumption that he will not be retried. In which case, we need to leave the man and his family/families alone.
As long as there’s a single Republican-appointed US attorney, we’ll continue to have these political prosecutions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/05/john-edwards-prosecutor-wins-gop-primary-in-nc-122878.html
The U.S. Attorney who obtained the indictment of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) on campaign finance charges, George Holding, won the Republican nomination Tuesday in a Congressional race in North Carolina.
Mike
So the fact that he was Repub means it was a political prosecution? Mike, surely you do better than that. Remember, Barry is a Dem and is in charge of the DOJ.
Don’t take my word for it: Ask Paul Coble, also a Republican:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/04/gop-house-candidate-john-edwards-case-is-political-122020.html
Coble said in the interview was “no question” Holding was seeking to advance his political career by pursuing the case against Edwards and another against former Gov. Mike Easley (D-N.C.). Coble also called the two cases a waste of taxpayer money.
“I think there is no question that Holding thought those two cases would take him to Congress,” Coble told Main Justice. “Likewise, Edwards is a horrible person for what he did to his wife and family…But the real question is about how valid the charges were against him.”
Mike
Considering that Coble was running against Holding for the seat, is that accusation all that surprising? Did you forget that Coble was his opponent? Do you think Holding’s Dem bosses would really let him persue a purely political prosecution?
Unfortunately, Democrats don’t play politics very well, or Holding would have been replaced back in 2009.
And surely there are other ways Coble could have attacked Holding. Why choose the ones that indirectly defend Democratic office holders?
Mike
NC has a semi open primary that still allows unregistered folks to register or change their party affiliation on election day so Coble’s accusation could be a cheap way to get votes in a tight race.
Do you really believe that Holding’s boss didn’t take a look at such a high profile case before he was allowed to prosecute it considering the black eye DOJ would get if he lost? Even I don’t think that Barry’s folks at DOJ are that incompetent.
Even Mark Levin was saying this week that this is a bad case that should never have been brought.
On one level I feel like this was done because it was not covered by the news at the time.
It’s pointless to secretly funnel money to cover something up if it’s already public knowledge. But I’m guessing you meant something less obvious.
I’m not sure I’ll ever write these words again, but I (partially!) agree with Scott.
If Edwards did indeed violate federal laws, then he should be prosecuted for the violation. (I know Will qualified what he meant in his post to indicate he was thinking of what should be done now that, apparently, the US DA has stopped his prosecution.)
I do think a lot of prosecutions of officials and even (especially?) the prosecution of Edwards are politically motivated. And I do think there is too much of “let’s make an example of” whoever. But if a law was violated, it is not a foul thing to prosecute.
Now, here is where I disagree with Scott, or at least have reservations about the points he’s making:
1. I don’t know the campaign finance laws well enough, or Edwards’s situation in particular, to have a good opinion as to whether there’s a case to be made, especially after his acquittal on this one charge. For all I know, this is one of those laws that any candidate can be read as having violated and only a hypercritical look into Edwards’s practices yields circumstances amenable to a prosecutable case. In short, I’m not going to state that Edwards is not getting a raw deal unless and until I learn more about the case and the laws in question.
2. Obama is in charge of the DOJ, but my understanding was that in general, US district attorneys are appointed for a series of years, and for all I know, the DA who led this prosecution might have been appointed before Obama came to office. (I suppose if I really wanted to know, I would do the googlesearching necessary to find out. I’m too lazy.) And as we learned when Gonzales was attorney general, political firings might be technically legal, but they tend to create an uproar (especially if the firer denies in the first place that the firings were political). In other words, the fact that Obama / Holder oversee the DOJ does not mean that a given member of the DOJ might have it in for a Democrat. (Again, I don’t know the facts to know if this is what happened in the Edwards case.)
Obama is in charge of the DOJ, but my understanding was that in general, US district attorneys are appointed for a series of years, and for all I know, the DA who led this prosecution might have been appointed before Obama came to office.
Yup, he was a Bush appointee. Obama was trying to appear less partisan by not following standard practice and replacing all of the Bush US Attorneys. (Which would not have been a “political firing”, any more than replacing the Cabinet.) The results were predictable.
My understanding was that it was common practice not to replace US DA’s until their term was up, that a US DA served for a period of years and then stood to be reappointed, all the while, of course, subject to the pleasure of the president who fire at will. In other words, I think I essentially agree with you when it comes to what might be the political motivations in the Edwards case; I just would like to know more without doing the minimum about of keystroking necessary to find out by myself. 🙂