If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Edwards mistrial

DCblogger's picture

Edwards Mistrial Puts Sharp Focus On Justice Department

The botched campaign finance case against John Edwards was a blow for the government in a high-profile, aggressive prosecution, forcing a reassessment of the merits of the charges as the government decides whether a second trial is justified.

The Dept. of Justice could have investigated Bank of America. Instead they went after Edwards and I really think that that tells us everything we need to know.

No votes yet


nomad2's picture
Submitted by nomad2 on

This was my choice in that 2008 race. I don't care about his sordid sexual escapades, just as I didn't about Clinton's. Edwards would have made a better president than what we got. He was probably set up by those who knew of his sexual weakness to clear the way for the pre-chosen one.

Submitted by jawbone on

Obama's actions. Obama et al absolutely do not want a creditable person with a large following pointing out what could be done and is not being done. Krugman is only in print, with a few television appearances, and that's manageable, especially when the corporatist representatives on the program can just talk over him.

Edwards would have retained viability for another run, perhaps could even have taken on Obama in a primary. No way after the scandal and the prosecution, which was mostly a rehash of his being lousy husband as his wife was dying.

Submitted by jawbone on

against Edwards (which I think had to be supported by at least Holder, most likely Obama et al as well), and she remarks on the highly politicized nature of the whole caper:

How you can tell something about a politician is where he places his focus. And John Edwards was the only person in the 2007 primary campaign who was talking about the poor. That’s why I supported him.

I always thought the case against Edwards was not only weak, but heavily politicized. (Notice that no one indicted John Ensign. He got his wealthy parents to pay off his mistress and her husband, and the payments were structured to avoid public disclosure. See “IOIYAR”.)

Instead, we had an ambitious Republican prosecutor, a holdover from the Bush administration, who made unprecedented charges against Edwards and pretty much destroyed him. That prosecutor resigned to run for Congress. That heavily-publicized gossip spectacle just ended in Edwards being found innocent on one count, and a mistrial on the rest of the charges.

Click through to Susie's post for the embedded links.

*And, again, WTF was Obama doing when he left to many Bush/Cheney appointees in place when he took office? Also, why can't he make nominations to put judges into vacant seats in the Federal judiciary? Looks like a feature, not a bug.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

yes he talked a good game in 2008, but his Senate voting record did not match. He voted FOR the draconian bankruptcy deform act and a bunch of other pro-kleptocracy measures. His voting record was actually to the right of Hillary's.

Kuncinch was the only real progressive running in 2008.

Submitted by lambert on

Yes, that's a good take.

Submitted by Hugh on

The prosecution couldn't tie Edwards directly to any of this and its two star witnesses were essentially crooks who used the payments primarily to enrich themselves. When you have a case like that, the jury will likely throw it out and if they don't, it dies on appeal.

I think a lot of this was just a way of discrediting Edwards and through him, the two Americas theme of inequality. Mission Accomplished as far as I can see.