(OT) John Edwards

[Jeff Strickland]

He's gonna walk.

The prosecution painted an excellent picture of a complete asshole, but
that's not what he was charged with. Unless there is testimony that that he
knew money was diverted to Hunter, AND that the money came from campaign
coffers, then all he did was have an affair while his wife was dying of
breast cancer. Clearly, he is a despicable human being, but that is not an
illegal act.

He's a scumbag of the highest order, no question about that. But he's not on
trial for being a scumbag, and I don't think they did a good job or
prosecuting what he was on trial for.

[Jeff Strickland]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jp1c6q$8s6$1...@dont-email.me...

Megyn Kelly is on O' Really right now, and she says Edwards is gonna hang.
She says the prosecution showed he violated the law, I say all they did was
show that he's a creep of the highest order.

I don't know what he knew or when, and the prosecutor did not make that
clear. The only person that could clear this up is Mellon, and she's dead.
What we know without equivocation is that Edwards had an affair when 1.) he
was running for Prez., and 2.) when his wife was at home dying of breast
cancer. This makes him a creep, but it's not illegal. I say he's gonna walk.
I'm not pro-Edwards by any stretch, but the case as charged was not proven,
and what was proven is not illegal although by any measure it is despicable.

[Mark]

What amazes me is how he pressed on with a campaign thinking he could
get away with all the crap in which he was engaging.


On May 16, 7:50 pm, Conscience <obama...@fraud.gov> wrote:

> You're likely correct.  Trial attorneys, even on the prosecution side,
> are usually far from conservative.  They protect their own, and can
> easily throw a jury.
>
> That said, Edwards has created his own Karma.  If not in this world,
> certainly the next.  He'll pay.
>
> --
> "The Taliban, per se, is not our enemy." --Joe Biden, Dec. 2011

[homey]

A bit judgmental don't you think. In the grand scheme of things, a few
notches above the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker,
etc. He DID take care of his wife during much of her sickness.

[Jeff Strickland]

"homey" <ho...@HotishMail.com> wrote in message
news:Pb2dnVjAfco32CXS...@giganews.com...

Yes, he did, but so what? Taking care of one's wife is the expected thing to
do, you don't get brownie points for doing what you are supposed to do.
Having a hooker for a girlfriend on the side is the not-expected thing to
do, and any points one amasses in life get deducted very quickly when you do
stuff you are not supposed to do.

But the charge here is that he did stuff that is illegal, and the
prosecution did not show very well that what he did was illegal. John
Edwards is the consumate creep, the prosecution did show that. He's gonna
walk on the charges. And, no I don't think it is judgemental. But so what if
it is, he's on trial, so a judgement is required. THAT'S the point of any
trial, to render judgement.

[NotMe]

"dbu''" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:u9OdnSPEHKHWNSfS...@giganews.com...
> In article <Pb2dnVjAfco32CXS...@giganews.com>,

> He abandoned his sick wife for a fling. He's a scum-bag.

Based on recent media reports ... not a unique activity for a poltican

[homey]

Have you driven an '86 yet?

[Jeff Strickland]

They are reporting right now that the jury has reached a verdict. They are
saying the verdict will be announced, "in minutes." They are herding all of
the people into the court as I am typing.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jp1c6q$8s6$1...@dont-email.me...

[Jeff Strickland]

Hung on all but one count. A fluid situation...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jq8d6s$odf$1...@dont-email.me...

[Jeff Strickland]

There are six counts, and there is only a verdict on one of them. We don't
know what the verdict is yet, but the hang on the other 5 charges is a
victory for Edwards.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jq8ehq$1mt$1...@dont-email.me...

[Jeff Strickland]

NOT GUILTY, Count 3. The other five counts are still hung.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jq8etp$483$1...@dont-email.me...

[Jeff Strickland]

"dbu''" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:FdqdnRgKR569eVrS...@giganews.com...
> In article <jq8ehq$1mt$1...@dont-email.me>,

> "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hung on all but one count. A fluid situation...
>

> I do not believe they will try for a re-trial. They spent too much time
> and money already and this is a way to save face.
>
> Another slippery lawyer will walk.


The pundits are saying that if the jury convicted on one charge, then the
retrial on the other five would be more likely. Since they acquited on the
only charge they could decide on, then it appears that there will not be a
retrial.

Just like I said two weeks ago, he's gonna walk. He's guilty of being a
complete asshole and an utterly dispicable human being, but he was not
charged on those crimes.

He's innocent of the one charge the prosecutors actually did the best job of
presenting, so the hung jury on the other five charges had to be leaning
towards acquital.