HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Justice Department Dismis...

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

Justice Department Dismisses John Edwards Case

Source: Talkingpointsmemo

4:10 PM EDT, WEDNESDAY JUNE 13, 2012
Justice Department Dismisses John Edwards Case


The Justice Department just dismissed its case against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
“We knew that this case – like all campaign finance cases – would be challenging,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer said in a statement. ”But it is our duty to bring hard cases when we believe that the facts and the law support charging a candidate for high office with a crime.  Last month, the government put forward its best case against Mr. Edwards, and I am proud of the skilled and professional way in which our prosecutors from the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina conducted this trial.  The jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict on five of the six counts of the indictment, however, and we respect their judgment.  In the interest of justice, we have decided not to retry Mr. Edwards on those counts.”

Reported by Ryan J. Reilly







Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/justice-department-dismisses-john-edwards-case

66 replies, 8528 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Department Dismisses John Edwards Case (Original post)
flpoljunkie Jun 2012 OP
sinkingfeeling Jun 2012 #1
Kalidurga Jun 2012 #2
flpoljunkie Jun 2012 #3
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #6
trof Jun 2012 #20
clang1 Jun 2012 #65
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #4
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #16
former9thward Jun 2012 #27
graham4anything Jun 2012 #34
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #43
former9thward Jun 2012 #49
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #50
former9thward Jun 2012 #51
graham4anything Jun 2012 #52
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #55
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #54
former9thward Jun 2012 #56
graham4anything Jun 2012 #57
graham4anything Jun 2012 #5
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #7
Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #19
graham4anything Jun 2012 #25
coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #26
graham4anything Jun 2012 #35
blackspade Jun 2012 #33
Gemini Cat Jun 2012 #39
truebrit71 Jun 2012 #40
graham4anything Jun 2012 #45
LanternWaste Jun 2012 #53
graham4anything Jun 2012 #58
roody Jun 2012 #47
pmorlan1 Jun 2012 #59
graham4anything Jun 2012 #60
pmorlan1 Jun 2012 #61
graham4anything Jun 2012 #62
magical thyme Jun 2012 #28
hamsterjill Jun 2012 #8
bonniebgood Jun 2012 #29
Bradical79 Jun 2012 #37
hamsterjill Jun 2012 #41
graham4anything Jun 2012 #46
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #9
pitohui Jun 2012 #32
marions ghost Jun 2012 #48
onehandle Jun 2012 #10
kestrel91316 Jun 2012 #11
Bradical79 Jun 2012 #38
maddezmom Jun 2012 #12
hrmjustin Jun 2012 #13
MNBrewer Jun 2012 #14
Bradical79 Jun 2012 #36
graham4anything Jun 2012 #42
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #15
Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #17
Beacool Jun 2012 #18
JDPriestly Jun 2012 #21
EFerrari Jun 2012 #22
hay rick Jun 2012 #24
leveymg Jun 2012 #23
bonniebgood Jun 2012 #30
leveymg Jun 2012 #31
struggle4progress Jun 2012 #44
clang1 Jun 2012 #63
aurora the great Jun 2012 #64
wordpix Jun 2012 #66

Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:16 PM

1. That pleases me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:22 PM

2. I am neither pleased nor disappointed...

What Edwards did was wrong on a massive scale. But, it never seemed to me like it was illegal. Yet, he should have and I believe he was punished for what he did. Public shame and he will probably never be able to run for office. He has a child that he will not see on a daily basis which sucks for that baby, but it impacts both parents of this child as well. There is really no perfect solution to the problems Edwards and Hunter created.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:27 PM

3. Think we might all agree this case was a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:30 PM

6. The DOJ and the press created the "problem."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:36 PM

20. And yet no relief for Don Siegelman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trof (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:49 AM

65. Pisses me off to

 

I had hoped something with Siegalman's case might have changed when the new Administration came in being, but nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:29 PM

4. Huge abuse of Bush DOJ power that Holder should have stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:13 PM

16. Holder had naught to do with it. It was Holding's game

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:20 PM

27. Edwards was indicted by the Obama DOJ.

The investigation began in May, 2009.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:41 AM

34. +1 (don'tcha love how the Edwards fans will lie and distort for Johnny?)

 

don't let the Edwards groupies lies get in the way of facts (how in God's name can there still be any? Is John himself writing under alias'???

The Edwards lies continue to this day, blaming Obama and anyone but themselves.

one can only shake their head in disbelief that he has any fans in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:03 AM

43. Bush appointee George EB Holding developed the case. Holding was US Attorney for NC's

Eastern District until 2011, having refused to resign at the end of Bush's term. Holding finally stepped down to run for Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #43)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

49. You don't know the system.

A U.S. Attorney can't "refuse to resign". They serve at the pleasure of the president. Obama could have fired him at any point after he took office. This was an Obama DOJ prosecution whether you like it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:04 PM

50. Let's cut thru your bullshit with some actual history:

Holding was a Bush appointee. Like several other Bushista US Attorneys, such as U.S. Attorneys Mary Beth Buchanan and Alice Martin, Holding neglected to resign when Obama took office. And similar to Buchanan and Martin, Holding argued he was prosecuting corrupt Democrats (in his case, Easley and Edwards), and that he could not be removed without politicizing the office. The administration figured it had enough on its plate without that particular political fight. In December 2009, Obama nominated a replacement for Holding. But Republicans promptly announced they would block the nomination -- and did so until Holding resigned to prepare for his Congressional run

Links follow: read and learn!


Mary Beth Buchanan, A U.S. Attorney That Just Won’t Quit
James Joyner · Saturday, December 6, 2008
Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has announced that she will forgo the customary courtesy of handing in her resignation when President Obama takes office ... http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/mary_beth_buchanan_a_us_attorney_that_just_wont_quit/

Why Two Bush Appointees Are Refusing to Leave
Jan 16, 2009 3:04 AM EST
Two U.S. attorneys appointed by Dubya are refusing to leave the Justice Department when Obama takes office. Their explanation: they've got too many corrupt Democrats to prosecute!
... Though their lease may technically run out on January 20, U.S. Attorneys Mary Beth Buchanan of Pittsburgh and Alice Martin of Birmingham are resolved to stay in their posts. The Daily Beast has learned that both are arguing to the Obama transition team that their efforts to convict Democrats should guarantee them an extended stay into the Obama presidency ... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/01/16/bushs-dead-enders.html

Speculation about how the U.S. Attorney's investigation of Mike Easley will be affected by the Obama Administration
George E. B. Holding is the sitting U. S. Attorney in Eastern District of Federal District Court in Raleigh, which includes the state capital. He is a political appointee, appointed by George W. Bush. He just so happens to also be the guy who prosecuted and won convictions of former House Speaker Jim Black, a Democrat. He also convicted some of the major players in getting the lottery installed in North Carolina. Now he is said to be investigating both former U. S. Senator John Edwards and former N. C. Governor Mike Easley ... During the campaign Obama had said that he was opposed to the appointment of U. S. Attorneys being politicized as long as they were doing their job ... If Holding is replaced observers predict that it will appear that Hagan/Obama are, at least in part, attempting to short-circuit the Easley investigation, or at least put pressure on Holding ... But another interesting wrinkle is present here. Some of Bush's appointees are apparently going to resist Obama replacing them ... http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-05-17-234739.112112_Speculation_about_how_the_US_Attorneys_investigation_of_Mike_Easley_will_be_affected_by_the_Obama_Administration.html

Hagan: Do not politicize U. S. Attorney appointment
May 20, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Kay R. Hagan (D-NC) announced today she has recommended the White House not replace George Holding, U.S. Attorney for North Carolina's Eastern District, until the conclusion of federal investigations into former Governor Mike Easley and former Senator John Edwards ... http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-05-20-234921.112112_Hagan_Do_not_politicize_U_S_Attorney_appointment.html

Thomas G. Walker Nominated as the Next United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina
December 1, 2009
Thomas G. Walker, a Charlotte partner in Alston & Bird’s Litigation & Trial Practice Group, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The nomination has been forwarded to the United States Senate for confirmation ... http://www.alston.com/resources/news/thomas-g-walker-nominated-as-the-next-united-states-attorney-for-the-eastern-district-of-north-carolina/

Burr To Hold Up North Carolina U.S. Attorney Nominee
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will hold up the U.S. Attorney nominee for the Eastern District of North Carolina, despite a previous report that he would not delay the confirmation process, The News & Observer in Raleigh, N.C., reported today ... Current U.S. Attorney George E.B. Holding, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, is overseeing federal probes into former Gov. Mike Easley and Sen. John Edwards, who are both Democrats. Burr said he is worried about Walker’s ties to the two prominent Democrats ... http://www.mainjustice.com/tag/thomas-walker/

George E.B. Holding, U.S. Attorney Behind John Edwards Case, Resigns
By Channing Turner | June 10, 2011 10:35 am
George E.B. Holding, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina since 2006, announced his resignation on Friday. Holding, a George W. Bush appointee, was held over as U.S. Attorney until the conclusion of a campaign finance probe into former presidential candidate John Edwards ... http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/06/10/u-s-attorney-behind-edwards-prosecution-to-resign/

Posted: June 30, 2011
Senate confirms Walker as new US Attorney
RALEIGH, N.C. — The U.S. Senate on Thursday unanimously confirmed a Charlotte federal prosecutor as the new U.S. attorney for the eastern district. Thomas Walker previously served as assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, assistant district attorney in Mecklenburg County, and as a special counsel to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. He is currently a partner at Alston & Bird Trial Practice Group in Charlotte ... http://www.wral.com/news/political/sto

U.S. Attorney Thomas G. Walker
Eastern District of North Carolina
Thomas G. Walker was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate ... http://www.justice.gov/usao/nce/meetattorney.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #50)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:19 PM

51. Let's cut through your attempt to Bullshit and provide cover.

U.S. Attorney's can't refuse to resign any more than a cabinet officer can refuse to resign. When Bill Clinton became president in Jan, 1993 the very first thing he did was fire every single U.S. Attorney (93 in all) . He didn't care what they were prosecuting at the time. Try spreading your BS on a site where people are more ignorant. The minute Obama became president any U.S. Attorney was his appointee unless he dismissed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:26 PM

52. Ironic, huh isn't it.

 

regardless, this is just trying to move the subject.
The justice department can't only try crooked republicans when a democrat is in office.
If a crime was committed or someone broke the law, the justice department has to try everyone that broke the law.
Actually, Edwards is probably the #1 fan of Scalia and Alito and Clarence Thomas, because it was the ruling making unlimited funding by those SCOTUS that confused the issue.

Had this case been ten years ago, it probably would have led to decades in the clink.And brought up on substantially MORE charges
(regardless of conspiracy theories and all which don't deserve the time of day).

Ironic, huh! Edwards is now the poster boy for unlimited campaign contributions with no questions asked and jurors not willing to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:18 PM

55. The current SCOTUS stance on campaign financing had zip to do with Edwards' trial:

everybody who looked at Holding's case knew it was a long and politically-motivated stretch, intended to keep Holding in office a few more years while he contemplated his own political future

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:15 PM

54. My "bullshit" came with links covering four years, together with a political analysis:

your silly claim, that Obama was behind the Edwards prosecution, comes with nought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #54)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 06:44 PM

56. If it helps for you to live in denial, go for it.

The Edwards investigation started in May, 2009. The Obama DOJ had been in power for about four months at that point. Bush was gone. Any DOJ appointees by Bush that were still there were there because Obama wanted them there. If he did not want them there all he would have had to do is pick up the phone and say good-bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:22 AM

57. all crooks should be tried, regardless of what party they are in.

 

Are you trying to obfusicate and actually are saying a crook should not be tried if he/she is in the same party as a president?

that is just partisian.

ALL crooks should go to jail, and the SCOTUS ruling on money sure do apply, because it is what confused the jurors (though Edwards attempts (according to the press) to wink and come on to the jurors to get one to his side and get the result he got(a mistrial) also helped. (like it did in prior days for another man who got expensive haircuts and wore groovy expensive clothes, Jon gottii who got one mistrial after another getting one juror or more to get it tossed.)

It's odd though, the logic to say that edwards should not have been tried because he was a democrat (though one in very poor standing, who tried to bring down the whole party).
(people don't forget the whisper campaign the edwards alliance used to call him 'the great white hope' in a purely racist attempt to get those "white voters" Obama don't need.

If democrats are going to be better than republicans, then ALL should be tried when they are breaking the law. Chicago gov. Rodney B. got a long jail sentence for IMHO doing nothing but dreaming. Don't hear the edwards groupies caring about him.

Besides, there are so many more important issues, like yesterdays LBJ like statement by Obama freeing the kids and no longer arresting them or deporting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:29 PM

5. The rich walk again.

 

The rich walk again, guess the finagler winked hard enough to convince that jurist or something like that.

hey, if it worked for Gottii all those years of the same split jury ending mistrial, why not for this 1%er.

God, the way he used his daughter in the trial, was that awful or what?

The one person in this whole thing I feel sorry for is Miss Hunter, the way he has used her. May she have an ironclad agreement, should she be left at the altar, dontchathink?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:31 PM

7. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:21 PM

19. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

The only person you feel sorry for graham . . is yourself!!
After railing about this case for the last 4 years like it was personal, or something!
Like Reille Hunter was your daughter, or something!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:20 PM

25. Edwards & wife attempted to bring down the entire Democrat Party

 

As this is DEMOCRAT underground, one would think DEMOCRATS would not be enamoured of the man and his wife who attempted to singlehandedly BRING DOWN the entire democrat party in 2008.
To those few fans of his left, can you imagine what would have happened had he been on the ticket in 2008?

Until Sarah Palin came along, Edwards was universally known as the worst vice president choice ever in 2004, helping John Kerry LOSE votes, not gain one single one anywhere.)

To think that anyone would want him back in some role in the democrat party in any role is amazing.

But then people (very few thankfully) also like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader had some fans too.

But then neither of them were DEMOCRATS either.

Maybe John can use some of the millions and millions and millions he has to pay the public back. And at Christmas time, he could have an open house and invite all the homeless for a big steak dinner into his Super mega-mansion on the hill in the Carolina's.

(and the false what about the republicans being jailed??? Well, Gov. Ryan and many others are or have been in jail 100 times over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:45 PM

26. "Democrat Party"???? Get your right-wing disguise on properly before appearing here, please - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:51 AM

35. Johnny - a legend in his own mind

 

wow, you ad hominem someone to back the man who got $400 buck hairstyles and what is that thing
above his lip?

I feel so bad for Miss Hunter. again, I hope she has an iron-clad agreement if he throws her to the street like he did America and the Democratic party for his pure greedy selfish wants.
she deserves a million a year minimum for what she went through.

Johnny was NOT a democrat, NOt a populist, what he was was a selfish EGOTIST who thought he was God's gift to mankind. There was a reason he was getting no where in 2008 and about as popular as Joe Lieberman was back then. (A legend in his own mind).

He should thank God that winking at jurists helped to call a mistrial and what he should do is
complete pro-bono cases for the poor if he actually cared about the poor (while building that
Mega McMansion in the Carolinas.


and BtW- OJ SIMPSON was by the jury INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY.
John edwards just had a mistrial with NO verdict. That is NOT innocent by any legal means.
It just means he got a lucky break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:06 AM

33. Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:14 PM

39. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 04:01 PM

40. Wait, this is 'Democrat underground' now? When did Skinner make that change?

Enjoy your (short) stay!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:07 AM

45. democratic=democrat=democracy and freedom for ALL

 

way I see it IMHO

(A real populist would be Joe Biden who is realitvely poor for a vp/senator, who rides the train (or used to, secret service of course doesn't allow the VP much freedom like that), but as senator, he rode the trains much like Joe Average commuter, and talks like a common person and cares about the people of all races and creeds as a real populist would do.
(If Joe Biden had the money to build a mega mega mansion, he would invite the homeless to be fed and housed like Jimmy Carter has done with his after office retirement. (Hey, Biden would make a great VP for the next president in 2016-2023, wouldn't he?)
That is a real populist.

republicans-for the rich
tea party/libertarians, mostly IMHO of course are for anarchy, not wanting any rules but those they like
and 3rd parties usually are tied to and want to stop (but not win) the election or create havoc and have the SCOTUS or House
decide the elections.

both republicans and tea party/libertarians seem to be equally at home with john birchers and birthers and do not wish every single american would vote.
(which is why they try to jim crow purge the voting roles.)

btw, in 2004, odd thing was, John Kerry was the #1 most liberal senator in office and also a real populist, who has been reelected time and again by his own state voters



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #45)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 04:17 PM

53. Like the Republic party, but backwards, right?

Like the Republic party, but backwards, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:55 AM

58. google don't show a republic party

 

never heard of the republic party
Heard of republic movie company, they had wild west shoot-em-ups and other movies.

but the words democratic/democrat/democrats both interchange democratic party and democrat (singular) to make the words mean the same thing.

I know when I hear the code words constitution/liberty/freedom it usually is spewed by partisians (like the libertarians and tea party and republicans)
that don't want any of the 3 to apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:52 AM

47. Leave Elizabeth Edwards out of this.

And enjoy your brief stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:48 AM

59. LOL

You are in rare form today, Graham. LOL Your pathological hatred of Edwards is breathtaking. LOL Did you ever find the other people from CGCS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 12:23 PM

60. Just the facts, and only the facts

 

I have no personal feeling toward the two Edwards at all.
I just call it like it is.
Thankfully 99% of the nation agrees with me.
There was a reason he came far behind in the primaries in 2008, way behind Hillary and Obama (and Edwards' misguided whisper campaign that he was the "great white hope" and the last white male standing didn't work either).

If only John Kerry picked Bob Graham or picked even John McCain(who back then was thought of as a moderate), he would have won by so much Ohio would not have mattered, and Bob Graham would have easily secured Florida.

Remember Tom Eagleton in 1972? He should have told McGovern his secret before he was picked.(though that is not a great example as there was no way McGovern would have won anyhow, which made Watergate a waste of time as it wasn't needed.)

No to your other question. People seem to not want to admit who they were there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #60)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:54 PM

61. LOL

Good seeing you again. As usual I disagree with your view on Edwards. LOL No surprise there. Glad to see you're still posting here. I'm sure we will run across each other again although with Edwards out of politics I won't know where to find your posts. LOL There won't be too many, if any, Edwards' posts to attract you. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:37 AM

62. LOL 2

 

where to find me???
well, to quote John Steinbeck's tom joad-
I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too.


but, in all reality, I know Edwards fans (like Ron Paul fans and rand Paul fans),would actually like all talk (let alone disent) to just fade away and disappear.
Which means vigillance is needed and the never ending story continuing.
And why the Jews (and I am Jewish) say too much "Never forget, because if one forgets..."
(sort of like how Jeb bush is trying to rehabilitate the Bush name.)

and now we have a new book from Ms. Hunter (I am sure written with John's permission and
written to help finance more additions to his megamansions and what interesesting tidbits
are leaking out. I can't wait to read it.

what's amazing is how Johnny will toss anyone he considered a friend under a moving train if
it can save his hide.(yet his fans will then call any of those ex-friends crazy, nuts, loco, etc.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 08:20 PM

28. enjoy your visit! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:34 PM

8. Glad he's not going to be retried.

But I hope he doesn't think the rest of us want him back in public life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hamsterjill (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 09:37 PM

29. hamsterjill speak for yourself and

go join the other pious, self-righteous, judgmental, pure, sanctimonious teabaggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonniebgood (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:09 AM

37. Because more dirt bag corrupt politicians is what we need...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bonniebgood (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 05:11 PM

41. Excuse me?

First, I did "speak for myself" by voicing my opinion in my post.

Second, I'm not sure why my opinion places me amongst the "teabaggers" in your mind. I'm supposedly a tea bagger because I don't think Edwards has a place in politics anymore???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hamsterjill (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 11:10 AM

46. Yup!

 

notice, anyone who speaks against Edwards get adhomined (as I was and you were and name called).
That is the M.O. of the two or three Edwards fans.

disent is not welcome
One good thing is, the vast, vast majority of people both in his home state and every other state feel the same way as you
and I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:36 PM

9. Saw this whole thing coming a mile away (back in 2008)

When I wrote "John Edwards Body". Edwards was tried by the press. The courts were just an afterthought.

And no, he is not through. Not by a long shot. All he has to do is marry the mother of his child and it becomes an entirely different story.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/119

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 11:10 PM

32. oh god

if i were john edwards and the price of returning to public life were to marry that sociopath, mother of my child or no mother of my child, i'd just shoot myself now and have done with it

i am glad they didn't succeed in putting a guy in jail for having a psychotic girlfriend but enough

it's bad enough to make babies w. the crazy lady, don't completely end all chance of ever having happiness in your life again and marry the crazy lady

the one i most feel sorry for is the child but there's no good choice here

i cannot imagine having to live with rielle hunter or whatever she's calling herself this year, he can't remove a child from the crazy mother, he can't save the child, he can only save himself

run john run!

in his shoes i'd take what money i still had and move to cuenca or something but i suppose he is too socially responsible for that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pitohui (Reply #32)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

48. If John Edwards marries Rielle I will turn in my crystal ball...

I don't see it.

I think he has a rather low opinion of her and sees how twisted she is and how she used him. Not even the illusion of love or attraction is there. But I think he'll do his duty by the child.

John has no real political career left. He'll have to start over--maybe (maybe) atone for his sins somehow. Do something that matters. Show us what he's really made of. Could go either way--he could just sink into oblivion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

10. Good. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:46 PM

11. When are they going to investigate REPUBLICAN politicians for THEIR crimes??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:15 AM

38. That's the only reason I don't feel too bad over this

I still think John Edwards is another typical corrupt politician, but in comparison with the crimes of other corrupt politicians this is some pretty weak sauce. I wonder how much money we could spend if we went after everyone who may have misused campaign donations? It's too bad we can't start with the war criminals and work our way down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:47 PM

12. not an Edwards fan but believe this is the right decision

too much tax payer money has been used already and the prosecutions case was thin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 04:47 PM

13. never should have went after him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:09 PM

14. Screw the John Edwards Haters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:05 AM

36. Screw the John Edwards Supporters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #36)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 07:43 AM

42. +onemillion

 

Johnny edwards is like Joey Lieberman, a true 1%er
1% of the people like him
99% don't

if he ever thinks he can run for a national office, IMHO, the 99%ers will remind him of what he
did.
who'd of thunk that someone who previously called himself a progressive(and ran saying he and his wife should have been on top of the Kerry ticket, not on the bottom), is actually the poster boy for spending millions or billions on a campaign with no restrictions just by having rich friends and deep pockets. No difference between the Koch brothers and the rich old billionaire he hit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:12 PM

15. All this was only about Holding's political career

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:14 PM

17. And now it is the end of the politically motivated charges against Edwards.

I wasn't even an Edwards supporter, but I could smell this case from 1000 miles away!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 05:15 PM

18. He's still a weasel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:19 PM

21. Good news! I would like to hear Edwards' statement on this once he has had a chance

to relax and regain his confidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 06:29 PM

22. Good.

How ridiculous was it to go after Edwards while Wall Street went free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:18 PM

24. You forgot the question mark. Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:17 PM

23. Lousy case, hideous defendant. Lose-Lose. Now go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #23)


Response to bonniebgood (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 13, 2012, 10:56 PM

31. Who's being self-righteous here? Do you think the case was great, or Edwards not a louse?

Hard to believe anyone with much sense would agree with that assessment. But, I'm willing to listen if you think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:05 AM

44. ... the case against Edwards rested largely on the testimony of his former right-hand man,

Andrew Young, who initially claimed paternity of his employer's baby and deposited most of the money at issue in the case into his family's personal accounts.

But Edwards' lawyers used inconsistencies from Young's past statements to undermine his credibility and used bank records to show the aide and his wife siphoned off much of the money to help build their US$1.6 million dream home.

Several jurors said a clear majority after deliberating for nine days wanted to acquit Edwards on all charges.

"It was a weak case," said juror Curtis Driggers. "I don't think any other jury would reach a different decision." ...

Edwards case attacked as money waster
5:30 AM Friday Jun 15, 2012
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10813126

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:34 PM

63. Good to read this n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Sat Jun 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

64. Good To Know

What a f**king waste of our time and money. Republicans will probably go apoplectic over it Now, Mr. Edwards, please just go away. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Sun Jun 24, 2012, 09:52 AM

66. good! Move on to prosecute real criminals on Wall St. & BP et. al polluters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread