June 3, 2011
Media reporting that John Edwards is to be indicted today
Because sentencing issues arise the moment a defendant gets indicted and has to think about plea possibilities, I see sentencing issues in this ABC News story, headlined "John Edwards to Face Indictment Today." Here are excerpts that include a sentencing prediction:
Unless a last-minute deal comes through, John Edwards will be indicted today on criminal charges after a two-year investigation seeking to connect the former senator to an allegedly illegal scheme to cover-up his extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned.
The case against Edwards, which called on more than 100 witnesses, will seek to prove that hundreds of thousands of dollars were allegedly used illegally to seclude and support his mistress Rielle Hunter, so Edwards could continue his campaign for the presidency in 2008....
If he were to agree to a deal today, Edwards will not be required to serve any time in prison -- but the former high-flying trial attorney he will almost surely lose one thing he holds very dear.
Edwards has stated that he hopes to move back into legal work once this case is behind him. However, in North Carolina, if he pleads guilty or no contest to a criminal offense, he must go before the State Bar -- putting his license to practice law on the line.
June 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media reporting that John Edwards is to be indicted today:
This lawyer single-handedly changed the practice of obstetrics in North Carolina, forcing an explosion in C-sections to avoid being sued for the slightest baby defect. When you increas he C-sections, you also increase the rates of asthma and life threatening diarrhea in the newborn, requiring hospitalizations. Most of his plaintiffs were low life trailer trash, that he enriched, increasing their risk of relapsing.
To my knowledge, he did not sue when his son was killed in a Jeep accident. He did not put his family through the litigation wringer that he put others. He would have destroyed the economy even more than the presidents have done.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 3, 2011 10:33:27 AM
Yet, this is lawyer gotcha of a celebrity. The case will turn on whether a rich lady gave him money as a gift or as a donation. The prosecutors should be horsewhipped for this frivolous prosecution.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 3, 2011 10:36:00 AM
yep talk about more STUPIDITY in govt! who cares what he did with his mistress. Unless he comitted a real crime.
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 3, 2011 2:04:53 PM
Say, he spent $2 million on his mistress. The checks had the Campaign fund as issuer. Say, he is totally guilty. Every penny spent on this disloyal bitch was not spent on the campaign, raising the risk this Commie, this plaintiff lawyer could take over our government. So every penny of campaign contribution spent on her, resulted in a net benefit to the nation. The agents that orchestrated any such payments should receive medals for safeguarding our country by diverting campaign funds to private use. A crime should cause damage. If he committed this one, it had a net benefit.
It is unclear if he used gift funds or campaign funds. The cost of the investigation and prosecution should not be allowed to exceed the damage of the crime by several orders of magnitude. It then becomes pretextual (false use of the law), and a vehicle of self-aggrandizement for the prosecution, going after a celebrity to get in the papers and to enhance the career. This is misuse of government funds. The investigation with an improper motive should itself be investigated. If the cost to the taxpayer exceeded the value ff human life, the prosecutor killed an economic person, and should be executed after an hour's fair trial, himself. I see the hand of the feminist lawyer behind this misuse of government funds. And no one will ever point that out. To do so would be analogous to objecting to lynchings by the KKK in 1911.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 3, 2011 9:15:41 PM
i agree SC campaign funds usage are between him and his donators! they were the ones dumb enough to send him money!
and so if going by your numbers he spent 2 million sucking up to one voter! i hardly think that's illegal dont' ever recall seeing any kind of legal limit on what you spend on individual voters!
but the solution to it is to spend another 5-10 million taking him to court! what idiocy!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 4, 2011 1:54:20 AM
Edwards' campaign donors "were the ones dumb enough to send him money!"
Best line of the day, which is a high compliment, since it has had to compete with multiple entries about the unfortunately named Anthony Wiener.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 4, 2011 9:07:16 AM
This is disgusting. The bad guys are totally victorious, thanks to the lawyer traitor to the nation. This lawyer traitor has it so 90% of major crimes go unanswered. Then, the lawyer traitor spends $millions on this bs. Come the next major terror attack, the lawyer hierarchy must be taken out as collaborators with the internal and external enemies of our nation. All the soft on hard crime, hard on the productive male feminist lawyers, their male running dogs, all go to concentration camps for final processing after an hour's fair trial for treason.
That being said, even a tough litigator like Edwards will not attack this vile hierarchy. There will be no demand for total e-discovery of the prosecutor, nor of the lawyer on the bench encouraging this farce. He will likely roll over in some plea deal. This hierarchy has it rigged airtight.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 4, 2011 10:55:47 PM