# The John Edwards Indictment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211 "2011-06-03T16:42:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/21 "2011-06-03T19:06:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t find any jury instructions on this point in an admittedly cursory search, but I suspect the jury would be asked to determine if the primary purpose, or a substantial purpose, was political. If they’re given a “substantial purpose” instruction, I think a reasonable jury could convict. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/22 "2011-06-03T19:07:23Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > John Ensign would beg to differ. He retired, no trial, no impeachment no black mark. Pundits said he could not win the party nomination so he quit. If he could have won, he would still be in. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/23 "2011-06-03T19:22:34Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > He retired, no trial, no impeachment no black mark. Pundits said he could not win the party nomination so he quit. If he could have won, he would still be in. He bailed because he was under investigation from the Ethics committee, and it looked like they might vote to recommend his expulsion. And the DOJ is still deciding whether or not to indite. Plus, you said GOP members could get away with scandals without having it kill their career: > [@](#): > > But it is the cover up that kills your career. Lie to the people and when they find out you are done. > That assumes you are a Democrat. The Repubs can get away with it. Its pretty clear the scandal killed Ensigns Senate career. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/24 "2011-06-03T19:56:05Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > If they’re given a “substantial purpose” instruction, I think a reasonable jury could convict. I’m torn. Here’s the thing: what man wouldn’t do the exact same thing absent the political element – that is, a man fathers a child out of wedlock and wants to keep his marriage intact. He has a couple of wealthy friends who want to help. What man wouldn’t take the same steps? So with that truth on the table, how does our reasonable jury decide that a substantial purpose was political? Especially given the danger that the jury is reaching their decision based on dislike of the man. I agree that on the facts, a jury’s guilty verdict would survive a sufficiency of the evidence appeal. But I don’t agree that the facts establish “substantial purpose” beyond a reasonable doubt. How schizophrenic is that? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/25 "2011-06-03T20:00:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s the thing: what man wouldn’t do the exact same thing absent the political element – that is, a man fathers a child out of wedlock and wants to keep his marriage intact. He has a couple of wealthy friends who want to help. What man wouldn’t take the same steps? Is the crucial question what Edwards’ primary motivation was or what the donor’s primary motivation was? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/26 "2011-06-03T21:11:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How schizophrenic is that? Not at all, really. A reasonable jury could convict, but if you were on the panel, you might vote to acquit, assuming the evidence presented amounts to the information available to us now. I think a lot is going to depend on the credibility of the defense witnesses. Don’t think this is the kind of case where they can rely solely on a failure of proof theory. The jury is going to want to hear from somebody explaining why these transactions should be seen differently that the prosecution suggests. I dunno that you put Edwards up there…unless you’re wanting great ratings for Court TV. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/27 "2011-06-03T21:41:22Z")
> [@](#): > > Is the crucial question what Edwards’ primary motivation was or what the donor’s primary motivation was? That’s what seems crazy, to me: We’re asking whether Edwards committed a crime, and the motivation of some other person is relevant to determining that? But I’m not sure I see a way around that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/28 "2011-06-03T22:04:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m torn. > > Here’s the thing: what man wouldn’t do the exact same thing absent the political element – that is, a man fathers a child out of wedlock and wants to keep his marriage intact. He has a couple of wealthy friends who want to help. What man wouldn’t take the same steps? I think that might be what sinks him. If you were not a political figure, your wealthy friends would likely tell you that you are on your own when it comes to your adulterous life. But, if your wealthy friends would like to see you elected to public office, then they would step up and pay the money so that they can see their buddy elected. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/29 "2011-06-03T22:10:49Z")
Actually, this seems to be a fairly straightforward case of “follow the money.” [Apparently all the money came from two contributors.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/john-edwards-indicted-money-affair) (One of them is now dead, and the other is 100 years old.) So, did the contributors pay by check? Who were the checks made out to? If they were made out to one of the campaign organizations, were they properly deposited and recorded? If they were made out to an individual, were there other checks? Did the recipient turn those checks over to the campaign? Were taxes paid? Of course, if the contributors handed over big bags o’cash, that raises another set of questions. It really comes down to the question, did Edwards or his representatives defraud the campaign to keep Edwards’ girlfriend quiet, or did they convince a couple of ancient millionaires to shove a bundle of cash at the girlfriend to keep her quiet? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/30 "2011-06-03T22:53:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m torn. > > Here’s the thing: what man wouldn’t do the exact same thing absent the political element – that is, a man fathers a child out of wedlock and wants to keep his marriage intact. He has a couple of wealthy friends who want to help. What man wouldn’t take the same steps? > > So with that truth on the table, how does our reasonable jury decide that a substantial purpose was political? Especially given the danger that the jury is reaching their decision based on dislike of the man. > > I agree that on the facts, a jury’s guilty verdict would survive a sufficiency of the evidence appeal. But I don’t agree that the facts establish “substantial purpose” beyond a reasonable doubt. > > How schizophrenic is that? I agree with what jtgain posted. Sure, Edwards had a personal problem but most people with personal problems aren’t able to convince a couple of millionaires to bail them out. I’d look at the contributors’ histories. Did they ever donate money to anyone else who was facing a personal crisis but had no political influence? Did they have a history of offering gifts to other political candidates? I’m not saying this is a proven fact but I’d be surprised if these donations weren’t politically motivated. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/31 "2011-06-03T23:06:08Z")
The part I’m not geting is that the political pundits have been talking about Edward’s unpopularity among NC residents as a reason for him to fear a jury trial–but isn’t individual jurors’ prejudices against a defendent what Edwards’ attorneys are going to be finding out during voir dire? I mean, why does it matter if millions of North Carolinians hate Edwards’ guts, if his attorney can identify 12 jurors who couldn’t care less, or who never heard of him or Rielle Hunter? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2011, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/32 "2011-06-03T23:57:13Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > The part I’m not geting is that the political pundits have been talking about Edward’s unpopularity among NC residents as a reason for him to fear a jury trial–but isn’t individual jurors’ prejudices against a defendent what Edwards’ attorneys are going to be finding out during voir dire? I mean, why does it matter if millions of North Carolinians hate Edwards’ guts, if his attorney can identify 12 jurors who couldn’t care less, or who never heard of him or Rielle Hunter? Because these 12 North Carolinians will hear during the course of the trial how Edwards stuck his penis in a campaign staffer and had a child with her while his wife was dying of cancer. If they didn’t know before, they will find out then. Same reaction and they will likely request a special instruction from the judge if the death penalty could be imposed. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/33 "2011-06-04T00:41:09Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I am never surprised when a married politician gets caught with women. There are a lot of beautiful women throwing themselves at pols. The pols are ego driven people who are competitive and like to conquer opponents. History has shown they also conquer women. It is difficult to find a pol who does not mess around. > But it is the cover up that kills your career. Lie to the people and when they find out you are done. > That assumes you are a Democrat. The Repubs can get away with it. Mark Sanford meanwhile Bill Clinton is very popular as ex-President. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/34 "2011-06-04T01:56:45Z")
I don’t think it matters if either perceives it as a political contribution. Obviously their testimony would be that they’re each other’s BFFL. What matters is what a jury thinks. Considering that a campaign staffer lied about paternity that would indicate it mattered politically and the money was solicited for that purpose and through political channels. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/35 "2011-06-04T11:36:46Z")
Here’s a relevant excerpt [from an LA Times story](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-edwards-talks-20110603,0,3901207.story): > [@](#): > > Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who represented Sen. John McCain in his presidential campaign, said election laws are complicated and that criminal charges are rare. “By statute, a matter is not criminal unless there is intent—evidence of a ‘knowing and willful violation’ of the law,” he said. > > These lawyers questioned how Edwards could be charged with a “knowing” violation of this law when it was not clear that the secret payments to a girlfriend qualified as “campaign contributions.” IANAL, but this makes sense to me. If it’s quite debatable whether these monies should be counted as campaign contributions at all, how is it a ‘knowing and willful violation,’ of campaign spending laws, and therefore how is it a criminal matter, if this is indeed the standard? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/36 "2011-06-04T12:02:16Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Because these 12 North Carolinians will hear during the course of the trial how Edwards stuck his penis in a campaign staffer and had a child with her while his wife was dying of cancer. If they didn’t know before, they will find out then. Same reaction and they will likely request a special instruction from the judge if the death penalty could be imposed. This is what ‘voir dire’ is for, though. You find 12 NC residents who don’t know and care less about politics, much less Edwards himself, then you repeat throughout the trial that you acknowledge he showed poor judgment, was thoughtless to his dear wife, etc. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CRIME OF WHICH HE STANDS ACCUSED, and then you see to it that the judge instructs that they must consider ONLY the evidence to support beyond a shadow of a doubt the “crime” of which he is accused. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/37 "2011-06-04T17:28:19Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > This is what ‘voir dire’ is for, though. You find 12 NC residents who don’t know and care less about politics, much less Edwards himself, then you repeat throughout the trial that you acknowledge he showed poor judgment, was thoughtless to his dear wife, etc. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CRIME OF WHICH HE STANDS ACCUSED, and then you see to it that the judge instructs that they must consider ONLY the evidence to support beyond a shadow of a doubt the “crime” of which he is accused. And then the jury goes back to the jury room, spends about an hour arguing over the takeout menu, enjoys a nice lunch, and then spends about 15 minutes voting to convict the guy that cheated on his dying wife. OK, maybe I’m a little cynical. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/38 "2011-06-04T17:35:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Here’s a relevant excerpt [from an LA Times story](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-edwards-talks-20110603,0,3901207.story): > IANAL, but this makes sense to me. If it’s quite debatable whether these monies should be counted as campaign contributions at all, how is it a ‘knowing and willful violation,’ of campaign spending laws, and therefore how is it a criminal matter, if this is indeed the standard? In the SJ Merc today, it was stated that one of the donors was is Campaign Finance Manager. Now, if they can show that he used people on his campaign staff to solicit the funds, then that’s going to be a problem for him. As for whether or not he knew it was illegal… they guy is a lawyer. If lawyers don’t know what is illegal, no one does. Good luck convincing a jury that the poor, little lawyer didn’t know what the law was. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/39 "2011-06-04T20:09:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As for whether or not he knew it was illegal… they guy is a lawyer. If lawyers don’t know what is illegal, no one does. Good luck convincing a jury that the poor, little lawyer didn’t know what the law was. All one needs to do about this is remind the jury that the nine Justices of the Supreme Court routinely disagree about what is legal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211/40 "2011-06-04T20:36:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > All one needs to do about this is remind the jury that the nine Justices of the Supreme Court routinely disagree about what is legal. Sounds like a universal defense. Or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-john-edwards-indictment/584211.md?page=3)