The Media 's Reaction to the John Edwards Verdict

Driving home from work, all I had for information on the reaction to the John Edwards' verdict was Sirius. Against my better judgment, I put up with the incessant commercials for debt and income tax relief. I was sorry I did.

On MSNBC, I thought the comments of Chris Matthews and his guests, including the authors of the Game Change, on John Edwards' post-verdict press statement, were appalling.

Matthews and his panel all agreed John Edwards was a delusional egomaniac with no particular political or social insight beneath the surface. One criticized his reading ability. One even called him a psychopath.

What was the basis for these attacks? According to Matthews & panel, Edwards had the audacity to suggest during his post-verdict press conference (you can view it here) that he might still have a political future. Matthews then aired his statements. I didn't hear Edwards say a word about re-entering politics. He talked about wanting to help children in poverty -- he may have been referring to a future public presence, but that's not even close to suggesting another run for political office. [More..]

While his "two Americas" platform was part of his presidential campaign, it also existed apart from it. It was the basis for his foundations. Bunny Mellon gave millions to his poverty-fighting foundations, donations that had nothing to do with his running for office.

Why is it delusional for him to think one day in the future he can return to this work? His remarks may signal his belief he can again be a force in the public arena, but he said absolutely zero to indicate he thought he had a political future, or that he would want one.

There was no delusion, no pathology, no egomania. There was a statement that he hoped to return to the cause for which he has always been the most passionate -- reducing poverty, particularly for children.

Would it have been better for him to say he intends to return to trial practice so he can get big judgments and recoup the millions he spent defending against the charges in this case? Should he have said despite the acquittal and hung jury, his life is worthless, he is going to go crawl under a rock?

I bet at least one person cheered when hearing what he did say: Bunny Mellon. And I'd bet she'd give money to his poverty foundations in the future. Were his comments directed at her? Maybe, but there's nothing psychopathic, delusional or ego-maniacal about them even if they were. And why would anyone complain that a private citizen with as much money as Ms. Mellon wants to give millions to help those less fortunate? Would it be preferable if she bought private islands for her heirs to vacation on?

Next Matthews & Co. trashed-- and I mean trashed -- Edwards for saying he loved and was close to Quinn, the child he fathered with Rielle Hunter. He also said he loved all his children, but to this group, that was an afterthought.

What's wrong with saying this? The child may be 4 years old now, but one day she will be old enough to read about this trial. She will learn that the Government presented evidence that her father denied being her father and tried to hide the fact. At least now she can also read that on the day the trial ended, he said he was wrong to do that and told the whole world he loves her and how important she is to his life.

America has pilloried and taken more pounds of flesh from John Edwards and the memory of Elizabeth during this trial than I can recall it extracting from any other public figure in recent memory.

Instead of crucifying John Edwards, who clearly was the victor in his fight with the Government, why isn't the media castigating the Government for bringing the case in the first place and relying on witnesses like Andrew Young, who are getting a pass for their own misdeeds? Why isn't it raising more questions about why charges were brought in the first place? And why these particular charges?

In one of Edwards' unsuccessful pretrial motions to dismiss the Indictment -- the one based on prosecutorial vindictiveness which I detailed at length here, his lawyers quoted a statement made in 1940 by then U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson. (The Federal Prosecutor: An Address by Robert H. Jackson, 24 J. Am. Jud. Soc'y 18 (1940).)

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations…. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints….

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

That's one message the media should be driving home about this woeful, ill-conceived, prosecution.

Listening to the media today, they all gave no more than lip service to their belief this was an ill-founded prosecution, as if that was a given and didn't need to be further addressed. Apparently, it paled in comparison to the importance of trashing John Edwards some more. I can only imagine what they would have said if Edwards had been found guilty of even one count. As I wrote here,

When this trial is over, if Edwards is convicted, millions will believe the real reason he is being sent to the gallows has nothing to do with campaign contributions and everything to do with his having a child out of wedlock with a woman his friends and staffers found "kooky," while his demanding and unhappy wife was dying of cancer.

Or, they may believe that he's being punished for what in the eyes of the Government is apparently an even greater sin -- he had the gall to take the case to trial instead of kow-towing to the Government's demand he lie down and plead guilty to something he had no reason to believe he was guilty of.

Only if the trial is fair, can the public trust in the integrity of an ensuing guilty verdict. I don't see how anyone (other than a prosecutor or Republican) will have faith in the integrity of a guilty verdict in this case, should that occur.

If John Edwards is convicted, saying he'll win on appeal is little consolation. His life, already a mockery by the public shaming he was subjected to in this trial, will have been devastated.

When you break the law, the Government has the right to punish you. It does not have the right to destroy you. And if you are found not guilty, the Government should be obligated to help you restore your life.

John Edwards was not found guilty. Instead of recognizing this with anything more than a prefatory comment, the media that I heard was acting like a grand jury, making up a new crime based on its unsupported interpretation of his public comments. His new crime is egomania, delusion, and psychopathy. It's like a new chapter in Alice in Wonderland where instead of saying "Sentence first, Verdict Afterward" the Queen says, "Sentence anyway, Guilty Verdict or Not."

Also remarkable: Not one show I listened to praised or expressed admiration for the work of Edwards' lead attorney Abbe Lowell and the rest of the defense team. Do they think this verdict fell out the sky and could have been achieved by anyone?

As I pulled into my garage and turned Sirus off, my last thought was that as between listening to the cable news shows and the debt relief commercials, the commercials were better. And they didn't raise my blood pressure.

Congratulations to Abbe Lowell and the rest of the defense team, and a word to everyone else: John Edwards is as entitled to breathe on this planet as you are. He can express his love and gratitude to his children and parents. He can express his hope to make a contribution to society in the future. He isn't a leper. He had an affair which produced a child -- a child he is providing for financially while trying to be part of her life in other ways. As Abbe Lowell said in closing:

[I]f what John did is a federal crime, let alone six felonies, then we better build a lot more courtrooms, hire a lot more prosecutors and build a lot more jails, because the government will always be able to find a way to turn an affair into a crime.

Guilt sells in the American media, even when the verdict is not guilty or the jury can't agree. The meaning of a "hung jury" has become lost in translation-- to the media it now means "hang him anyway."

< Why the Jury Acquitted John Edwards on Count 3 | Britons Face Death Penalty in Bali for Drugs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow! (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by sj on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:50:06 PM EST
    Hear, hear!

    Praises sung. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:50:22 PM EST
    I agree with everything you say (even thought I don't trust Edwards -- but that has nothing to do with this case) but I want to note that Lowell's strategy was praised on CNN right after the verdict came out. It was almost nothing but praise for Edwards' speech and Lowell's defense strategy.

    (And his shout-out to Quinn was also praised). (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:51:10 PM EST
    good to know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    every time I changed the channel to listen to CNN, they were either playing the debt relief commercial or talking about something else.

    This was around 4:30-5 EST (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:25:52 PM EST
    Addison has it right (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:32:05 AM EST
    from what I heard, mostly CNN.  They sneered at Edwards, but sneered more at the prosecution.

    extremely well said! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:39:22 PM EST
    The media chum-fest is predictable. I still find something confusing about this case. The prosecution must have known it did not have the bones of a conviction and they went straight for the soft spots - public shaming and ridicule. Prosecution spent enormous resources on it. Drew blood, attracted the sharks but not for a conviction. Why?

    Prosecutor who started this case (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:37:19 AM EST
    was a GOP Bush holdover who then ran for Congress.  I believe I heard he won his primary, too.

    Obama should have replaced this fool and canceled the prosecution, but no doubt he didn't want to seem partisan.  (eyes rolling)


    Maybe, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:01:52 AM EST
     if Edwards had started a war with made up evidence or brought the world economies to the brink of destruction Obama would've instructed Holder to "look forward" and not waste our time and money looking backward.

    He could have (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:40:03 AM EST
    stopped it before it got really got started.  And no one would have been the wiser.  Do you really think 56 FBI agents were assigned to this case without his approval at some level?  That level of investigation of a former Presidential candidate?  Compare that to the thorough investigation that has been initiated against the banksters.

    Indeed, he could have (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    But at the crucial point, he was all puffed up with his PPUS crap.  But the point being that this prosecution was conceived and initiated by a Bush USAttorney, not Barack Obama or Eric Holder.  And shame on both of them for allowing it to continue.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by themomcat on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:01:56 AM EST
     Chris Matthews is the "egomaniac". I stopped listening to is drivel long ago. I will never forget his involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame-Wilson.

    I've thought all along that this case was one of "moral poutrage" and a means to make sure that Edwards' political aspirations were buried forever, as if he hadn't already done that himself. I think the most of the jury saw through that.

    It will be interesting to see how the jury was split on the other counts.

    I happened to see NBC's reporting (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 06:45:13 AM EST
    last evening, and I was actually shocked at how fair it was.  Not only did they play a fair portion of Edwards speaking outside the courtroom, but they did so without mocking him or reading into his statement things that weren't there.  And it was pointed out not just by Savannah Guthrie, but also by several "experts," that the prosecution had had every single ruling go in its favor and was still unable to convince a jury of Edwards' guilt.

    Reading your description of the coverage you heard and watched makes me glad I didn't see anything but the NBC piece, and confirms for me that nothing's changed: most of these people have little to offer the viewers/readers but evidence of how overblown their perception is of their own importance.  

    If I'm being petty, I have to admit that there is a small measure of enjoyment in knowing they were denied the gloating they were all so ready and eager to engage in; they really do not like it when the universe conspires to deny them the satisfaction they believe their insider status entitles them to...

    This morning the talking heads at the local FOX (none / 0) (#33)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    outlet - which unfortunately has the best weather and traffic people - read their prepared intro blurbs about the Edwards' trial with a bit of a sneer before showing his remarks on the courthouse steps.

    When they came back from the video the anchors actually looked like humans for a moment in their reactions, and said a couple sympathetic comments - which turned into non sequiturs as they returned to the script.


    I'll give Tweety one thing - he does TPTB's work (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 07:37:25 AM EST
    with the glee and elan only a true believer could bring to the job.  Recall what I said on this thread a couple weeks ago:


    It should be sad to see a federal judge working so hard to railroad a defendant but, having hung around courthouses entirely too long and seen too much, I'm neither sad nor surprised.  One would think, though, that she was still a local traffic court judge, one where her continued employment depends on the local pols being satisfied with her performance when they ask "does she support the police?"  (I've been in the room and heard it....)

    We're watching the Dagny Taggart of the federal bench at work here - the woman who runs a railroad.

    In a larger sense, though, she's doing the work Obama and Romney and their funders need done.  Edwards, for all his flaws, did (and to some extent still does) represent the idea not only that there are two Americas - one for the rich and one, significantly less inviting, for the not-rich - and a divide between them that can only be closed by giving the not-rich a better chance.  This prosecution is of a piece with the draconian prosecutions and sentences handed down (after ample police beatings) on the Occupy protestors - they are both intended by the rich to put the not-rich "in their place"  (i.e., under the heel of the rich) and as a reminder of what can be done to the not-rich.  They are both given the veneer of some semblance of regularity - there's a judge and there's a courtroom - and there's a Greek chorus of jurors brought in to give a verdict not based upon the truth and the whole truth, but rather on the limited interpretation the jurors are permitted on the crabbed and tilted set of "facts" they are permitted to see.  It's no less a show trial than the chicancery going on at Gitmo.

    While Dadler's comment lower on that thread, to the effect that Edwards revealed himself to be a garden variety pol, has some force it does overlook that no other candidate for President in the past decade has been more of a candidate of "the people" than has Edwards.  All the others have, to a greater or lesser degree, been candidates far, far more assiduous in fellating contributions out of even the smallest Wall Street hood than in paying a moment's attention to the needs (let alone desires) of the great mass of people who make up this country.  

    We see that again in the blatant political malpractice the DNC has carried off in the Wisconsin recall election.  Every step of the way they have confronted a thug, Walker, with obeisance and held back every penny they have, sapping the vigor from a populist movement.  It might even turn out that they were behind pushing to have the special election now, rather than coordinate it (temporally) to take place in conjunction with the general election this fall.  It was noted early on that, by having the recall in June, most of the college students who made up a big part of the ground forces the Democrats used in Wisconsin would be unavailable either working or out of state for the summer.  I'm expecting Walker to win and Wasserman-Schultz to be happy because populism and such don't mean anything.

    Or, as I said about Obama's economic policies even before his inauguration:  "They're simple.  Nobody gets hurt.  By the way [average American], you're Nobody."  It's all of a piece.

    Tweety's diatribe - which I missed because I was making up hours at my job, don't have a TV where I'm living and stopped watching him anyway - was merely a reminder to the chattering classes that populism is Bad Bad Bad and will be met with the strongest condemnation.  And if you get too popular, you'll be prosecuted.

    I would, though, love to go back and see what Tweety had to say when Scooter Libby was convicted of lying....

    The message, not the man (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Rojas on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    I think you are at the cusp of the matter.

    eventually people are going to have (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    to change those old expressions....

    "the message not the person"

    Kind of ruins the alliteration though doesn't it?

    How about "the purpose not the person?"


    I have long thought that Edwards' (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    "Two Americas" message was one that the corporate-beholden party could not tolerate, so I found your comment and this piece by Amanda Marcotte to be particularly on point :

    Back then [2007], the other potential Democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were widely and correctly perceived as timid centrists who had a knee-jerk tendency to run from conflict the second conservatives ruffled their feathers. Edwards, on the other hand, spoke convincingly of how change couldn't come from  "negotiation and compromise," arguing that the idea that corporate interests would voluntarily give away their power is "a fantasy." Long before the economic crash and Occupy Wall Street forced major Democratic politicians to address the question of growing inequality, Edwards's famous "two Americas" rhetoric helped force the issue onto the table. Occupy boiled it down to the 1 Percent vs. the 99 Percent, but back in 2007, Edwards was taking cracks at "the very rich vs. everyone else."

    In the rush of headlines about Edwards's despicable sexual behavior, what's forgotten is how much his campaign haunted the primary contest between Clinton and Obama long after he dropped out. An early push in the campaign season from Edwards on healthcare reform set the tone for the rest of the election season on this issue. Edwards put out a plan for healthcare reform before the other candidates, forcing the other candidates to release competing plans that were likelier farther to the left than they were comfortable promising. It's arguable that without the primary season pressure from the Edwards campaign, the initial gambit of the Democrats in the healthcare reform battle -- one that included a public option -- wouldn't have been as strong, which would have meant an even weaker bill than the one that eventually was pushed past conservative Democratic opposition.

    I honestly think so many of the Beltway insiders were cheering for Edwards to go down so they could kill, once and for all, any serious discussion about income inequality and poverty.


    Except (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:18:23 AM EST
    John Edwards talked of "Two Americas" before the 2004 election, so if TPTB didn't like the topic, he wouldn't have been incorporating it into his acceptance speech at the convention, or he wouldn't have been the VP nominee.

    Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:04:17 AM EST
    you think Edwards was a man of the people (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    I think his populist man of the people act was just another in a list of personas he put on to win the next election.  I never found him sincere or real or consistent.
    I also do not believe Tweety is a true believer.  I think he will rant about anything as long as someone is slipping him some extra cash.

    If any good is to come out of this (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 09:04:30 AM EST
    I think it is that people on both sides have gotten a good look at what unbridled power can do, in this case a useless prosecution and waste of money, and how the judicial system with its necessary  rules and guidelines can sometimes hurt the truth. I refer, of course, to the ruling by the FEC which the judge kept out and which should have ended the trial on the spot.

    Such things don't help the image of fairness and justice we like to have of our masters.

    For those of us who watched Scooter Libby be sliced and diced for political pay back this merely confirmed what we had learned. For others it was their first look into the butcher's room and what a frightening thing they saw.

    Exactly the same (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    Libby committed the treasonous act of assisting Cheney in "outing" a CIA agent working on the WMD issue. Not only a CIA agent, but a NOC agent, the highest risk designation an agent can receive. He endangered her life, and the lives of countless undercover agents world wide. The weapons program she was working had to be scrubbed, and cost us many millions of dollars and years of effort.

    All for the purpose of sending a "message," "don't screw with Cheney/Bush while we're lying to the public and taking our country into a testosterone driven war."

    Edwards, on the other hand may have violated an arcane, never tested, technical quirk of campaign finance law.

    You're right....Exactly the same thing.


    Armitage? (none / 0) (#41)
    by diogenes on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:48:08 PM EST
    From Wikipedia
    "In their book Hubris Isikoff and Corn reveal -- as both Armitage and syndicated columnist Robert Novak acknowledged publicly later -- that Armitage was Novak's "initial" and "primary source" for Novak's July 2003 column that revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative and that after Novak revealed his "primary source" (Novak's phrase) was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger," Armitage phoned Colin Powell that morning and was "in deep distress." Reportedly, Armitage told Powell: "I'm sure [Novak is] talking about me."

    Maybe at least one federal prosecutor did avoid railroading people on charges of "treason".


    Because ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 31, 2012 at 10:49:43 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "Matthews and his panel all agreed John Edwards was a delusional egomaniac with no particular political or social insight beneath the surface. One criticized his ability to read. One even called him a psychopath. What was the basis for these attacks?"

    ... all the Cool Kids in the Beltway don't like him any more. Honestly, does there really have to be some other reason?

    As my sister would say, it doesn't have to make sense to be real.

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:51:09 PM EST
    This is Daily Howler 101.

    True of the Matthews show (none / 0) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:30:57 AM EST
    but everything else I heard post-verdict was very hard on the prosecution-- although also lots of sneering at Edwards.  That's OK, he deserves sneering for the rest of his life.  But CNN, at any rate, has not spared any criticism of the prosecution at all.

    Matthews et al see absolutely everything in political terms, even what day the flowers bloom in the spring.  I agree they're entirely wrong in their interpretation of Edwards's post-court statement, but FWIW, I didn't hear any other media types voicing the same interpretation.


    I just added (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    a link to the video of his statement. His mother is just beaming, it's very cute. Real joy in her face.

    Reminded me of something I once heard about 30 years ago, from an old public defender and have never forgotten: "There's something good in everyone, even if it's only that their mother loved them."

    I think there's a lot good (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:39:50 AM EST
    in John Edwards.  But to hear the political reporters tell it, who are starting to talk more freely now that the trial is over, he changed fairly dramatically and became an ego monster after he was picked for the VP nomination, and was worse by 2008.

    If anybody runs into an analysis by a good astrologer, I'd sure love to know about it!


    I'm not an astrologer, but (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:26:55 AM EST
     during the depths of the Watergate Scandal some of Nixon's closest friends were worried about his deteriorating mental state. They feared he might attempt a coup d'etat, or even, commit suicide.  The statement I remember by a close friend of his (can't recall who) was that the "rush" of power was greater than the greatest orgasm. And, that great wealth (Nixon didn't have to worry about money) didn't compare.

    It also helps explain the puzzling question as to why he would authorize such petty, unnecessary "dirty tricks" during his campaign against McGovern, even as the polls were predicting a blowout. His fear of losing power destroyed his cognitive sense of reality.

    John Edwards had plenty of money. But the rarified, and intoxicating, whiff of power he experienced as the potential President seemed to do the same to him.    


    I think it's overdoing the analogy (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by expy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:33:26 AM EST
    to compare Edwards to Nixon.

    I think what John Edwards did was pretty much the equivalent of Clinton's escapade with Monica Lewinsky. Definitely ego + stupidity was involved, as well as women who insinuated themselves into a relationship. Both are situations where the men seemed oblivious to the risk of being discovered, and then tried to lie their way out of the mess they created.  Clinton was worse, in my mind, because he acted while he was President & pretty much treated Monica Lewinsky like dirt in the aftermath. The fact that Edwards seems to have continued his relationship with Hunter and his daughter suggests to me that he really did form an emotional relationship to her. He's certainly not the first man in history to get involved with a younger woman while still married to his first wife-- and I really don't think political power is a necessary ingredient for marital cheating.

    I don't know what it is about male politicians, ego, power, and their inability to keep their pants zipped. Obviously there is a very long list of politicians who followed a similar path. The sexual escapades may be common behavior for some men, but you'd think someone running for office would simply have the sense to be more circumspect. But obviously that is not the case.  

    As far as future political careers go.... didn't Newt Gingrich try to run for President this year?


    he did (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:27:27 AM EST
    and I thought it was a joke. And glad he didn't get very far with that.

    Scarily, Newt was briefly the front runner (none / 0) (#32)
    by Farmboy on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    For a time the majority of people in the GOP who were polled actually responded with a, "I believe Newt Gingrich is the best choice for president," despite his previous political and personal misdeeds.

    Can you imagine a future scenario where that could ever happen for Edwards? Yeah, me neither.


    Three words (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    Helen Gahagan Douglas

    Dick Nixon was never, ever, not for one single solitary second of his miserable life a good or honest or decent man.  He was an enthusiastic user of dirty tricks and dishonest tactics long before he ever got anywhere near the White House.


    That was interesting (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Absolutely, I agree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    As I recall, after Watergate went down, bumper stickers began appearing in California that said, "Don't blame me, I voted for Helen Gahagan Douglas."  Nixon was always a sleaze-ball.

    Matthews and Heileman and Halperin (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 06:50:36 AM EST
    are the unholy trinity of political moral outrage these days. And they have an uncanny ability to identify the lowest common denominator of political analysis - in this case the speculation about Edwards' future in politics, which has no basis in anything he said.

    Sorry you wasted a drive home listening to their drivel. I agree the ads on Sirius are so painful that one will go to almost any lengths to avoid them, but that may have been a step too far!

    NY Post (none / 0) (#38)
    by lawstudent on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    To be expected from the Post, but today's cover is quite ridiculous.


    "not guilty?" not so (none / 0) (#40)
    by diogenes on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    "John Edwards was not found guilty"--wrong.
    The jury found that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on one charge.  The jury was a hung jury on the other charges.  
    If this were such an obviously railroaded and unmerited prosecution as is being implied here, then why a hung jury?