John Edwards Trial Ends in a Hung Jury
By stealthy
@stealthy (8181)
United States
June 1, 2012 10:29am CST
They found him not guilty on one charge and were hung on the other five. It is unlikely that the authorities will try again. His statement afterwards, while outwardly apologetic, seemed to me to be more self serving than anything else. It is very hard to trust anything he says. So the jury on the one not guilty result considered the money he had received to a gift to keep his affair secret from his wife and not about his campaign. So did the donor(s) pay gift tax(es) on these gifts? It is usually a tax leaved on the donor and not on the one receiving the gift.
3 people like this
4 responses
@celticeagle (189838)
• Boise, Idaho
1 Jun 12
I wonder if the donors would have any options as far as bringing charges against him because of this. (Him using their donations the way he did) and, I wonder if any of them care? His wife was the only good in that marriage and he is a louse. I wonder what he will do now? Like Clinton and do some talks at colleges and such or what? He should be hung, not the jury. Hehe
@celticeagle (189838)
• Boise, Idaho
2 Jun 12
That's for sure. But I wonder what he will do for money now. I'd personally like to see on Skid Row. Ugh!
1 person likes this
@mickeyb123 (117)
• United States
2 Jun 12
Stealthy, I don't think the issue is gift taxes. I know you were being facetious, however, there is a larger point about this entire thing. I saw several of the jurors on TV last night (Friday, June 1) and what was brought out was that they THOUGHT he was guilty but the prosecutors did not come out with the evidence to prove it. I think they really just wanted to 'phone this one in' so to speak which goes back to the incompetency of the current justice department.
I also find it interesting that John did not tear up until he was speaking about his 'love child'.
1 person likes this
@mickeyb123 (117)
• United States
2 Jun 12
Well, of course, the point really was that all of that money was given to him and/or his election committee as tax deductible donations in his battle to win.
(Not to set up house with someone else.)
And, of course, I also take your point about everything else.
1 person likes this
@AmbiePam (120683)
• United States
1 Jun 12
You know what makes me mad? They won't retry John Edwards, but when a mistrial was declared in the Roger Clemens case, they brought it to trial a second time! Are they nuts? He's charged for lying to Congress. Is that a worse charge than the several Edwards is accused of? No. And don't get me wrong. I'd rather have neither retried than both tried again. I couldn't believe they were going to use tax dollars to go after Clemens again.
1 person likes this
