14 May 2012

John Edwards Trial: Prosecution Fail, Dirty Judge, Truth Denied

John Edwards on the TV show '.
John Edwards on the TV show '. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


From Denny:  For three weeks now all the prosecution has put on trial to show the jury is the ambitious political atmosphere of aides jockeying for personal power, the complete control of a candidate - and personal revenge.  What an ugly world.

In the aftermath of the 2008 political campaign and ensuing sexual scandal, aides also sought financial profit, many writing books years later.  Clearly, they have an agenda to join in the Destroy John Edwards Game of Obama and Axelrod.  This trial will become known historically as an infamous political vendetta played out on the national stage.

The Edwards Marriage

While our federal government was at it, they also decided to dissect the very sad and dramatically dying - and finally dead - Edwards' marriage.  This trial has been all about a forensic marriage audit.

I doubt there is a marriage in America that could withstand this kind of intense vicious scrutiny. Most marriages have the occasional, if not often, emotional drama of accusations, convenient lies and sometimes outright betrayals.  Marriage is based upon friction, sometimes it works to create better people, and, sometimes, that same friction destroys them.

A lawyer married to another lawyer, both trained to be combative, is not exactly the best circumstance for a harmonious marriage.  Add to that dynamic the death of their eldest child, Wade, and the situation goes downhill fast.  In the Edwards' case it took about a decade before the marriage slowly dissolved from grief over the loss of a beloved child.

By now, the jury is asking themselves why the Edwards' marriage autopsy was necessary.  By now the jury is questioning if this is, in fact, nothing but a political vendetta from this White House known for its dirty dealings inside its own political party, always going after any who slighted or defied them.  Edwards had fired the now Obama senior adviser, David Axelrod, from his campaign, not confident in his ability to get him elected as well as his constant friction with wife Elizabeth.  Axelrod has been seeking revenge for years.

These government prosecutors put on trial Elizabeth Edwards, irregardless of how this affects and is painful to her remaining three children.  It also was not necessary to prove the truth of the case.  Instead, her character assassination was a ploy to emotionally distract the jury away from the truth:  there is no crime.  The real crime here is a federal government - and campaign aides - willing to get involved in a couple's dissolving marriage, destroying what privacy they had left.  Americans don't like the government involved in their private lives.

What the government revealed by employing former campaign aide "friends" of Elizabeth Edwards said more about the great lengths this prosecution is willing to go to dirty a man's name forever in the minds of the public.  Who are these people anyway?  Almost every day since the trial began, proof has arisen to reveal their real agenda - and provide actual facts and truth to the jury - and this judge sides with the prosecution to deny the jury hearing any of it.  It sure looks like truth is a casualty in this trial.

Elizabeth Edwards was portrayed as what looked like a person who grew up in an alcoholic family.  While I've never read anything about her having a drinking problem, there is another explanation for the extreme behavior discussed at the trial.  It's called Dry Alcoholic syndrome, commonly exhibited by the children of alcoholics.

Take into account that Elizabeth was from a military family, her father a Navy pilot.  The military culture is generations long rife with the destructive alcoholic attitude and is why rape is so easily and casually tolerated in the military.  The intelligence community in which I grew up also suffers from the same issues and bad attitudes, especially toward women.

What any alcoholic employs, wet (active heavy drinker) or dry (may not drink at all or be a light social drinker), is The Sympathy Drama.  Alcoholics become quite adept at employing this drama to draw people in close, then push them away emotionally to punish them, all for a variety of reasons, real or imagined.  The blame for any situation or mishap always belongs to anyone outside of them, refusing to take accountability or responsibility.  The Blame Game is very popular in the military and intelligence communities.

You can see The Sympathy Drama in action when the witnesses talked about how Elizabeth Edwards tore off her blouse and bra on a public airport tarmac, screaming to her husband John, "You don't see me any more!"  The Sympathy Drama is full of histrionics, like this example, meant to embarrass her spouse in public so he would capitulate and do what she wanted that minute.  It's an adult temper tantrum meant to gain complete control.

Another version of The Sympathy Drama was testified by a now Obama administration employee, and former campaign aide "friend" of Elizabeth's that said Elizabeth woefully complained "how no man would be by her side when she was dying."  Note that Elizabeth never said she wanted John by her side, just "a man."

This aide was easily manipulated by Elizabeth, gaining her sympathy and constant cooperation.  She was drawn in to be at the side of Elizabeth when she died even though she was not a member of the family.  The Edwards' eldest daughter Cate and her estranged husband John Edwards were also present as Elizabeth slipped away after a long bout with breast cancer.  Elizabeth managed to manipulate John one last time at her death.  This is all the stuff of a "War of The Roses" movie drama, a constant battle to keep complete control of a spouse.

Elizabeth did not come off well to the jury but it did give the jury a reason to understand why John strayed to another woman who probably talked nicer to him.  Of course, John Edwards chose yet another manipulative Sympathy Drama woman again as this woman proved to be just as interested in complete control.  The man needs to take stock of his choice in women and what draws him to them because he sure is paying a high price for mere sexual attraction.

Closeted Gay Campaign Aide Seeks Revenge

Moving right along to the next big drama the prosecution forced the jury to hear was a lot of false, and sometimes truthful, testimony from former campaign aide and "friend" to John, Andrew Young, an obvious heavily drinking alcoholic - by his wife's testimony.  Andrew Young came off as a closeted gay guy, unhappily trapped in a marriage to a woman, who also worshiped the ground John Edwards walked upon.  Andrew Young repeatedly commented about how he had vicious nicknames for John's wife, Elizabeth, of whom he was terribly jealous.

John probably never realized Young was a closeted gay with a romantic "man crush" on him.  When Edwards told Young he loved him, Young took that as beyond a great friend and younger brother kind of love.  Edwards' generation is terribly naiive about how such a statement would be perceived by someone as emotionally needy and confused as Young.

After a solid week of experiencing Andrew Young's former love now turned to clear disdain and jealousy of John Edwards, the jury was saturated with Young's need for revenge upon his former boss who never became his lover.  Young received complete immunity from the prosecution from tax evasion and stealing the very funds of almost $1 million in question for this trial - money that was supposed to be sent to keep the girl friend quiet.

Young admitted he kept more than 80 percent of the donated funds, using them to build an extravagant house, in imitation to equal the Edwards' home.  Young also complained how the manipulative girl friend, Rielle Hunter, kept asking for her money for more expensive apartments and a new BMW car.  Hello, gold digger, extorting as much money as she could from the scandalous situation.

Young was also given a huge pass by the judge when it was brought to the court's attention that Young had phoned another three witnesses - one of with whom he had a recent affair - in order to get their stories all in line with one another, days before the trial began.  That's called witness tampering and yet this judge said the equivalent of "That's no big deal."  Sure looks suspicious as to a judge in collusion with the Department of Justice.  It also looks like the federal prosecutors set Young up to do it, assuring him he would suffer no ill consequences.

Prosecution Failed to Make Their Case

The prosecution finally rested its case last week on Thursday after a long parade of vengeful ex-campaign aides, quick to find a way to make a buck off of Edwards' misery.  In the end, none of them knew about the legality of campaign vs. personal donation funds.

Friday was spent with Team Edwards trying to get the case dismissed as even a lot of legal analysts state that the prosecution never made its case.  About seven hours were spent arguing for or against dismissal.  The prosecution won again and was granted permission to continue the case.  It is unusual for a judge to dismiss a case at this juncture.

The jury finally did get to hear some small kernel of truth about the supposed crime last week which is why the case should have been dismissed.  Campaign donor Bunny Mellon's lawyer refused to give the prosecution what they wanted.  The prosecution lawyers were clearly angry when he stated how Bunny Mellon knew full well she gave those funds for personal reasons.  He flatly stated those funds were not donated to the campaign.  The prosecution was apoplectic.

Score one for Team Edwards - and the jury.  After three weeks of character assassination of both John and Elizabeth Edwards, a forensic marriage audit and ex-campaign aide "friends" seeking revenge and personal financial profit, the jury finally heard there never was a crime committed from someone who was directly involved and did know the whole truth of the story.

Defense for John Edwards began today

Today, John Edwards finally got his chance at the bat to defend himself against the weeks of outrageous accusations.  First up was a witness that testified about how the Federal Elections Commission previously decided the donated Mellon money was not a campaign contribution.  The judge did deny the jury to hear from a former FEC chairman, who was to be the first witness, to testify the donated money was previously decided to not be a campaign donation.

Team Edwards lost their first - and most compelling witness, the FEC chairman.  They went to their second defense witness, Lora Haggard, who was in charge of campaign finance compliance for the 2008 Edwards campaign and was chief financial officer of the John Edwards for President committee.

Haggard testified the donated money from wealthy heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and campaign finance chairman Fred Baron to quiet the girl friend had never been reported on the campaign's required disclosure reports.  Why was it not reported?  FEC auditors stated it was not necessary, even after Edwards was charged.

Haggard went on to testify that "Edwards was never involved in formulating, filling out or filing campaign finance reports that were sent to the FEC."  She said, "We never gave him a report to review.  He had no input."

This refers to the sixth count by the prosecution of accusing Edwards of causing his campaign to file a false report through deceit.  Sounds weak.  Who writes such drivel, masquerading as a criminal count against someone and calls themselves a good attorney?

Prosecutorial Overkill

Prosecutorial overkill?  One former Clinton White House official, heralding back to the Clinton impeachment, says this case does parallel Clinton's.

“It’s all about people’s sense of disproportionality - something being overdone. With all of the other stuff that’s going on, why is the government spending so much time and effort on something that may be a great moral issue but really isn’t that important?” said the anonymous ex-official. “If  Edwards had done a campaign finance violation that didn’t involve an affair while his wife was dying, we wouldn’t be here.”

The ex-official who asked not to be named offered his opinion, “It’s different in terms of the egregiousness of the conduct, the third parties and the institution of the president Edwards put at risk, but what is similar to Clinton’s case is it’s in the wrong court. It shouldn’t be in criminal court. It should be in the court of their own conscience."


Expect a jury backlash by a minimum of five jurors who are fed up with this ugly process, seeing the political vendetta.  Who wants to spend several weeks of their lives listening to this garbage only to discover there never was a crime?


Related Articles


John Edwards Trial: Bizarre Alternate Jury Antics 

John Edwards Trial: Kangaroo Court Seeks To Direct Jury Conviction

Obamas Whitewater: Political Vendetta, Persecuting John Edwards 


Obama, Team Obama Unfairly Piling On: Prosecutes Populist John Edwards

Prosecutorial Misconduct Against Senator Edwards? His Funny Mugshots

Time To Fire Atty Gen. Eric Holder: Outrageous Changing The Law to Prosecute Edwards





 Subscribe in a reader to The Social Poets

* Check out Dennys News Politics Comedy Science Arts & Food - a place where all my other 20 blogs link so you can choose from among the latest posts all in one place. A free to read online newspaper from independent journalist blogger Denny Lyon. * 

*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!
Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Recent Posts and Archive