Judge denies Edwards’s bid to dismiss campaign case

Tags: , , , , ,

Submitted: Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:52pm
Updated: Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:57pm

Associated Press

GREENSBORO, NC (AP) — A federal judge denied on Thursday a bid by former presidential candidate John Edwards to have the criminal case against him thrown out, paving the way for a trial to begin in January.

US District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles said in Greensboro that the five motions to dismiss are being denied without prejudice, meaning Edwards’s lawyers can use them at a later date. The former US senator is charged with using campaign funds to cover up an affair he had during his unsuccessful bid for the White House and then submitting false campaign finance reports to cover his tracks. He has pleaded not guilty.

Edwards was in the courtroom and displayed no visible reaction to the decision.

Edwards and his defense team argue that the federal government’s case depends on a completely novel set of legal arguments that have never been validated by a court. But Eagles said it may be that the facts of his case are unique and untested.

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee had an affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter, eventually fathering a child. Prosecutors contend that Edwards used money from donors far in excess of legal campaign limits to keep the dalliance under wraps.

Much of the undisclosed money was funneled to Andrew Young, a close aide to Edwards who left the campaign and falsely claimed paternity of the senator’s illegitimate child. Young and his wife invited the pregnant Hunter to live in their home near Chapel Hill and later traveled with her as tabloid reporters sought to expose the candidate’s extramarital affair.

Edwards’s lawyers argue that if the prosecution’s case succeeds, it could theoretically mean that any money a candidate spends while running for office could be classified as a campaign expense, which they say would twist federal law completely out of shape.

The trial is scheduled to begin in January.

(Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    I leave it for the readers to decide who is the idiot – the guy who used the word correctly, or the guy who said, “She’s not a bastard, she was just born out of wedlock.”

    BTW, what’s so bad about being a bastard? As another poster implied, it was no impediment to Steve Jobs.

    I believe the problem is that in your teenie-weenie little mind, you think “bastard” is only a curse, rather than being a word used throughout history as a shorthand method of establishing illegitimate birth.

  • Guest9000 says:

    Steve Jobs was a bastard.

  • Guest461 says:

    1. A person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.

    Sorry, but facts are facts and definitions are as well. As far as there, “is not a law”, well, just wait and see. It’s obvious that Edwards is lower than whale crap in the Mariana Trench. His integrity doesn’t exist, his alliance to his own family doesn’t exist and he did nothing notable as a Senator. This case has been full of lies from the beginning that were initiated by Edwards in the deception to the public of his less than honorable actions. Now, we’re going to find out how, why and what he did with the campaign money!

    Do you still believe that Jeffery Dahmer was innocent to?

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    “she is not a bastard, she was just born out of wedlock”

    That should go down in some kind of record book. Exactly how ignorant can you be? Look up the definition of bastard. Wait! I’ll give it to you, since looking it up would likely exceed your abilities.

    bastard: (First definition from the American Heritage Dictionary) A child born out of wedlock.

    Got it, Einstein? The child is absolute, 100% pure bastard. Accurate terminology may upset you, but quite honestly, I don’t care.

  • Guest7969 says:

    to the dictionary…

    1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.

    SOoooo..the OP was correct.

  • Guest 333 says:

    You obviously do not know the definition of the word bastard. It is a child born out of wedlock.

  • Guest1105 says:

    Tell me something. Are there any openings left for condescending know-it-alls or did you get the last position?

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    When the dust settles, they’re still facts. The child is a bastard, and anyone who posts that “she’s not a bastard, she was just born out of wedlock” likely has an IQ that would make a good hat size.


  • wilmingtonborn says:

    I know what the dictionary says, I am just saying that she is just a child why place the word bastard on her…. it cruel. and only an idiot would call a child that… a hateful idiot at that…

  • guesty says:

    But you don’t meet the entry level requirements. Keep reading and maybe one day…..

  • wilmington born says:

    I believe we are talking about John Edwards not Jeffery Dahmer… Since everyone thinks he is guilty why waste our time and money to put him on trial…. its fine with me open a pandora box…

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    ….and your point is…..what?

  • Guest9000 says:

    Same as yours.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    So….Edwards’ lawyers contend that using excessive, illegal contributions donated specifically to hide your sordid, sleazy affair and bastard child must be considered separately, and not counted as campaign contributions even if the checks were made out to your campaign….

    ….or are they claiming that hiding the affair you undertook while your wife was fighting cancer is just as legitimate a campaign expense as buying a case of pens at Office Depot?

    I’m confused….

  • wilmington born says:

    All though this is still going to trial when all the facts come out he will not be guilty, there is not a law to cover what was done, and his child has a father she is not a bastard, she was just born out of wedlock, only lame people call a helpless child a bastard, and John was stupid for getting involved with someone else, and he was also set up. Who do you think called the media and let them know that he was going to come to her hotel to see child.

  • Guest1369 says:

    Under old NC common law bastardy was a crime. It was a misdemeanor for a man to beget a bastard child. Oh, for the days when a male had to be responsible for the things he did! Or could Edwards cause a comeback?

Leave a Reply