Back To John Edwards

Donor intent may be the key to the Edwards case. Walter Shapiro of TNR explains:

Count Two in the indictment is much more straightforward—and, based on my reporting, potentially more hazardous for Edwards. This charge centers on the allegation that the candidate and his aide Andrew Young solicited and received $725,000 from nonagenarian philanthropist Bunny Mellon in 2007 and 2008, money that was used to cover up Edwards’s affair—and that exceeded the legal limit of $25,000 in aggregate campaign contributions per election cycle.

Up to now, the pre-trial coverage has assumed that Mellon, like Baron, was intent on helping Edwards cover up his philandering. But the trial will raise the strong possibility—and you will have to trust me on the sourcing for this—that the then-97-year-old socialite was as ignorant of the existence of Rielle Hunter (or any other Other Woman) as any Democratic voter besotted with John Edwards. When she was asked for the money, delivered in seven installments beginning in June 2007, she apparently thought that she was donating in some round-robin fashion to the Edwards campaign, not covering up an affair.

I am out of ammunition on the vagaries of campaign finance law.

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

Bunny Mellon is the poster child for a 100% inheritence tax.

[Bruce]

The intent idea does make some sense.

I have been struggling with this for a bit in my mind. The defense seems to be that, sure, Edwards is a smuck, and, I would go further and suggest, not a good man. But, there is (supposedly) nothing wrong with someone trying to help him out by donating money to him directly for stuff that is not directly campaign related. And, his haircuts, mistress costs, etc. were really more personal than political in nature.

But, that cuts against the idea that campaign laws are designed to minimize the chances at bribery, and to make public the level of bribery/contributions by different people - in other words, if the candidate is going to be bribed, then the people should have the right to know by whom. And, this theory that the Edwards people have been pushing directly contradicts this, but providing a loophole where people can shovel money directly to politicians without any accountability or limits.

[Bruce]

Haven't verified any of this, but it does sound familiar. From Rabel at Althouse: "Nobody cares about what’s happening to John Edwards anymore — he’s old news."

Federal election law specifically addresses gifts:

(8) (A) The term “contribution” includes—
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

Which is why this statement fron Bunny is important:

“From now on,” she wrote, “all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. . . . It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.”

Paying the personal expenses of a candidate is not a legal method of circumventing campaign law.

I have seen that quote from Mellon before (and is in the the article that TM linked), and if accurate, could go some ways to show intent, at least on her part. (But, of course, with her turning 101 this year, she isn't about to be tried). It was apparently Edwards and Andrew Young asking directly for personal cash for the candidate that crossed the line.

[Carol]

I may have missed it but no one seems to be mentioning that there is a gift tax in the law too. If these were not campaign contributions then Ms. Mellon would have had to file a Gift Tax return- seperate from the 1040. I think the tax rate is about 40 percent and falls on the giver not the one who gets the gift. It's form 709 at the IRS.

[NK]

Carol raises a good point. This scam was a way for Bunny Mellon to give away money tax free. Rich Liberals Looooove to avoid paying taxes.

[Jane (Better a crate than a plate)]

Aren't there some tax ramifications?

[narciso]

OT .Winning the Future'

[narciso]

Sorry, this is what I was talking about;

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7288

[Jane (Better a crate than a plate)]

I see Carol beat me to it.

[AliceH]

If these were not campaign contributions then Ms. Mellon would have had to file a Gift Tax return

That is true, as far as it goes. However, Edwards cannot be responsible for Ms. Mellon failing to file the proper tax documents on her "gifts" to him. Not, at least, unless they colluded on it or something.

[Captain Hate]

Thanks for that response on the French election @ AoS, narc. Btw the review of "Do Not Ask What Good We Do" by Robert Draper @ the WSJ sounds like it's a very good accounting of what the Tea Party brought to Washington and sent Duke and Duke into the panic mode. And a great portrait of Allen West.

Speaking of which, Orin Hatch is on Laura Ingraham blasting the Tea Party because of the unfortunate way that Dick Armey has carpetbagged his way on to it. Still, bitter much Orin?

[Captain Hate]

Ack, Orrin.

[narciso]

I have little use for Jonathan Karl, but he had a better grasp on the subject then the Post's Aaron Blake, So it's not really that surprising that an event that would show
a weakness in Sarkozy's strong suit, would create such a ripple.

[Jane (Better a crate than a plate)]

Wouldn't Edwards also have to pay tax on the gift? WOuldn't it be treated as income if not a campaign donation?

[AliceH]

Good question, Jane. I'd like to know that.

What happened to the tax attorneys? I was waiting to comment, because I expected we'd have the answer by now.

[Annoying Old Guy]

Jane;

If Mellon gave the money to Edwards, who then gave it to Rielle there's two sets of gift taxes that need to be paid.

[Clarice]

I think it's clear she'd have given him the money for anything he wanted. This case is an outrage, a prosecutor trying to play on Edwards' unpopularity.
Mellon did pay gift tax on the money according to earlier reports.

[Ignatz]

--Not, at least, unless they colluded on it or something.--

Like laundering it through his campaign?

[Bruce]

Wouldn't Edwards also have to pay tax on the gift? Wouldn't it be treated as income if not a campaign donation?

No - the donor/gifter pays a gift tax instead, if they exceed certain limits, which these appear to have done. And, I think there are indications that Mellon filed the requisite tax return and paid the tax.

The centenarian Mellon is going through a rough patch right now. Apparently, one of the people with whom she was investing turned out to be a bounder, and she is having to live off of principal right now - some $400 million at last check, but suffering through the recession like the rest of us.

In any case, it does seem like it would make more sense to tax the recipient and not the donor/gifter. After all, they are the one receiving something of value. I suspect though that it was not done that way for a couple of reasons. One is that the donor may be gifting property that does not translate well into cash. For example, the gift may be real property. The recipient would then have to find the money for the gift they just received, or be a tax scofflaw. Not only that, but the donor is the one controlling the timing too.

But, I think that maybe the biggest reason that the donor, and not the recipient, is taxed may be that there are typically more recipients than donors, and donors could structure transactions to minimize or eliminate taxation by splitting up the gift until it was below legal limits. This way, they are taxed on the entirety of their donations in a year.

[Clarice]

It was not laundered thru the company. It was a gift to Edwards that she paid taxes on and never went thru the campaign . Stupid waste of time .Even stupider effort to expand the scope of the campaign finance laws. Imagine how bad acting prosecutors can use this to harass political opponents.

[narciso]

Well as it turns out, the prosecutor was? also
running for congress in the primary,

[AliceH]

--Not, at least, unless they colluded on it or something.--

"Like laundering it through his campaign?"

Well, that is the question but not one which I think is much informed by whether or not a tax form was filed. Maybe that's just me, but my default is that it seems perfectly believable to think a 90yo women may have been unaware she was supposed to do that. I also find it easy to believe she thought her gifts were not campaign contributions and would not be used for anything wrong.

I'm not claiming she is right about any of that. I just think someone who would even consider giving that amount of money to Edwards is probably not a strong swimmer.

[Clarice]

*not laundered thru the CAMPAIGN*

Mellon's lawyer worked with her on this obviously which si why she carefully paid gift tax on it. The story is she was appalled that people made a great deal out of John's expenses for fancy haircuts and wanted him to have at his disposal moeny --outside of the campaign--for personal expenses.

Honestly. If I give a candidate a Christmas present or take him out for dinner s that to be considered part of his campaign chest? Are we going to allow proctological exams of candidates' personal expenses not out of campaign funds?

Last time I saw that happen was with regard to the clothese McCain got for Palin.

BTW when do we look into who's paying what for Michelle's schmatas?

[Bruce]

If Mellon gave the money to Edwards, who then gave it to Rielle there's two sets of gift taxes that need to be paid.

Or, maybe to Andrew Young, who gave the money to Rielle. Bet he didn't think about the gift tax ramifications when he was playing money man there.

Now, the logical thing would have been for Mrs. Mellon to have given the money directly to Rielle. And, they may still argue at some point that that was what they had done. But, I have seen little indication that she (Mellon) knew, or even cared, where the money actually went, as long as it helped Edwards. I could be wrong, because this is a woman well inured to philandering husbands, including her own, as well as that of her very good friend, Jackie.

But, that brings up one of the inequities in this whole case. The person who made the purportedly illegal campaign contributions and may have failed to file gift tax returns or pay gift taxes on the gifts that ended up supporting Edwards' mistress seems immune from legal scrutiny. Partly, that is probably because of her age, 100 now. And, partially because this is the woman who helped decorate the Camelot White House (and, what is scary to me is that the end of Camelot is nearing 50 years now, and there are probably those out there who can tell you where they were when it happened - Sed fugit interea fugit irreparabile tempus, singula dum capti circumvectamur amore).

[narciso]

Yes, those were bogus claims against Sarah and Christine, that the FEC chose wisely to dismiss

[NK]

Wait-- did Mellon pay gift tax or not? If she did pay gift tax, as far as she's concrened she gave Edwards a gift to pay the woman to keep her mouth shut. Then Edwards counted it as a campaign donation. OK? so what? the fed gov't got gift tax and Mellon subsidized Edwards being a pig. That's a federal crime? The campaign laws are a joke the politicians play on the rest of us.

[Ignatz]

--In any case, it does seem like it would make more sense to tax the recipient and not the donor/gifter.--

Aren't gifts given during ones lifetime counted against that person's inheritance tax exemption?
If so then it makes sense for the donor to pay the tax as it is essentially in lieu of the inheritance tax his estate would later have to pay on that money, no?

[Clarice]

Mellon did pay gift tax.
Edwards did NOT count it as a campaign donation and never ran it thru the campaign account.He treated it as a personal gift to him to do with it as he wished.

[Ignatz]

--Then Edwards counted it as a campaign donation.--

Did he or didn't he? Clarice says not. If not then it seems hard for the government to make its case, especially if another arm of their case is that expenditures on Rielle were not legitimate campaign expenses. They can't have it both ways.

[NK]

Clarice-- if your 11:14 are the facts; WTF is this case about? Edwards was indicted for being a pig? (true of course, but that's a fed crime now?)

[Clarice]

It never went thru his campaign account. It was never reported as a campaign contribution .
That is what the original reportage on the matter was.

As I understand it this prosecution claims that it was NOT a "real" gift and should have been treated as a campaign contribution AND it was spent on something not a legitimate campaign expense.

[Captain Hate]

Imagine how bad acting prosecutors can use this to harass political opponents.

Exactly. I hate Silky of Teh Mill at least as much as anybody else but this case is an affront to any concept of a reasonable application of the law. Is Holder ultimately calling the shots on this?

[Annoying Old Guy]

I have to agree with our host, Clarice, and NK. If it was a gift, and the gift taxes were paid, I just don't see the case, doubled if the government position is that the money wasn't spent on legitimate campaign expenses. One wonders if the real intent here is to throw Edwards off the sled to distract from a current candidates open invitation to fraudulent credit card donations.

[Clarice]

Here's the indictment:http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/Edwards-Indictment.pdf

Yes, nk, that's about it. I don't think Holder's directly involved in this and my guess is this is just a prosecutor behaving in his perceived own best interests.

[Ignatz]

--this prosecution claims that it was NOT a "real" gift and should have been treated as a campaign contribution AND it was spent on something not a legitimate campaign expense--

That's what I mean by they can't have it both ways. The slimy little creep is so repellant I never bothered to even look under the rock this case resides.
You gotta make a real effort to get people rooting for that centipede.

[Clarice]

I am not fond of the campaign finance laws anyway but to suggest that we have a right to know and control whatever funds a candidate spends during a campaign for personal expenses is, I think, a road too far.

Bunny didn't give a shit what he spent it on, and as a woman of the world, that it went to Reille would not have concerned her.

Free campaign flights by others may be a closer call but I have a hard time making much of that either given that Michelle and Obama are wasting our money on daily flights on govt planes for the same purpose.

[Threadkiller]

From the audit.

“Final Audit Report of the Commission on Obama for America (January 16, 2007 – December 31, 2008)”

“Part I Background Authority for Audit

This report is based on an audit of Obama for America (OFA), undertaken by the Audit Division ofthe Federal Election Commission (the Commission) in accordance with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act). The Audit Division conducted the audit pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b), which permits the Commission to conduct audits and field investigations of any political committee that is required to file a report imder 2 U.S.C. §434. Prior to conducting any audit under this subsection, the Commission must perform an intemal review of reports filed by selected committees to determine if the reports filed by a particular committee meet the threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the Act. 2 U.S.C. §438(b).

Scope of Audit

Following Commission-approved procedures, the Audit staff evaluated various risk factors and as a result, this audit examined: 1. the receipt of excessive contributions; 2. the receipt of contributions from prohibited sources; 3. the disclosure of contributions received; 4. the disclosure of individual contributors’ occupation and name of employer; 5. the consistency between reported figures and bank records; 6. the completeness of records; and 7. other committee operations necessary to the review.

Audit Hearing

Obama for America declined the opportunity for an audit hearing before the Commission on the matter presented in this report.”

“• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Robert R. Bauer January 16,2007 – May 9,2007, Martin H. Nesbit May 10,2007 – Present”

“Part III

Summary

Commission Finding

Failure to File 48-Hour Notices Based on audit fieldwork, OFA did not file required 48-hour notices for 1,312 contributions, totaling $1,972,266, that were received prior to the general election. OFA provided no further information regarding this matter in response to the Interim Audit.

Report recommendation.

The Commission approved a finding that OFA failed to file required 48-hour notices in 2008. (For more detail, see page 4)”

“Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During fieldwork. Audit staff compared OFA’s 48-hour notices with contributions of $1,000 or more that had been reported as received during the 48-hour notice filing period.’ This review identified 1,312 contributions, totaling $1,972,266, for which OFA failed to file the required notices. A majority of the missing 48-hour notices arose from a transfer reported on October 24,2008 from the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), a joint fundraising committee composed of OFA and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In order to verify whether the contributions in question had been received between October 16 and October 23, Audit staff traced contributions attributed to the October 24 transfer to the disclosure reports filed by OVF.”

“Commission Conclusion

On March 8,2012, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum, in which the Audit Division recommended that the Commission adopt a finding that OFA failed to file required 48-hour notices in 2008. The Commission approved the Audit staffs recommendation.”

http://www.fec.gov/audits/2008/Obama_for_America/FinalAuditReportoftheCommission1206263.pdf

[NK]

Clarice - couldn't open your link, but I'll take your word for it. This is indictment by Metaphysics? The USA indicts Edwards over what he should have done in a perfect campaign law world? Nonsense on stilts, the campaign laws are a sick joke. I won't root for Edwards, I'll go against Saint Thomas More's injunction and cut down all the laws and hope he's convicted... basically because he's a pig.

[Clarice]

I'd never do that, nk. Too dangerous a precedent. I don't go along with Savonarola Prosecutions. If the crime don't fit you must acquit is my motto.

[MarkO]

I'm in favor of the rule of law. I wouldn't mind at all if those running the criminal system felt the same way.

[AliceH]

I won't root for Edwards, I'll go against Saint Thomas More's injunction and cut down all the laws and hope he's convicted

I will add this as another 'dot' to the matrix of NK's rationale for why GZ will cop a plea.

[NK]

Clarice-- I understand the dangers of convicting a man of something that's not a crime. So while I hope Edwards is convicted, I also hope the next congress immediately repeals the campaign laws and adopts a simple and enforceable disclosure system.

[Clarice]

Bravo, MarkO

[edward Fox]

Seems like the old SSU, that they forced Rumsfeld to shut down, too much potential for overlapping responsibilities.

[NK]

AliceH -- I've had my fill. God forbid some gangbanger shoots a friend or family member of yours dead, and the local prosecutor who gets re-elected by showing empathy to the oppressed young men 'in the community' declines to charge because it was 'obviously' self defense against this stranger interloper. would you be such a zealous advocate of self-defense then. Somehow I doubt it. go ahead cut down the trees of the laws against gun violence because you believe GZ, and cop the attitude that if you personally believe GZ end of case, forget about the dead body and his family. But don't complain when the 'wrong people' plead self-defense and walk without a charge. You don't get to have it both ways.

[Clarice]

Ed Fox, What are they supposed to do then to get actionable intelligence? (Have you read an NIE to see how unuseful they are?)The complaints about Rumsfeld's p[ was IMO utterly political.

[narciso]

There is no case, as it there wasn't against
Conrad Black, or Ted Stevens, or Scooter Libby, so why waste our time with the notion
that there is. Why not at least open a criminal inquiry against Don Corzione, well we know the answer don't we?

[narciso]

Of course, they were, and the problem lies as Widlanski has pointed out, in the type of personnel that staff said agencies, the Pillars, the Ray McGoverns, who are either
clueless or simply evil.

[AliceH]

NK: I don't believe I've been an advocate for self-defense. I believe I've been advocating equality before the law, rules of evidence, blind justice, and all those other "trees", as opposed to conceding one twig to the politics of fear as a "reasonable" justification for concession without regard to the law.

I do not support "the ends justify the means", whether I am for or against the ends in question. As to who "the wrong people" you mention might be - jeepers, that's just creepy.

[GMAX]

NK as Reagan said to Carter "There you go again."

Carter could not help himself. Neither apparently can you.

[narciso]

And you can add the Clemens witchhunt to the deal, honestly they have nothing better to do.

[MarkO]

I don't give Clemens a pass. He cheated baseball. along with the the hitters who falsely claim HR records. But, his arrogant, smarmy perjury should be prosecuted. And, his idiot lawyer should retire.

[NK]

AliceH-- I'll take your word for it of course; then you should have no problem with the GZ charges because they are consistent with similar Fla cases. bringing charges is what Fla prosecutors generally do in shooting cases. Most interesting to me was the 61yo Tallahassee woman who fended off a man she knew who attacked her in her own kitchen by shooting him twice with a .38 revolver. 3 years later she won immunity. The local prosecutor (in the news reports) admited the only fact the State had was that she cocked the hammer and pulled the triger twice -- a deliberate action the state claimed. For this -- and only that-- the State charged her with Murder 2 and opposed immunity. No one has proven that GZ is being singled out, as the first defendant ever in Florida where the State didn't accept his self-defense claim. Many self-defense claimants have been charged and had to 'prove' self-defense at an Immunity hearing or at trial. When the shooting happened, he wasn't atacked in his house, he wasn't carjacked, he wasn't a mugging victim of an armed assailant, right or wrong florida prosecutors generally charge in these types of cases. Murder 2 is a gross overcharge, but it was fanciful to expect GZ to walk scot free without charge-- especially when Corey was appointed. I won't support railroading anyone or playing to the mob, but I support tough justice against gun violence, even for sympathic shooters like GZ. GZ may walk an exonerated man, or he may have to plead out of his own self-interest. Personally I think that will ultimately be decided by the facts.

[NK]

GMax-- put up or shut up-- prove that Florida prosecutors have never --ever-- before refused to accept a self-defense claim and charged anyway. Unless you can prove that, you can't prove GZ is being singled out and denied due process.

[Danube of Thought]

Damn right he cheated baseball. From '93 through '96 he was a 40-39 journeyman. Then he started juicing, and his career took off.

[Danube of Thought]

but it was fanciful to expect GZ to walk scot free without charge

Not exactly fanciful, inasmuch as the police found no probable cause. How many self-defense shooters have been charged by a special prosecutor?

[Ignatz]

--go ahead cut down the trees of the laws against gun violence because you believe GZ, and cop the attitude that if you personally believe GZ end of case--

Problem is NK, der aint nobody else to believe.
The physical evidence supports his claims as does the only eye witness to the fight.
Dee Dee was not on the phone when it mattered, so what else is there?
Unless the SP has some Deep Throat up her sleeve, it's not a matter of believing GZ; it's a matter of following the available evidence.

[NK]

Clemens cheated baseball and enriched himself by juicing. he also lied to Congress. So it's not a 'witchunt' but why is he being prosecuted by people who said it was OK for Clinton to perjury himself in order to deny justice to a state employee he harassed? Consistency please.

[NK]

Ig-- your 12:54 may be completely right, and if those are the facts, no plea, GZ walks a free man after trial. Then we would all know he was treated unjustly by prosecutors playing to the mob, and NBC/Comcast will have to pay him a bundle because of the lies their employees told about him. But we don't know that -- yet. If the State really has NOTHING-- I'm concerned this will make Florida and other jurisdictions less aggressive going after gun violence-- that not would not be good for the innocent citizen. We are just going to have to be a little patient.

[NK]

DoT-- I have not seen any news reports of another Fla 'special' prosecutor case. But remeber, the only thing 'special' about Corey is that she's from another jurisdiction, because Wolfinger recused himself.

[Stephanie]

"I support tough justice against gun violence"

Why is it that any action taken when using a gun is labeled as violence?

Violence is a "charged" word employed by PC and prog toadies that is meant to prejudice the reader against guns.

Guns aren't violent. People are violent. And GZ wasn't violent after his head was smashed against the ground. He was defensive and employing superior force to repel an attacker.

Violence is a word implying aggressive out of control behavior that is possibly criminal. Kinda like that charge of depraved indifference tied to Murder 2 that the state cannot support.

If you cede that what GZ was doing was 'gun violence' you are subscribing to the state argument that murder 2 with depraved indifference is justifiable to charge him with for his actions.

Get the emotionally charged riff raff out of your arguments and you might see where your logic is flawed. As it is, your argument is flawed in agreeing he is overcharged but claiming that 'gun violence' is a good descriptor for what happened.

[Brother Constance]

"John" isn't the only witness. He's the best witness. The fight took place practically on his patio. That's what he said.

[AliceH]

For the record, I have to dispute your characterization of my position as well as the consequences of taking that position, but I don't have a problem at all with leaving things at that. (At least, right now I am.)

[NK]

Stephanie-- I'll answer your fair question @1:07(except for the emotially charge riff raff knock.) What's NOT gun violence? defending yourself in/around your home, defending yourself in a carjacking, defending yourself from the armed assailant on the public street, protecting others in similar circumstances. There's centuries of Anglo/American common law and over 100 years of American statutory law carving out justified self-defense with deadly force. But GZ did something different here-- he followed a suspicious person. That led to a confrontation, a fight and a killing. To me it's not cut and dried that those circumstances are clearly self-defense. It may have been 2 stupid young men in a fight, and the loser shot the unarmed winner or one young man threatening another by 'brandishing' the gun. There are questions the state needs to have answered in those circumstances, because there is a dead unarmed man. And Florida prosecutors usually get their answers after they've charged the killing. Charging? manslaughter is an unlawful killing (gun violence), Murder 2 is a depraved act-- the arrest warrant and bond hearing failed to even allege a depraved act (following?profiling?) -- that's why there is an overcharge IMO. I don't see the logical flaw.

[NK]

AliceH- fair enough-- see my 1:28.

[Danube of Thought]

"...the only thing 'special' about Corey is that she's from another jurisdiction, because Wolfinger recused himself."

She's also the Florida State's Attorney. And there are dozens of trial attorneys in Wolfinger's office who could have taken the case to a grand jury.

[jimmyk]

NK, I hear what you are saying, but finding one case like that Tallahassee one doesn't really show much. Did the police release her for lack of probably cause, as they did GZ? Also, the indictment was based on her own testimony. In this case the indictment is based on some alternative theory of what happened that (as far as we know) is unsupported by evidence.

I wouldn't be surprised if prosecutors are inclined toward indictment if there's uncertainty, and maybe, as you say, that is for the best. But where there is virtually no evidence to contradict self-defense, and where the police decided there was no probably cause, and only after the mob cries is a SP appointed and the guy's arrested... that's not SOP in my view.

[NK]

DoT-- I believe Wolfinger was recusing 'his office' from the case.

[NK]

JimmyK-- all truet we all have to acknowledge, suspects are oft times releasesd because of insufficient evidence and then charged when additional evidence becomes available (i.e. DeeDee is somehow a credible witness that allows Corey to charge), more controversial is the 'second look' case where a new prosecutor looks at the same evidence and decides to charge where the first one didn't. Time will tell which type of case this is -- right now it could be either.

[Rob Crawford]

But GZ did something different here-- he followed a suspicious person.

*sigh*

It's not a crime.

one young man threatening another by 'brandishing' the gun.

There's no evidence of that.

Why do you keep making shit up? Is your real last name "Corey"?

(Has anyone else noticed that the ONLY way anyone can come up with something Zimmerman did wrong is to make things up?)

[Rob Crawford]

Time will tell which type of case this is -- right now it could be either.

Time already told.

Corey's a "special" prosecutor assigned to railroad Zimmerman.

[NK]

Time will tell if GZ is an innocent man who has told the truth. But what if GZ has 'been making ths shit up' since that night and really did unlawfully kill TMartin? What then?

[NK]

RobC-- I'm not a smart as you, it takes me longer to figure things out. You'll just have to be patient with me.

[Rob Crawford]

Then a guilty man pulled off a perfect murder by convincing everyone -- including the prosecutors -- that there was no evidence he did anything wrong.

Because we've already seen that the prosecutor's own people can't back up their own claims. If they had anything that would contradict Zimmerman's statements, they wouldn't have done such a horrible job at the hearing.

[Rob Crawford]

What more do you need to see?

The very people who signed the affidavit for his arrest couldn't explain why they thought he was guilty. They hadn't attempted to address his statements at all; they just ran with what they were fed by the press and Crump and seemed shocked to find there was another side to the story.

They didn't even know he'd been treated for his injuries. That wasn't a prosecutor reviewing the facts and finding sufficient cause -- it was a prosecutor sticking a wet finger in the wind and finding which way the mob was blowing.

[NK]

maybe, probably...we'll see. I'm slow and I need lots of evidence to convince me.

[Rob Crawford]

You seem awfully willing to be convinced of his guilt, yet stubbornly resistant to evidence of his innocence.

[Stephanie]

Fair enough, NK. I just don't like prejudicially charged terms being used for an action that is limbo - per your words "there are questions that need to be answered."

If it were shown in court that GZ's actions were not self defense, then 'gun violence' is applicable. If it is shown not to be, then 'gun violence' is an unfair portrayal of the event.

At this point, with the facts not in evidence, 'gun violence' is a description not yet proven; therefore, should not be used. It is prejudicial. And emotionally so by those with an agenda to sway argument.

The use of emotionally charged words to influence policy and narratives is one of the most insidious acts that the MSM and democrats use to poison the public consciousness. It is part of the Alinsky tactic of polarizing and freezing the target.

I hate reading the MSM because the use of charged words is employed everyday to emotionally and subliminally sway arguments.

Anyways... out to the Region Golf Tournament to see if the Boys team can qualify to get to the State Tournament as the Girls did last week... Yea!

[Danube of Thought]

"To me it's not cut and dried that those circumstances are clearly self-defense."

The only evidence is that the first unlawful act--a punch to the face--was committed by Martin. There is no contrary evidence. Under the law, it's self defense.

[NK]

Seriously RobC-- I am very against giving hack politicians (and prosecutors are politicians) too much discretion about being accuser, judge and jury -- without review by others. The one virtue of the Prosecutor who brings too many charges is that prosecutor has to prove the charges in public-- if the prosecutor is harassing people he doesn't like, it's all out in public. The prosecutor who uses overbroad discretion to 'go easy' on people they like is more dangerous-- they are maybe giving a pass to the guilty for their own agenda-- and it may be in secret and the voters may never know. If everything you say about Corey is true? she won't be elected dog catcher. The charges and the case is now very public-- let's see the facts.

[Cecil Turner]

Ig-- your 12:54 may be completely right, and if those are the facts, no plea, GZ walks a free man after trial.

No. Thanks to Florida's SYG law, GZ walks before trial.

[NK]

DoT says-- "The only evidence is that the first unlawful act--a punch to the face--was committed by Martin. There is no contrary evidence. Under the law, it's self defense."
you "know" this how? GZ says so; so that's evidence -- any rebuttal? we'll see, if not, he'll walk. If the state has a witness that says otherwise, there will be a trial.

[NK]

Stephanie-- fair enough, the facts will decide everything, self-defense or unlawful violence.

Good luck with the golf.

[Joan]

NK: Are you now playing 'devil's advocate'?

[Cecil Turner]

you "know" this how? GZ says so;

And Gilbreath says he has nothing to contradict the point. (Also, the broken nose is at least suggestive, right?)

[NK]

No -- a skeptic. I'm an old guy, maybe that's why tend to 'know what I don't know.'

Since TomM made this a big JOM thread point weeks ago I've said nothing good will come of this. Are we supposed to learn life lessons from what may have been 2 idiots meeting on the street, getting into a fight, and one of them getting themselves dead? What's the lesson there? don't be an idiot? great, got it. The separate story is the lies of the race hustlers and the media. Now that is a real story, but a separate topic from what GZ did.

[Danube of Thought]

"you 'know' this how? GZ says so; so that's evidence -- any rebuttal?"

The broken nose says so. The head lacerations say so. John's account says so. No witness says otherwise. The lead investigator says under oath hehas no other evidence.

[GMAX]

Put up or ( and I know I speak for others here as well ) shuttup your own damn self. Show us a hypothetical where a gangbanger shot someone with any of the supporting evidence in this case available and they got off. In other words lose the strawmen and the holier-than-thou attitude at the same exact time.

[Joan]

A bigger issue than don't be an idiot or the race hustlers and media is the spinelessness of prosecutors and government in capitulating to them. We probably never will know exactly what happened that rainy night, but if an innocent man goes to prison for decades because of his skin color, justice will not be served.

[daddy]

Have you guys seen that in that other North Carolina Sex scandal, the one involving the former head of the NC Democratic Party, that the aggressive perp has HIV, and that he gave it to his former student/girlfriend and who knows else. Leading NC Democrat, already accused of sexual harassment, now faces ex-girlfriend’s HIV accusation

Unbelievable.

[Tom Maguire]

What's the lesson there? don't be an idiot? great, got it.

Full Disclosure - I do have a vested interest in seeing wider public promotion of the notion that it is not OK to hit cranky old(er) guys in the face even if you think they are white.

[NK]

DoT-- Nose/Lacerations-- evidence of a fight/struggle. That means.....?

No witness says otherwise... TBD

Lead Investigator.... well now you're doing what I do, you characterize others' statements for your own purposes. That may or may not be what Gilbreath meant. My impression of his testimony was that he was smugly irritated at all of these questions at a Bond Hearing. so that is TBD as well IMO.

[Porchlight]

(Has anyone else noticed that the ONLY way anyone can come up with something Zimmerman did wrong is to make things up?)

Either that or assert that there are simply scads of evidence we haven't seen yet and there might be something somewhere that is inculpatory, even though the prosecution doesn't seem to be aware of it (or the exculpatory evidence, for that matter).

[NK]

TomM @ 2:29-- A HA!! the Left blogosphere will now use that confession against you in the future. Which confession? On this very thread you TomM have confessed to: 1. being older, 2. being cranky, 3. to giving others the impression that you are white, and finally 4. that you want a pass for any of your conduct that would incite any younger, gentle and non-white person to hit you in the face. You've lost all credibility -- Krugman will bring this up for sure in his next column.

[Cecil Turner]

transcript :

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

[Porchlight]

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

How on earth does the State prove "depraved mind" after this?

[Tom Maguire]

As I understand it this prosecution claims that it was NOT a "real" gift and should have been treated as a campaign contribution AND it was spent on something not a legitimate campaign expense.

The haze thickens - it wasn't spent on campaign expenses nor was it counted as a campaign contribution, but it should have been. Yeah, I sense the problem there.

Left unremarked - it is not as if Edwards was poor, so this was really gazillionaires helping multi-milionaires. Not that we lack evidence of Edwards slimeballosity, but he could have Silk Ponied up the $725,000 out of his own pocket.

[Carol Herman]

Edwards didn't use Bunny's money for his campaign! He used it to "support his love child."

Not that the story will ever leave the silk pony alone. But it's hardly likely a convenient lesson from which things could be learned.

The democraps didn't have to contend with Edwards! He lost in their nomination process.

While you've got mittens.

Oh. And, Edwards wife died. Of cancer.

Why is it that the right always seems to go for these "sex scandals?" They're not even flabergasted at the whore in Cartagana who wanted to charge $800 a night. And, where the hotel had a rule that she had to be gone out of their rooms by 6:30 AM.

Am I missing something?

Don't men usually pay for the whores right in the beginning of their transactions?

And, cant you buy the best marijuana in Cartagana? Oh, you mean there are people who thought that only Juan Valdez sells his beans in Colombia?

It seems to me, though, America goes into lots of poor countries (like Afghanistan, too). And, the countries end up with 8-lane highways. And, airports.

As to Edwards, he sure didn't pick great staff, either.

Separate from his dead wife, how do you explain this "Young" guy? Someone you can trust? Following the same book Nixon used I guess?

[NK]

This is one of the already proven things. The State can't prove Murder 2 BRD, when their criminal information and arrest affidavit do not even allege malice.

[Captain Hate]

Unbelievable.

Rush was just talking about this. Seems the Chapel Hole gazettes have been keeping this hushed up as is their wont.