Enquirer Claims John Edwards Indictment Imminent

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:26:15 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The National Enquirer is reporting a federal grand jury in North Carolina investigating payments by John Edwards' presidential campaign's to Rielle Hunter, is about to be indicted -- "imminently."

The Enquirer got lucky and was right about Edwards' affair. Are they pushing their luck?

It seems the grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina does frequently meet on Thursdays. (Grand juries sit for 12 to 18 months. In lesser populated districts, they meet a few days a month.)

Does the Enquirer merely have a scoop that the grand jury is concluding the investigation, and realizing it has a 50% chance of being right, jumping the gun and choosing the option that would boost their traffic? Or, is there a leak from John Edwards' camp? [More....]

Assuming an Indictment is expected this week, would the U.S. Attorney's office have let Edwards' lawyer know early to make arrangements for a surrender and appointment with pre-trial services for an initial appearance on Friday? Would someone in that chain of info have leaked to the Enquirer? If Edwards knows, it's possible he would have mentioned it to a close friend. (The Enquirer cits a friend of Edwards as saying Edwards is "terrified" of an Indictment. But what close friend of John Edwards would talk to the Enquirer, of all publications? Who helps the enemy of their close friend?

Or, is the U.S. Attorney gearing up for a press conference and the Enquirer just put two and two together from that?

On December 1, President Obama nominated Thomas G. Walker for U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Sen. Kay Hagen reportedly extracted a promise that the current U.S. Attorney, George Holding, who has been sheparding the Edwards and Mike Easley probes, would stay in office until the investigations are completed. And Republican Sen. Richard Burr said he'd block Walker's confirmation until the probes are completed.

I don't doubt the grand jury is winding up. But I'm also not taking the Enquirer's word for it. And I hope I hope John Edwards is not indicted.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | On President Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Enquirer Claims John Edwards Indictment Imminent | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Edwards is guilty of campaign violations (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by bridget on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:12:59 PM EST

which I always believed he is/was - he should be indicted. Why shouldn't he be, Jeralyn? His campaign was completely fake, dishonest even IMO.

Besides I have no sympathy for a phony multimillionaire who takes $$$ from the "little people," - the kind of people he prefers to keep at long distance ... only to spend it on anything but the campaign. Guess we will have to wait for the real story.

Of course, he is terrified. He got caught. Surprise! surprise! He always relied on the mass media to protect him. (And lets face it, they did their very best.) And even towards the bitter end Edwards believed one of the top positions in Obama's admin were waiting for him.

Can you say hubris?

If Edwards is a convincing social democrat (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by bridget on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:56 PM EST

I am the Queen of England, fer sure. ]

: Good enough (none / 0) (#13)
by Salo on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:06:22 AM EST

I think that bevan was called the minister of sickness by Churchill. Which is perhaps counts as no higher compliment.

as one of the "little people" that (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by athyrio on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:04:15 AM EST

donated to his campaign, if he is guilty, I hope he is indicted...I am sick to death of these politicians thinking they are above the law...Enough!!!

Also hope Edwards is not indicted (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by calamityjane on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:51:15 AM EST

Hunter was hired by the campaign to produce a 'docu-drama' video of Edwards. She delivered. Seriously, I supported the Edwards Campaign, made donations I could not afford. Was especially ticked off with the last minute plea for donations the eve before he announced his withdrawal from the campaign (which elicited yet another donation from me) - and I suspect the campaign manager who sent out the email asking for the donation might have been aware Edwards was going to withdraw. Yet, I would not like to see Edwards indicted.

Can he be indicted for stupidity? Poor judgment? Wasteful expenditures? I don't know what the grand jury has, but I wish this whole thing would end.

: She delivered. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:36:44 AM EST

No doubt about that.

I have no idea if the Enquirer is right about this (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by BDB on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:53:25 AM EST

but I don't think they got "lucky" in the affair story. That was regular reporting using sources. There have been a number of similar stories concerning politicians that the Enquirer has gotten right. It's just sometimes hard to tell the real stories from the fake ones, which the current story may or may not be.

To say that the Enquirer "got lucky" (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:07:46 AM EST

is to reduce investigative reporting (which to my mind is in pretty short supply these days) to the flip of a coin; if the whole mess had been broken by the WaPo or the NYT, no one would be using the term "lucky," would they?

My sense is that the fact that this was all presented to a grand jury means a greater likelihood that he will be indicted; whether or not there is sufficient and credible evidence to take the next step is anyone's guess. A trial would be a messy media circus, with less focus on the actual charges than on the disaster that is Edwards' personal life.

Amazing how far and how fast he has fallen, and the magnitude of the damage created in the wake.

My opinion (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by kmblue on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:21:48 AM EST

is that the Enquirer did good old fashioned "shoe leather" journalism on the Edwards story. That kind of journalism is in short supply these days. The Pulitzer committee apparently agrees, as the Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer in two categories:
Investigative Reporting and National Reporting.
If they win, perhaps the MSM will get off it's collective butt and start doing some real work.

Much as I dislike the Enquirer (4.55 / 9) (#14)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:48 AM EST

. . . it was correct about Edwards' affair not because it was "lucky," but because, as we used to say in the trade, it committed an act of journalism.

Perhaps the confusion is owing to seeing so little of said acts of journalism these days? That also was evident in some comments here today.

Don't suppose Andrew Young is the (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:56:50 PM EST

leaker.

how would Young know (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:11:45 PM EST

when the grand jury is finished or whether the U.S. Attorney had asked the grand jury to indict? Or are you suggesting the friend of Edwards told Young who told the Enquirer? That I could see, but then the Enquirer's statement "a friend of Edwards told the Enquirer" would be false...unless Young is now working for the Enquirer. I could see that too, who else would hire him?


I was merely suggesting Young is no longer (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:41:32 PM EST

a confidante of Edwards or vice versa.


He's guilty of socialism (none / 0) (#6)
by Salo on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:43:59 PM EST

He's going to be hanged drawn and quartered.


: Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Brookhaven on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:40:27 AM EST

Of socializing with women other than his wife. Edwards a socialist? My left foot.

: Who? Young or Edwards? (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:47:35 PM EST

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:51:03 PM EST

Which lady? (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:05:37 AM EST

Ha. Good question. I meant Bridget. (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:09:46 AM EST

: You mean Bridget? Sheesh! (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by bridget on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:50:13 PM EST

If you think that is protesting - you haven't heard the real thing yet .... lol

Lucky? (none / 0) (#18)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:35:08 AM EST

The Enquirer got lucky and was right about Edwards' affair.

This was not luck. The Enquirer did the shoe leather work that Edward's sycophants in the MSM did not want to do.

Lucky? They had reporters following Edwards (none / 0) (#22)
by Angel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:43:52 AM EST

and even got a photo of him with the baby! They scooped every other print and media organization in the country and you call it luck? Huh.

If there is any truth to any of this (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:04:48 AM EST

and where certain monies came from, and Edwards thinks this is only about making an example out him then his ego has exploded.

Why the promise to keep Repub on case? (none / 0) (#27)
by jawbone on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:24:58 PM EST

... Sen. Kay Hagen reportedly extracted a promise that the current U.S. Attorney, George Holding, who has been sheparding the Edwards and Mike Easley probes, would stay in office until the investigations are completed. And Republican Sen. Richard Burr said he'd block Walker's confirmation until the probes are completed. And Republican Sen. Richard Burr said he'd block Walker's confirmation until the probes are completed.

I can understand a complex financials case or terrorism case being shepherded by the existing team to a logical handoff or even to conclusion, but a tawdry run-of-the-mill charge of misuse of campaign funds? Huh? Seems like a political vendetta being run out of that office, no?

The MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) was brutal in its attacks on Edwards (recall the hair "scandal," sale of DC house "scandal," etc.). At the time it seemed to me that there was a coordinated move to ensure Edwards would not be a viable candidate, and this was well before the affair was known about. It if had been, that would have been used to blow him out of the primary waters.

I thought his concerns for the poor and working classes were what attracted such attacks. Corporatists do not want any TR or FDR-like figures succeeding in national politics.

Note: I am not putting Edwards on the level of TR or FDR, just that any pol with the principles of either will be destroyed. Corporatism must reigh supreme. They've got money and, now, even greater "personhood."

: Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:47 PM EST

So as not to give the appearance of the administration making it appear more favorable for Edwards - a one time opponent - and then a very public supporter of Obama during the election? I'm not saying there would be any inpropriety, just that keeping the Republican USA on to finish the job would quell any outcry if no indictment comes down.