Grand Jury Indicts Edwards

John Edwards annouced his candidacy for president in Robbins in 2003. Photo by Glenn M. Sides

As of Friday, June 3, 2011

A federal Grand Jury indicted former Sen. John Edwards on multiple counts of campaign finance violations today. An order for his arrest was issued immediately. Edwards entered a not guilty plea before Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld at his 2:30 p.m. arraignment in federal court in Winston-Salem.

According to multiple reports Edwards came out of the federal courthouse to say he did something very wrong, but did not commit a crime.

“There’s no question that I’ve done wrong, and I take full responsibility for having done wrong,” he said. “And I will regret for the rest of my life the pain and the harm that I’ve caused to others, but I did not break the law, and I never, ever thought I was breaking the law.”

Based on documents filed in the case with the federal court for the Middle District of the state in Greensboro, the grand jury said a centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency “was his public image as a devoted family man” and said “person A, a long-time assistant” handled personal tasks on his behalf.

That would be Andrew Young, a friend of Edwards for many years who accompanied the senator when he visited displaced poultry workers in the Town Hall in Robbins. The indictment refers to “person B” with whom “Edwards had an extramarital affair … which resulted in a pregnancy and the birth of a child.”

Edwards has admitted having a child with Rielle Hunter and attempting to keep the affair and the birth secret by lying about it.

A supporter identified only as “person C” is described as “a political supporter” and another “person D” as campaign finance chair “during the 2008 presidential campaign cycle” documents say. “C” is undoubtedly hundred-year-old Mellon banking fortune heir Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, while “D” would be Fred Baron, Edwards’ campaign finance chairman.

There are three basic allegations: that donations were accepted in excess of allowable limits, that Edwards made false statements, and that he conspired to hide these things.

He is charged with accepting contributions in excess of legal limits and conspiracy to hide facts causing his campaign to file false reports, according to documents filed in the case with the federal court for the Middle District of the state in Greensboro.

In addition to a limit on contributions of “anything of value” federal law bars payments for personal expenses of a candidate unless they would have been made irrespective of the candidacy.

The indictment alleges Edwards “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others, known and unknown, to (A) accept and receive, while a candidate for federal office, contributions … in excess of the limits of the Election Act … and (B) falsify, conceal, and cover up by trick, scheme, and device a material fact … by, among other things, causing the John Edwards for President Committee to create and file false and misleading campaign finance reports with the FEC.”

The six counts alleged in the indictment include four counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions, the conspiracy charge, and a charge involving false statements according to documents filed with the court.

“The purpose of the conspiracy was to protect and advance Edwards’ candidacy … by secretly obtaining and using hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions” so as to conceal his extramarital affair with Hunter, her pregnancy, and their daughter — though Hunter is not mentioned by name in the indictment.

A centerpiece of Edwards’ campaign for the presidency “was his public image as a devoted family man” documents say, and the candidate “knew that public revelation of the affair and pregnancy would destroy his candidacy by, among other things, undermining Edwards’ presentation of himself as a family man and by forcing his campaign to divert personnel and resources away from other campaign activities to respond to criticism and media scrutiny regarding the affair and pregnancy.”

According to the indictment, in or around May, 2007, Edwards discussed identifying individuals who could provide money to support the woman who had informed Edwards that she was pregnant with his child.

About that same time Mellon sent a note that Young read to Edwards saying in part, “The timing of your telephone call on Friday was ‘witchy.’ I was sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, 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.”

That same month, documents say, that supporter – who had already contributed the maximum allowable legal amount – agreed “to provide additional money to Edwards to help him become President of the United States” and wrote personal checks, falsely listing items of furniture on the memo lines of the checks (for example, ‘chairs,’ ‘antique Charleston table,’ ‘book case’) making the checks payable to a friend.

The friend’s wife endorsed these checks in her maiden name and deposited them into bank accounts controlled by her and her husband. Then, as planned, the friend used those funds to pay for, among other things, Hunter’s rent, furniture, car, living expenses, medical visits and prenatal care.

National Enquirer (described in court documents as “a nationally circulated periodical”) published its Oct. 2007 article alleging that Edwards was involved in an extramarital affair. Shortly thereafter, in response to inquiries from the media, he “falsely denied having an affair” and asked “person A” to claim paternity, documents say – which Young did.

The indictment lists in detail checks received and items of expense like chartered airfare and hotel stays incurred as travel and living expenses along with dates and amounts.

More like this story

TooHot 1 year, 11 months ago

How do you spell smarmy ????

AM910 1 year, 11 months ago

Meanwhile, Edwards hair has left the country, supposedly to France where it can be appreciated in the Louvre.

HillTopper 1 year, 11 months ago

TooHot ... J O H N E D W A R D S ... that's how you spell smarmy!

commonsense77 1 year, 11 months ago

For all those crowing about a conviction, hold your excitement. Your hatred may get dampened by decisions handed down by the Roberts Supreme Court...

DaveyNC 1 year, 11 months ago

I really doubt that the Edwards case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

FightFireWithFire 1 year, 11 months ago

IMO, the whole thing took too long...

dustyrhoades 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm as furious at John Edwards as anyone, and probably more than most. But the indictment, as read, relies on a rather creative interpretation of what a "campaign contribution" is. Here's a story that explains some of the problems: http://tinyurl.com/3hflmkc

Best quote: "It's not illegal to be a pig."

bigD 1 year, 11 months ago

If the donation was a "gift" and not a campaign contribution did he file a gift tax return? Perhaps he and his donors would rather face a tax evasion charge.

bigD 1 year, 11 months ago

According to the IRS website the donor is responsible for paying a gift tax but there are four exclusions which would not trigger a gift tax. One of those exclusions is for "Gifts to a political organization for its use".

If a gift tax return was filed before the tax deadline- Edwards has a good case. If no gift tax return was filed (or it was filed after the investigation started) and the donor used the Gifts to Political Organizations exclusion then Dirty Johnny is in trouble....

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html

moonchild7 1 year, 11 months ago

From what I've read and sorta think I understand is that the Fed's say the money Edwards received from Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron was a campaign contribution and NOT a gift. Edwards says it was a gift, there are NO records showing it went into his campaign fund, so how can the Fed's prosecute him since NO crime was commited? Didn't they interview Bunny? Do you think she told them it was a campaign contribution or a gift? She knew she couldn't donate a MILLION DOLLARS to his campaign but I assume she and her attorneys knew she could give him a "GIFT" instead? Edwards has two former FEC "Biggies" as his attorney's. There just isn't any case law for what he did(only advisory opinions) no one has ever been prosecuted before, so what's going on? Maybe this is really how a lot of politician's make it thru election's so well and have known that "Gifts" are treated like unbelivable FREEBIES! maybe the election laws will change after this(of course)but until then we have a government spending money on cases' that have NO MERIT! Where are all the WALL STREET GOONS who we know have broken the law(s)being tried for their crimes instead. Our priorites are really messed up. John Edwards had an affair he wanted to hide from his wife. He obviously hadn't "been around the block" in quite awhile and so messed up his and his families lives terribly for just a few "GROUPIE EXPLOITS." It's really too bad a lot of people can't handle human emotions and feelings better than this case shows. I went to several of John Edwards campaign speech's. He really could give a speech but I also saw Elizabeth with her hard glances at all the beautiful young women just "dying" to get close to him. The whole family should have been better prepared for today's realites that tend to favor exterior looks over interior smarts and how they should have better handled situations like the one that took him down and caused so much pain.

bigD 1 year, 11 months ago

MC7 states"Edwards says it was a gift, there are NO records showing it went into his campaign fund,..."

Simple enough show the gift tax return filed by Bunny and Fred and this thing is over.

Edwards could claim this was a gift but without the gift tax return then he throws Bunny and Fred under the bus.

moonchild7 1 year, 11 months ago

John Edwards apparently doesn't need a gift tax return because he was NEVER the recipient of the money. The money supossedly went to Andrew Young/Rielle Hunter/and or "others" but not to Edwards. The government seems to know this because they aren't agruing that point but instead want to basically make a precedent(new law?)regarding campaign gifts. Dusty would know way more about it than me but I don't think you make a NEW law in the courtroom...it has to be done by the Congress or Courts, in other words, beforehand. So I just don't understand the government doing this when there are so MANY, MANY more white collar criminals out there "on the loose" and easy to get. Unless it was a "Slam Dunk" of a case(and it's not)then our money shouldn't be waisted on it. Another unbelievable travesty of our government that needs fixing.