The John Edwards Jury Is 1/6th of the Way Done with Their Deliberations


Is it publicly known what the genesis of this indictment was? As an outsider, it would appear that misusing campaign funds is all part of the process (Palin shopping sprees/Winnebago family vacation comes to mind).

Someone in the Justice Department have a bone to pick with the guy, or enough people found the whole situation so distasteful—including the death of the wife he left—they just had to cram it through?

I don't disagree with charges being pressed, I just can't shake this "why this time?" feeling. It's rare we even hear about the FEC getting involved in campaign shenanigans, much less the DOJ.

I could be over thinking this, knowing damn well that if there's one thing that the Fed's don't like—and one charge that almost always sticks—it's "making false statements."

There has to be a more elegant way of writing that.

Maybe 'R;DR (Republican; Different Rules)' or 'R?OK! (Republican? OK!)'
From the Bush portrait article you linked to:

As Obama grapples with difficult decisions to come, Bush said, he hopes the younger man will wander by the newest portrait and ask himself one question:

"What would George do?" he said, to thunderous laughter.

"John Edwards is not guilty on the one count of using illegal campaign contributions" and the jury is deadlocked on 5 other counts. The judge declared a mistrial. Edwards won.
@3, hilarious that one of our worst Presidents ever would raise the spectre of another drunk Republican failure walking the dark halls of the White House and talking to portraits.
Well, we got Barry Bonds, and we're going after Roger Clemens, so all is not lost.