Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Washington what is next now for Edwards asked the judge Fox News senior judicial analysts -- -- an apology on national -- this evening's reaction first from you.
The government lost its best case that is the -- the charge and when she was found not guilty was the one for which the government had its strongest case it's less credible witnesses.
And introduce the most evidence.
So it's a bad day for the government now nobody likes AA and a non decision you don't know where it's gonna go from here and I can tell you how they'll get there.
But it's a victory for a Senator Edwards and a resounding defeat for the government you're at nine days of deliberations now the verdict is in one report -- confirmed tonight that a Justice Department will not try him again.
That would that would make sense for some of the reasons that I just articulated this was -- -- shot and they lost it.
Taking a step deeper into the case bill.
-- the judge ruled in favor of the government in almost every contested issue in the case.
She gave the government great latitude she barred certain defense witnesses from testifying.
She even used an instruction to the jury that the government -- all of us within her discretion.
But basically saying to the government this is your best shot.
How could you possibly think you can do it again the wise.
Of people on the Justice Department in Washington are probably counseling against a -- think the government screwed this up yes.
I think the government should not have charged him with this crime I think this is an ambiguous statutes.
I think if I may Billiton intentionally ambiguous -- statute.
Because it's -- been written by politicians to govern politicians.
And the intentional use language which was vague about what you can do with money it's actually unclear.
Whether or not the events in which John Edwards engaged if they happen as the government says they did even constituted a crime under -- -- so then the jurors.
They get it right.
Jurors did the right thing a long.
Tortuous process for them.
With thousands of documents for them to review I think they did the right thing and they basically said -- the judge we can't make up our minds and the rest of it.
It's in your -- we heard from John Edwards today.
Talking perhaps for the longest time we've heard some time.
Is that a Smart idea for him to -- I'll give you both arguments he could antagonize the prosecutors.
By making statements to the public that he didn't make in the courtroom where they could cross examine him on the other hand he made statements which.
We're good for everybody to hear.
He basically said I didn't commit a crime but I did horrible things I take responsibility for now have to live with it for the rest of my life that makes people feel good who does -- -- field -- the potential jurors -- a second trial should -- -- -- all this talk about a juror flirting with John Edwards but doesn't matter now does -- know it doesn't matter if it happened -- It was addressed quite properly by the judge in in her chambers so we don't know about it.
I think it might have been sort of the myth about John Edwards but of course I was in the courtroom.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Filter by section