Exclusive: Prosecution witness in Edwards trial speaks out
Fox News contributor Joe Trippi reacts to judge's decision
- Duration 8:53
- Date May 31, 2012
Fox News contributor Joe Trippi reacts to judge's decision
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And tonight it is -- -- we've all been waiting for nine days into jury deliberations the John Edwards case ended in a mistrial when jurors found him not guilty on one charge.
And they remained deadlocked on the other five -- the jury acquitted Edwards.
Of campaign finance fraud that account they charged him with taking money from wealthy heiress bunny Mellon.
To -- his pregnant mistress real hunter during his 2008 presidential run.
Now the final day of deliberations delivered unprecedented drama as the jury announced in the afternoon.
That they could not come to an agreement on five of the six counts.
And that's when the judge send them back to deliberate even further but one hour later they returned saying they just couldn't reach a decision.
And a mistrial was declared on the remaining counts then one more final dramatic moment John Edwards took to the podium to react.
And it was nothing short of spectacular as for the first time he acknowledged his illegitimate child Quinn take a look.
Well wanted to say first.
Thank you for the jurors.
And -- incredibly hard work.
And their diligence.
While I do not believe that did anything illegal or ever thought I was doing anything illegal.
I did an awful awful -- That was wrong and then finally my precious -- and do I love.
More than any of you could ever imagine.
And I am so close to -- so grateful for.
So grateful for -- And joining me now with reaction all the Strom as the cohost of the five Kimberly Guilfoyle Fox News legal analyst Mercedes Cohen.
And in -- -- exclusive Fox's contributor Joseph Trippi he was on the witness list for the prosecution.
And he's talking about the trial for the first time tonight -- -- we'll start with you you're on the witness list he didn't get called.
Can you shed some light on all this or anything you wanna share.
Well I I mean look when you look at this result.
Six different FBI agents -- neither came to my house on two or three different occasions I was -- interviewed a couple times deposed by the prosecution.
Attorneys in the case.
And I'm just one person and there were ten you don't lots of people on that list.
That were never called me and for this result I mean it was a tremendous waste and I think of you know FBI in -- -- and Justice Department resource instinct to get this this this result so you admits he did a lot wrong -- Evidently the jury couldn't even agree that he had broken a law right.
Well let's go to the definition we have to legal experts here now campaign not contribution is defined as anything of value.
Provided for the purpose of influencing the outcome of -- federal election.
Now anything of value.
For the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election here now.
What we have here is money value the purpose here -- they wanted to hide something that would influence the election influence the outcome favorable outcome are mr.
Edwards so legal do you think that -- yeah later in April.
The law here's the deal in terms of the elements but you've laid out in terms of the charge sure they had evidence that -- the jury believed it to be credible they could have reached a guilty verdict on that -- that they acquitted and some of the others in fact that they were deadlocked on.
I think the real problem with this besides some of the charges being a little bit obscure a little ambiguous kind of a novel approach by the prosecution.
Was really in the jury selection in terms of the people that they have that we're evaluating this case and there's an interesting is a similar outfits an independent decision and I think -- -- there about the.
As a vicious but intent was the biggest issue there is no smoking gun here the -- didn't hear it it didn't see any evidence -- hearing Wednesday.
That that John Edwards knew that this is this is taking place -- -- that the laws are being broken and without intent you can't -- -- I've -- I don't question juries sometimes they get it right.
Most times I think they get it right I think they always going with the best of intentions they want to follow the law.
But we look at this very closely -- campaign contribution anything of value provided.
Of them for for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.
But given for the purposes so weren't they trying to basically donate money circumvent the law.
For the purpose of -- you shaking your help.
-- how -- because there's two things into the -- here -- this is why the jury did what they did you have to -- the intent was set that -- but they also -- pretty -- this is all about -- real and the baby he was a married man he had other children was that he won't be looking at the little little one -- I understand that your honor but -- -- -- they have a jury got it right because he'd never -- the fact that there wasn't -- by John Edwards.
Couldn't commit this type of -- by the jury but what -- -- I don't know that.
-- got it right necessarily I think the evidence was definitely very came down to an issue of credibility and you had Andrew Young.
Who is an individual who has had some questionable credibility he's been -- a number of situations where there are some false statements that have been alleged have been made the when he takes a sandy says well believe me now.
Now this is somebody who also received I just NSA and avoided prosecution shot on which of course a -- didn't cooperate and then.
I look into how when why where in this case.
So really he and he was in jeopardy here.
In other words there was a chance of those little bit more evidence -- saying that they could've gotten a guilty verdict but maybe wasn't the strongest case as presented to the jury is that.
I think it's a fair statement and I think with a different US senate Jersey could have and this is a jury that seemed to be pretty cohesive in terms of you had been dressing the same mistakes -- -- wearing matching outfits weddings I get back to agree I think -- you he is trying to get.
I am because they -- look at Andrew nine and you were trembling and he says he might donation I am Quinn's father suddenly he's on the -- and believe -- But the other thing that really incriminated him the fact that.
Most of the money bit -- money -- -- -- kind of money money money money but yeah when -- got to build a 650000.
Get a 100000 dollar poor girl and what so that if the majority of the money didn't even go to Edwards at all what to yell or client and let me bring young means that the benefactor of how could that put -- good -- prime minister committed liberal I don't know to.
-- -- you wanna get involved in this or maybe explain this to the audience but I know a lot of people and I interviewed Andrew Young a lot of people that -- -- round.
Edwards they all knew that this was true.
Do you want to weigh in that maybe you knew something and maybe you didn't know something but I'm not put -- on the spot or anything no I don't know if you know.
Look I I came in I into the campaign in April in real -- any Andrew both disappeared -- before that in October so and you can hear any you know why your house -- -- the national when The National Enquirer came -- I like a lot of people thought you know -- -- good martians.
-- -- -- -- and hold on the -- -- was was that pretty.
Pretty -- came after that came after the election but bush shot look one of the charge he was found innocent mind.
That they unanimously found a -- -- on.
Was it was a check that he didn't commit that campaign are not campaign but it was never cast by anybody -- after the election was over.
Which is why a bunch of jurors could figure out.
Well wait a minute how could that be about protecting his candidacy is candidate his candidacy and he ended before -- you know and before the key bit that the chat was ever cast -- we know that when they found -- -- and on it I mean these girls look it's all stuff.
No one that I know in the campaign whether they knew or didn't -- condone what was what he was what happened or or.
Would have can -- he'd get a lot wrong but I think the jury make the right what happened in the case was the right right thing here I don't know what -- regret -- -- how society would have been served.
Let me bring back our attorneys here he was not a sympathetic figure mean this is a whole new meaning to what two Americas is all about.
I guess he was talking about you know one wife one girlfriend one plus one -- I forget.
He's just pathetic figure we -- the picture of him you know doing the hair thing to in the end you might do it comes out as an airing an -- -- he -- -- he -- -- -- -- -- he denied ever having any knowledge of real -- back in -- -- all -- he said he -- take -- paternity -- -- -- he's -- his closest -- Do you think the jury knowing he's not a sympathetic figure but knowing that if the wife had passed away and the children would not have the father.
Is this in the jury's mind jury nullification that are happening on track.
Get it in especially with the daughter Kate -- -- I think that's what they were tortured for so long for the day nine days because there once this visceral reaction to John Edwards is vilify him in real bear -- no one.
Here's from -- like he's been vilified nationally.
He's certainly came across as a flawed figure what he did his press conferences after.
I hate it's he's punished you been punished enough it's basically what that -- right it resonated with the jury I gotta run faster to seal yeah the end thanks and coming up today.