U.S. Attorney who pushed Edwards charges was law clerk to the judge whose nomination Edwards blocked

[Empowerer]

As Senator, John Edwards vigorously blocked the nomination of U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle, a Bush selection with a horrible civil rights record. Edwards held his ground for years in the face of tremendous pressure from the White House, the Republican Senate majority and the powers that be in North Carolina to keep this judge from moving up to the U.S. Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court.

George E.B. Holding, the Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney in North Carolina who has waged a long investigation and pushed an indictment based on grounds that most legal experts and scholars agree is shaky at best was Judge Boyle's law clerk, a unique position of trust, confidence that more often than not forms the basis of a lifetime of appreciation and loyalty.

Shouldn't the fact that the man who helped to start Holding's career had his own career stalled by John Edwards be taken into consideration as this questionable and arguably spurious indictment is analyzed?

[99th_Monkey]

1. Anything that helps expllan why Edwards is being selectively railroaded would be helpful nt

[The Magistrate]

2. It Not Only Should, Ma'am, It is Enough To Really Require His Superiors To Quash It

[EffieBlack]

6. Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason, his superiors authorized it.

[jberryhill]

7. Extending conflict rules that far would be just as bad

I will admit to ignorance of the facts of the indictment, but Edwards is perfectly well able to defend himself if it is as flimsy as you suggest.

If we get into degrees of separation in who once clerked for who, IMHO that way madness lies.

[EffieBlack]

9. I don't agree

While it may not affect the outcome of the case, when people are discussing the indictment, scratching their heads and wondering why the prosecutor brought it - especially those who tend to assume that an indictment is proof of guilt since "why else would they indict him." This is an important piece of intelligence.

[jberryhill]

11. Get in line with Orly Taitz, then

One of her gripes in life is that Judge Carter, who threw out one of her birther cases, employs a clerk who was hired from the firm of Perkins Coie which is President Obama's election law firm and from which outgoing White House Counsel was hired.

[EffieBlack]

12. You don't see the difference between the two situations?

Alrighty then

[jberryhill]

14. At what level?

At the level of imputing conflict as a consequence of professional loyalty and judicial clerkship?

Ms. Taitz would argue that her situation is worse, since the person in question is actively clerking for the judge on her case. Yes, her case is frivolous, but that's not the issue when we are discussing structural conflict.

So, let's review the implicit charge here. Someone with the temperament to serve as a clerk to a district judge and then as a US attorney is motivated out of pure revenge with no gain, simply because the target once blocked advancement of the judge for whom he clerked. Do I have the implication correct?

There is no possible way that this guy benefits whether Edwards walks free or not. He's putting it all on the line just to get even with a man who will never hold office as a dogcatcher.

Now, yes, there's no telling what motivates any individual, but I just can't see how that gets anywhere near anything that is considered a conflict of interest.

[Hosnon]

3. It should, but if the charges are not frivolous, then it shouldn't be determinative.

We can't start throwing out cases for stuff like this.

[jberryhill]

4. I agree

Evaluate it on the merits or lack thereof.

It's not as if the judge who gets this case gives a hoot about whether the prosecutor is "biased".

Prosecutors, by definition, are biased. That's what they get paid for.

This two-steps-removed who-clerked-for-who is a bit thin.

[EffieBlack]

5. It won't affect the outcome of the case unless the USA's actions rose to the level of abuse of

discretion - which is unlikely since his superiors at DOJ authorized the prosecution.

However, it certainly may have colored the decision to bring an indictment. Prosecutors have to make choices all of the time since they can't bring indictments in every case in which they think there was some wrongdoing. The decision to bring an indictment is often purely discretionary on the prosecutor's part.

In this instance, it is very possible that the prosecutor's decision was based not just on the merits but on political and personal considerations, given the fact that John Edwards is loathed by Boyle's supporters.

Frankly, I don't think the problem lies solely with the prosecutor who, in my view, clearly had a personal bias. What I don't understand is why the Justice Department authorized the indictment in a case with such a tenuous base - so tenuous as to be spurious. GIven the circumstances, limited resources, bizarre theory of supposed criminality and avalanche of important crimes that need to be addressed, this decision is mind-boggling.

Unfortunately, as everyone involved in the criminal justice system knows that once an indictment is brought, it's virtually impossible to quash it, regardless how frivolous it may be. But I think the Justice Department blew it big time on this one.

[pmorlan1]

17. I agree

The Justice Department has been blowing it on a number of cases. The ones they should bring, they don't. The ones they shouldn't prosecute, they do. I feel like we're still living in the upside down world of Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Don't forget the Bush Administration fired US Attorneys for not investigating enough Democrats

Holding may have decided to take the Edwards case just to meet his Alberto Gonzales mandated quota.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. The case deals with extremely vague and subjective parts of campaign finance law

And generally when there's a potential violation of a vague and subjective part of campaign finance law, the FEC will fine the candidate and that's that. This is pretty clearly a witch hunt.

Remember, the Bush Administration fired their US Attorneys because they didn't prosecute enough Democrats. This guy might have taken up this whole Edwards thing to meet his Alberto Gonzales mandated quota.

[golfguru]

8. If the charges are frivolous they will be thrown out

If someone had blocked my path to bigger career appointments
I would also remember that and take revenge first chance I get.
That happens everyday, it is human nature. Which is why there
is another judge to decide on the charges.

[cstanleytech]

10. While edwards is a douche imo

it seems that this attorney(again imo) has proven that there are always bigger ones out there than edwards.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. John claims his every fuck is a Sacrament before God

He is just a hypocrite who railed against my rights on the basis of his devout traditional marriage views. A pig of the first division, I hope he gets hard time in a real prison. Gen Pop for the Sanctified Son of a Deacon.
I heard today about the private jets and high end hotels for the mistress. He'd say 'one man, one woman' with that smirk on his lying face.

[benny05]

15. You missed teh point of the thread

Hard time in prison for what? Lying to the media? Lying to his wife and family? Did he bodily harm others? Was accepting gifts to keep his wife from knowing the truth a crime?


:shrug:


Please explain why he should be treated as though he were a convicted murderer when he was only indicted today? Where is your sense of reason?

[Festivito]

16. Is there a link? /nt

[Empowerer]

18. Links

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/gop-prosecutor-targets-de_n_237480.html

George E. B. Holding
US Attorney
Eastern District of North Carolina

George E. B. Holding took the helm as US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Sept. 13, 2006. From March 2002 to September 2006, he served as First Assistant US Attorney. Prior to joining the Department of Justice, he was Counsel at Maupin Taylor, PA; Legislative Counsel to Senator Jesse Helms; Associate Attorney at Kilpatrick Stockton LLP; and Law Clerk to US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. http://www.sas.com/reg/offer/corp/866457?page=speakers

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/DOJDocsPt2-9070319.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-edwards-a-jerk-not-a-felon/2011/05/27/AGtRwyCH_story.html

[Festivito]

19. Thank you. Interesting. Found a link of Edwards holding of Boyle which was holding Holding.

https://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/federal-judge-terrence-boyle
....
During Boyle’s previous nominations, then-Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and one of Judge Boyle’s home-state senators, raised very serious concerns about Judge Boyle’s record and opposed giving Boyle a lifetime position on the Court of Appeals.
....