Criticism of Edwards' legal tactics and ploys

[cryofan]

I am not sure if this Cybercast News Service is some kind of Right Wing Organ, but I did find this article interesting. It really highlights the amazing oratorical skills that made Edwards a multimillionaire, and may make him President.

This article goes into considerable detail about how cerebral palsy is rarely caused by doctors, and so the lawsuits are unfair. It goes on about how many people felt that Edwards was manipulating the juries emotionally, when all along most of his cases were dubious, from a scientific standpoint. They may have a good case. What is really interesting is the insight it provides us into Edwards' talents.

Some excerpts:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(Edwards speaking to the jury here)

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. " inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"


Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

....

"Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law," Olson told CNSNews.com .

"These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift," Olson added.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200401%5CPOL20040120a.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Well, I like what Edwards has to say about taxation and the "Two Americas" and all. He could win this race. He could eat Bush alive in the debates. And he has what it takes on the stump. But this guy, he could be dangerous! If he is a con man, it could be hell.....But, with those skills, if he is really on the side of the common man, and he does really want to make the tax system work for fairness, then this guy could convince and persuade and de-propagandize Americans like nobody ever has. He's that good.

But what does he really want or think? What say ye?

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. Edwards is a phony

[cryofan]

2. I would be interested in your evidence for that?

Or is it just a feeling?

[gWbush is Mabus]

6. it's a feeling

1. he supports the Patriot Act (no matter which side he talks out of his mouth)
2. he pretends his campaign is positive, while smearing Dean as "angry" (in the same sentence no less)

[beaconess]

8. Edwards didn't smear anyone

a talking point in a book written for precinct captains referenced this. When he found out about it, Edwards said, unequivocally, "I found out about it tonight for the first time, and I take full responsibility for anything that happened in my campaign It's wrong, and I have given them instructions it is not ever to happen again."

No story. Yes, it's considerably different from the "it's everybody else's fault, I never do anything wrong, nothing's my responsibility, I'm being picked on!" mantra we so often hear from the Dean campaign and many of his supporters.

You need to do better than this if you're trying to "get" Edwards. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.

[gWbush is Mabus]

19. i'm trying to "get" him

"keep trying"

now you're trying to smear me.

[AP]

26. Are you trying to bait beconess into REALLY trying to smear you?

Because b. DIDN"T smear you in that post.

[diamondsoul]

30. Do you know the only difference between the

Edwards campaign "book" and the rest of the campaigns? Many of the other campaigns put the points on their websites!

Seriously, that's from an inside source at the Kucinich campaign. EVERY ONE OF THEM has these talking points. It's called strategy and being prepared.

Ahhh, the bliss of ignorance. Let's all pretend politics is nicey-nicey nobody gets boo-boos playtime, right? Cry me a freakin' river!:eyes:

*note, not personally directed, beaconess, I just needed to rant for a sec.:toast:

[tryanhas]

32. Some people will invent things just so they can be happy

Dean is such a poor candidate, that they have to try and smear Edwards in order to make themselves look good because he is head and shoulders above Dean.

Edwards JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MEMO LAST NIGHT!

Check out this info from a Precint Captain:

http://www.danconley.com/archives/000140.htm

[KittyWampus]

38. Edwards Approved It. It Had His Name On It & Marked Confidential

don't be decieved.

It also mentioned praise for Dennis and we see what happened in the caucuses between the two.

[beaconess]

39. Apparently you've never worked in the inner circle of a campaign

Candidates do not - and cannot - personally review and approve everything that goes out with their name on it. Of course, they are responsible for everything their campaign does, but it does not mean that they are personally aware of it.

Edwards says he didn't know about it and there's no reason not to believe him since anyone who has ever worked on a campaign at that level knows that the candidate does not personally review precinct captain manuals (if they are, the campaign has many more problems to contend with). The important thing is that when he found out about it, he took responsibility, didn't try to blame everyone in sight (the media, clueless voters, other candidates, etc.) but himself, said it was wrong and instructed that it be pulled.

This is one of those instances where the candidate's reaction to something bad says a lot more about him than the thing that caused the problem in the first place.

[cbua34]

13. The Patriot Act......

passed 99-1 in the Senate. So give me a break, please.

[gWbush is Mabus]

21. i don't give a shit how many votes it got.

if you voted for it, don't spend 5 minutes telling me why it's "wrong" and needs to be repealed.

it's fine if you are for it, but you can't have it both ways.

[AP]

25. Then you and the 1% of voters with this ideological purity test

who can't fathom why in the world someone would have voted for the PA so soon after 9/11 can ridicule Democrats who did, and we can have another 4 years of Bush. Did you hear what he said about the PA in the SOTU? He's doesn't even think it's wrong.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

[beaconess]

3. It's bull to accuse Edwards of "manipulating" juries

He wasn't the only one in the courtroom, nor was he operating by rules he created himself.

Let's not forget:

1) the judge set the parameters for the arguments, the law and what the jury could and could not hear;

2) The defendants on the other side were all ably represented by top-notch legal counsel who had just as much opportunity as Edwards (in fact more, givent their resources) to participate in jury selection and to present their case to the panel;

3) The courts of appeal obviously thought the jury verdicts were sound since they reversed none of them.

This allegation is bull. However, it's often the argument used by corporate entities to try to diminish the power of "regular people" and is exactly the argument that Bush et al are using to try to force through "tort reform."

But it's nice that they're trying to smear him like this. It's just further proof that Edwards is now in the building!

[Lex]

10. Edwards is in the building!

Also in that article quote above is this:

"A North Carolina newspaper, The News and Observer, said Edwards "forged a reputation as one of the most skilled plaintiff's attorneys in the business."

Retired North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, who heard many of Edwards' arguments in court, had nothing but praise for the abilities of the former trial lawyer, turned senator.

"He was probably the best I ever had in the 21 years I had on the bench. Lawyers would come in to watch him, to see what he does," Farmer told the Chicago Tribune in December 2003."


He's good at what he does and he has said he is ready to discuss FULLY any case he took on, and that he has the families he fought for waiting in the wings to discuss about how he fought for them against the big uncaring corporations and large HMO / insurance companies.

[AP]

18. juries hate phonies as much as DU'ers. If he as a phony he wouldn't have

been such a consistently good lawyer. Maybe a phony lawyer could have one won trial, but not just about every trial.

[spooky3]

27. Beautiful post, beaconess.

[Lex]

4. If he is a con man?

Good grief.

What's all the hysteria from the Dean camp about Edwards?

Every five minutes there's a thread started by a Dean supporter with some utter BS from Drudge or a rumor of a rumor.

The more you try to smear the other candidates, the more desperate and unhinged you seem.

It's this kind of thing that killing your candidate! Can't you see that? Talk about what Dean has to offer, instead of asking if Edwards is a "con man." Jeez.

[cryofan]

36. LOL! I am NOT a dean supporter. He is ONLY candidate I will NOT vote for!

I am NOT smearing Edwards. Where do you people get off!? I may VOTE for Edwards. But I want to know more about him.....

[bloom]

5. I was listening to a speech of his last night

Thinking that I would like to like him, trying to cut him some slack...but there he is saying that we shouldn't listen to these candidates who are saying that we could all have health care. That those guys are lying.

What I heard (through the gaps) was that he didn't want to disturb the HMO/ type people who would stand to lose.

I think Kucinich has is spot on.

I don't like having Edwards try to diminish my expectations of what politicians should be expected to accomplish. I would like someone who would at least try.

[anti-bush]

16. He was telling you straight

This is the same as

"The biggest lie people like me tell people like you, is that they are going to solve all your problems."

or "Anybody that tells you a specific date as to when the budget will be balanced is not being straight with you."

I appreciate that he is telling Americans the truth. He may not be saying what you want to hear, but at least he is being honest.

[AP]

22. That is such a joke.

Care to support that argument with reference to the text?

In the Q&A here Edwards explains how he's going to fix things:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

I'm going to find the transcript for this.

In the meantime, I'll just say it's laughable that the guy who takes no HMO PAC money, has probably never taken money from or returned the call of an HMO lobbyist, who SUED HMO's, would suddenly, when he's running for president, decide he loves HMOs.

[SangamonTaylor]

7. You are describing the closing statement from Jennifer Campbell's trial

Which is the second trial from John Edwards' book four trials.

Read the book. This was one of the most heartfelt closing statements that I have ever read. It actually solidified my support for John Edwards when I read this book. If you really want the whole story, look behind the excerpts and misleading headlines. The story of Jennifer Campbell was heart wrenching to read.

more on this later

[anti-bush]

9. CNSNews is a Right Wing rag

http://www.cnsnews.com/corporate/history.asp

Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes "news."



They have many many pro-life articles on their front page, and if you dig around, they are extremely biased towards caps on plaintiffs awards.

If you wnt to know how plaintiffs award caps are bad, watch Erin Brokovich and ask yourself if the poisoning of all those people and their children should have been capped at $250,000 .

[Lex]

12. First Drudge, not this rag to smear.

Very nice. No wonder people are jumping off the Dean ship.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. This Critique Is Ludicrous, IMO

Edwards is a fantastic trial lawyer who fights for his clients. I think it's awesome that he is a master of rhetoric and presentation, we'll need it against Bush if he's our nominee.

DTH

[deminflorida]

14. Oh boy, first the Dirty Tricks Memo, and now this....

Jesus, the Guy is another Nixon....for God sakes...

O.K. there's the daily 10 pounds of Press Flesh from Edwards ass today, next please....

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Ummm, he's a TRIAL lawyer!

What part of that concept is puzzling? :wtf:

[AP]

17. Anyone who hasn't read Four Trials should. These are excerpts from

Four Trials. It's funny that they're taken out of context to make an argument against him, yet they're from a book which makes an unbelievably powerful argument that he's a good person who has done good things.

[Cena]

20. I'd like for Edwards to represent me...

if I were to ever go on trial for something. He's very talented at what he does and he does a good job at it.

Should I ding the bell to let the smearing begin? :(

[beaconess]

23. Old CW: Edwards is an unelectable lightweight pretty boy

New CW: Edwards is so convincing he can talk butter out of a biscuit.

[AP]

24. I'd like him to represent me as President.

[spooky3]

28. Me too, AP.

[newyawker99]

41. Hi Cena!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JohnLocke]

47. Welcome to DU!

[SangamonTaylor]

29. This trial was against the way hospitals worked.

"The Campbell verdict set in motion a wave of reforms throughout the North Carolina medical community. Almost overnight...hospital board members ratified procedures through which personnel could go up a chain of command to protect a patient's welfare. Hospital nurses later reported to us that they were empowered by the reforms. Hospitals would be stronger now, and safer. On the legal front, Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital made case law on the issue of informed consent: a hospital could now be held liable if it failed to ascertain whether a patient understood the various risks associated with a medical procedure."

That trial was where John Edwards fought the settled tradition of the doctor being "Captain of the Ship". The nurse who was watching the vital signs of Jennifer Campbell as she was being born realized that there was a problem and that Jennifer's heart rate was dropping. She questioned the doctor, but he happened to be a hardcore, traditional doctor and opted to continue with the vaginal delivery (rather than remove Jennifer). An hour and a half passed and Jennifer was delivered as a breached footling baby, barely breathing, having had her embelicle cord wrapped around her legs. While the nurse felt that Jennifer's life was at risk, she knew she could lose her job if she questioned the doctor and went to the supervising doctor with her concern. This is wrong, and the hospital industry has been changed because of John's efforts.

The doctor settled because his good friend, and the supervising doctor on call admitted in deposition that the medical standard of care would have been for a doctor to remove the baby by C-section nearly an hour and a half before she was born.

<more as I remember it>

[AP]

33. For emphasis: that verdict meant nurses stopped getting treated like shit

and it meant hospitals had to change their policies, which resulted in less misery for people and fewer ruined (and lost) lives.

Even if he were phony, and even if you felt that these are "lawyers tactics," you'd have to be a cold-hearted asshole not to be happy they worked and that there was someone like John Edwards doing this.

[diamondsoul]

31. Con man my rear-end.

He was a lawyer. Never been to many jury trials have you? I've seen plenty and I've never seen ANY lawyer NOT appeal to their emotions, whether they were defense of prosecution, and believe me it's common practice for prosecutors.

Do I like it? Nope. Is it part of mounting a proper case? Yep. That's life.

[AP]

34. Juries don't like con-men. If you have two con men lawyers, you don't have

much choice.

But if you have an honest, sincere lawyer, that's powerful. Juries are no different from DU'ers or voters.

[beaconess]

35. Strange thing . . .

Many Dean supporters defended Dean's Belushi on Speed impersonation by insisting that he was simply playing to the crowd, appealing to his audience.

Yet, now they're bashing Edwards for appealing to his audience, in calm, measured and articulate tones?

Maybe they would have preferred it if, instead of speaking reasonably and movingly to the jury, he had snatched off his coat, rolled up his sleeves and screamed, "YEAAAAHAHHHARGHHH!" at them.

Yeah, THAT would have shown his presidential metttle.

[cryofan]

37. Common reply to multiple repliers

OK, a few people here need to take a pill.

First, I am NOT smearing Edwards. I may well vote for Edwards--he is one of my top 3 candidates.

I meant to start a discussion of Edwards. What the hell is so wrong with that!?

Obviously, yes, he manipulates juries. No way he could have been so sucessful without doing that. And yes that was his job.

I guess I will have to spell this out for some people: I am saying that this ability of Edwards can be a two edged sword. It could work for the common AMerican, or against us. If Edwards has his heart and mind in the right place, he could be our best choice. Otherwise, we would want to reject him. I am looking for input from you on what Edwards really is. Some deep background would be nice.


Sheesh.....

[grisvador]

42. I agree

Edwards is scary because he is damn good at making people see and feel what he wants them to. I applaud him for taking the high road in Iowa - but what happens when he starts getting hit below the belt? That will be my first litmus test on his character.

[Loren645]

40. *PLEASE* don't jump on the GOP lawyer hating bandwagon

Edwards is not my candidate, but this GOP/RNC strategy
to demonize him as a ***lawyer*** (hissssss) is quite
clear, and in keeping with their ongoing attempts to hobble
lawyers, who are actually able to get justice for ordinary folk,
as they've hobbled the media, the courts, and the entire gov't.

It's very clear that's what they're doing with Edwards.
He actually sued big corporations and won.
BushGlobalIncCo will try to smear him for doing exactly what
they hate: protecting people not corporations.

[grisvador]

44. How many Repugs in Congress are lawyers?

They want you to only hate trial lawyers who attack big business with frivolous (gag) law suits. Wait - now Bush wants us to hate Judges who impose their will upon the American people. I agree with Bush on that one because ever since 2000 - I have disliked Scalia and Thomas for imposing their arbitrary will on state's electoral process.

[beaconess]

46. And, how many Republicans have lawyers protecting THEIR interests?

Bush, Cheney, et al certainly think nothing of lawyering up when THEY go off to court. They just don't want anyone else to have the benefit of good legal representation.

I found Bush's SOTU attack on judges bizarre, to say the least. To claim that those mean old judges are going against the "will of the people" is outrageous. Judges are SUPPOSED to thwart the will of the people since protecting minorities, the defenseless, the unpopular and others against the will of the people is exactly what judges are there for. If the will of the people were sufficient to govern in our society, we wouldn't have courts - we'd just put everything up to a vote and the most popular view of the time would prevail.

Yikes!

[Demo Gog]

43. Read his own thoughts...

I recommend his book, Four Trials, and see just what kind of life Edwards had, from infancy to now, and then come to your own conclusion. Personally, I think he means every word, and he is far from being a phony. And that, ladies and gentleman is my first post, and it's great to be here.

[theboss]

45. That 's a conservative news site

It's a step below Newsmax and WorldNetDaily.

And all these quotes prove is that Edwards was hell on wheels in a courtroom.

Wow . . . a candidate who was a success in a field outside of government. What a concept.