strength ever the economy, all of this having an affect on your 401k, your retirement plan as we watch it down at 213 at 10:14 on this friday. heather: a mistrial in the john edwards corruption case after the former presidential contender is found not guilty on one of the most serious charges, that he took money from a wealthy heiress to hide his affair. what went wrong for federal prosecutors here? are there any chances that they will seek another trial? here is a thankful edwards on the courthouse steps. all i can say is thank goodness we live in a country that has the kind of system that we have. and i think those jurors were an exemplar for what juries are supposed to do in this country. they were very, very impressive. i don t think god is through with me. i really believe he thinks there are still some good things i can do. heather: annmarie mche will sroeul former federal prosecutor
united nations human rights officials are in an emergency meeting today. they are talking about last week s horrific massacre in syria. top u.n. human rights officials are urging the world community to throw more weight behind efforts to investigate what actually happened. 108 people died when witnesses say an armed man went door to door killing entire families, including children. ugly day on wall street today. one big reason, disappointing jobs report for may. the labor department says that employers added just 69,000 jobs. the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2%. alison kosik is watching what s taking place at the new york stock exchange. how is this jobs number here, this report today, dragging down the markets? clearly they re responding. yes, yes. well, i talked to several traders and they told me they are stunned over this lousy jobs number that you said, the 69,000 number from may. so it s really no surprise that you re seeing a huge sell-off right now. the dow fa
checked in on the jurors, and the jurors indicated that they have indeed reached a verdict. but, again, megyn, it may be 15 minutes before we learn what that verdict is. but obviously some very exciting developments in this case. our first clue that there was something different about today is when the jurors took their lunch break. they indicated to the judge that they wanted to continue their deliberations, and there was sort of a debate among awful the legal experts and reporters as to whether there was an indication that the jurors felt they were closing in on a verdict or whether it was because this is the first day that the at jurors were not present. the jury had been eating lunch previously with the at jurors who were also in the courthouse, but not allowed to participate in the deliberations, but of course the judge excused the alternates yesterday, which in retrospect may have been another indication that the jury was reaching a verdict. but now we are hearing from the jurors
considered campaign contributions or not because of the vagueness of the definitions in the law, it s hard to say somebody knowingly violate the law. i think secondly david s point is exactly right, what they are really going at is the what we call the 1,001 misrepresent taeurbgs the lies to the federal investigators as the vicious was being done. my response to david on that is if should not have been dealt with in a criminal context to begin with. yes you can make the case on the false statements to federal investigators that is an actionable offense criminally but this should not be in the criminal realm to deal with. we ve had dozens and dozens of cases where campaign contributions may have been use us e may have knowingly been misused. this should not be in a criminal court to begin with. megyn: final question to you. is this about a man, a politician who allegedly broke the law or is this about a husband to cheated on his wife and lied about it, and used money to cover it up? i
edwards affair. it will not be based on the law. megyn: i don t know about that. i m not sure if that is the case or not, david. you tell me. i looked at what the jury was requesting. noi ll tell the jurors. i went on o reilly, i practiced law for nine years, and i provide legal opinions sometimes. i went on o reilly and we talked about the handicapping of the case. i thought maybe 55% not guilty, 45% guilty. now that i look at what the jury has requested in terms of the evidence, i m not as sure. the evidence they requested all seemed very unhelpful for mr. edwards. there is no way of knowing how they will come down. you do you think it s accurate to say as julien did, david, that there is no way the law could support a guilty verdict? no he s not. let me say one thing in defense much the justice department for which i had a privilege of working for a number of years, the only reason the public