Barry Bonds indicted

[Edge34]

RB,

I'm fully aware of Rule 21. What I'm saying is gambling doesn't affect a player's ability to play the game. Steroids, obviously, do. Gambling didn't make Pete Rose better, and if it made him worse, then DAMN he was good.

Bonds was always an amazing player. Would he be the all-time HR champ and arguable the GOAT without steroids if he indeed did take them? Who knows.

Meh.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not violate anybody's rights. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not "aid and abet criminals". I guess when you're so obsessed with arguing with me that you'll ignore the truth of the story when you're so blatantly wrong, that says a lot more about you than you say about me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The authors of Game of Shadows knew who leaked the testimony - because it was leaked to them - and aided him by concealing his identity from the authorities. Moreover, in all likelihood they probably conspired to receive the information illegally by seeking out the source and promising him shelter under the premise of journalistic privilege.

Journalistic privilege does not include protecting people who have committed crimes - it is completely standard for the DOJ to subpoena reporters with knowledge of a crime. Furthermore, this privilege is only protected by DOJ guidelines, which are specifically formulated in a way that guarantees no rights to any individuals, and are not legally enforceable. In short, a journalist who harbors a known criminal is no different from anyone else - they're breaking the law.

"This has nothing to do with the Colts..." ... of course not, because you have no insight into the hilarious contradictions in your posts. Criticize the Pats for running up the score while apologizing for people who solicit illegally obtained information and turn a profit off it. Hint: one is a lot worse than the other.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can tell me what ONE CRIME the authors of that book have profited off of, well, you'll have something NOBODY else has ever gotten.

The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not violate anybody's rights. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not "aid and abet criminals". I guess when you're so obsessed with arguing with me that you'll ignore the truth of the story when you're so blatantly wrong, that says a lot more about you than you say about me.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to NT, while you are technically correct in that the authors have not been charged with a crime, that is in part because of the decision of the same federal prosecutors to not pursue charges against them.

They could have easily been indicted on obstruction of justice for refusing to provide material information regarding the commission of a federal crime....if the DA had been so inclined and zealous enough to pursue it.

That he chose not too on the basis of public sentiment and the overwhelming outcry of major media outlets is more a testament to the effect of public opinion on when and who a DA prosecutes than it is of absolute innocence on their part.

Let's be honest, the leak was a prosecutors wet dream...he got his side of the case out in the media and was able to let it sink in and become almost de facto truth, all the while the accused was prevented by law from responding to the allegations.

If the information had fallen into their laps, I could see you point about the desire to publish newsworthy information ethically, but considering their communications and goading of those involved in the case and solicitation of information they knew would be illegal to share, I wouldn't be so quick to say they acted with 0% culpability....only that they are lucky enough not to be the focus of the DA's ire as he could easily pursue an obstruction of justice charge if he was so inclned.

But, either way, it is beside the point, and I only mention it to be fair to NT.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RB,

I'm fully aware of Rule 21. What I'm saying is gambling doesn't affect a player's ability to play the game. Steroids, obviously, do. Gambling didn't make Pete Rose better, and if it made him worse, then DAMN he was good.

Bonds was always an amazing player. Would he be the all-time HR champ and arguable the GOAT without steroids if he indeed did take them? Who knows.

Meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was, what Rose did was unquestionably against the rules.

The allegations against Bonds pertain to a time period when the alleged activity was not in violation of baseball policy.

If the MLB steroid policy existed in 1996, I would see your point....but considering there wasn't an enforcement policy in effect until 2004, I think it wouldn't be right to punish anyone for activity prior to that.

If a guy in ten years has a similar situation, I would see your point.

[Edge34]

NT,

You just proved how ignorant you're being, because NEVER have I criticized the Patriots for running up the score. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE learn to read better.

Journalistic privilege exists for a reason. Whether you like what they did or not does not change the fact that they are not in any way profiting off crimes they committed. By the letter of the law (and the thing they were going to go to jail for) they were only EVER held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal their source.

You can continue to twist and turn that in any way you'd like, but the simple fact of the matter is that you're STILL wrong.

PLEASE do some research. Hell, I'll even do some for you.

[ QUOTE ]
On May 5, 2006, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury about how they obtained Barry Bonds' leaked grand jury testimony. On May 31, 2006, the authors urged U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco to excuse them from testifying. This appeal was supported by affidavits from Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein and Mark Corallo, a former press secretary to former Attorney General John Ashcroft. On August 15, 2006, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ordered Fainaru-Wada and Williams to comply with their subpoenas and testify, lest they be held in contempt and incarcerated until such time as they decide to talk or if the grand jury term expires. They may also be freed from this obligation if a higher court blocks the ruling. The reporters have previously stated that they would rather go to jail than testify.[4]

[/ QUOTE ]

You can say whatever you'd like, but they are not profiting off of any crimes by the sale of this book or by reporting for ESPN. You can't honestly think, that even if they WERE somehow in violation of a Son Of Sam law that a case THIS EASY would just go unnoticed. Wow.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can tell me what ONE CRIME the authors of that book have profited off of, well, you'll have something NOBODY else has ever gotten.

The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not violate anybody's rights. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not "aid and abet criminals". I guess when you're so obsessed with arguing with me that you'll ignore the truth of the story when you're so blatantly wrong, that says a lot more about you than you say about me.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair to NT, while you are technically correct in that the authors have not been charged with a crime, that is in part because of the decision of the same federal prosecutors to not pursue charges against them.

They could have easily been indicted on obstruction of justice for refusing to provide material information regarding the commission of a federal crime....if the DA had been so inclined and zealous enough to pursue it.

That he chose not too on the basis of public sentiment and the overwhelming outcry of major media outlets is more a testament to the effect of public opinion on when and who a DA prosecutes than it is of absolute innocence on their part.

Let's be honest, the leak was a prosecutors wet dream...he got his side of the case out in the media and was able to let it sink in and become almost de facto truth, all the while the accused was prevented by law from responding to the allegations.

If the information had fallen into their laps, I could see you point about the desire to publish newsworthy information ethically, but considering their communications and goading of those involved in the case and solicitation of information they knew would be illegal to share, I wouldn't be so quick to say they acted with 0% culpability....only that they are lucky enough not to be the focus of the DA's ire as he could easily pursue an obstruction of justice charge if he was so inclned.

But, either way, it is beside the point, and I only mention it to be fair to NT.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I see your point, there is nothing about the case of Game Of Shadows that equates to the Son of Sam laws and the authors reporting for ESPN.

I see no reason to go out of my way to be fair to NT when he is, indeed, going out of his way to ignore any and all logic.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of Game of Shadows knew who leaked the testimony - because it was leaked to them - and aided him by concealing his identity from the authorities.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they had concealed the identity of a terrorist who had committed a federal crime, they would have been charged with obstruction, at the least...and possibly with accessory after the fact, if it allowed the criminal to successfully flee.

That it was a baseball hitter who was on the wrong side of public sentiment is the primary reason why it wasn't pursued any further.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, in all likelihood they probably conspired to receive the information illegally by seeking out the source and promising him shelter under the premise of journalistic privilege.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has actually been shown in previous redacted court documents, detailing emails from the authors to those involved with the case, and soliitations for illegally obtained and sealed testimony.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
While I see your point, there is nothing about the case of Game Of Shadows that equates to the Son of Sam laws and the authors reporting for ESPN.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree that Son of Sam doesn't apply, but neither does any journalistic shield.

The did indeed obstruct justice by refusing to reveal the identity of someone who broke federal law, and cost the court time and money in pursuing them for contempt in order to have them give the source up, which is exactly what they ended up doing.

Anyone who thinks the source came forward on his own is being naive....he came forward once the authors were going to jail, and I'm sure they phoned him up and said "ok, bud, the jig is up....spill the beans."

That they were not charged was due to public sentiment and prosecutorial discretion, not due to any legal protection for their actions.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I see your point, there is nothing about the case of Game Of Shadows that equates to the Son of Sam laws and the authors reporting for ESPN.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree that Son of Sam doesn't apply, but neither does any journalistic shield.

The did indeed obstruct justice by refusing to reveal the identity of someone who broke federal law, and cost the court time and money in pursuing them for contempt in order to have them give the source up, which is exactly what they ended up doing.

Anyone who thinks the source came forward on his own is being naive....he came forward once the authors were going to jail, and I'm sure they phoned him up and said "ok, bud, the jig is up....spill the beans."

That they were not charged was due to public sentiment and prosecutorial discretion, not due to any legal protection for their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept that. However, in the eyes of the law, all the authors have ever been charged with was contempt of court, making pretty much everything NT has been screaming and insulting me about pointless.

I can't control what they were charged with. Had they been charged in any crimes other than contempt of court and ordered not to do any work in any media related to Barry Bonds, then of course there's an issue. I do think, also, that the issues that constantly come up when prosecuting journalists with anonymous sources played at least a small part.

However, and I'm going to do this your way because I've been owning NT in this thread hard and now know how you probably feel in other Barry threads...

that never happened. Keep trying, NT.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
RB,

I'm fully aware of Rule 21. What I'm saying is gambling doesn't affect a player's ability to play the game. Steroids, obviously, do. Gambling didn't make Pete Rose better, and if it made him worse, then DAMN he was good.

Bonds was always an amazing player. Would he be the all-time HR champ and arguable the GOAT without steroids if he indeed did take them? Who knows.

Meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

as do amphetamines, Hank admitted using them, get rid of his stats too?