|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right? Easy to mistake them. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right? Easy to mistake them. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are thinking of Christina Kahrl, another BP writer. /edit and its the other way around, she used to be he. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In your first quoted section, the allegation is that Bonds tested positive in Nov 2000. In your second quoted section, he posted "abnormally high" in Nov 2001. Is this not new information? [/ QUOTE ] The allegation that Bonds failed it is "new", in so much as it wasn't presented as part of evidence previously...and one has to wonder if it can be proven, especially considering previous testimony alleges that Greg used his name to send in the tests to cover for Barry, and that the actual samples no longer exist, nor can the chain of custody be confirmed. I just find it shocking that the same guy who knows this from seeing the original leaked transcript is now writing an article for a major media outlet acting as if he is just learning about this information, neglecting to report on it accurately as to the other facts he knows, and he is putting it forth as being a "huge body shot" to Bonds' case as if it is indisputable fact. [/ QUOTE ] How is MFW being misleading, though? He didn't write about a failed test in 2000, and now states that evidence of a failed test in 2000 is "previously undisclosed". If the leaked transcript contained evidence of a failed test in 2000, why wouldn't he write about it in the book? |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
vhawk, it's obstruction, they just chose not to prosecute for it. people saying otherwise are just idiots. [/ QUOTE ] Then call me an idiot (everyone else has) since I am saying otherwise. The press is not under an obligation to keep grand jury testimony secret. The grand jurors and attorneys are the only under that obligation. In fact, the witness is generally permitted to walk out of the grand jury room and recite precisely what he told the grand jury. Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Lying to mislead an investigation is obstruction of justice. The publication of the information did not hinder the investigation in a material way and was not intended to obstruct the investigation. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. You can always be quiet -- sometimes the law protects your silence (Fifth Amendment) and sometimes it does not (contempt). If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right? Easy to mistake them. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are thinking of Christina Kahrl, another BP writer. /edit and its the other way around, she used to be he. [/ QUOTE ] seriously? |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Better yet, how did Bonds "obstruct justice"? The Balco defendants were indicted almost immediately after his GJ testimony, and convicted in less than a month. [/ QUOTE ] Umm...he lied to federal agents during a federal investigation with the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution? The fact that his fraud failed doesn't make it any less fradulent or criminal. It's hardly the laws fault that he's an ineffective and stupid criminal. Smart 'roid mongers pull a McGwire and refuse to answer any questions or participate in the process. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Better yet, how did Bonds "obstruct justice"? The Balco defendants were indicted almost immediately after his GJ testimony, and convicted in less than a month. [/ QUOTE ] Umm...he lied to federal agents during a federal investigation with the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution? The fact that his fraud failed doesn't make it any less fradulent or criminal. It's hardly the laws fault that he's an ineffective and stupid criminal. Smart 'roid mongers pull a McGwire and refuse to answer any questions or participate in the process. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. You have every fact incorrect. Read the entire thread (and maybe some of the news stories) and try again. Start with this: Bonds is being prosecuted for lying to the grand jury not federal agents and he did not lie to avoid prosecution because he had immunity from prosecution for anything that he said. He didn't commit fraud and he is not accused of fraud, he probably did lie and he is being prosecuted for that. Bonds may very well have obstructed justice, but not for any of the reasons you say. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. You can always be quiet -- sometimes the law protects your silence (Fifth Amendment) and sometimes it does not (contempt). [/ QUOTE ] Seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. I appreciate the legal distinction, but in reality, seems like they could be charged with either one. I'm not saying they committed a crime by publishing it, I'm saying they solicited and conspired towards a crime in obtaining the information. They actively pursued a leak that they knew to be in violation of the law, and used it for profit. If conspiring in secret to obtain testimony illegally isn't obstruction, isn't it conspiracy to obstruct or something? I mean it's clearly more than contempt. Contempt would be if it just fell into their laps and they said, "Naw, sorry, can't help ya." Again IANAL but to me it seems like people are ignoring the fact that soliciting and conspiring to commit a crime are, well, against the law, and they're not merely contempt. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
thayer,
if only i had a brain |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
WELL IF YOU CLICKED THE LINK YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT THE SON OF SAM LAWS DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE AT ALL THUS I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE A MORON
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
Hmmm... conspiracy to obstruct justice... or really conspiracy to break whatever law is broken by revealing grand jury testimony... I would have to look up the statutes... IAAL but I am too tired and drunk to do it now...
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll. [/ QUOTE ] Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right? Easy to mistake them. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are thinking of Christina Kahrl, another BP writer. /edit and its the other way around, she used to be he. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I was joking around about that part, but I did get the two Will's confused. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
if someone could get a transcript from the last Rome is Burning, Jim Rome actually had good insight on the topic today in regards to people's opinions
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
if someone could get a transcript from the last Rome is Burning, Jim Rome actually had good insight on the topic today in regards to people's opinions [/ QUOTE ] I saw the where Rome called him a tax cheat, and said that the indictment was proof that he cheated whether or not he ends up being convicted. Yeah, that's some great insight into some people's opinions....but it's some monstrously terrible logic. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
that obviously wasn't the part I was talking about, but it doesn't surprise me you would argue against something that isn't the point being made
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail. He tells the truth and it ends there (at least as far as prosecuting him goes). He still has live with the fact that his records are tainted, but that was mistake could not be undone. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail. He tells the truth and it ends there (at least as far as prosecuting him goes). He still has live with the fact that his records are tainted, but that was mistake could not be undone. [/ QUOTE ] Redbean's mind will never be changed. Barry Bonds could personally stand up, admit to taking steroids, admit to lying and still Redbean would say that it was the media or the government that forced BB to say it. In Redbean's mind, BB can do no wrong. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
redbean has never ever said that Barry Bonds never took steroids as far as i know
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
redbean has never ever said that Barry Bonds never took steroids as far as i know [/ QUOTE ] That's true. He avoids answering the question of whether the thinks BB took steroids. It's all a media/government conspiracy. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here. [ QUOTE ] You can always be quiet -- sometimes the law protects your silence (Fifth Amendment) and sometimes it does not (contempt). If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here. [/ QUOTE ] I said that unclearly. If physical evidence already exists -- documents, the "smoking gun," etc. -- and it is subpoenaed, you must produce it. If you hide it, claim it doesn't exist, or destroy it, that could be obstruction. If something exists in your mind, you can not be convicted of a crime for failing to speak (although you may be held in contempt unless you have the right not to speak). If you do speak under oath and you lie, it is perjury. In certain circumstances, the perjury might also constitute obstruuction. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth .... |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth .... [/ QUOTE ] the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied... |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
that obviously wasn't the part I was talking about, but it doesn't surprise me you would argue against something that isn't the point being made [/ QUOTE ] I know it wasn't the part you were talking about, and I wasn't arguing about anything. I was simply expanding on something else he had mentioned. Sheesh, my apologies for mentioning something from Rome without your explicit permission. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I didn't explain it well.....but the trap went like this: If Bonds admits steroid use, they leak the testimony and destroy him in public opinion. If Bonds denies the steroid use, they prosecute him for perjury. They offer him immunity so he can't plead the fifth, and if he refuses to answer questions a la McGwire, they put him in jail for contempt. [ QUOTE ] He tells the truth and it ends there (at least as far as prosecuting him goes). [/ QUOTE ] Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there? |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
That's true. He avoids answering the question of whether the thinks BB took steroids. It's all a media/government conspiracy. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I avoid answering the question because I have refrained from speculation until all the facts have been revealed, and both sides have been given a chance to present their side. Call me crazy, but I kinda believe in the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. For example, assuming their is an eventual acquittal, based upon the evidence presented, I will form an opinion based on that....while someone like you who made his mind up 3 years ago when an SI writer told you what to think, your not going to accept the verdict based on the actual evidence, since you've already formed your decision based on preconceptions. Simply put, what you are saying about me actually applies more to you. I haven't formed my opinion yet and await seeing the evidence.....while your opinion was made up long ago. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth .... [/ QUOTE ] the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied... [/ QUOTE ] So saying "No." makes it highly unlikely that someone is telling the truth? Please explain. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Barkley
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/tag/CharlesBarkley/ |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Barkley http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/tag/CharlesBarkley/ [/ QUOTE ] QFT |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here. [/ QUOTE ] I said that unclearly. If physical evidence already exists -- documents, the "smoking gun," etc. -- and it is subpoenaed, you must produce it. If you hide it, claim it doesn't exist, or destroy it, that could be obstruction. If something exists in your mind, you can not be convicted of a crime for failing to speak (although you may be held in contempt unless you have the right not to speak). If you do speak under oath and you lie, it is perjury. In certain circumstances, the perjury might also constitute obstruuction. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, that is more clear. I had always sort of had the impression that contempt was when you failed to cooperate in court, i.e. do what the judge says, and obstruction was when you failed to cooperate with investigators or something like that. Just to make sure I have it clear, a better distinction would be obstruction:physical evidence::contempt:personal testimony? |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there? [/ QUOTE ] I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids. That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there? [/ QUOTE ] I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids. That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead. [/ QUOTE ] I honestly cannot even comprehend how you could decide the evidence is overwhelming when you've never even been presented any of it in any impartial setting and you havent been privy to a single argument or shred of evidence from the defense. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth .... [/ QUOTE ] the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied... [/ QUOTE ] So saying "No." makes it highly unlikely that someone is telling the truth? Please explain. [/ QUOTE ] He tried to avoid saying no many times. Eventually he does say no, but he does what he can to avoid answers. That is what I get from reading the testimony. That, along with all the other written evidence and circumstantial evidence and witnesses -- by the way, circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing -- many criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Defense attorneys just like to make it sound weak. Circumstantial evidence can be very strong -- and eyewitness testimony is often far less reliable. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there? [/ QUOTE ] I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive. There may not be enough admissile evidence to convict him, but he knew he was being given steroids. That is, unless he was set up by Mark Furman... too bad Johnny Cochran is dead. [/ QUOTE ] I honestly cannot even comprehend how you could decide the evidence is overwhelming when you've never even been presented any of it in any impartial setting and you havent been privy to a single argument or shred of evidence from the defense. [/ QUOTE ] Game of Shadows by itself is overwhelming unless you read it with an overskeptical pro-Bonds bias (like those who believe OJ didn't commit the murders). The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts... there are rules of admissibility that often have little to do with how good the evidence is. Yes, I have made a personal judgment. I also have some personal knowledge on how a U.S. Attorney's office works and what it takes to get the approval to bring a high profile indictment -- so that gives me some added comfort that this case would not have been brought without some pretty strong evidence. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
"The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..."
Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED. |
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Game of Shadows by itself is overwhelming [/ QUOTE ] hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.