[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick question for you:

If the evidence is so strong, and considering each of the counts involves Anderson, and he has previously testified contrary to these allegations....and he refused to cooperate as a witness against Bonds.

Why are they NOT similarly indicting Greg for perjury?

I mean, he testified contrary to the allegations, and if the evidence is so strong....why aren't they indicting him?

I mean, doesn't the gubment like to go after the suppliers instead, and isn't this not just some sort of witchunt on Bonds?

And do you think the apprached the angle of having Bonds flip on Greg instead, since approaching Greg didn't work?

Or do you just think they are focusing on Bonds?


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Oh, almost forgot, why aren't they indicting Sheff for his testimony?

Or Palmeiro?