B. Bonds Contempt of Court cases

[Boris]

So the two douchebag authors of the Game of Shadows, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, finally got sentenced to up to 18 months for contempt of court. The press is up in arms about threats to our freedom of press and all sorts of BS. Their claim is that confidential sources need to be protected no matter what because reporters serve a higher public interest. What they never talk about is that these two jokers, along with an as yet unknown snitch, subverted long established procedures of grand jury investigations in particular and the US justice system as a whole. They aided in committing a very serious crime and yet somehow because they are reporters they want the public to believe that they are heros and martyrs. What a joke. It's one thing to blow the cover on criminal activity that is not being investigated or ignored. It is something else entirely to subvert and undermine our criminal justice system and perpetuate the harm of a criminal act in order to gain notoriety and reap financial gains. The fact the journalist morons never mention is that there was a formal investigation underway in to the very criminal activity the reporters claimed to uncover! And yet somehow these two clowns are a better judge of what actually happened than the highly trained and educated lawyers, judges and prosecutors investigating the case.

You can read one of the more sanctimonious and hypocritical editorials one ESPN's website. linky

[whiskeytown]

sorry to burst your bubble, Boris -

but a lot more fraud and corruption is uncovered by investigative reporting then by the courts - the courts are ALWAYS the slowest link in justice and the last to catch up -

could you clairify what these men did that was so illegal it threatened to subvert the legal process -

and specifically, can you hypothesize for me if this has endangered the Court's case vs Bonds and his buds themselves?

rb

[Boris]

whiskey - "but a lot more fraud and corruption is uncovered by investigative reporting then by the courts - the courts are ALWAYS the slowest link in justice and the last to catch up - "

completely irrelevant point.

"could you clairify what these men did that was so illegal it threatened to subvert the legal process -"

They refuse to reveal who gave them the SECRET grand jury testimony.

"and specifically, can you hypothesize for me if this has endangered the Court's case vs Bonds and his buds themselves?"

Another irrelevant question. What if you are called before a grand jury. You are assured your testimony will be held in confidence by the gov't. It will be top secret. What if you know that anyone in the courtroom can leak your testimony to a reporter without fear of reprisal? Remember now, prosecutors have way, way, way more discretion in what kinds of questions they can ask before a grand jury as opposed to a trial before a jury. Is it right that people in the courtroom can break the rules and not be held responsible? Be honest with yourself whiskey.

[whiskeytown]

you assume I asked the questions to challenge you - I did not -

I am not up to speed on this case and am asking for further clairification - of which you provided half -

take a pill and re-read my questions without looking for a punch - then answer - I had no reply back for you - just a request for info -

without info I cannot form an informed opinion.

jesus, mary and joseph - yeesh.

I have one opinion that's worth it's salt - the SF Giants with Will Clark, Kevin Mitchell, and Matt Williams was one hell of a better ball club then the one with Barry Bonds.

rb

[Boris]

The reporters in question obtained secret grand jury testimony and the wrote a book that I guess says Bonds is a 'roid freak. I have not read the book but anyways that's not the point of my post.

While it is not illegal to publish the secret grand jury testimony, it is illegal to be the leaker of the testimony. The court wants to know the identity of the leaker. The reporters refuse to give the name. So the reporters are being jailed for contempt of court.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is not illegal to publish the secret grand jury testimony, it is illegal to be the leaker of the testimony. The court wants to know the identity of the leaker. The reporters refuse to give the name. So the reporters are being jailed for contempt of court.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why the reporter didn't anonymously email the info to himself and then claim he didn't know who the source really was, but he found it reliable because it contained accurate information with respect to other things that weren't officially secret.

[whiskeytown]

I heard the new thing is for reporters to go back to paper and pen -

notes that can be destroyed is now the call of order of the day -

rb

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot more fraud and corruption is uncovered by investigative reporting then by the courts - the courts are ALWAYS the slowest link in justice and the last to catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]Be that as it may, and aside from MHO that Bonds is guilty, that is no excuse for breaking the law -- and in a matter that has already been taken up by the law enforcement process. I mean, this is no Pentagon Papers cover-up.

Mickey Brausch

[whiskeytown]

yah - there is no national security issue here -

I agree - Grand Jury testimony where a witness doesn't have 5th Amendment protections should be protected -

I cannot find fault with Boris' logic - once he explained it - LOL

rb

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard the new thing is for reporters to go back to paper and pen -

notes that can be destroyed is now the call of order of the day -

rb

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is that the reporters could have constructed a perfect plausible deniability thingee. They could have testified that they did not know who their source was, and could have presented evidence to support their testimony.

If they would have done that, they could not have been found in contempt of court, because they would have answered all the questions.

Of course, they would have opened themselves up to later charges of perjury.