Barry Bonds indicted

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't been screaming anything, you're the one who's been typing in all caps. do you comprehend anything you read? red bean is saying that the reporters are guilty of several crimes, and that the only reason they haven't been prosecuted is because they're on the prosecution's side in public opinion.

but since they haven't been CHARGED, in your mind, they didn't commit a crime. right, and al capone was just a tax evader.

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. any time a poster feels the need to point out how hard he is owning people in every other post he makes, you can be pretty sure he is a blithering idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

NT,

All I ever said was, in the eyes of the LAW, the authors of Game of Shadows have not committed any crime. I didn't ever say they were completely innocent, but you can't sentence someone for a crime they haven't been convicted of. That's an important step you COMPLETELY ignored last night, no matter how blacked out drunk you may or may not have been.

I only posted how hard I was owning because I had the ability to get not one, but two people coming out of nowhere with baseless personal attacks. You'll notice that once I went through the steps of why THEY were wrong, they got quiet, and quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe the reporters would have been guilty of obstruction of justice, but for the fact the attorney that leaked the info came forward.

Again, the crime in that case would have been that they did not reveal their source; not that they published the information. The reporters made a decision to fall on the sword in the name of jounalistic integrity (whether that position happened to coincide with an ulterior motive ... such as "oh, if we give up this source, nobody is ever going to trust us again, etc.) and face the punishment.

However, in this case, the source revealed itself. At that point, the prosecutors used their discretion and decided not to pursue the reporters any further based on a number of reasons (no the least of which is the public support for the reporters) including the fact that they at least had a bona fide reason for not disclosing their sources. The conflict between the jounalistic shield versus obstruction of justice is not too uncommon. There are legitimate rights at conflict and in such cases, the reporters are stuck in between. Sometimes the reporters cave, sometimes they don't; it comes down to a personal decision.