Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events

View Poll Results: Who pays for your education?
Parents 117 33.52%
Other relatives 10 2.87%
Student loans 52 14.90%
Financial aid 69 19.77%
You 87 24.93%
other 14 4.01%
Voters: 349. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 11-17-2007, 09:30 PM
TMTTR TMTTR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 123 days \'til Pitchers and Catchers
Posts: 2,307
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
Why are they NOT similarly indicting Greg for perjury?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is likely that Greg Anderson can't be prosecuted because his testimony under oath was prior to his guilty plea. The guilty plea likely incorporated all charges and possible charges arising out of this investigation... and after the guilty plea he refused to testify and was held in contempt. Refusing to testify is not perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Bean. You know this. They went after the suppliers and they entered plea agreements. I don't know why they agreed to such light pleas, but it may have been political at the Justice Department level.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

For the reasons stated above, there is nothing to charge Anderson with.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I haven't read much of his testimony, but he had a far briefer relationship with Anderson and Balco... it may be far harder to prove that he knew what he was taking.

[ QUOTE ]
Or Palmeiro?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he testify in the Balco case? (He probably perjured himself before Congress -- I am not sure what the process for pursuing those charges is and whether there is sufficient proof of his use prior to his testimony. There is plenty of proof of Bonds use.)


EDIT: As far all of those who said that this GJ proceeding was far more public, that is true. But the main prosecutor has left already and he is the one most likely to be covered with egg. The delay was probably due, at least in part, to the turmoil in the Justice Department in D.C. Admittedly I don't know enough about the other attorneys in the SF U.S.A.'s office, but walking away saying that he has immunity on the substantive charges and there is insufficient proof of perjury just doesn't seem so bad... perjury charges are typically sought when the testimony is way beyond belief and there is a bundle of proof that causes the prosecutors to know that the testimony was untruthful. This is a chicken/egg argument. Which came first, the desire to get Bonds or his breaking the law. I think it is the latter -- and his flaunting of it.
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:18 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is honestly very little difference in most peoples minds between a conviction and an acquittal. I think there is pretty much a 0% chance that we will be inundated with retractions or apologies or anything like that if he is acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's how it is for most folks....unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:23 PM
Nick B. Nick B. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: AIM Nickb2p2
Posts: 4,001
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:32 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]

It is likely that Greg Anderson can't be prosecuted because his testimony under oath was prior to his guilty plea. The guilty plea likely incorporated all charges and possible charges arising out of this investigation...

[/ QUOTE ]

If I told you that wasn't the case....then what?


[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Bean. You know this. They went after the suppliers and they entered plea agreements. I don't know why they agreed to such light pleas, but it may have been political at the Justice Department level.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a token case to facilitate a perjury trap on Bonds, where in the DA's mind he either would admit steroid use that could be leaked, or run the risk of perjury.

I mean, they didn't really "go after" the suppliers when they drop 95% of the charges and agreed to 2 month sentences.

I've spent longer time at summer camp.

[ QUOTE ]
For the reasons stated above, there is nothing to charge Anderson with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Greg testified that he never gave Bonds steroids. You're telling me that the government can't charge him with perjury if they believe it not to be true?


[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of proof of Bonds use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of allegations...but it hasn't been proven.

Once again, we'll see what happens at trial, and if the "proof" holds up to the burden.


[ QUOTE ]
This is a chicken/egg argument. Which came first, the desire to get Bonds or his breaking the law. I think it is the latter -- and his flaunting of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It was to get Bonds from the start.

Agent Jeff Novitsky told Agent Ira White in 2001 that he didn't like Bonds, and "sure would like to get him for something", as he had worked out at the same gym, and was jealous of Bonds wealth and success.

After the investigation into his taxes turned up nothing, Novitsky went dumpster diving at Balco without supervisory authorization.

Remember, this is an IRS investigation, spearheaded by Novitsky, as the DEA showed no interest, at at later intervals was critical of the IRS involvement in a steroid case.

His fruits from that search lead to the formal BALCO investigation, as well as his involvement with Grimsley and trying to coerce him to wear a wire and approach Bonds, and when Grimsley refused, charged him even though he had cooperated in naming over 20 athletes who Novitsky has to this day kept sealed...unlike in the case of Bonds.

If you sincerely think this isn't about getting Bonds, then I just don't know what to tell you.....we're never going to agree on that much.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:35 PM
TMTTR TMTTR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: 123 days \'til Pitchers and Catchers
Posts: 2,307
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the winner of the worst analogy award...

This case is so far away from the Duke case. Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or there was a conspiracy bigger than the one that framed OJ. The only real issue is whether he lied when he said that he did not know he took steroids. If that cannot be proven, there will be no repercussions.

Everyone is correct. An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice. It will only show that there is not enough proof that he lied about not knowing he was on the juice. There is just too much evidence. Please don't ask me for it again. Buy the book -- or browse it in the store.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:43 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the winner of the worst analogy award...

This case is so far away from the Duke case. Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or there was a conspiracy bigger than the one that framed OJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're giving out "worst analogy" awards, and then in the same post comparing the Bonds case to OJ's.

Good gravy.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone is correct. An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice. It will only show that there is not enough proof that he lied about not knowing he was on the juice. There is just too much evidence. Please don't ask me for it again. Buy the book -- or browse it in the store.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to understand the difference between allegation and fact.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:47 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Or false. It's either true or false.

And we'll see if the gubment can prove their allegations that it is true.


[ QUOTE ]

An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, if he is convicted, you and others will certainly hold that up as the centerpiece in your reasoning.

Must be nice to have it both ways.

Conviction = Guilty
Acquittal = Still Guilty

Yikes.

In other words, Bonds hasn't even presented his defense to any of the allegations, and you are saying you are completely incapable of considering him anything but guilty.

Wow. Simply wow...

Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 11-17-2007, 10:55 PM
RedBean RedBean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,358
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

BTW, I'm off for good this time, for about a week or so, so don't anyone get to excited if I'm not around to answer your questions of me. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Happy and safe Turkey Day to all.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 11-17-2007, 11:04 PM
BigSoonerFan BigSoonerFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Augusta National
Posts: 1,937
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there is honestly very little difference in most peoples minds between a conviction and an acquittal. I think there is pretty much a 0% chance that we will be inundated with retractions or apologies or anything like that if he is acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's how it is for most folks....unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I think that there is no chance that Barry Bonds will apologize if he is found quilty. We won't ever hear, "I'm sorry for using steroids and providing a poor example for the youth of today."

That's how it is with most folks....unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 11-17-2007, 11:06 PM
Matt Williams Matt Williams is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,942
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

Bean,
How can you honestly believe that Barry Bonds never took steroids? I mean if you want to say it's a witchhunt, that's fine. If you want to say it's unfair how he's being singled out w/ what McGwire and Sosa and Canseco and Palmeiro have done, that's fine. But how the hell can you honestly think he has never juiced? I'm not trying to goad you or flame you, I'm just curious.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.