Barry Bonds indicted

[NoChance]

It is quite comical that some of you already have him convicted and serving time. IF you really want to believe in the judicial process then maybe we should start with innocent until proven guilty.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as we all know, game of shadows is based on ILLEGALLY LEAKED TESTIMONY.

i dunno bout you, but i think the fact that the testimony, that legally is supposed to be kept in that room, was leaked is far worse than some of the testimony being false.

[/ QUOTE ]

people tend to ignore these facts, and with good reason. if testimony is so important to the u.s. justice system, then where is niss/oski's outrage over illegally leaked testimony and the concept of privacy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for starters, the question never had to be asked. The reporters took their medicine and but for the fact the person who leaked the information came forward, they would have done time. I can't really think of a supportable argument in favor of allowing one to break the law to leak sealed testimony, thus no issue here.

Another interesting thing: This whole argument has been framed as if "the government" hates Bonds and is getting him because he soiled the national pasttime, or whatever. I would venture to guess, that the actual people making decisions on this are just as divided (on a human level/sports fan level) as us people here on this forum. I can easily imagine them all standing around the water cooler and talking about this steroids thing is a bunch of b.s., or whatever. They are prisoners of their department policies and really are just doing their jobs.

By the way, I am quite sure there are many cases like this that take years to develop and many resources to carry out ... the people in question, just are not as famous as Barry Bonds.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is their to discuss?

You think it was an appropriate use of tax dollars and time to go after one person for 4 years because of alleged steroids use.

We disagree with you.

There is no debate, agree to disagree etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

The federal government doesn't like it when you lie to them under oath. If you're okay with perjury not being prosecutable, then you're right, there's nothing to debate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet they seemingly don't care when Grand Jury Testimony is illegally leaked?

I mean seriously...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a rather large problem with the grand jury testimony being leaked. And an attorney has already admitted to doing so. That doesn't absolve Bonds of his (allegedly) false testimony, however. That is a separate issue. The lawyer who leaked it will certainly be disbarred, and most likely jailed.

The federal government certainly cares about it -- the fact that not as much ado is made of it here speaks more to priorities of the media and of the 2+2 community, than it does to the Department of Justice.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
It is quite comical that some of you already have him convicted and serving time. IF you really want to believe in the judicial process then maybe we should start with innocent until proven guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a court of law it is an internet message board.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Bonds had told the truth to the grand jury, he would not have been indicted today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're assuming that he lied. He hasn't been convicted yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I am assuming, arguendo, that the federal government has sufficient evidence upon which to obtain a conviction. However, that will be determined at trial.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An analogous situation would be, if TMTTR jaywalked seven years ago, the cop on the scene asked him under oath if he did, and TMTTR then lied about it. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, that's pretty analogous. do you think TMTTR should go to jail for 30 years for that?

i do, but that's because he's a yankees fan

[/ QUOTE ]

As a Red Sox fan, I think both of you should get 6-12 months apiece, minimum, but I'm not going to ask a federal grand jury to investigate.

[chim17]

[ QUOTE ]
It is quite comical that some of you already have him convicted and serving time. IF you really want to believe in the judicial process then maybe we should start with innocent until proven guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking for myself, I fully support his right to a fair trial.. and am passing no judgements on his guilt. It is not my job nor my position to condemn him. However, they believe he lied under oath, so I fully support their decision to go after him. It is the right thing to do.

If he is found guilty I will have no sympathy for someone that knowingly breaks the law and gets caught. It's like those people that get pissed off at the cops for getting a ticket for speeding.

[NT!]

the federal government doesn't have anything approaching sufficient evidence to convict bonds. are you [censored] kidding me? why would they have kept his trainer in jail all that time trying to get him to crack? do you really think bonds didn't talk to his lawyer before he testified and say, "if they decide to try and prosecute me for this, will it stick? is this perjury?" does anyone REALLY think these charges are legit?

if you do please PM me with your screen name so i can change your title to 'dumbest [censored] hick ever'

[chim17]

[ QUOTE ]
the federal government doesn't have anything approaching sufficient evidence to convict bonds. are you [censored] kidding me? why would they have kept his trainer in jail all that time trying to get him to crack? do you really think bonds didn't talk to his lawyer before he testified and say, "if they decide to try and prosecute me for this, will it stick? is this perjury?" does anyone REALLY think these charges are legit?

if you do please PM me with your screen name so i can change your title to 'dumbest [censored] hick ever'

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good to know that you are aware of what evidence and testimonies the prosecution possesses. Indictments don't come lightly. I would be surprised if they do not have a very good case.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. How much should justice cost? At what point, do you say, beyond which expenditure, you can no longer go after an arsonist, or a murderer, or an extortionist, or a tax evader? Do you say, "hey, we've spent $100k, we can't investigate any more, the accused gets off scot free".

[/ QUOTE ]

how many times are you going to compare bonds lying about steroid use to murder, theft, terrorism, communism, etc before your brain gets squished from your head being so firmly lodged in your anal cavity?

just wondering, if you could give a rough estimate that would be plenty

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not comparing the acts -- but feel free to ask the person who argues that when investigative/prosecutive cost reaches a certain point, you have to just drop the matter.

What people do not understand is that the Department of Justice is given a budget precisely to investigate and prosecute those who violate federal law.

That is their mission, that is what they did. To suggest that the feds should have dropped the matter because it was expensive to investigate is fkin idiotic.

Obviously, Bonds' allegedly criminal conduct doesn't rise to the level of murder or terrorism (as for theft...there's still potential tax evasion charges out there; as for communism, being a Communist is not a crime). However, as long as lying to a federal grand jury is a criminal offense, those suspected of lying to a federal grand jury will be investigated, and if sufficiently evidenced, that crime will be prosecuted.

I'm sorry if you think that just because you're a famous athlete, you're no longer subject to the same laws as the rest of us.