Barry Bonds indicted

[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?

[THAY3R]

LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the same AG that found reason to spend 4+ years investigating Bonds....there was not even enough reason to investigate the possibility of indicting Palmeiro, who testified under oath that he never used steroids.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the same AG that found reason to spend 4+ years investigating Bonds....there was not even enough reason to investigate the possibility of indicting Palmeiro, who testified under oath that he never used steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

he started using after testifing obviously

[TMTTR]

[ 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.

[RedBean]

[ 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.

[TMTTR]

I do love how you drop certain answers I give since they defeat you and then bring up brand new stuff -- often based on nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

If Anderson testified before the plea agreement and the agreement is anything like the standard agreement used in federal courts in New York, he could not be charged with perjury for that pre-agreement testimony. My understanding is that he refused to testify since then and that is why he was locked up. They can't lock him up if he testified and lying unless they did charge him with perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are rarely grand jury leaks. The leak in this case was from a defense attorney and not a prosecutor -- did the prosecutor expect a defense attorney to be the leak? And there are no D.A. here. D.A.s are local prosecutors not federal prosecutors. More importantly, your belief that this was a trap does not fit with the chronology of events. The investigation of BALCO started more than a year before Bonds testified.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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



[/ QUOTE ]

No. Plenty of PROOF of use. Paper documents and testimony. He tested positive! ALLEGATIONS of perjury. Maybe he didn't know... but that seems unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is what Iran White (first name Iran, not Ira) told Playboy and what the government has disputed in court hearings.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IRS does drug investigations. I know it is shocking, but it is true. They have jurisdiction here just like the DEA. There are many areas of the law where more than one agency has enforcement rights. As I recall from something I read, Novitsky was involved in drug-related investigations during his whole career at the IRS. What were his motivations and was this investigation completely his way of getting Bonds? I really don't know. White says one thing and the government says the opposite.

For those fans of Steven Smith, Charles Barkley, OJ and conspiracy theories, much has also been made of the fact that Iran White is black and Novitsky is white -- but I won't go any further down that path as it could only lead to bad things.

[FlyWf]

"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.

Oh, no, wait, I forgot. The Great International Negro Conspiracy. They are just looking out for each other.

This has always just been about Bonds. The entire issue of steroids in baseball has always just about Bonds. That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc. Sportswriters hate Bonds, sportswriters make the public hate Bonds, the steroids issue is the way that they can finally bring him down and get back at him for that goddamn Barcalounger.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

what motive?

[ QUOTE ]
That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Palmeiro's use of steroids was a huge story, as was Giambi. Grimsley was already out of the game when his name came out. I am not as big of a football fan, but I am very familiar with the Merriman situation because it was all over the sports news. Bonds is a bigger deal because (1) he is one of the best baseball players of all times who set records while using PEDs and (2) he changed his story many times and then lied about it in a place where he really shouldn't have.

[Pudge714]

Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/