Barry Bonds indicted

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right?

Easy to mistake them.

[SL__72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right?

Easy to mistake them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are thinking of Christina Kahrl, another BP writer.

/edit and its the other way around, she used to be he.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In your first quoted section, the allegation is that Bonds tested positive in Nov 2000. In your second quoted section, he posted "abnormally high" in Nov 2001. Is this not new information?

[/ QUOTE ]

The allegation that Bonds failed it is "new", in so much as it wasn't presented as part of evidence previously...and one has to wonder if it can be proven, especially considering previous testimony alleges that Greg used his name to send in the tests to cover for Barry, and that the actual samples no longer exist, nor can the chain of custody be confirmed.

I just find it shocking that the same guy who knows this from seeing the original leaked transcript is now writing an article for a major media outlet acting as if he is just learning about this information, neglecting to report on it accurately as to the other facts he knows, and he is putting it forth as being a "huge body shot" to Bonds' case as if it is indisputable fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is MFW being misleading, though? He didn't write about a failed test in 2000, and now states that evidence of a failed test in 2000 is "previously undisclosed". If the leaked transcript contained evidence of a failed test in 2000, why wouldn't he write about it in the book?

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,

it's obstruction, they just chose not to prosecute for it. people saying otherwise are just idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then call me an idiot (everyone else has) since I am saying otherwise. The press is not under an obligation to keep grand jury testimony secret. The grand jurors and attorneys are the only under that obligation. In fact, the witness is generally permitted to walk out of the grand jury room and recite precisely what he told the grand jury.

Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice.

Lying to mislead an investigation is obstruction of justice.

The publication of the information did not hinder the investigation in a material way and was not intended to obstruct the investigation.

Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. You can always be quiet -- sometimes the law protects your silence (Fifth Amendment) and sometimes it does not (contempt). If Bonds had not been granted immunity, he would have had the right to remain silent. With immunity, he could have refused to answer and been held in contempt. By answering and answering untruthfully he committed perjury and possibly obstructed justice.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RB, it is Will Leitch, not Will Carroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, they're both named Will, and one of them used to be a women or something....right?

Easy to mistake them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are thinking of Christina Kahrl, another BP writer.

/edit and its the other way around, she used to be he.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously?

[Jack of Arcades]

See here.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]

Better yet, how did Bonds "obstruct justice"?

The Balco defendants were indicted almost immediately after his GJ testimony, and convicted in less than a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...he lied to federal agents during a federal investigation with the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution? The fact that his fraud failed doesn't make it any less fradulent or criminal. It's hardly the laws fault that he's an ineffective and stupid criminal. Smart 'roid mongers pull a McGwire and refuse to answer any questions or participate in the process.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Better yet, how did Bonds "obstruct justice"?

The Balco defendants were indicted almost immediately after his GJ testimony, and convicted in less than a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...he lied to federal agents during a federal investigation with the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution? The fact that his fraud failed doesn't make it any less fradulent or criminal. It's hardly the laws fault that he's an ineffective and stupid criminal. Smart 'roid mongers pull a McGwire and refuse to answer any questions or participate in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You have every fact incorrect. Read the entire thread (and maybe some of the news stories) and try again. Start with this: Bonds is being prosecuted for lying to the grand jury not federal agents and he did not lie to avoid prosecution because he had immunity from prosecution for anything that he said. He didn't commit fraud and he is not accused of fraud, he probably did lie and he is being prosecuted for that.

Bonds may very well have obstructed justice, but not for any of the reasons you say.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. You can always be quiet -- sometimes the law protects your silence (Fifth Amendment) and sometimes it does not (contempt).

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. I appreciate the legal distinction, but in reality, seems like they could be charged with either one. I'm not saying they committed a crime by publishing it, I'm saying they solicited and conspired towards a crime in obtaining the information. They actively pursued a leak that they knew to be in violation of the law, and used it for profit.

If conspiring in secret to obtain testimony illegally isn't obstruction, isn't it conspiracy to obstruct or something? I mean it's clearly more than contempt. Contempt would be if it just fell into their laps and they said, "Naw, sorry, can't help ya."

Again IANAL but to me it seems like people are ignoring the fact that soliciting and conspiring to commit a crime are, well, against the law, and they're not merely contempt.

[THAY3R]

NT,

HOPE THIS HELPS YOU MORON