|
|
|||||||
| 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 | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#461
11-17-2007, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail. He tells the truth and it ends there (at least as far as prosecuting him goes). He still has live with the fact that his records are tainted, but that was mistake could not be undone. [/ QUOTE ] Redbean's mind will never be changed. Barry Bonds could personally stand up, admit to taking steroids, admit to lying and still Redbean would say that it was the media or the government that forced BB to say it. In Redbean's mind, BB can do no wrong. 
|
|
#462
11-17-2007, 10:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
redbean has never ever said that Barry Bonds never took steroids as far as i know
|
|
#463
11-17-2007, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
redbean has never ever said that Barry Bonds never took steroids as far as i know [/ QUOTE ] That's true. He avoids answering the question of whether the thinks BB took steroids. It's all a media/government conspiracy.
|
|
#464
11-17-2007, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here. [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#465
11-17-2007, 12:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hiding information from an investigation to avoid prosecution of yourself or others is obstruction of justice. Refusing to identify the leak is contempt (not obstruction) and they were held in contempt. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm not understanding this distinction here. [/ QUOTE ] I said that unclearly. If physical evidence already exists -- documents, the "smoking gun," etc. -- and it is subpoenaed, you must produce it. If you hide it, claim it doesn't exist, or destroy it, that could be obstruction. If something exists in your mind, you can not be convicted of a crime for failing to speak (although you may be held in contempt unless you have the right not to speak). If you do speak under oath and you lie, it is perjury. In certain circumstances, the perjury might also constitute obstruuction.
|
|
#466
11-17-2007, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth ....
|
|
#467
11-17-2007, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Good point, and what a lot of folks don't realize....the government didn't offer immunity to Bonds as much because they didn't care about prosecuting him....but in order so they could jail him for contempt if he refused to testify or pleaded the fifth. [/ QUOTE ] i will admit im not too familiar with this situation but it seems to me bonds could have avoided this if he had told the truth? [/ QUOTE ] um he may have told the truth .... [/ QUOTE ] the way he answered the questions, it is highly unlikely... although the prosecutors may not be able to prove he lied...
|
|
#468
11-17-2007, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
that obviously wasn't the part I was talking about, but it doesn't surprise me you would argue against something that isn't the point being made [/ QUOTE ] I know it wasn't the part you were talking about, and I wasn't arguing about anything. I was simply expanding on something else he had mentioned. Sheesh, my apologies for mentioning something from Rome without your explicit permission.
|
|
#469
11-17-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe I didn't explain it well.....but the trap went like this: If Bonds admits steroid use, they leak the testimony and destroy him in public opinion. If Bonds denies the steroid use, they prosecute him for perjury. They offer him immunity so he can't plead the fifth, and if he refuses to answer questions a la McGwire, they put him in jail for contempt. [ QUOTE ] He tells the truth and it ends there (at least as far as prosecuting him goes). [/ QUOTE ] Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there?
|
|
#470
11-17-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
That's true. He avoids answering the question of whether the thinks BB took steroids. It's all a media/government conspiracy. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I avoid answering the question because I have refrained from speculation until all the facts have been revealed, and both sides have been given a chance to present their side. Call me crazy, but I kinda believe in the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. For example, assuming their is an eventual acquittal, based upon the evidence presented, I will form an opinion based on that....while someone like you who made his mind up 3 years ago when an SI writer told you what to think, your not going to accept the verdict based on the actual evidence, since you've already formed your decision based on preconceptions. Simply put, what you are saying about me actually applies more to you. I haven't formed my opinion yet and await seeing the evidence.....while your opinion was made up long ago.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
