|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
#491
11-17-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
"If the hat fits, you must acquit." = gold
|
|
#492
11-17-2007, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations? [/ QUOTE ] That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s. [/ QUOTE ] To be fair, it isn't my theory, just a possibility. And considering that this is one of the longest GJ investigation in Northern California history, and it spanned 3 seperate Grand Juries, 3 AG's, 2 US attorneys, 4 years, and untold amount of tax dollars....I would hardly call this case "normal". [ QUOTE ] Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not. [/ QUOTE ] Normally, sure. In this case, when former US attorney Ryan announced publically that they were conducted the GJ investigation, and courtesy of the illegal leaks....it was very much public....and a failure to indict would have been very public as well. Considering also, that the GJ term was set to expire on Friday, it would have been unlikely to empanel a new 4th jury under the new AG, and they indicted with what they had on the next to last day, without any new evidence in over three years.... All in all, I think they felt they didn't have enough to indict without Greg's testimony, which is what they've said in open court, and despite his continued refusal to cooperate, they went with what they had and are hoping it's enough to influence public opinion (potential jurors), as they're only otehr option was to dismiss without indictment. At least, I hope that is the case....otherwise the DA's office lied to the court, and they wrongfully and punitively imprisoned Greg for his refusal to testify, despite their previous agreements with him that he would never have to testify again. Plain and simple, the US attorney's office was extremely shady and dishonest in their dealings with witnesses, attempting to coerce them and going back on previous deals, and it didn't work. Like Mike Rains said, everything you need to know about their case was that it was sent to every major media outlet in advance of the conference, and prior to informing the defense or the accused.
|
|
#493
11-17-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ 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?
|
|
#496
11-17-2007, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ 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.
|
|
#497
11-17-2007, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ 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
|
|
#498
11-17-2007, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations? [/ QUOTE ] That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s. It is difficult for a U.S. Attorney's office to seek an indictment to avoid egg on the face -- and in high profile cases, they don't have the last word. It has to go up the line through the justice department. Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not. [/ QUOTE ] None of that has anything to do with what is going on here. Most of the time, the public isnt aware that three seperate grand juries have been convened. A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even.
|
|
#499
11-17-2007, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think an acquittal has the same effect, or does the angry mob just ignore it in favor of their own preconceptions? Personally, I'm just glad they are making progress towards a resolution......4+ years of speculation is just that...speculation....now it's time to side up and see who wins.
|
|
#500
11-17-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think an acquittal has the same effect, or does the angry mob just ignore it in favor of their own preconceptions? Personally, I'm just glad they are making progress towards a resolution......4+ years of speculation is just that...speculation....now it's time to side up and see who wins. [/ QUOTE ] In terms of the anti-Bonds crowd, I would imagine it goes like this: admission>>conviction>acquittal>>&g t;no indictment. 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. THEN we will hear all about how this wasnt Bonds steroid use on trial. Of course, UNTIL then, thats how it will be painted.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
