BONDS INDICTED
Instant analysis and opinion. Relevant point. Examination of an angle to the story you hadn't thought of yet. Platitudes. Memories. Anecdotal evidence. Unqualified legal analysis.
Critique of other opinions. Pithy comment. Rhetorical question? Possible answer. Finger-wagging. Finger-pointing. False bravado and mock outrage. Name calling. Not in my America.
The same thing you just read, phrased differently. Something underlined for emphasis. Reference to another famous scandal. Moment of silence for America's innocence.
Overblown conclusion.
135 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
i was trying to say that there's no need for a loop as Bonds has so many homers that there's no need for a repeat.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 16, 2007 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't just like A-Rod
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Grant Brisbee on Nov 15, 2007 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Nov 15, 2007 5:01 PM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by The Gene Hackman on Nov 15, 2007 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Jessica Alba on Nov 16, 2007 7:07 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Owner Hates It When a Giant Un-Retires
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by victor frankenstein on Nov 15, 2007 5:50 PM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Bonds - DONE
A Rod - Still with the Yanks
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
If he doesn't plea out, he'll do time, and maybe do a little time anyway.
...just my opinion of course, and I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn.
by Mark carry on on Nov 15, 2007 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
and we're not even talking about steroids...
by Mayor of 311 on Nov 15, 2007 11:48 PM PST up reply actions
Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
Which, to them, it is. And they convicted him along time ago.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Because right now you are repeating yourself.
Whoever you are.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
All I have stated is that Federal cases are notoriously strong cases. That's a know fact to pretty much everyone. If you want to refute that then go ahead.
Now start listing all of the famous people who have beaten federal raps...
Re: BONDS INDICTED
And, in case you really are lost as to what your assertion is, that would be you saying that Grand Jury indictions lead to a better than 90% conviction rate.
Maybe you are correct. Please prove or stop throwing this out there as your only argument.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Even if it's 85%, which would be low end, I'd say that's pretty strong, wouldn't you?
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
I've never claimed that no one ever beats federal raps. It's just really hard to do.
As I stated in this thread, I had to read a few different articles to get to the 87-92% claim.
You can read them to with a simple google search.
Hell, the state trial conviction rate is around 80% and that's without a grand jury in most states.
I thought that the numbers were high too when I first heard them, but they're true. Just because you want to put your hands up to your ears and hum show tunes doesn't make them any less true.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
That's all I cared about.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
In this case, it likely doesn't matter who wins, as everybody will have their names all over the press to begin with.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
delorean got off...so will bonds
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by NinthWithoutNen on Nov 15, 2007 6:30 PM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Personally I think the Feds have a weak case and will lose when this goes to trial. I think this indictment is politically motivated by the desire to appease the public's desire to lynch Barry driven by the continuous ongoing witch hunt by the media. I believe the Feds do believe that Barry is guilty but I also believe that the Feds would never bring these changes if they were not politically motivated and were basing this decision on the likelyhood of a conviction.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Besides the urine tests only relate to one count of the perjury charges. Read the indictment.
Amazing how this entire board got law degrees this afternoon.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:38 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/17/perjury-sept-eleven.html
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
But, this is not what I mean by politics. What I mean by politics is the desire to do what the puplic wants. This desire is independent of the mission of the judicial system to seek actual justice. This political desire by the justice department is the direct result of the Media's sucessfull effort to whip you and so many others into this frency to hunt and lynch the witches and in particular to hunt and lynch Barry Bonds.
Frankly, the politics of this is really far more obvious then the guilt of one Barry Lamar Bonds. To not see this is to be blinded by the hatred the press has welled up in you for one Barry Lamar Bonds.
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Read the indictment. A large portion of Bonds GJ testimony is in there. He was asked so many different ways about steriods/HGH/Clear/Cream/Injectable substances that the feds would basically have to be incompetent to not get a conviction out of this.
This isn't just a "No" to "Did you take roids?" indictment. Basically if they even prove that Anderson as much as handed Barry a PED he's going to be convicted.
If you think that the Fed's entire case is based on Bonds' mistress' testimony and chicken scratch on a piece of paper you're delusional. There are surely going to be people testifying that you've never heard of and that you can't accuse of having some axe to grind with Barry.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Also, since this is your first day at this site, you clearly haven't been around long enough to realize that there is nobody that we can't accuse of having some axe to grind with Barry.
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
Good Question
The only thing I can think about is possibly they got Gary Sheffield, who Bonds introduced to Balco, to turn or former Mets clubhouse employee, Kirk Radomski, supplied some info that investigators were able to run down.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
No.
I'm an orc.
by victor frankenstein on Nov 15, 2007 9:56 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 7:09 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
I could never figure out what was going to happen in this case and still can't (I always assumed -- and still do -- that they will get him for tax fraud since all these players are vulnerable there). But I've always been troubled by his apparent willingness to let Anderson rot in jail to protect him. What happens at the trial if Anderson refuses to testify now? Can he be jailed again? Any lawyers out there?
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by WilltheThrill on Nov 16, 2007 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
That said, I see no reason why Anderson would start cooperating and answering questions then. The trial is not expected to last more then a few weeks. So, why would being in jail for this much shorter time period bother him if he has already put up with much longer jail time? Is it not reasonable to assume that he will continue to refuse to cooperate because he continues to feel that the Feds have lied to him and not lived up to their portion of his plea bargin agreement? It does not matter to Greg that the courts have ruled that he was not promised that he would not have to cooperate with any further investigations. Gary believes this is what he was promised and has stated (and shown by his actions) that he is not going to cooperate because he feels he just can't trust the Feds to keep any promises.
by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2007 1:30 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Ghost11 on Nov 15, 2007 8:23 PM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
This sting involved more than Bonds. They gathered evidence for a year before confronting the people involved. The case is/was about using illegal/undetectable drugs to dope athletes in all sports and the profits illegally gathered from those activities.
Bonds may be the biggest name, but others were just as famous in their fields, including some of the top track and field coaches and runners in the world. There are parts of the world where Olympic Golds are more important than Home Runs.
I personally believe Bonds is totally full of shit. I don't think it makes me less of a Giants fan. I've thought he was full of shit from the get go of the Balco case. I was still able to enjoy the games and the records and all of that. The saddest part to me is that he couldn't just be a stand up guy and say, "yeah, everyone around me was doing it. I did too".
I don't believe he will win this case, but you never know. Life will go on. The Giants will still field a team. I will still be a fan of them just as I was through the 70's and 80's and 90's.
btw, that pic of him in front of the flag has made me nauseous everytime I've seen it. I guess America is about getting dollars any way you can though.
flame away
by Mark carry on on Nov 15, 2007 8:24 PM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by cain1rstballothof on Nov 15, 2007 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
:)
by Mark carry on on Nov 15, 2007 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 9:57 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Actually, I would say that America has a lot to do with getting dollars any way you can.
I would go so far as to say that it could be argued that America is founded more on the concept of Capitalism and free enterprise than on freedom and democracy.
Material Witness
And thehavenot, apparently, has pondered it deeply.
Re: BONDS INDICTED

Actually, you are right. I do feel nauseated when I see that picture. Barry is too good for the flag, 'cause he's all man.
I just love the way he doesn't give a damn what other people think about him. I love how he implicity gives a big middle finger to all members of the media. I love how he goes out to get what he wants (contract, records). I love how he just gets better and better in the batter's box when outside pressure (vindictive media, dirty Dodger fans booing him, and the rest of the country's disapproval) would cause any ordinary man to break down. Can't say that about other "men." For young males, he is actually a better role model (although that isn't his job) than this country's plethora of henpecked husbands and "nice" guys.
Here is one more for kicks:

Barry with a gorgeous smile! Just melts your heart!
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 10:47 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
How about...
We don't hand these passes out to just any troll
Then we'll be free to hate the Dodger and his Sims again, with vigor.
Oh, yeah. We'll be Barryless, so Xei's relentless predictions of Giant defeat will be -- ouch, the pain -- right on the money.
Re: How about...
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:34 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Anyhow, I will have a law degree in oh, 7 months, not that I think you need to know this, just basically trying to prevent the talking out of my ass phenomenon.
The preponderance of evidence standard which someone alluded to (I think it was rainman) is the standard of review by which a prosecution (for fed cases, its Assistant United State Attorney General) must meet for a grand jury to return an indictment as a true bill, i.e. that is the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is more likely than not that he COULD be guilty of said crimes outlined in the indictment. The percentages attached to this standard is 51%, i.e., it is more likely than not, even by the slimmest margins, that he could be guilty of these crimes.
I'm sure someone has alluded to the adage that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. This is actually quite true.
In our mock trials for our clinical course, no GJ failed to indict on our rather sketch "evidence" against the "alleged" defendants. Our AUSAG who taught the class basically told us if he wanted one, he would get and indictment, he knew how to bore, threaten, cajole, i.e., make it very uncomfortable for a GJ to do anything less than return a true bill, and by the way, when you graduate, if you need a job, look me up.
There is no defendant present, no judge, just a foreman from the GJ group and a AUSAG. The room is under lock and seal, protected from any "outside" influence. It's the most biased one sided presentation of evidence presented out of context and to look as incriminating as possible while not needing to have foundation, basis, etc. .
Getting a federal indictment is for lack of proper legalease, the easiest f&*%$#@ thing in the world to do.
Yes the grand jury is allowed to ask questions, yes they are allowed to become de facto prosecutors and call witnesses that may have some bearing on the case, etc., but any good AUSA, and mind you, they wouldn't put a rookie on this one, on how to "control" a GJ rendering them powerless and inept mimes inudating them with countless documents and long testimony to bore the hell out of them.
They are drawn from a huge pool, asked to take (and I don't exactly remember, I mean c'mon, it was class for carribean hackers sake) a year and a half of their life off to serve on this grand jury. They hear many many many cases in this time. Everyone gets indicted. These people just want to go home. For the central district of CA, it goes from OC to SLO area. Imagine having to drive, fly, or take a train to sit on a GJ panel and listen to Joe FBI agent talk about records from blah blah blah. Especially about something like obstruction and perjury. Not a murder homicide/robbery love triangle, but lame ass charges. From experience, as a "mock" GJ member, you tune out after about 6 minutes, thinking about ponies and grass fields and coming out your shoes one time in your softball game that night. You know you're indicting them, its not a conviction, you're not placing him/her in jail, its like its 51% likely that he/she could have committed this crime. Just let me go home.
Hell, with minimal evidence, I could be the second gunman on the grassy nole and I wasn't even born yet. Catch my drift?
If the GJ fails to indict on the first try, guess what? A AUSAG gets to amend the indictment because the GJ can tell him what they will or will not indict the defendant for based on the evidence, and so they amend and try again. . .with the same GJ.
There are no leading of witnesses requirements. The testimony is sealed so charges of perjury, hyperbole, out of context statements and opinions based on gut reaction without any foundation are freely permitted because as you know all GJ foremen are specialists in the rules of evidence and can separate fact from opinion from the FBI agent interpreting calender records of Greg don't drop the soap Anderson mind you, so the AUSAG is a loose cannon, doing things that would NEVER be allowed at trial, with a layperson sitting as the "foreman". All to prove its more likely than not that BB could have committed OOJ or perjury.
The standards are low, the stakes are low, the AUSAG gets to say and do things without the presentment of any sort of defense. The threat of holding over a GJ for days or having to come back at a later time if they can't agree on whether to indict or not, especially with little or no knowledge about how many times they presented this to a GJ, allows me suggest this is not earth shattering.
You got a GJ indictment? That is the easiest thing to do in our legal system. No defense lawyer, little or no rules governing appropriate AUSAG conduct (besides a "guideline" of principles from the AG, nothing at stake (not a conviction), and a system set up to scare the bedjesus out of GJ who fail to indict.
This is not a hard thing to do. We talked about this case in the class. People "in the know" called this a political witch hunt, the kind that makes careers for people if you catch my drift.
Not that I'm making unfounded baseless accusations, but I could care less. Any hack AUSAG can get and indictment. The fact that it took them this long, extending the GJ time for an extra 6 months twice (I think), which imagine living in SLO, commuting to downtown la two days a week for a year and a half after not being smart enough to admit your a racist or something to get out of service (yes I know it was in SF, example), and being told that you have to be extended because the AUSAG is going back to amend the indictment for the umpteenth time because you said I'm sorry, this doesn't even reach the ridiculously low standard of preponderance of evidence.
I hope they go to trial. I hope the defense attorney for bonds assembles a kick ass legal team and tears whoever is dumb enough to accept this assignment to shreds, pointing out how much wasted time, effort, and energy, along with taxpayer money to prove that BB took roids. Hey, we get it, everyone knows he did. Get over yourselves. You think you'll get some SF jury to say he "knowingly" took roids? He's already tainted/tarnished, whatever. What pisses me off is that it means I probably won't get to see him play again.
And that's the real travesty in this situation. I don't get to watch the bat pump, perfect timing of the pitch and after watching the swing, before the shot takes it to the path of the ball, knowing its gone.
Anyhow, this took way longer than I thought, and my last beer is wearing off, so I'm going back to drinking, but I thought it might be helpful/insightful knowledge for the McCovey bretheren (this includes women, sorry, no all inclusive legal term that isn't masculineded). This is all from memory and I don't have citations and shit, so if you want to check it, go look it up, but if you have ?'s feel free. It was funny, in watching the ESPN 30 sec little deal on the website, the legal guy used the term "the prosecutions indictment." My first initial reaction was you idiot, its the GJ indictment, not the pros, but in thinking about what he meant, he's right, its the prosecution's indictment. Presenting it to a GJ is really a formality. Everyone gets indicted that that pros wants eventually. Call me when you get a conviction.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Just one question. I don't have any reason to doubt what you say is true, but I was just curious to get your ideas on how this grand jury process could ever lead to the 87-92% conviction rate on federal charges that was thrown around earlier (albeit, with no source).
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 16, 2007 12:38 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Google "Federal Conviction Rates"
I had to estimates based on what I read in about 5-6 different articles.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
...ok I wasn't going to post anything remotely resembling this. But yeah, you must be the real Will Clark because that was a thing of beauty. Thanks.
x2 POTY
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Now then, how long until spring training? Can't handle the baseball withdraw. . .
by WilltheThrill on Nov 16, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
This was the lady whose job it was to defend those indicted. She was a speed bump.
Most def can't afford a private lawyer. Without doing a lot of research, I'd say the 8-13% prob can afford to do without a speed bump.
AUSAG don't normally take cases that aren't slam dunks, but every once and a while, there comes a big fish that they use as a step ladder to career advancement, i.e., marsha clark, who was an idiot pros, but turned it into a book deal, etc., who I'm sure has a successful private practice, the MJ case, I didn't follow the trial, but it seems it was less than compelling evidence, the paris hilton pros, etc. These "big fishes" are gold mines to many pros, proving they can "run with the big dogs." Think how big egos are among lawyers. Hell I go to school with lot of em' and they have plenty of ego, but they turn these cases into lucrative careers. Win or lose, they were THAT guy or gal.
Most of them don't want a fair fight though. Most cherry pick their cases, also known as pros discretion, to choose which def to go after, hence the high conviction rates, why would you spend time/resources on anything less than a slam dunk unless. . . . you're interested in a witch hunt, career advancement, etc. . .
Thats my guess from the limited background I have.
BONDS INDICTED
Giambi, Canseco, Piazza, Pudge, Gagne, Brady Anderson, Juan Gone, and EVERYBODY ELSE... he died for your sins
or at least was indicted
by theclap on Nov 16, 2007 1:45 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Hijacked thread devolves into a chaotic and lusty fart competition. Winner nominated for a special "Lifetime Achievement" McCoven Award.
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Search for distraction
Re: Search for distraction
Re: Search for distraction
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
Legacy in peril?
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by EliminateMe on Nov 16, 2007 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Jessica Alba on Nov 16, 2007 10:44 AM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by kg on Nov 16, 2007 10:58 AM PST reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
Re: BONDS INDICTED
http://www.azsnakepit.com/story/2007/11/15/181022/23
Re: BONDS INDICTED
That is all.
not everyone hates bonds
that's a start, I guess
by nysfgiants on Nov 19, 2007 2:50 PM PST reply actions

by 



















