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.
0 recs |
135
comments
Comments
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Edge on Nov 15, 2007 4:29 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on
Nov 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on
Nov 16, 2007 1:24 AM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on
Nov 16, 2007 12:07 PM PST
up
0 recs
Isn't just like A-Rod
by MeSoKrabby on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by cheno on Nov 15, 2007 4:33 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Grant on
Nov 15, 2007 4:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by MeSoKrabby on
Nov 15, 2007 4:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on
Nov 15, 2007 6:29 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on
Nov 15, 2007 5:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Stuttering John Tamargo on Nov 15, 2007 5:01 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:23 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Natto on
Nov 15, 2007 8:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on
Nov 15, 2007 5:26 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by The Gene Hackman on
Nov 15, 2007 8:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by Jessica Alba on
Nov 16, 2007 7:07 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by wjackalope on Nov 15, 2007 5:25 PM PST 0 recs
Owner Hates It When a Giant Un-Retires
by Moggeee on
Nov 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by victor frankenstein on Nov 15, 2007 5:50 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by ololo3 on
Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Bonds - DONE
A Rod - Still with the Yanks
by codedfreaq on Nov 15, 2007 6:16 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by codedfreaq on
Nov 15, 2007 6:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:26 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by PLU Tim on
Nov 15, 2007 6:33 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on
Nov 15, 2007 6:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on
Nov 15, 2007 7:58 PM PST
up
0 recs
and we're not even talking about steroids...
by Mayor of 311 on
Nov 15, 2007 11:48 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
by rxmeister on
Nov 16, 2007 5:39 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
Which, to them, it is. And they convicted him along time ago.
by thehavenot on
Nov 16, 2007 9:53 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Because right now you are repeating yourself.
Whoever you are.
by thehavenot on
Nov 15, 2007 10:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
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...
by PLU Tim on
Nov 16, 2007 9:26 AM PST
up
0 recs
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.
by thehavenot on
Nov 16, 2007 9:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
Even if it's 85%, which would be low end, I'd say that's pretty strong, wouldn't you?
by PLU Tim on
Nov 16, 2007 10:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by thehavenot on
Nov 16, 2007 10:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
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.
by PLU Tim on
Nov 16, 2007 10:08 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
That's all I cared about.
by thehavenot on
Nov 16, 2007 10:34 AM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
delorean got off...so will bonds
by bacci40 on
Nov 15, 2007 7:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by NinthWithoutNen on Nov 15, 2007 6:30 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by groug on
Nov 15, 2007 10:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 6:33 PM PST 0 recs
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.
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM PST 0 recs
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.
by PLU Tim on
Nov 15, 2007 6:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on
Nov 15, 2007 6:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on
Nov 15, 2007 7:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by PLU Tim on
Nov 15, 2007 7:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on
Nov 15, 2007 7:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by PLU Tim on
Nov 15, 2007 7:48 PM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
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.
by PLU Tim on
Nov 15, 2007 8:15 PM PST
up
0 recs
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
0 recs
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.
by wilriv21 on
Nov 16, 2007 12:59 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on
Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on
Nov 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on
Nov 15, 2007 8:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by giantsrainman on
Nov 15, 2007 8:39 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:51 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
No.
I'm an orc.
by victor frankenstein on
Nov 15, 2007 9:56 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 7:07 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on
Nov 15, 2007 7:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
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?
by NearestNorwich on Nov 15, 2007 7:24 PM PST 0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by rxmeister on
Nov 15, 2007 8:00 PM PST
up
0 recs
Re: BONDS INDICTED
by WilltheThrill on
Nov 16, 2007 12:39 AM PST
up
0 recs
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.



