Bonds Indicted?
From the ABC news website: FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTS BASEBALL SLUGGER BARRY BONDS ON PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES, AP REPORTS
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
0 recs |
168 comments
Comments
It's everywhere...
by Brother Bummer on Nov 15, 2007 2:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Chods on Nov 15, 2007 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Time to start donating to the Bush Presidential Library Barry!
by Nathan on Nov 15, 2007 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
This would suggest his career is done - no team will touch him now.
by eugene on Nov 15, 2007 2:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
"During the 2001 season he broke Mark McGwire's single-season home run crown, and by 2006, he'd passed Babe Ruth to move into second-place among the sport's most prolific power hitters. He will soon in all likelihood surpass Aaron's career mark of 755 homers."....
What the hell?!? did Paul Elias just wake up from a year long coma?
by Cookyman on Nov 15, 2007 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
For shame Paul Elias.
by Cookyman on Nov 15, 2007 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
That could mean no hall of fame.
by ResDog on Nov 15, 2007 2:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
He might have tested positive for some kind of steroid precursor. Or he might have tested positive for any other performance enhancing drug (amphetamines?).
In any event, I think he's still HOF bound, but maybe not first ballot. The indictment only accuses him of steroid use beginning in 2001. Even if you assign some ridiculous premium to the effect of steroids (e.g., half of his home runs were steroid-caused), his numbers should be HOF material.
by War on Nov 15, 2007 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Wonder if the Giants had some inkling this was coming.
BB
by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Do we get a first round draft pick from the Department of Justice for Type A compensation as it came before the signing deadline?
by slcgiant on Nov 15, 2007 2:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by SnowLeopard on Nov 15, 2007 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by NeifiChicken on Nov 15, 2007 2:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I remember a lot of talk about "There won't be an indcictment, otherwise they would have done it by now."
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
It's a blanket mocking policy.
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by groug on Nov 15, 2007 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
PREPARE YOURSELVES
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 2:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: PREPARE YOURSELVES
by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: PREPARE YOURSELVES
by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by War on Nov 15, 2007 2:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
BB
by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Although, if the trial ends up being thrown out or if they rule in Bonds' favor, it may be helpful to his legacy. There will still be naysayers but at least he would have overcome a jury.
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by SF Pete on Nov 15, 2007 2:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Basically, Anderson needs to testify that "I told Barry it was an anabolic steroid or HGH that he was putting in/on his body."
I seriously doubt Anderson will do that. He'll stay in jail forever, rather than testify against Bonds.
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Anderson will likely refuse to testify at trial and will go to jail again to avoid contempt charges. Or maybe (gasp), he'll testify and nothing will be harmful to Bonds after all. The perjury charges are pretty specific.
by War on Nov 15, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by rxmeister on Nov 16, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 3:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by ololo3 on Nov 15, 2007 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Cainer on Nov 15, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Woody Wins on Nov 15, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by MikeyJ on Nov 15, 2007 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by alech on Nov 15, 2007 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 15, 2007 3:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
So, yes, he tested positive. Baseball Prospectus is saying it was part of the 2003 post-CBA agreement testing that was supposed to remain secret.
by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
but it seems he failed one test
and it couldnt be for "the cream or the clear" for those were both alledgedly undetectable
i say he gets off
by bacci40 on Nov 15, 2007 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I am not a lawyer.
by zenbitz on Nov 15, 2007 3:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, yay
by stress on Nov 15, 2007 3:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I don't think he will be found guilty by a jury. Probably won't matter seeing the court of public opinion ruled against him ages ago.
by positiveuphemism on Nov 15, 2007 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
BB
by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by shikantaza on Nov 15, 2007 3:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by someguynamedg on Nov 15, 2007 3:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Got to love America...
1) Does Barry Bonds' indictment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice change your opinion of him as a player?
69.5% No
30.5% Yes
7) If Bonds is found guilty, is he still a Hall of Famer?
58.3% No
41.7% Yes
Either voters honestly don't think he's a Hall of Famer without steroids, or they're complete morons. Actually, either way their morons.
by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
I'm seeing a major disconnect. I guess lying is a performance enhancer. Or something.
People sre stupid. I relly fucking hate people.
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
by EliminateMe on Nov 16, 2007 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
I also think the people's whose opinions have changed might include those who have, until now, believed him when he said he didn't or said he didn't know he had.
by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
Oh well. It's not like you're wrong. The people who voted that way either were either voting based on a simple misconception that this was about steroid use, or were voting because they don't like Bonds. It doesn't really matter what the poll actually meant in those cases.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
There are lots of people out there who would like to believe that Bonds was clean; I'm one of them. For me, the indictment is just one more piece of "plausible deniability" being taken away. He still might be innocent, but the odds of it just got slightly longer, in my non-scientific estimation. Before, one could say "if he had juiced, they'd have indicted him by now" and dismiss it at that. Not any more.
So, I don't think it requires any misconception at all for 30.5% of those polled to be more convinced today than they were yesterday that Bonds juiced and did it knowingly.
The bottom line is it is about steroid use, even though that's not how the charges read.
by EliminateMe on Nov 16, 2007 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Got to love America...
I don't think that it would be unreasonable for one to take the stance that Bonds is clearly, on talent alone, worthy of a HOF induction, but that his steroid use makes him invalid for the Hall.
by biff pocoroba on Nov 16, 2007 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Statistics
I read recently that scientists estimate that approximately 50% of the public is below average intelligence.
by biff pocoroba on Nov 16, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Glass is Not Half Full
The other 40% is in a multi-purpose room, taking the GED.
by Moggeee on Nov 16, 2007 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Did he finally roll over on Bonds?
by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Scandalous bedfellows
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Finally.
by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by shikantaza on Nov 15, 2007 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
After reading the indictment, I have a couple of comments.
- What a tremendous waste of time and energy and money by the government. Yes, perjury and obstruction of justice charges are serious matters, but this all happened 4 years ago and I seriously doubt the justice system has suffered for it. The system lost more credibility when the confidential grand jury secrets were illegally leaked to and then published by those SF Comical douchebags so they could get rich and famous trading on Barry's name. And it took them how many grand juries to get an indictment?
- The testimony in which Bonds allegedly perjured himself is pretty vague. Some of the questions are compound. Even if Bonds took a bunch of steroids, there's no evidence that he knew. That's a very subjective charge and difficult to prove, especially without any direct testimony that Bonds was told what he was taking. There is plausible deniability there.
- An indictment means that there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial, i.e., there's probable cause. It doesn't mean that there is enough evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Bonds perjured himself and obstructed justice. I'm not a criminal attorney, but it seems that the case is pretty weak. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to move the trial...to Los Angeles!
- I hate to say it, but Barry Bonds baseball career is over. I was hoping to see him play for another team, but now no team will sign him while he's under indictment and the process will probably go on for the next year (Bonds won't plea.) He's just that much more radioactive. At his age, he can't take a whole season off and have a realistic expectation of coming back to play.
- Selig might move to suspend him, but unless he's on a team, he might just wait and see.
- He's still the best baseball player I've ever seen.
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
The White House quickly weighed in on the indictment. President Bush is a former owner of the Texas Rangers.
"The president is very disappointed to hear this," Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said. "As this case is now in the criminal justice system, we will refrain from any further specific comments about it. But clearly this is a sad day for baseball."
by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
"We're bad, but isn't Bonds Worse?"
Just so we know the White House gameplan: The aim of the administration is to deflect any attention from Bush' historically unpopular presidency. To make an official, "woe-unto-our-nation" comment on this is to unethically give more fuel to the "Bonds-is-guilty-until-proven-innocent" crowd.
It's tough for a guy like Bonds, who we all know is already responsible for global warming.
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: "We're bad, but isn't Bonds Worse?"
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bush crossed the line before I did
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bush crossed the line before I did
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
by jtoj on Nov 15, 2007 4:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by positiveuphemism on Nov 15, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by mxmob33 on Nov 15, 2007 4:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by The Gene Hackman on Nov 15, 2007 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
JTOJ already has him working out with he San Quentin Quarrymen of the Penitentiary Fall League.
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
That said, this is a terrible waste of time and resources. I find it interesting in stark contrast to the undercover CIA agent whose true occupation was leaked to Robert Novak by Rove & Co.
People are way more interested in seeing a baseball player get punished for lying under oath than they are in seeing a traitor get justice.
by orangeandblackattack on Nov 15, 2007 4:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Until Bonds does one of these things, I'll continue to not hope he goes to jail for lying about maybe putting something on/in his body. As a father myself, I'd rather he didn't go jail and leave his young children fatherless (except on visiting days).
by JRPhillips on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Obviously you wouldn't mind.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
This isn't perjury about murder here. Or genocide. Or whatever else is on that list. Your rhetoric is deeply, deeply flawed.
Perjury and obstruction of justice are major (major, HUGE) issues when the case is even remotely consequential. This case is not remotely consequential for anybody in the world not named Barry Bonds. Or, I suppose, Greg Anderson.
The whole thing is a huge joke. Just a ridiculous farce of a joke.
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
So there should be some times in which lying is ok? So how would you determine what is "consequential" and what isn't? A vote of the people? All we need is a bunch of "grey areas."
You make no sense.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I might also bother explaining why initial federal involvement in the steroid issue in baseball was a waste of time to begin with and how everything that followed that initital involvement has done nothing but compound that waste.
But you'd just call me an idiot and fail to care. So whatever.
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
For the record, I don't abide by liars. I think it's a despicable act. I can't really tell you why this doesn't bother me, except that I already don't look at sports figures, celebrities, or political figures as modern day heros. Guess I've grown up a little over the years.
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
But I already suspect you're a complete nincompoop incapable of rational thought, at least as far as Barry is concerned. So away with you, troll!
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
The question I have, is who in the hell are you to determine what crimes hurt somone and which ones don't?
According to the posters on this board lying under oath about stealing a car should be thought of as trivial, but lying under oath to protect someone who harms a child is not ok.
So where in hell is the line? Is it at the value of the car that was stolen? Is it at PHYSICAL harm? What about lying about a white collar crime that cost families millions of dollarts? What if the white collar crime only cost a few families a few hundred dollars each? Is it then inconsequential?
You guys seem to convinced that there should be some line drawn somewhere where acts of pejury and OOJ are just trivial offenses...
I want to know where that line is.
What if Bonds were a fringe MLB player that only managed to stay in MLB due to PEDs? If that's too hypothetical to you, then what about any fringe MLB player that received PEDs from BALCO? Would this is so trivial to the minor leaguer who never got to live his dream because he was clean and left in AAA behind the fringe MLB player?
by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 9:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Here's one way to look at it: Who got hurt by Bonds possibly taking PEDs? Were there minor leaguers who were blocked from pursuing their ML careers? If you think so, you're obviously not a Giants fan. Were you personally hurt? Did Barry possibly recovering from injury faster steal your car? Or take your money? Did his continued career kill Uncle Ben?
Who am I to determine what crimes hurt someone and which don't? I don't know, I'm no lawyer, politician, or person who was hurt by Barry's alleged crime. I'm just a fan that refuses to put Bonds in jail because popular opinion is that Barry's a jerk and deserves it.
Now let me ask you, who the hell are you to tell us we all need to agree with you that Bonds is a criminal and needs to be crucified? Are you part of the prosecution? Does our fandom harm you in some way? Or are you just trying to incite a lynch mob, so you can burn his house down? Why are you here?
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
- I've never made one comment in regards to Bonds' guilt or innocence. I've only stated that assuming that a federal case is "weak" is a pretty huge leap of faith because that is just simply very rarely the case.
- This isn't about TAKING PEDs. It's about DISTRIBUTING PEDs. That's what the BALCO case was about. Are you of the opinion that peddling PEDs hurts no one else? BB's PED usage or non-usage is simply a by-product of that investigation.
- If you would have actually read my prior post, I specifically took Bonds out of the situation.
by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
When the hell did THAT happen??? Let's hang him by his probably-shrunken testicles!
Regarding fringe players... I think the Giants could have done with a FRINGE guy to replace Bonds. Our roster is already filled with them.
So by your own argument, a guy who's car is stolen is something a GJ should be assembled for?
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
BALCO was. That was the initial investigation.
If you want to say that Barry's actions with PEDs are inconsequential to others then fine...you win.
But what about BALCO's peddling?
by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
And if I may state again, I'm simply not rooting for him to go to jail. You, on the other hand, have conspicuously created an account on this site for the sole purpose of trying to get people here to buy into your desire to have Bonds thrown in prison for POSSIBLY committing a crime. That basically makes you a dick, don't you think? I'm terribly sorry if I just can't get on board with you.
As for someone else's career, could you please tell me who would have made the majors in his place? If not, it's all weak speculation and general jackassery.
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Ok let me ask you this in plain english...
Do you believe that lying to a grand jury in an investigation about the illegal distribution of drugs is something that should be punished or is it one of those "closer to a 4 year old taking a cookie from the cookie jar sorta things."
Note: My question above mentioned NOTHING about Barry Bonds.
by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
So what's the problem? Is it whether or not he lied about the illegal distribution of drugs, or whether or not he lied about knowingly injesting said drugs? Either way, try to incite a lynch mob somewhere else.
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Guy1 lies to a GJ in an investigation of a crime which costs 10 families $500 each.
Guy2 lies to a GJ in an investigation of a crime which costs 500 families their pension plans.
Should Guy1's lying to the GJ be considered a non-crime?
Draw the line....
by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
And that's pretty much my analogy. It's not perfect, but that's it.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Richard Armitage
by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by BondsApologist on Nov 15, 2007 4:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by SF Pete on Nov 16, 2007 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Martha didn't beat these charges.
Scooter didn't beat these charges.
It's very unlikely that Barry beats these charges.
In fact, I'll bet money that Barry pleas out to prevent some of the details from coming out in a trial.
Calling Perjury and OOJ crimes that shouldn't be pursued by prosecutors is just ignorance.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Now go get some signatures, write your law makers, and get those useless OOJ and perjury laws changed.
They are obviously pointless. Requiring someone to tell the truth to a grand jury is just silly anyways.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I'm wondering, what is your opinion on leaked grand jury testimony?
by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
That being said, for the government to win, they need credible eyewitnesses. People who saw Bonds inject himself or rub himself or whatever it is that you do with these things. Or people who heard him say "yep, I'm using them steroids here."
You have Anderson, who already went to jail rather than testify. Maybe he'll finally crack. Even if he doesn't, I'm guessing the prosecutors will ask for some kind of adverse inference instruction. But would a jury be willing to send Barry Bonds to jail based on an adverse inference instruction?
I guess you also have Conte and maybe Bonds's ex-mistress. Both have credibility issues.
Does the government have the advantage? Yeah, probably. But they lose their fair share of cases too. Scooter went down because folks like Tim Russert were viewed as highly credible witnesses. Martha's conviction was a joke, but I guess people believe the FBI never lies or is mistaken about anything.
by War on Nov 15, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
The federal conviction rate is through the roof. You pretty much don't beat those raps unless the prosecutor is a dummy.
I am not saying any of this as a "Bonds Hater." That's just facts. Having to present evidence to a GJ and then in trial pretty much ensures convictions.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
It just doesn't work that way on the federal level. As for it taking 4 years, that isn't all that abnormal.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I love all credibility because I didn't articulate myself well enough for you?
The prosecution convenes the grand jury, but the grand jury has to give the green light to pursue charges.
Playing the "politics" card is just silly. Scooter Libby got convicted and there was certainly more politics involved in that case than there is with Berry freaking Bonds. They do have to provide a preponderance of evidence to the grand jury in order to get the indictment.
You guys are all obviously itching for your jury duty notices.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by kwyjibo on Nov 15, 2007 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
the Federal Conviction rate is somewhere between 87-92% from what I can tell.
Good luck believing that this case is somehow different than everything else and more political than the Libby trial.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
With what we know now (and there was nothing new made public in these indictments that had not already be revealed in "Game Of Shadows") the evidance supporting conviction is weak.
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
This isn't a Duke Lacrosse case where the evidence was not only weak, but in fact favored complete innocence.
I am actually looking forward to seeing what kind of a doctor that Barry's defense digs up that will say that Barry's increase in shoe size and hat size aren't all that abnormal. As silly as it is, I am sure that will be presented at the trial as evidence that he at least took substances over a long enough period of time that he can't play the ignorance card.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
On the otherhand, you want to convict on your emotions of hatred before seeing what if any new evidance the Feds actually have.
Personally I think Barry used and knew he was using but the evidance of this does not reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" necessary for conviction. I also think Bill Clinton needs to go to jail for his simular lies before our judical system if Barry is to be jailed for making the same choice to try and protect himself from this "steroid" witch hunt that Clinton did from the "sex" witch hunt.
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
I am not convicting Barry of anything. I just know that beating federal raps is nearly impossible without egregious mistakes by the prosecution.
It's you guys who think that just because Barry has been an a-hole to everyone he's ever met it somehow discredits every person who says something bad about the guy.
I am just being a realest here. The feds wouldn't be going to trial if all they had was Kim Bell and "BB" on a piece of paper - despite what you guys want to believe.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Again, could I be wrong? Could there be more evidance that is convincing? Sure I could on both counts. But, again with all that has been leaked on this case I very much doubt it.
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 9:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
If he called you personally and apologized for those two things, would you forgive him and hope he doesn't go to jail?
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The truth behind this mysterious phrase
After a parallel investigation lasting five years, another crack Grand Jury probe has determined that Kwyjibo has been giving clandestine advice to the Williams family concerning what to do with Ted's recently severed head.
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by boonitez on Nov 15, 2007 6:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Anderson still has to talk for anything to happen. We'll see. There's two reasons that the indictment has happened now:
- Anderson has agreed to testify.
- The system isn't willing to waste anymore time sitting pat on a case they aren't winning.
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
- You have no idea what evidence the prosecution has at this time.
- Federal Cases very rarely ever go to trial with "weak" evidence.
And Vick's attorney couldn't wait to start his trial either.
by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
Boy I can't wait for that! >:(
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Bonds and Giambi
by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 8:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Track Record
But Barry has thumbed his nose at conventional behavior since, eh...um...er...his nativity, it seems.
I predict he fights it like a mother, remains his aloof and confident self, and wins this latest battle, too.
by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds and Giambi
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Much simplier than that
by wilriv21 on Nov 16, 2007 1:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Much simplier than that
by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2007 1:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Much simplier than that
Having an example of somebody who told the truth seems to shed no light on the situation, unless you are trying to prove a point about Bonds through Giambi or about Giambi through Bonds. And if that point is nothing more than that Bonds lied, well I don't think you needed the Giambi example to make it.
It was just a very strange comment for me. The logic that went into making it and my brain must not be on speaking terms.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I, for one,
Barry the person is not a very good person. At the very least he is an adulterer. A long-term adulterer.
So, while it would be a very sad thing for his children to be without their father, color me indifferent on whether he is convicted or not. If he's guilty, he should do the time.
by thehavenot on Nov 15, 2007 10:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
Okay, maybe if this one guy at the Vallejo Times-Herald does his self-righteous and nostalgic article (like he's done twice before), then I might make the effort. But mostly because he's local and because he likes to paint anybody who doesn't also hate Barry Bonds as some sort of sheep who might even be comlicit in Barry's crimes.
by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
If they prove his guilt then he is guilty (unless they manufactured evidence, which I won't speculate about). If they do not prove his guilt he is either not guilty and goes free or he is guilty and goes free. The latter option is not something that would make me angry because lying to a grand jury about steroid use is much further down the spectrum (Hi, PLU Tim!) towards stealing cookies than beating an infant to death with a baby bunny.
by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: I, for one,
I AM a fan of Bonds, and just can't get worked up about this either. Lying is definitely bad. Obstruction of Justice is bad. But this case never once caused me any mental anguish or other forms of pain. His skill set never made me or lost me one dime. And I've never heard any substantial evidence that what he may or may not have done actually hurt anyone else's major league career. So if he goes free, my life will continue. This isn't like a famous dude murdering his wife and her boyfriend. Very different set of circumstances.
by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bonds Indicted?
But...having some experience with the courts (on the good side, not as a defendant, ha), I can tell you that you DO NOT MESS AROUND with the legal system. You lie, you're going to get it, big time. So if he did, then he needs to get punished the way the rest of us would. If not, then good luck to him. The US Attorney's Office generally won't pursue anything if they think they can't get a conviction. So, based on what I've seen so far, he better get his ducks in a row, because he's going to need whatever help he can get.
by Van Smack on Nov 16, 2007 11:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 




















