Bonds Indicted

[wilson]

As usual, your semi-coherent torrent of words obfuscates your dodge. Do you approve of lying to federal grand juries, or not?

I don't really think it's a dodge...lying or not lying to the grand jury is basically immaterial to greybeard's point, which is that this is an attempt by the DOJ to divert attention from its own problems of corruption and untrustworthiness.
As for the remainder of greybeard's point (the bit about pro athletes being poor pawns of the scheming, diabolical owners), I'm not exactly jumping on board.

[greybeard]

As usual, your semi-coherent torrent of words obfuscates your dodge. Do you approve of lying to federal grand juries, or not?

What dodge are you talking about and why should I answer your question?

Did you approve of people refusing to answer questions and going to jail in the 50s before grand juries posed by prosecutors who wanted them to lie and out their colleagues as communists? Do you approve of the treatment of McDougal by prosecutors who gave her use immunity and promised not to prosecute her for her supposed role in Whitewater but only if she told them what they wanted to hear?

You can suppose all you want that that guy who went to jail rather than testify before a grand jury was taking a bullet for Bonds, but the reality is that you will never know. Never.

I believe that grand juries are misused much more than you can imagine. I believe that fervently. I have known innocent people, people who were exonerated without ever having to put an affirmative defense on, in very high profile cases, who were indicted in a laundry list of charges that were complete fabrications. One in particular, was convicted by the press and the media for over a year; the jury after a several month trial brought back an acquital on all charges after less than a day. Let me repeat that, less than a day. No, no one in the media to my knowledge ever said, "Oops, sorry about that," like at least some in the media did with regard to the Duke III, for all it did the Duke III.

Nope, this guy was railroaded for political purposes by one of the most visable prosecutors in the country who had zilch, nada, nothing for a case. The prosecutor in that case got an indictment on testimony that he knew was false. The rest of his case barely qualified as smoke and mirrors. So much for grand juries and people respecting them. The prosecutor subordined purjury and everyone on that jury knew it. Every last one of them.

Political prosecutions are wrong and I believe that this is one of them. The answer to your question is that I do not chose to answer. Sorry, you cannot make me. No immunity to grant and power to compel.

Now, for real, you answer this question. If the prosecutors had Balco dead to rights, and were not interested in prosecuting Bonds for having broken the law, then why did they need his testimony. Why did they put on this circus and grant him immunity and ask him questions that they pretend that they knew the answers to and were completely unnecessary to pursuing anyone that they were interested in pursuing?

If you provide a compelling answer to that question, I'll consider answering yours. Good luck!

[cato]

Why did they put on this circus and grant him immunity and ask him questions that they pretend that they knew the answers to and were completely unnecessary to pursuing anyone that they were interested in pursuing?

If you provide a compelling answer to that question, I'll consider answering yours. Good luck!

What make Bonds special? A number of ballplayers testified in exchange for immunity. Many of them admitted to using steriods, and when their testimony was leaked, they suffered the consequences in the court of public opinion. Bonds did not take the same route -- either because he didn't use steroids or because he didn't want to suffer the consequences of admitting to his steroid use.

If Barry Bonds lied when his peers told the truth, he did it in order to profit from his lies. If that's the case, I have no sympathy for the guy. There is a simple and complete defense to perjury: don't lie under oath.

[greybeard]

I don't really think it's a dodge...lying or not lying to the grand jury is basically immaterial to greybeard's point, which is that this is an attempt by the DOJ to divert attention from its own problems of corruption and untrustworthiness.
As for the remainder of greybeard's point (the bit about pro athletes being poor pawns of the scheming, diabolical owners), I'm not exactly jumping on board.

I don't think athletes, at least the stars, are anybody's pawns. In football, at least, I think that the littles are badly, badly, badly misused by the sport. I'm talking badly. Do I think that they are pawns. No. Do I think that owners should clean up the game on the field to make it safer, instead of running that thing on what was it, TNT, about FEAR, with guys like LT talking about going out to hurt people, you bettchya.

My point about steroid use in baseball is that the owners were complicitous. More than that, they were willing to pay second basemen in the multiple millions but only if they could jack out 15 homers and hit the ball hard in the gaps. If it took steroids, wink wink, well, if a tree falls in the forest . . . .

The guys who are hurt are not the guys in the bigs. They are the high school kids. Now, if the high school coaches, and the kids' parents can't stop them, and the price for being able to possibly hit 15 out will get you millions, who do you blame for the steroid use?

Bobby Bonds cannot possibly be the answer. Not possible, sorry. The second basemen who made a killing, that center fielder for the Orioles who all of a sudden went from hitting dust to jacking out 50, the owners, our permissive society, a communist conspiracy?

You chose. Me, I ain't blaming no one; I'm only glad my kid never could hit a fastball, much less a curve, and take comfort in his being a long and lanky soccer player, who is smart enough to avoid unnecessary contact even if it would strike "fear" in an opponent. He perfers to just outplay them.

I do not think that this prosecution will do a damn thing for anyone, except the league owners and Bud who, after sullying their hands and raking in the dough, get to keep the integrity of the game intact.

As for the records, I say like Mark Anthony, "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is off interred with their bones." Let's stop worshiping things past. When I was growing up, lots of kids liked memorizing the stuff on the backs of baseball cards; me, I liked flipping them. Also thought catching and throwing were the most fun things imaginable (never could hit). Still do.

[EarlJam]

...that center fielder for the Orioles who all of a sudden went from hitting dust to jacking out 50...?

That would be Brady Anderson. That year he hit more than 50 home runs is the only year Steroids should have been legal (in my humble black and oranged heart's opinion).

-EarlJam

[greybeard]

That would be Brady Anderson. That year he hit more than 50 home runs is the only year Steroids should have been legal (in my humble black and oranged heart's opinion).

-EarlJam

Saw him hit one at the one game I ever went to. Didn't see anything illegal about it myself. Get me immunity, and tickets to the Cornell game at Cameron, and I'll swear to it before anybody. Hey, I still got this way cool orange alpacha sweater, a V neck pullover, from high school days long ago. Puffy sleaves, way cool. For you EJ, I could do a good price.

[YmoBeThere]

My point about steroid use in baseball is that the owners were complicitous.

who do you blame for the steroid use?

Bobby Bonds cannot possibly be the answer. Not possible, sorry. The second basemen who made a killing, that center fielder for the Orioles who all of a sudden went from hitting dust to jacking out 50, the owners, our permissive society, a communist conspiracy?

Me, I ain't blaming no one;

Wow, a lot of words, but I am not certain what you said? And what the heck does it have to do with perjury charges against Barry Bonds?

None of what you have presented obviates the need for truthfulness in front of a federal grand jury. Simple, easy, and always true.

Also, just because you can't prosecute all the actors in a conspiracy, you shouldn't go after any? The main target of the federal probe was BALCO, not baseball itself. By perjuring himself, Bonds widened the probe to include himself.

Should the owners be reprimanded and punished for their complicity? The free market allows the individual to do so: don't watch baseball on TV, express your disapproval to the advertisers, don't attend a game, don't buy an XM satellite radio because they have the MLB games on there, etc.

If you are against everything, you stand for nothing.

[elvis14]

The main target of the federal probe was BALCO, not baseball itself. By perjuring himself, Bonds widened the probe to include himself.

No way. The federal probe was and is about Bonds. BALCO is just collateral damage. If Bonds told the truth, he would have gotten screwed by baseball and ESPN's court of public opinion (where he's already a loser). If he lies, he gets prosecuted as soon as they can dig up enough for an indictment. They are just pissed that they couldn't put it together before Bonds hit 756. Either way, the witch hunt for Bonds trudges forward.

What a ridiculous waste of our tax money! Let baseball change their rules and enforce them going forward.

[YmoBeThere]

No way. The federal probe was and is about Bonds. BALCO is just collateral damage.

Ummm....no.

"Barry Bonds testified on Dec. 4, 2003, before a federal grand jury in San Francisco that was investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative's distribution of steroids and other banned performance-enhancing drugs."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MN9CPRF7F.DTL

He only got more involved because his trainer was pushing the drugs...

[greybeard]

Wow, a lot of words, but I am not certain what you said? And what the heck does it have to do with perjury charges against Barry Bonds?

None of what you have presented obviates the need for truthfulness in front of a federal grand jury. Simple, easy, and always true.

Also, just because you can't prosecute all the actors in a conspiracy, you shouldn't go after any? The main target of the federal probe was BALCO, not baseball itself. By perjuring himself, Bonds widened the probe to include himself.

Should the owners be reprimanded and punished for their complicity? The free market allows the individual to do so: don't watch baseball on TV, express your disapproval to the advertisers, don't attend a game, don't buy an XM satellite radio because they have the MLB games on there, etc.

If you are against everything, you stand for nothing.

What I said was, the issue about steroid use, in my opinion, is a health issue--one that stems from the indemic use by pro baseball players, journeyman, who make multiple millions only because of the use of such drugs, and the effect such use and rewards have on aspiring teenage ballplayers.

None of them thinks they are going to be Barry Bonds and takes steroids at 15 on the chance that they will. Now, who is responsible, to blame, if you will, for such use. Pick em; it ain't Barry Bonds, in my opinion.

What does that have to do with the question you pose, whether it is ever just to lie before a grand jury? That's easy, nothing. That question was not in play in the post I was replying to.

You want my truthful and thoughtful answer to the latter question, see my response to Cato's insistance that I answer set forth above.

Is it ever just to use a grand jury for a political show--to present perjured testimony to a grand jury for such purposes? Does it happen? Yes!

If a guy sits in the slammer for over a year because he will not testify because he will be prosecuted for perjury unless he gives prosecutors the answers they want, is it safe to assume that when he finally gives them the answers they want that he is telling the truth? We are, after all, by your account talking about a drug dealer. He was biting the bullet to protect a client? Say what?

Nope, I ain't answering your question and your limp hide-the-pea game won't make me. I find the question, in context, irrelevant!

[greybeard]

What make Bonds special? A number of ballplayers testified in exchange for immunity. Many of them admitted to using steriods, and when their testimony was leaked, they suffered the consequences in the court of public opinion. Bonds did not take the same route -- either because he didn't use steroids or because he didn't want to suffer the consequences of admitting to his steroid use.

If Barry Bonds lied when his peers told the truth, he did it in order to profit from his lies. If that's the case, I have no sympathy for the guy. There is a simple and complete defense to perjury: don't lie under oath.

1. We know that the Feds decided to prosecute Bonds for perjury after they finally got the Balco guy to tell them what they wanted to hear.

2. We know that the Balco guy refused to answer their question and stayed in jail for more than a year before he cracked because he knew that if he testified but did not say what they wanted they'd throw the book at him for his drug dealing and obstruction, perjury, and who knows maybe a RICO thrown in, and try to put him away forever.

3. You presuppose that the Balco guy sat in jail all that time because he wanted to protect a client, Bonds. A drug dealer sitting in the slammer when he has a get-out-of-jail-free card to protect a drug user. That's rich. Possible, I suppose, but not my personal best guess, which, imo, is all it is and will ever be, a guess.

4. Real prosecutors don't rest cases that have no practical significance on "maybe" testimony. Politicos do, all the time. Read em and weep, so goes the Republic.

So, don't have no sympathy, weep for the system, which case you ain't been watchin lately is dangerously threatened. No, not just Nifong. There were 7 (I think that is the number) U.S. Attorneys fired because they refused to use their prosecutorial powers in service of partisan political pressures by high ranking Republican officials. People in the Justice department lied about it, the Attorney General himself to Congress. The Attorney General is under investigation by the IG for the Justice Department, Glen Fine, who I can tell you is above reproach and also the quickest thing you ever saw on a basketball court this side of A.I., just ask James Brown with whom he played, for lying to Congress for that very thing. If Glen brings a case it will not be based upon no testimony remotely in the same universe as the suspect testimony of that Balco guy. Bet on it.

You hearin me, the boyz who are indicting Barry Bonds work for a guy who was appointed to his position by the same guy who made Gonzales his Attorney General. This prosecution means nothing to anyone except the guys who wrote a book spelling out all the secret grand jury testimony against Bonds and who are preparing for a second printing as we speak. They are resting their case on testimony that they coerced.

These things trouble me. That you would have no sympathy for Bonds if he lied before the grand jury doesn't.

[allenmurray]

This whole steroid controversy has been and continues to be about Bonds breaking records that a bunch of old white guys hold near and dear to their hearts. .

Thats right! It is just a bunch of old white guys who rae angry that bonds is gong to break a record held by another white guy. What? Hank Aaron isn't white? Oh, never mind.

[Channing]

1. We know that the Feds decided to prosecute Bonds for perjury after they finally got the Balco guy to tell them what they wanted to hear.

2. We know that the Balco guy refused to answer their question and stayed in jail for more than a year before he cracked because he knew that if he testified but did not say what they wanted they'd throw the book at him for his drug dealing and obstruction, perjury, and who knows maybe a RICO thrown in, and try to put him away forever.

3. You presuppose that the Balco guy sat in jail all that time because he wanted to protect a client, Bonds. A drug dealer sitting in the slammer when he has a get-out-of-jail-free card to protect a drug user. That's rich. Possible, I suppose, but not my personal best guess, which, imo, is all it is and will ever be, a guess.

4. Real prosecutors don't rest cases that have no practical significance on "maybe" testimony. Politicos do, all the time. Read em and weep, so goes the Republic.

So, don't have no sympathy, weep for the system, which case you ain't been watchin lately is dangerously threatened. No, not just Nifong. There were 7 (I think that is the number) U.S. Attorneys fired because they refused to use their prosecutorial powers in service of partisan political pressures by high ranking Republican officials. People in the Justice department lied about it, the Attorney General himself to Congress. The Attorney General is under investigation by the IG for the Justice Department, Glen Fine, who I can tell you is above reproach and also the quickest thing you ever saw on a basketball court this side of A.I., just ask James Brown with whom he played, for lying to Congress for that very thing. If Glen brings a case it will not be based upon no testimony remotely in the same universe as the suspect testimony of that Balco guy. Bet on it.

You hearin me, the boyz who are indicting Barry Bonds work for a guy who was appointed to his position by the same guy who made Gonzales his Attorney General. This prosecution means nothing to anyone except the guys who wrote a book spelling out all the secret grand jury testimony against Bonds and who are preparing for a second printing as we speak. They are resting their case on testimony that they coerced.

These things trouble me. That you would have no sympathy for Bonds if he lied before the grand jury doesn't.

I assume the BALCO guy you are talking about is Greg Anderson, Bonds' trainer. He is the one who sat in jail. However, from every report that has come out, Anderson didn't flip. The feds made their case without him. Once they were able to indict bonds, they could no longer hold Anderson for being in contempt for failing to testify against Bonds and help indict him.

[JasonEvans]

First of all, I am stunned there are people who actually are defending Barry Bonds so strongly. I can see a difference of opinion about many things regarding baseball and steroids but this really has nothing to do with that. This is about Barry Bonds conduct before a grand jury.

It really never had occurred to me that folks could have a problem with the investigation into BALCO or that people thought the target of that investigation was Bonds. The facts behind the investigation make that allegation farcical. The way the BALCO investigation began had nothing to do with Bonds. The investigation was launched when a track coach informed the US Anti-Doping Agency that a special steroid existed that current tests could not detect. He provided them with a sample of that steroid and the USADA went to other government agencies (FDA, IRS, and FBI) to help figure out what was going on. The investigation began in the track and field world. It was only after grabbing a bunch of BALCO records that the investigators discovered Barry Bonds and his trainer Greg Anderson were connected to BALCO.

The notion that the grad jury was some kind of anti-Bonds witch hunt and that Barry had no choice but to lie to the GJ is also ludicrous. First of all, Bonds' testimony was supposed to be sealed and the two San Fran Chronicle reporters who published it were almost sent to prison over it. The lawyer who leaked the info is in a heap of trouble, facing $250k in fines and up to 2 years in prison for leaking the info. I am fairly sure he will be disbarred as well. If the prosecutors or anyone else wanted that info leaked, they sure are not showing it. It is also worth noting that the leaker is a former BALCO defense lawyer, someone who should have had an interest in protecting Bonds at least a little bit. So, it is not like the prosecutors took Barry's testimony and promptly faxed it to the nearest journalist.

Assuming Bonds did lie to the grand jury -- and there appears to be a fair amount of evidence showing that, including documentation that Barry knew he had failed steroid tests -- Barry's present problems are 100% the fault of Barry Bonds. Barry thought he could get away with lying and he found out that is not the case. When you go before a grand jury, you tell the truth. Period, end of story.

I think it is essential that juries be able to count on sworn-in witnesses to tell the truth. It is a major cornerstone of our ability to have a fair trial-by-jury system. If high profile people lie and it makes news, that is all the better as it teaches the general public that there is great peril in swearing an oath to tell the truth and then breaking that oath.

--Jason "Barry should have told the truth the first time-- better to be in trouble with baseball than with the feds" Evans

[billybreen]

First of all, I am stunned there are people who actually are defending Barry Bonds so strongly. I can see a difference of opinion about many things regarding baseball and steroids but this really has nothing to do with that. This is about Barry Bonds conduct before a grand jury.

It really never had occurred to me that folks could have a problem with the investigation into BALCO or that people thought the target of that investigation was Bonds. The facts behind the investigation make that allegation farcical. The way the BALCO investigation began had nothing to do with Bonds. The investigation was launched when a track coach informed the US Anti-Doping Agency that a special steroid existed that current tests could not detect. He provided them with a sample of that steroid and the USADA went to other government agencies (FDA, IRS, and FBI) to help figure out what was going on. The investigation began in the track and field world. It was only after grabbing a bunch of BALCO records that the investigators discovered Barry Bonds and his trainer Greg Anderson were connected to BALCO.

The notion that the grad jury was some kind of anti-Bonds witch hunt and that Barry had no choice but to lie to the GJ is also ludicrous. First of all, Bonds' testimony was supposed to be sealed and the two San Fran Chronicle reporters who published it were almost sent to prison over it. The lawyer who leaked the info is in a heap of trouble, facing $250k in fines and up to 2 years in prison for leaking the info. I am fairly sure he will be disbarred as well. If the prosecutors or anyone else wanted that info leaked, they sure are not showing it. It is also worth noting that the leaker is a former BALCO defense lawyer, someone who should have had an interest in protecting Bonds at least a little bit. So, it is not like the prosecutors took Barry's testimony and promptly faxed it to the nearest journalist.

Assuming Bonds did lie to the grand jury -- and there appears to be a fair amount of evidence showing that, including documentation that Barry knew he had failed steroid tests -- Barry's present problems are 100% the fault of Barry Bonds. Barry thought he could get away with lying and he found out that is not the case. When you go before a grand jury, you tell the truth. Period, end of story.

I think it is essential that juries be able to count on sworn-in witnesses to tell the truth. It is a major cornerstone of our ability to have a fair trial-by-jury system. If high profile people lie and it makes news, that is all the better as it teaches the general public that there is great peril in swearing an oath to tell the truth and then breaking that oath.

--Jason "Barry should have told the truth the first time-- better to be in trouble with baseball than with the feds" Evans

OMG thank you!

[wilson]

Assuming Bonds did lie to the grand jury -- and there appears to be a fair amount of evidence showing that, including documentation that Barry knew he had failed steroid tests -- Barry's present problems are 100% the fault of Barry Bonds. Barry thought he could get away with lying and he found out that is not the case. When you go before a grand jury, you tell the truth. Period, end of story.

--Jason "Barry should have told the truth the first time-- better to be in trouble with baseball than with the feds" Evans

I completely agree with you, and I have been among those who have questioned the investigation's spirit in this thread. Bonds is a cheat and a liar, and it is biting him in the I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. before our very eyes. My beef with the investigation is the same that I have with the Clinton impeachment saga: I'm not so sure so much time and money should have been invested in all of this to begin with. Bonds should pay the price for lying once the cards were on the table, but I don't think it should have gone this far. I really think the feds have bigger fish to fry.

[YmoBeThere]

Bonds will likely pay the price for lying...not knowing what illegal activity is going on out there, not sure we can know if there is or is not bigger fish to fry. Again, they started out and got to BALCO. This is an offshoot of that effort.