Bonds facing new charges

[Leonard Zelig]

Link

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24604289/

 

Barry Bonds was charged in a new indictment Tuesday with 15 felony counts alleging he lied to a grand jury when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs and that he hampered the federal government’s doping investigation.

 

The career home run leader originally was indicted in November by a federal grand jury on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

 

Following a motion by Bonds’ lawyers to dismiss the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in February ordered prosecutors to rewrite the indictment because multiple alleged lies were lumped into single charges.

 

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

I like Barry. If he gets snagged and the other cheaters don't, then it's a shame. It puzzles me (no it doesn't) how the legal spotlight shines on Bonds and Rog.

[witesoxfan]

I like Barry. If he gets snagged and the other cheaters don't, then it's a shame. It puzzles me (no it doesn't) how the legal spotlight shines on Bonds and Rog.

 

Yeah it's really not puzzling at all.

 

I mean, what player reflects more on the history of baseball, Jorge Piedra, Ricky Bones, or Barry Bonds?

[southsider2k5]

Yeah it's really not puzzling at all.

 

I mean, what player reflects more on the history of baseball, Jorge Piedra, Ricky Bones, or Barry Bonds?

 

Not to mention the Nixonian mistake of the cover up being worse than the crime. No one would be bothering the guy if he had told the truth.... I don't know .... at all? America is a funny place. Do the crime, but if you tearfully admit to it, they mostly forgive you. Boldface lie to our faces, and we want blood.

[Soxbadger]

No its because the govt gave Bonds immunity and he refused to play their game.

 

He didnt believe that the grand jury testimony would be secret, and therefore if he told the truth it would be leaked.

 

The govt promised Barry that it would be secret and there would be no way anything said could be revealed.

 

Funny how that worked, I swear there was some book of shadows thing.

[Texsox]

The bigger the name, the bigger the accomplishments, the bigger the denials, the bigger the hubris, the bigger the target.

[Texsox]

No its because the govt gave Bonds immunity and he refused to play their game.

 

He didnt believe that the grand jury testimony would be secret, and therefore if he told the truth it would be leaked.

 

The govt promised Barry that it would be secret and there would be no way anything said could be revealed.

 

Funny how that worked, I swear there was some book of shadows thing.

No, it's because he used drugs. No drugs and none of this happens.

[StrangeSox]

No, it's because he used drugs. No drugs and none of this happens.

 

That may be the catalyst of the whole thing, but the charges are because he perjured himself to the grand jury. If he doesn't lie, then there's nothing to charge him with. How someone could defend perjury and blame it on a book is beyond me.

[Texsox]

That may be the catalyst of the whole thing, but the charges are because he perjured himself to the grand jury. If he doesn't lie, then there's nothing to charge him with. How someone could defend perjury and blame it on a book is beyond me.

 

Celebrity status buys you many things in America. If you can kill, why not shoot up? Betty Ford clinic was a career move for some people. Rappers get street cred. Bad behavior sells. An all-drug league would outsell a no-drug league for fans. Well, at the minimum the TV ratings would be higher for 600 ft HRs and 103 mph fastballs then "clean" play.

[jackie hayes]

That may be the catalyst of the whole thing, but the charges are because he perjured himself to the grand jury. If he doesn't lie, then there's nothing to charge him with. How someone could defend perjury and blame it on a book is beyond me.

 

Exactly. You look at the people involved in the BALCO case, and many of them admitted that they knowingly took steroids. The ones who lied about it, and against whom strong cases could be built, got indicted. The rest didn't. The idea that they're targeting big names is a joke, unless I'm unaware of the huge Tammy Thomas following which dwarfs Gary Sheffield's.

[Soxbadger]

Well because I dont agree with Grand Jury's.

 

The entire premise of the Grand Jury is that it is supposed to be secret, so secret that the information is never to be seen by the public. Because of the "secretiveness" you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment protection of not incriminating yourself.

 

Thus Bonds was in a catch-22.

 

He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished.

 

Or, he could deny it, and let the govt prove him wrong.

 

Its easy to say that "Oh if only he told the truth." But that simply does not assess the situation of a grand jury and being forced to testify without 5th amendment protection. The facts are the govt promised that it would be secret, the only reason you dont get 5th amendment protection is because it should be secret.

 

So please dont say that I defended perjury, I attacked the Grand Jury proceeding and showed that it is no longer "secret" and therefore Bonds should have had 5th amendment protections.

 

If Bonds pleads the 5th, he never is charged with perjury either. Just he is not allowed to plead the 5th in a grand jury proceeding, if he does not testify he can be sent to jail. The only reason that our judicial system allows this is because grand juries are supposed to be entirely sealed and secret.

 

/shrugs

 

But maybe people on the board think its fair that Bonds was forced to testify, promised that no matter what nothing he said would ever be released to the public and then have the transcripts released.

 

To me, that just goes against our entire judicial system and process. If the govt makes a deal predicated on a fact, and that fact is not true, then they should not be able to hold the other party to that same deal.

 

Now, if the transcripts are never released and Bonds perjured, it would be an entirely different fact pattern.

 

But as the facts are, he was right that the testimony would not be kept secret, and therefore right in his refusal to play by their rules.

 

Why should Bonds have to follow the rules when the govt doesnt?

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished.

I'm not sure where you have been, but, I believe that train left the station a long time ago.

 

[Texsox]

Well because I dont agree with Grand Jury's.

 

The entire premise of the Grand Jury is that it is supposed to be secret, so secret that the information is never to be seen by the public. Because of the "secretiveness" you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment protection of not incriminating yourself.

 

Thus Bonds was in a catch-22.

 

He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished.

 

Or, he could deny it, and let the govt prove him wrong.

 

Its easy to say that "Oh if only he told the truth." But that simply does not assess the situation of a grand jury and being forced to testify without 5th amendment protection. The facts are the govt promised that it would be secret, the only reason you dont get 5th amendment protection is because it should be secret.

 

So please dont say that I defended perjury, I attacked the Grand Jury proceeding and showed that it is no longer "secret" and therefore Bonds should have had 5th amendment protections.

 

If Bonds pleads the 5th, he never is charged with perjury either. Just he is not allowed to plead the 5th in a grand jury proceeding, if he does not testify he can be sent to jail. The only reason that our judicial system allows this is because grand juries are supposed to be entirely sealed and secret.

 

/shrugs

 

But maybe people on the board think its fair that Bonds was forced to testify, promised that no matter what nothing he said would ever be released to the public and then have the transcripts released.

 

To me, that just goes against our entire judicial system and process. If the govt makes a deal predicated on a fact, and that fact is not true, then they should not be able to hold the other party to that same deal.

 

Now, if the transcripts are never released and Bonds perjured, it would be an entirely different fact pattern.

 

But as the facts are, he was right that the testimony would not be kept secret, and therefore right in his refusal to play by their rules.

 

Why should Bonds have to follow the rules when the govt doesnt?

 

Why should Bonds follow the rules? Wow.

 

You really do not know why someone should follow the rules?

[jackie hayes]

Well because I dont agree with Grand Jury's.

 

The entire premise of the Grand Jury is that it is supposed to be secret, so secret that the information is never to be seen by the public. Because of the "secretiveness" you are not allowed to use the 5th amendment protection of not incriminating yourself.

 

Thus Bonds was in a catch-22.

 

He could testify the truth, have it revealed and have his legacy tarnished.

 

Or, he could deny it, and let the govt prove him wrong.

 

Its easy to say that "Oh if only he told the truth." But that simply does not assess the situation of a grand jury and being forced to testify without 5th amendment protection. The facts are the govt promised that it would be secret, the only reason you dont get 5th amendment protection is because it should be secret.

 

So please dont say that I defended perjury, I attacked the Grand Jury proceeding and showed that it is no longer "secret" and therefore Bonds should have had 5th amendment protections.

 

If Bonds pleads the 5th, he never is charged with perjury either. Just he is not allowed to plead the 5th in a grand jury proceeding, if he does not testify he can be sent to jail. The only reason that our judicial system allows this is because grand juries are supposed to be entirely sealed and secret.

 

/shrugs

 

But maybe people on the board think its fair that Bonds was forced to testify, promised that no matter what nothing he said would ever be released to the public and then have the transcripts released.

 

To me, that just goes against our entire judicial system and process. If the govt makes a deal predicated on a fact, and that fact is not true, then they should not be able to hold the other party to that same deal.

 

Now, if the transcripts are never released and Bonds perjured, it would be an entirely different fact pattern.

 

But as the facts are, he was right that the testimony would not be kept secret, and therefore right in his refusal to play by their rules.

 

Why should Bonds have to follow the rules when the govt doesnt?

Sigh... As many times as this debate happens, you continue to misrepresent the facts. It's sad.

 

The government did not release the transcript until he was charged with perjury. At that point, it's part of the evidence against him, and he knew that those were "the rules". If you mean the leak, we know that the government did not do that. So whatever you meant, you're wrong.

 

I wish just once you'd try to win this argument without lying through your teeth.

[Soxbadger]

Northside,

 

He didnt know that would happen when he was testifying before the Grand Jury. The govt told him that the transcripts were to be sealed.

 

It was only later that the transcripts were revealed.

 

Texsox,

 

I dont think that Bonds should have to follow the rules in this instance. But then again I am against the entire Grand Jury system so thats just my personal opinion. I dont believe that Grand Juries do what they are supposed to, they are supposed to make it so that people arent accused of crimes until they have sufficient evidence. The problem is that now people think of a Grand Jury as just a precursor to conviction. They dont realize that a Grand Jury Indictment can use hearsay evidence, that Bonds could not present exculpatory evidence, that cross examination is not allowed.

 

But once again, that is my own personal opinion of the Grand Jury. The entire point of the Grand Jury is to prevent people from being accused of crimes before their is sufficient evidence, in this case all the Grand Jury has done is allowed people to be accused of crimes without having the chance to defend themselves.

 

Jackie,

 

Whats sad is you continue to make arguments Ive never said:

 

The government did not release the transcript until he was charged with perjury. At that point, it's part of the evidence against him, and he knew that those were "the rules". If you mean the leak, we know that the government did not do that. So whatever you meant, you're wrong.

 

Where did I say the govt released the transcripts?

 

There was a leak, the govt could have stopped it. They could have prevented the book from being published, or at worst they could have asked for a restraining order preventing the sections of the grand jury testimony from being released.

 

The United States govt did nothing, doing nothing is the same as acquiescing to conduct.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAGPRO4RVR3.DTL

 

Just so you cant say I dont know the facts I linked the article where it clearly says that an attorney leaked it. If you can find me any information on the govt trying to prevent the release of the grand jury transcripts that would be great. But all i can find is where they after the fact they decide to prosecute.

 

/shrugs

 

Once again, I dont believe that a grand jury is ever fair to some one who is testifying. If there is a serious concern of a leak and you tell something that is self incriminating you may never get another chance to undo that damage.

 

You can argue all day and night, but no one is going to change my opinion on the fairness of a grand jury and that Bonds should have had 5th amendment protection.

 

Unless you have an argument for why he didnt deserve 5th amendment protection? (Outside of it was a grand jury proceeding and those are the rules.)

[jackie hayes]

"There was a leak, the govt could have stopped it. They could have prevented the book from being published, or at worst they could have asked for a restraining order preventing the sections of the grand jury testimony from being released."

 

Wrong again. The government never promised that it would never be leaked, because they can't promise that. That's an impossibility. What they promised is that they would not release it and that anyone who did release it would be prosecuted. Which is exactly what happened. They did not promise to be gods and control the actions of third parties.

 

The 5th amendment protects against LEGAL self-incrimination. It does not allow you to refuse to make statements that could embarrass you. Once the threat of LEGAL prosecution is lifted, the 5th amendment simply does not apply. So Bonds was obligated to testify. The most you can say is that the government put Bonds in an awkward position. But they have no obligation to avoid that, so it was perfectly fair -- it was WELL within "the rules". Them's the breaks.

 

And the government could not stop the publication of the transcripts because the journalists were not committing a crime in the publication of the material. This is a basic freedom of the press issue, and it's yet another topic that has been covered before in these sorts of threads.

[Texsox]

Texsox,

 

I dont think that Bonds should have to follow the rules

 

Obviously.

[YASNY]

Obviously.

 

Bonds felt the same way.

[Texsox]

Bonds felt the same way.

Buuuut Moooooooom! ALLLLL THE OTHER KIDS ARE DOING IT!!!!!!!

[Mplssoxfan]

They could have prevented the book from being published, or at worst they could have asked for a restraining order preventing the sections of the grand jury testimony from being released.

Unless I missed some new case law, this statement is demonstrably false. I'm fairly certain that the precedent against prior restraint is well settled, but if you can prove me wrong, please do.