Barry Bonds- Gullty of 'Obstruction'

[kelpdiver 2]

uh, how is he guilty of one, and not the other? Seems like an all or nothing deal.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

And 'Obstruction' is...uh....um....I have no idea.

It's pretty simple, really. You have the right to not incriminate yourself, which means the right to invoke your fifth amendment rights and then shut the fuck up. You do not have the right to lie so as to deliberately misdirect investigators.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

'Obstruction' is apparently equivalent to 'I was less than completely cooperative' since no one likes being bullied.

However I said this years ago- why say anything at all?
'Oh, don't take the fifth! they'll assume you're guilty!'

they were given immunity by the grand jury, and a bullshit promise that the testimony would be kept secret. So taking the 5th may not be an option, and it certainly would be obstruction.

Reality is that the grand jury leaked everything they got, so telling the truth got you burned too.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Hopefully he gets house arrest.

What the fuck you talkin' 'bout Willis?
Black people don't get house arrest.

[DougH 270]

So how much money are is the prosecution spending on this trial, and the impending re-trial of Barry Bonds.

The courts don't run on happy thoughts and puppy farts. Every trial costs dinero, seems like a pretty big waste of resources!

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[beowulf 1]

uhh how can you say Marion Jones did nothing illegal?

Crack cocaine is still illegal and has been for a long time.

Martha Stewart I can understand.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

uh, how is he guilty of one, and not the other? Seems like an all or nothing deal.

It's the difference between a direct lie under oath (which is perjury), and a deliberately misleading non-answer answer under oath (which is one form of obstruction of justice).

Example: Let's say you drank alcohol at a certain party. Now the question put to you while under oath in a Federal proceeding is: "Did you drink alcohol at that party?"
- If you answer "Yes", you've told the truth.
- If you "take the Fifth", i.e., refuse to answer on grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate you, you're within the law, but you might wind up ruining your reputation.
- If you answer, "No", you've committed perjury.
- If you answer, "I don't recall", you might get away with it, but if a jury later decides that you did in fact recall, but lied about your lack of recollection, it could convict you of perjury.
- If you answer, "My momma taught me never to drink in front of pretty girls", then you've obstructed justice, because even though that non-responsive answer was not a direct lie, your intent was to mislead the recipient as to the truth of the matter inquired about.

The military academies' honor codes have a similar provision: "Quibbling". A cadet is prohibited from lying. But if a cadet gives an evasive answer to a question, even if it's technically not a direct lie, that deliberate evasion, called "quibbling", is deemed to be tantamount to a lie under the honor code.

By the way, the jury did not exonerate him of perjury. They were deadlocked, meaning some thought he was guilty, while others thought there was reasonable doubt, and they were at impasse, so the judge declared a mistrial on that charge. The government does have the option, if it chooses, to re-try Bonds on the mis-tried charges.

[Southern_Man 0]

Here are the statements that led to the Obstruction charges:

Statement A

Q: Let me move on to a different topic. And I think you've testified to this. But I want to make sure it's crystal clear. Every time you got the flax seed oil and the cream, did you get it in person from Greg?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that fair?

A: Yes.

Q: And where would you typically get it? Where would you guys be when he would hand it to you generally?

A In front of my locker, sitting in my chair.

Q: Did he ever come to your home and give it to you?

A: Oh, no, no, no. It was always at the ballpark.

Statement B

Q: ...Do you remember how often he recommended to you about, approximately, that you take this cream, this lotion?

A: I can't recall. I don't -- I wish I could. I just can't ... I just know it wasn't often. I just think it was more when I was exhausted or tired than like a regular regimen. You know, it was like if I was really sore or something, really tired...that's -- that's -- that's all I can remember about that.

Q: ... would you say it was more or less often or about the same as the amount of times you took the liquid, the flax seed oil, the thing you understood to be flax seed oil?

A: I don't know. I never kept track of that stuff. I'm sorry. I didn't sit there and monitor that stuff.

Statement C

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?

A: I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don't get into each others' personal lives. We're friends, but I don't -- we don't sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don't want -- don't come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we'll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don't talk about his business. You know what I mean? ...

Q: Right.

A: That's what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that -- you know, that -- I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see...

Statement D

Q: Did Greg ever give you testosterone in injectable form for you to take?

A: No.

Q: Would you have taken it if he gave it to you?

A: He wouldn't jeopardize our friendship that way.

Q: And why would that -- you're very clear that that would jeopardize your friendship. Why would that jeopardize your friendship?

A: Greg is a good guy. You know, this kid is a great kid. He has a child.

Q: Mm-hmm.

A: Greg is -- Greg has nothing, man. You know what I mean? Guy lives in his car half the time, he lives with his girlfriend, rents a room so he can be with his kid, you know? His ex takes his kid away from him every single five minutes. He's not that type of person. This is the same guy that goes over to our friend's mom's house and massages her leg because she has cancer and she swells up every night for months. Spends time next to my dad rubbing his feet every night. Our friendship is a little bit different.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's the difference between a direct lie under oath (which is perjury), and a deliberately misleading non-answer answer under oath (which is one form of obstruction of justice).

He made clear statements like never knowingly taken steroids. These weren't non answers, though he apparently did a lot of Grandpa Simpson story telling too.

It sounds like the deadlocked jury got tired of it all and those who were inclined to acquit said "fuck it" and let the obstruction one go through.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

uhh how can you say Marion Jones did nothing illegal?

Crack cocaine is still illegal and has been for a long time.

Martha Stewart I can understand.

How can you understand Martha Stewart? Her own greed drove her to break the law. She knew, she would be breaking the law and did it any way. She's a phony (claimed for years she was from New England and was really from New Jersey). Is her 'white collar' crime different from the blue collar crime of selling dope? Is this another case of someone being 'excused' because they are wealthy? The law is the law. A road-kill toad has more class than Martha Stewart.


Chuck

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

uhh how can you say Marion Jones did nothing illegal?

Crack cocaine is still illegal and has been for a long time.

Martha Stewart I can understand.

How can you understand Martha Stewart? Her own greed drove her to break the law. She knew, she would be breaking the law and did it any way. She's a phony (claimed for years she was from New England and was really from New Jersey). Is her 'white collar' crime different from the blue collar crime of selling dope? Is this another case of someone being 'excused' because they are wealthy? The law is the law. A road-kill toad has more class than Martha Stewart.


Chuck

Well I don't know too much about that case, but since it's a white collar crime I can understand how some people might think it's not that big of deal or that she was wrongfully accused. This doesn't mean I feel that way. I really don't have an opinion either way, she broke the rules got caught and went to prison.

Now Marion Jones was caught on tape smoking crack. No ambiguity there!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now Marion Jones was caught on tape smoking crack. No ambiguity there!

which while bad for her health, it probably didn't hurt any others. But when you win via insider training, someone(s) else loses. It's a zero sum event. And every insider trading scandal that comes out discourages market participation, which hurts all investors and the economy overall. (see where I'm going - we need to have her hung as an American traitor!)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Now Marion Jones was caught on tape smoking crack. No ambiguity there!

Really? Where?

AFAIK Marion Jones was sent to prison for 6 months for perjury about performance enhancing drugs in the same BALCO investigation that led to the Bonds charges.

I believe her ex-boyfriend, Tim Montgomery, went to jail on some bad check/fraud/embezzlement charges which may have had something to do with drugs but I can't remember the details.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[beowulf 1]

Ah, sorry about that I was thinking of Marion Barry, the DC Mayor.

Just googled Marion Jones, never even heard of her.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

It's the difference between a direct lie under oath (which is perjury), and a deliberately misleading non-answer answer under oath (which is one form of obstruction of justice).

He made clear statements like never knowingly taken steroids. These weren't non answers, though he apparently did a lot of Grandpa Simpson story telling too.

It sounds like the deadlocked jury got tired of it all and those who were inclined to acquit said "fuck it" and let the obstruction one go through.

Very likely. It would be fairly typical of the very personality-dynamic process of which jury deliberations are made.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

uhh how can you say Marion Jones did nothing illegal?

Crack cocaine is still illegal and has been for a long time.

Martha Stewart I can understand.

How can you understand Martha Stewart? Her own greed drove her to break the law. She knew, she would be breaking the law and did it any way. She's a phony (claimed for years she was from New England and was really from New Jersey). Is her 'white collar' crime different from the blue collar crime of selling dope? Is this another case of someone being 'excused' because they are wealthy? The law is the law. A road-kill toad has more class than Martha Stewart.


Chuck

Well I don't know too much about that case, but since it's a white collar crime I can understand how some people might think it's not that big of deal or that she was wrongfully accused. This doesn't mean I feel that way. I really don't have an opinion either way, she broke the rules got caught and went to prison.

Now Marion Jones was caught on tape smoking crack. No ambiguity there!

Now, I see where you're coming from. It just seems to me that if a person has fame and fortune, they always get-off with the wink and a slap on the hand. I think, I became a bit blinded by that thought, in my response. They can work deals and get charges dropped or reduced to nothing.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

The insider trading and SEC charges were all dropped. An interesting write up by Cato on the 'obstruction' charges.

The last four paragraphs are interesting

[masterrig 1]

I think, Major League Baseball should strip him of all the home runs he got while 'juiced'.


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think, Major League Baseball should strip him of all the home runs he got while 'juiced'.

he was convicted of obstructing justice, not juicing. If the sentence were any bigger, I'd expect him to fight it, but for this pittance, maybe he'll laugh it to the couch.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I think, Major League Baseball should strip him of all the home runs he got while 'juiced'.

he was convicted of obstructing justice, not juicing. If the sentence were any bigger, I'd expect him to fight it, but for this pittance, maybe he'll laugh it to the couch.

Right. Emotional response on my part. I guess, it irritates me that someone can get away with what he did and comes-out a hero with a slap on the hand.
As they say, it is what it is.


Chuck

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The hall of fame balloting will be interesting.

[masterrig 1]

You got that right.
If and when he gets turned-down, I wonder if, he'l put-up a fuss like Pete Rose did?


Chuck