NationStates Jolt Archive

Five charges (4 perjury counts, 1 OoJ) have been leveled against Major League Baseball's homerun king, pertaining to his testimony previously.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/15/bonds.indicted/index.html

I say it's about time, and a shame they didn't tag him earlier.

Although I can already see what defense he's gonna take, the famed "White folks going after a successful black athlete!" defense that OJ Simpson pioneered.

about time. *crosses fingers for a conviction* think they'll make him share a cell with O.J?

Bonds deserves what's coming to him.

free agency signing chances drop precipitously now

free agency signing chances drop precipitously now

Hall of Fame chances approaching 0.

yeah I've just about had enough of the "I didn't know I was being given steroids"

Rolling squid;13219305']about time. *crosses fingers for a conviction* think they'll make him share a cell with O.J?

to be fair, what bonds did is no where near the magnitude of what OJ did

..."think you can steal my shit?"

Five charges (4 perjury counts, 1 OoJ) have been leveled against Major League Baseball's homerun king, pertaining to his testimony previously.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/15/bonds.indicted/index.html

I say it's about time, and a shame they didn't tag him earlier.

Although I can already see what defense he's gonna take, the famed "White folks going after a successful black athlete!" defense that OJ Simpson pioneered.

Hopefully if/when he's convicted, he gets stripped of the home run record, so it gets returned to Hank Aaron.

Bonds deserves what's coming to him.

He faces 30 years in prison for lying about either/both A) Cheating in a game, B) Doing a controlled substance.

That is what he deserves?

He faces 30 years in prison for lying about either/both A) Cheating in a game, B) Doing a controlled substance.

That is what he deserves?

He could have lied about anything and he would still be doing 30 years. The game has nothing to do with it.

Click Stand;13219473']He could have lied about anything and he would still be doing 30 years. The game has nothing to do with it.

It has a lot to do with whether the government has any business forcing the truth out of him.

It has a lot to do with whether the government has any business forcing the truth out of him.

If he is testifying in front of a grand jury ... probably...

It has a lot to do with whether the government has any business forcing the truth out of him.

I don't understand what you are getting at, but if you are called to testify/whatever and you lie then I don't see why they can't force the truth out of him.

Click Stand;13219494']I don't understand what you are getting at, but if you are called to testify/whatever and you lie then I don't see why they can't force the truth out of him.

Like the McCarthy communists?

Like the McCarthy communists?

Okay, now I have no idea what you are talking about, but answer me this:
Are you saying that people should be able to lie on the stand and have no threat of repercussions?

Hopefully if/when he's convicted, he gets stripped of the home run record, so it gets returned to Hank Aaron.

I think the only thing that's going to happen to Barry Bonds is that- at worst- he'll be banned from baseball (like Pete Rose is). His records won't be taken away from him because, as I understand it, steroids were not illegal (or declared so, anyway) when he was accused of taking them (in 2001). Anyway, Bonds still has to be convicted, but considering it's a federal indictment, the chances are pretty high (as I understand it).

If Bonds is banned, baseball will have the curious distinction of having record holders in the top hitting categories (Rose having the most hits, Bonds the most home runs) ineligible for the Hall of Fame. How's *that* for a black mark?

I think the only thing that's going to happen to Barry Bonds is that- at worst- he'll be banned from baseball (like Pete Rose is). His records won't be taken away from him because, as I understand it, steroids were not illegal (or declared so, anyway) when he was accused of taking them (in 2001). Anyway, Bonds still has to be convicted, but considering it's a federal indictment, the chances are pretty high (as I understand it).

If Bonds is banned, baseball will have the curious distinction of having record holders in the top hitting categories (Rose having the most hits, Bonds the most home runs) ineligible for the Hall of Fame. How's *that* for a black mark?

The distinction needs to be made that steroids were not tested for in the game, that doesn't mean they were legal. Another point is that regardless of their league status, they are a controlled substance and illegal in the US without a prescription.

Click Stand;13219521']Okay, now I have no idea what you are talking about, but answer me this:
Are you saying that people should be able to lie on the stand and have no threat of repercussions?

No, I am saying that government should not force people to release information that is none of the government's business.

This was a congressional feel-good witch hunt, and Bonds had no moral obligation to offer up information as to whether he used steroids.

I think the only thing that's going to happen to Barry Bonds is that- at worst- he'll be banned from baseball (like Pete Rose is). His records won't be taken away from him because, as I understand it, steroids were not illegal (or declared so, anyway) when he was accused of taking them (in 2001). Anyway, Bonds still has to be convicted, but considering it's a federal indictment, the chances are pretty high (as I understand it).

If Bonds is banned, baseball will have the curious distinction of having record holders in the top hitting categories (Rose having the most hits, Bonds the most home runs) ineligible for the Hall of Fame. How's *that* for a black mark?
"Charlie Hustle" for the Hall!!!!!!!!

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/CharlieHustle-X.gif

The distinction needs to be made that steroids were not tested for in the game, that doesn't mean they were legal. Another point is that regardless of their league status, they are a controlled substance and illegal in the US without a prescription.

I'm dealing more with the technicalities surrounding the home run record- I understand that steroids are illegal under U.S. law. However, if baseball itself didn't ban steroid use in 2001 (when Bonds is alleged to have taken them) then baseball would have no grounds to remove the record from him because, in Major League Baseball's eyes, he did nothing wrong. They could- presumably- ban Bonds from baseball if he's convicted of his crimes (much the same way they did with Pete Rose and the gambling), which would make him ineligible for Cooperstown, but that's about it.

Think of it this way- Michael Vick's statistics aren't wiped from the NFL record books so why would Bonds' be?

No, I am saying that government should not force people to release information that is none of the government's business.

This was a congressional feel-good witch hunt, and Bonds had no moral obligation to offer up information as to whether he used steroids.

It was the governments business. He was performing an illegal act, he had the moral obligation to report his wrong doings to the government. He had no legal obligation to say whether he used steroids or not however. I never said how they got the lies was alright, but once they have them then the appropriate sentence is 30 years.

They should give Bond's records to Fred Goldman.

Hopefully if/when he's convicted, he gets stripped of the home run record, so it gets returned to Hank Aaron.

And who knows what Aaron was on. Also, wern't parks smaller back then?

Think of it this way- Michael Vick's statistics aren't wiped from the NFL record books so why would Bonds' be?

Michael Vicks' illegal activities did not promote his success in the game of basketball. There is every evidence to point out that Barry Bonds' illegal activities DID add to his success.

As for the legality, in November 1990, steroids were classified as a "controlled dangerous substance". In 1991, a memo was allegedly issued by the baseball commissioner to the MLB stating ""The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited ... [and those players involved] are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game."

Click Stand;13219631']It was the governments business. He was performing an illegal act, he had the moral obligation to report his wrong doings to the government. He had no legal obligation to say whether he used steroids or not however. I never said how they got the lies was alright, but once they have them then the appropriate sentence is 30 years.

Suppose Mississippi charges a man for engaging in sodomy. They then haul him to court and ask him if he had anal sex with another man. He replies no, but videotape evidence shows up proving he did it.

Should he go to jail for thirty years?

Suppose Mississippi charges a man for engaging in sodomy. They then haul him to court and ask him if he had anal sex with another man. He replies no, but videotape evidence shows up proving he did it.

Should he go to jail for thirty years?

Why would he lie about that? How could that get into court?

With BB he was taking an illegal substance and had real charges against him. He could have chosen not to testify, he did and lied. I don't see what else there is to it.

Michael Vicks' illegal activities did not promote his success in the game of basketball. There is every evidence to point out that Barry Bonds' illegal activities DID add to his success.

As for the legality, in November 1990, steroids were classified as a "controlled dangerous substance". In 1991, a memo was allegedly issued by the baseball commissioner to the MLB stating ""The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited ... [and those players involved] are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game."

Are you kidding me? Michael Vick doesn't play basketball, he plays (American) football. The post you quoted even said NFL, how does that translate to the NBA? If you don't know that much, how can I trust your second paragraph?

In any case, I could care less what happens, I don't really give a shit about baseball. But I do think it would be unfair if he had to go in for thirty years.

Click Stand;13219699']Why would he lie about that? How could that get into court?

With BB he was taking an illegal substance and had real charges against him. He could have chosen not to testify, he did and lied. I don't see what else there is to it.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/mississippi.htm

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/mississippi.htm

Wow, I had never known. I guess I'm never going to Mississippi. If the guy agreed to testify then he should be tried for perjury. Next time he should have gotten better council.

Hall of Fame chances approaching 0.


Both the HR king (Bonds) and all-time hits leader (Rose) will not be in Cooperstown. Now we just need to fish up dirt on Cy Young and we have the trifecta.

He faces 30 years in prison for lying about either/both A) Cheating in a game, B) Doing a controlled substance.

That is what he deserves?

If he lied under oath or broke the rules of the league and lied about it, or any other possible charge, then yes. He should not be immune from "justice" just because he has money.

Ahhh nooooo!1! Idz dhe eb1l raz1stz!!1111!!!!11

Click Stand;13219736']Wow, I had never known. I guess I'm never going to Mississippi. If the guy agreed to testify then he should be tried for perjury. Next time he should have gotten better council.

Yeah, the US Deep South is awful.

With that said, I completely disagree with you. I will leave it at that.

If he lied under oath or broke the rules of the league and lied about it, or any other possible charge, then yes. He should not be immune from "justice" just because he has money.

Money has nothing to do with it.

It is about government overstepping its bounds.

Yeah, the US Deep South is awful.

With that said, I completely disagree with you. I will leave it at that.

I guess we will agree to disagree.;)

Thanks anyways for bringing that sodomy law to my attention.

Michael Vicks' illegal activities did not promote his success in the game of basketball.

LOLWUT?

Money has nothing to do with it.

It is about government overstepping its bounds.

Overstepping its bounds? Punishing for lying under oath is not stepping over its bounds. What he lied about isn't what he's being charged for -- it's the fact he lied, under oath, which is perjury, and if you're arguing that lying under oath to a grand jury shouldn't be illegal, then please go make your own state, without laws, and stop forcing such lunacy on us.

Overstepping its bounds? Punishing for lying under oath is not stepping over its bounds. What he lied about isn't what he's being charged for -- it's the fact he lied, under oath, which is perjury, and if you're arguing that lying under oath to a grand jury shouldn't be illegal, then please go make your own state, without laws, and stop forcing such lunacy on us.

Bill Clinton's walking around a free man, isn't he? It's a double standard because Bonds is black.

Overstepping its bounds? Punishing for lying under oath is not stepping over its bounds. What he lied about isn't what he's being charged for -- it's the fact he lied, under oath, which is perjury, and if you're arguing that lying under oath to a grand jury shouldn't be illegal, then please go make your own state, without laws, and stop forcing such lunacy on us.

No, interrogating Bonds for using drugs was the overstepping. Bonds had no moral obligation to tell the truth, so there is no justification for forcing him to tell the truth.

It is the same as a hearing where the government asks if one is a communist while forcing the person to tell the truth. It is none of the government's business whether the individual in question is a communist, and it is therefore unjustified force.

With all of this, this punishment is unjustified.

No, interrogating Bonds for using drugs was the overstepping. Bonds had no moral obligation to tell the truth, so there is no justification for forcing him to tell the truth.

It is the same as a hearing where the government asks if one is a communist while forcing the person to tell the truth. It is none of the government's business whether the individual in question is a communist, and it is therefore unjustified force.

With all of this, this punishment is unjustified.

If you are under oath in a court of law, you are obligated to tell the truth. If you lie and perjur yourself, you are going to get charged with a felony.

If you are under oath in a court of law, you are obligated to tell the truth. If you lie and perjur yourself, you are going to get charged with a felony.

That is not a measure of what the perjurer deserves, only what he will get.

Law does not create moral obligation. I get so amazed at how many people on here forget that.

And seriously, spending half of one's life in prison for lying in court?

And seriously, spending half of one's life in prison for lying in court?

And seriously, spending half of one's life in prison for killing someone?

No, I am saying that government should not force people to release information that is none of the government's business.

This was a congressional feel-good witch hunt, and Bonds had no moral obligation to offer up information as to whether he used steroids.

WRONG! It is the business of the government (taking steroids without a prescription is illegal). He also has a legal obligation to tell the truth while under oath at a grand jury about whether he used a controlled substance knowingly or not (the steroids he was accused of taking are illegal without a prescription, which he didn't have).

And seriously, spending half of one's life in prison for killing someone?

Morality says Killing=Lying.

And who knows what Aaron was on. Also, wern't parks smaller back then?

Actually, many ballparks were bigger back then.

WRONG! It is the business of the government (taking steroids without a prescription is illegal). He also has a legal obligation to tell the truth while under oath at a grand jury about whether he used a controlled substance knowingly or not (the steroids he was accused of taking are illegal without a prescription, which he didn't have).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13219937&postcount=41

And seriously, spending half of one's life in prison for lying in court?

Quick! Get all the politicians to stand in court!

Actually, many ballparks were bigger back then.
Very true. While the distance to center on most parks was still around 400, as it is today, the older parks like Comiskey I had boxy outfields with deep gaps meaning they didn't have the power alleys a park like Comiskey II or other contemporary parks have. Even today's parks with boxy arrangements have short HR porches like Minute Maid.

Suppose Mississippi charges a man for engaging in sodomy. They then haul him to court and ask him if he had anal sex with another man. He replies no, but videotape evidence shows up proving he did it.

Should he go to jail for thirty years?

First off, the only way he'd testify is if his lawyer called him to the stand (the prosecution could not call him to testify against himself). If he did end up on the stand, he could chose to plead the fifth (a person can't be forced to incriminate themselves). Thirdly, since the defense lawyer would know about the tape already (the prosecution isn't allowed surprises in evidence, they need to disclose all of it to the defense laywer, and vise-versa), the defendant would know the prosecution had evidence that would refute a lie (so he probably wouldn't perjure himself).

First off, the only way he'd testify is if ...Dick Cheney holds his hand?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13219937&postcount=41

I have no idea where you keep coming up with moral obligation. Telling the truth while under oath is a LEGAL obligation. Barry Bonds is being charged with perjury, which is breaking his LEGAL obligation to tell the grand jury the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Dick Cheney holds his hand?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? :confused:

First off, the only way he'd testify is if his lawyer called him to the stand (the prosecution could not call him to testify against himself). If he did end up on the stand, he could chose to plead the fifth (a person can't be forced to incriminate themselves). Thirdly, since the defense lawyer would know about the tape already (the prosecution isn't allowed surprises in evidence, they need to disclose all of it to the defense laywer, and vise-versa), the defendant would know the prosecution had evidence that would refute a lie (so he probably wouldn't perjure himself).

None of those applies to a grand jury, which is what Bonds is charged with lying to.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Individuals in front of grand juries are denied the right to not bear witness against himself, denied the right to representation, and denied the right to call witnesses.

I have no idea where you keep coming up with moral obligation. Telling the truth while under oath is a LEGAL obligation. Barry Bonds is being charged with perjury, which is breaking his LEGAL obligation to tell the grand jury the truth.

When we speak of what Bonds deserves, we speak of morality, not legality.

It is a legal obligation to support tyrannical governments, so often dissidents are executed. Do they deserve to be executed?

None of those applies to a grand jury, which is what Bonds is charged with lying to.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Individuals in front of grand juries are denied the right to not bear witness against himself, denied the right to representation, and denied the right to call witnesses.

Your example was talking about a trial. The only time someone is sentenced is at a trial, not at a grand jury.

Barry Bonds was legally required to answer truthfully to the grand jury on the matter of illegal steroids distribution, and whether he had taken them. Barry Bonds was called to testify at that grand jury because he had a link to the people that were being accused at that grand jury (his personal trainer being one of them).

None of those applies to a grand jury, which is what Bonds is charged with lying to.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Individuals in front of grand juries are denied the right to not bear witness against himself, denied the right to representation, and denied the right to call witnesses.

Should he then not have declined to answer their questions citing the fifth amendment ?

When we speak of what Bonds deserves, we speak of morality, not legality.

It is a legal obligation to support tyrannical governments, so often dissidents are executed. Do they deserve to be executed?

No, we're still speaking about legality. If he broke a law, he must be punished for it.

And this has nothing to do with supporting a tyrannical government (it's not even in the same ballpark, pardon the pun). You're trying to muddy the discussion with off topic garbage.

Should he then not have declined to answer their questions citing the fifth amendment ?

That was the entire point of that post, that one cannot invoke the fifth in front of a grand jury.

EDIT: With the point being entirely wrong.

No, we're still speaking about legality. If he broke a law, he must be punished for it.

And this has nothing to do with supporting a tyrannical government (it's not even in the same ballpark, pardon the pun). You're trying to muddy the discussion with off topic garbage.

My argument is that Bonds doesn't deserve this punishment.

It becomes extremely important to distinguish between legality and morality when discussing what someone deserves.

My analogy was a very simple one to answer, does the dissident "deserve" the death penalty simply because he broke the law?

That was the entire point of that post, that one cannot invoke the fifth in front of a grand jury.

I think you should probably read your own link, particularly the part which says "People have asserted the right [against self-incrimination] in grand jury or in congressional hearings" or the part that says "Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify."

My argument is that Bonds doesn't deserve this punishment.

It becomes extremely important to distinguish between legality and morality when discussing what someone deserves.

My analogy was a very simple one to answer, does the dissident "deserve" the death penalty simply because he broke the law?

He hasn't received any punishment yet. The 30 years is the maximum he could get if he's convicted. But if he perjured himself, he does need to be punished.

In a tyrannical government, if someone is a dissident and the punishment for such is death, then legally speaking, that's what the punishment is.

I think you should probably read your own link, particularly the part which says "People have asserted the right [against self-incrimination] in grand jury or in congressional hearings" or the part that says "Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify."

You are completely right. I don't know where I got that.

I guess then he didn't want to be considered "guilty as accused".

Michael Vicks' illegal activities did not promote his success in the game of basketball. There is every evidence to point out that Barry Bonds' illegal activities DID add to his success.

As for the legality, in November 1990, steroids were classified as a "controlled dangerous substance". In 1991, a memo was allegedly issued by the baseball commissioner to the MLB stating ""The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited ... [and those players involved] are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game."

To my own understanding, the type of steroids Barry Bonds used in 2001- if he did, in fact, use them- were not banned by baseball. They were later banned but at the time Bonds used them, baseball still considered them "legal".

Now, as for whether or not Bonds' record- not Bonds himself- would be affected by any discovery of steroid use, there would have to be sufficient evidence to overturn Bonds' record through the course of the 2001 season; and I don't think that's going to come out at this trial. All that will come out- should a conviction actually occur- is documented evidence that Bonds took steroids, specifically in November of 2000 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3112982). It's probably enough to deny Bonds a place at Cooperstown, but it's not enough to overturn the entire 2001 season (or even his entire career). For that to happen, there'd have to be evidence of continued use throughout 2001 as well as an obvious contravenance of baseball rules throughout that season (it's not enough to say "Bonds did steroids"- if he only took steroids which baseball had yet to ban (which seems to be the case) then he doesn't have enough of a "tainted record" for it to be removed). Besides, I still think if Pete Rose's record can get off the hook (despite the offenses Rose was convicted of- which are just as serious as Bonds'), then Bonds' record is safe for the time being.

Of course, I'd also like to point out- for what it's worth- that Ken Griffey Jr. still has a chance to break the home run record. He's 38 (five years younger than Bonds) and if he plays six more years (doable, especially if Julio Franco can still be productive at 49) he'll have a shot (his present career home run ratio is a home run in 6.7% of at-bats, which equates to 763 home runs after his 25th season). Probably a slim shot, but one nonetheless.

Of course, I'd also like to point out- for what it's worth- that Ken Griffey Jr. still has a chance to break the home run record. He's 38 (five years younger than Bonds) and if he plays six more years (doable, especially if Julio Franco can still be productive at 49) he'll have a shot (his present career home run ratio is a home run in 6.7% of at-bats, which equates to 763 home runs after his 25th season). Probably a slim shot, but one nonetheless.

He's not the only one that has the potential to break the record. A-Rod also has an opportunity to do it (he's only 75 HRs behind Griffey), and he only turned 32 this year.

Bonds was even offered immunity as long as he didn't perjure himself.

He still lied, but he still had no moral obligation to tell the truth.

But he had a LEGAL obligation to. That's what's important in this discussion.

Bonds was even offered immunity as long as he didn't perjure himself.

He still lied, but he still had no moral obligation to tell the truth.

But he had a LEGAL obligation to.Do you think the President has a legal obligation not to perjure himself whenever he has to make official statements at the US Congress?

what about in one of his presidential state of the Union Statements?

He's not the only one that has the potential to break the record. A-Rod also has an opportunity to do it (he's only 75 HRs behind Griffey), and he only turned 32 this year.

A-Rod's home run rate is actually less than Bonds' (Alex Rodriguez hits a home run in 7.0% of at-bats, Bonds 7.7%), but Rodriguez is proving to be pretty durable- since 1996, A-Rod has played at least 145 games a year (except 1999, when he played "only" 129) and has at least 500 at-bats per season since that span (including over 550 in every year except 1999). To put that in perspective, Bonds batted 340 times in 2007 and played in 126 games, Griffey 144 games and 528 at-bats.

Still, looking at the numbers, it's possible that A-Rod and Griffey might even battle for the home run crown in the same season- Rodriguez needs about six or seven seasons before his pace nets him 763, which is about the time Griffey would be hitting the milestone. Wouldn't that be a fun season to watch?

Do you think the President has a legal obligation not to perjure himself whenever he has to make official statements at the US Congress?

what about in one of his presidential state of the Union Statements?

If the president is under oath or affirmation to tell the truth in those situations, then yes, he does have a legal obligation not to perjure himself.

A-Rod's home run rate is actually less than Bonds' (Alex Rodriguez hits a home run in 7.0% of at-bats, Bonds 7.7%), but Rodriguez is proving to be pretty durable- since 1996, A-Rod has played at least 145 games a year (except 1999, when he played "only" 129) and has at least 500 at-bats per season since that span (including over 550 in every year except 1999). To put that in perspective, Bonds batted 340 times in 2007 and played in 126 games, Griffey 144 games and 528 at-bats.

Still, looking at the numbers, it's possible that A-Rod and Griffey might even battle for the home run crown in the same season- Rodriguez needs about six or seven seasons before his pace nets him 763, which is about the time Griffey would be hitting the milestone. Wouldn't that be a fun season to watch?

That would be pretty interesting. As long as Griffey's health holds up, that is (he seems like he's been injury prone since going to the Reds).

If the president is under oath or affirmation to tell the truth in those situations, then yes, he does have a legal obligation not to perjure himself.I propose all "state of the Union" speeches be under "affirmation of the truth".. maybe that way we'd be less likely to start bushite wars.. based on Nigerian cake evidence.

That would be pretty interesting. As long as Griffey's health holds up, that is (he seems like he's been injury prone since going to the Reds).

All he'll need is anywhere between 430-450 AB, which he certainly can do- last season Griffey had 528 appearances, exactly 100 more than 2006, and he hasn't been under 430 AB since 2004, when only played in 83 games, so the trends suggests he'll be able to do it.

Bill Clinton's walking around a free man, isn't he? It's a double standard because Bonds is black.

And this means that perjury isn't a crime? Hardly. It just means Clinton was white and had money and friends. (lulz, reading Sellout was a fun time XD )

He hasn't received any punishment yet. The 30 years is the maximum he could get if he's convicted. But if he perjured himself, he does need to be punished.

In a tyrannical government, if someone is a dissident and the punishment for such is death, then legally speaking, that's what the punishment is.

.....

But he had a LEGAL obligation to. That's what's important in this discussion.


Just admit that law doesn't decide what someone deserves so I can leave this discussion.

A-Rod's home run rate is actually less than Bonds' (Alex Rodriguez hits a home run in 7.0% of at-bats, Bonds 7.7%), but Rodriguez is proving to be pretty durable- since 1996, A-Rod has played at least 145 games a year (except 1999, when he played "only" 129) and has at least 500 at-bats per season since that span (including over 550 in every year except 1999). To put that in perspective, Bonds batted 340 times in 2007 and played in 126 games, Griffey 144 games and 528 at-bats.


That's a bit misleading. Bonds started heating up around 2000 when hit 49 home runs. Before that he had never hit more than 46, and alot of those years were in the 30s.

Barry Bonds (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml)

Alex Rodriguez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml)

At 32, Bonds had 374 career home runs.

A-Rod has 518.

Bill Clinton's walking around a free man, isn't he? It's a double standard because Bonds is black.

Bill Clinton didn't lie about committing a crime, or thereof knowledge that a crime was occurring and failure to report. They both lied. Point taken on that but that's about where the similarities end. Bill Clinton lied about a sexual affair between consenting adults which is not a crime. It was a crime to lie and we will not disagree here. But there are certain aggravating factors and very few mitigating ones to help him. The case is stacked against him and he's committing a crime about committing a crime. You get it? Both should be guilty, but Barry should serve time for his offense due to these factors. It has shit to do with him being black. Hell, OJ, Phil Specter, etc. all have proven that money sees no color but green. Barry is going down on the merits of the case against him. This is the difference.

First off, the only way he'd testify is if his lawyer called him to the stand (the prosecution could not call him to testify against himself). If he did end up on the stand, he could chose to plead the fifth (a person can't be forced to incriminate themselves). Thirdly, since the defense lawyer would know about the tape already (the prosecution isn't allowed surprises in evidence, they need to disclose all of it to the defense laywer, and vise-versa), the defendant would know the prosecution had evidence that would refute a lie (so he probably wouldn't perjure himself).

The question is not whether he will now perjure himself in court it's whether he had before. That's the crime he is charged with. Barry's had some boys roll over on him and they have a solid case with first hand accounts. Barring Marcia Clark coming back to court this guy is F'd.

The question is not whether he will now perjure himself in court it's whether he had before. That's the crime he is charged with. Barry's had some boys roll over on him and they have a solid case with first hand accounts. Barring Marcia Clark coming back to court this guy is F'd.

My post (that you quoted) was not about the Barry Bonds case, but an example that Vittos the City Sacker came up with earlier in the thread.

My post (that you quoted) was not about the Barry Bonds case, but an example that Vittos the City Sacker came up with earlier in the thread.

My apologies Sir. So that guy sucks instead of you :eek: