The US vs. Bonds

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/zirin

Quote:

---

Whether or not you are a Barry Bonds fan, or consider him to be just a step above a seal-clubbing, pitbull-fighting bank executive, every person of good conscience should be aghast at the way the Justice Department has gone about its business. Barry Bonds, Greg Anderson and maybe thousands of others have had their rights trampled on, all for the glory of a perjury case that looks to be going absolutely nowhere. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama have strongly indicated that the government is getting out of the steroid monitoring business. That is welcome, but after so many years, so many tax dollars and so many reputations destroyed, it all feels positively Pyrrhic.

---

The government will never be able to make up for being total idiots with this...

What exactly do they have to "make up"? Nobody really cares....as long as it's not their rights being disregarded!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What exactly do they have to "make up"? Nobody really cares....as long as it's not their rights being disregarded!

---

They have to make up for making such a huge deal with the steriods, getting involved, and being total idiots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What exactly do they have to "make up"? Nobody really cares....as long as it's not their rights being disregarded!

---

thats the problem, no one cares until it's their rights or the rihts of a loved one but by then it's too late, the government has a precident so by not caring you have by defacto surendered your own rights too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

They have to make up for making such a huge deal with the steriods, getting involved, and being total idiots

---

How exactly do they "make it up" and who exactly do the "make it up" to?? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How exactly do they "make it up" and who exactly do the "make it up" to?? :confused:

---

maybe they can pay the former steriod users reparations?:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How exactly do they "make it up" and who exactly do the "make it up" to?? :confused:

---

Me. The fans, the players, for wasting their time. As for how to make it up, umm... Get rid of taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies

Me. The fans, the players, for wasting their time. As for how to make it up, umm... Get rid of taxes?

---

So are you just talking out of your ass now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So are you just talking out of your ass now?

---

No, I have no clue how they would be able to make it up. Maybe they could pass a law denying them the ability to get involved in sports situations... I have no clue... But oh well, they are not going too, so Nvm

exactly

You've lost me. What do they have to make up to YOU? They didn't force you to spend your time following the case.

They can't pass a law saying they can't get involved with sports. That'd essentially be saying that athletes are above the law!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You've lost me. What do they have to make up to YOU? They didn't force you to spend your time following the case.

They can't pass a law saying they can't get involved with sports. That'd essentially be saying that athletes are above the law!

---

I think he was just commenting that he feels the government should pay us back, but he realizes that it's realistically impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 200tang

I think he was just commenting that he feels the government should pay us back, but he realizes that it's realistically impossible.

---

Yes, that is what I meant

From day one of the congressional hearings I've said the government has no business in this type of thing and now that they have successfully bungled this up to the point of no return I stand by it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

From day one of the congressional hearings I've said the government has no business in this type of thing and now that they have successfully bungled this up to the point of no return I stand by it all.

---

If they were showing an interest in cracking down in the smuggling of steroids and other supplements I would totally disagree with you as that's a law and order issue. However, they rather obviously aren't, so I agree 100%.

To me, I think everyone in this thread will agree that they believe Bonds did perjure himself. He lied while under oath which did obstruct a criminal investigation. I do have serious issue with allowing people to merely get off with lying while under oath. It jeopardizes our entire legal system.

However, trampling on others constitutional rights should in no way be permitted either. I personally haven't seen in this case where the govt. has done that. I did see people attacking the govt. for getting a warrent to raid andersons mother in laws house, or someone related to him because of tax evasion concerns which arose during the perjury investigation. I have yet to see where in fact the govt. violated her constitutional rights. heck, they legally obtained a warrent for the raid, meaning they must have had viable information. should they not pursue the information which was uncovered because it may be viewed as unpopular?

I am very open to examples of where the govt. has gone too far. I think people are more steroid weary, kind of like war weary, and are attacking the govt. because of it.

Also, the perjury investigation is not seven years old. Greg Anderson is in fact breaking the law himself. The "strongarm tactics" discussed I believe to be more sentimetal argument than factual. again, the govt. DID obtain a warrent for the raid of the mother in law, meaning they had justifyable evidence to support a warrent legally. The 4000 names taken...I can't say if thats a violation or not, its not uncommon that all records are obtained. If a lawyer believes it is, please take the govt. to court. I'd be all for justice. The fact nobody has taken the govt. to court has me leaning towards the premise that there was no constitutional infringenment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

To me, I think everyone in this thread will agree that they believe Bonds did perjure himself. He lied while under oath which did obstruct a criminal investigation.

---

What investigation did Bonds obstruct by claiming he didn't knowingly take steroids?

Quote:

---

I am very open to examples of where the govt. has gone too far. I think people are more steroid weary, kind of like war weary, and are attacking the govt. because of it.

---

Read the article, but I'll pull out one more clip from it:

Quote:

---

Novitzky was given the green light by President Bush and Ashcroft to go for the jugular. In 2004, accompanied by eleven agents, he marched into Comprehensive Drug Testing, the nation's largest sports-drug testing company. Armed with a warrant to see the confidential drug tests of ten baseball players, he walked out with 4,000 supposedly sealed medical files, including every baseball player in the major leagues. As Jon Pessah wrote in ESPN magazine, "Three federal judges reviewed the raid. One asked, incredulously, if the Fourth Amendment had been repealed. Another, Susan Illston, who has presided over the BALCO trials, called Novitzky's actions a 'callous disregard' for constitutional rights. All three instructed him to return the records. Instead, Novitzky kept the evidence...."

---

Quote:

---

Also, the perjury investigation is not seven years old.

---

Six years, whatever. 2003 is when the testimony during which he allegedly perjured himself was.

Quote:

---

What investigation did Bonds obstruct by claiming he didn't knowingly take steroids?

---

Do you not believe he lied under oath? To me, thats all that matters.

Quote:

---

Read the article, but I'll pull out one more clip from it:

---

I read it and edited my initial post with this;

Quote:

---

Greg Anderson is in fact breaking the law himself. The "strongarm tactics" discussed I believe to be more sentimetal argument than factual. again, the govt. DID obtain a warrent for the raid of the mother in law, meaning they had justifyable evidence to support a warrent legally. The 4000 names taken...I can't say if thats a violation or not, its not uncommon that all records are obtained. If a lawyer believes it is, please take the govt. to court. I'd be all for justice. The fact nobody has taken the govt. to court has me leaning towards the premise that there was no constitutional infringenment.

---

Quote:

---

Six years, whatever. 2003 is when the testimony during which he allegedly perjured himself was.

---

why let facts get in the way of a good slanted article? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Do you not believe he lied under oath? To me, thats all that matters.

---

That's not for me to decide...but, you didn't answer the question. You claim that he obstructed an investigation. Which investigation is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Greg Anderson is in fact breaking the law himself. The "strongarm tactics" discussed I believe to be more sentimetal argument than factual. again, the govt. DID obtain a warrent for the raid of the mother in law, meaning they had justifyable evidence to support a warrent legally. The 4000 names taken...I can't say if thats a violation or not, its not uncommon that all records are obtained. If a lawyer believes it is, please take the govt. to court. I'd be all for justice. The fact nobody has taken the govt. to court has me leaning towards the premise that there was no constitutional infringenment.

---

So, what about the facts that multiple judges have claimed it was unconstitutional, and that the evidence has been ruled inadmissible? That no lawyer has sued the government makes you overlook court rulings?

Question, you say it's "not uncommon that all records are obtained." What do you mean by this? It is my understanding that when you have a warrant for something, you're legally allowed to only obtain that which you have a warrant for. If you get a warrant to search a person's car, you're not then allowed to search their house as well (without obtaining a separate warrant). The government had a warrant for the records of 10 players. Legally, they were only allowed to confiscate those 10 records. They confiscated the entire collection of records. That doesn't strike you as wrong and/or illegal?

Just to name another person whose rights have been violated due to this investigation...Alex Rodriguez. His name being leaked is directly related to the Bonds investigation.

Quote:

---

That's not for me to decide...but, you didn't answer the question. You claim that he obstructed an investigation. Which investigation is that?

---

You may be right that his comments may not have obstructed the investigation. Thats why I yeilded on my initial statements. Regardless, most all believe he lied under oath. They have evidence which substantiates that although it has been ruled inadmissible. Anderson breaking the law and not testifying may or may not ruin their case. It doesn't mean the govt. shouldn't pursue or did anything wrong by pursing a purjury charge.

Quote:

---

So, what about the facts that multiple judges have claimed it was unconstitutional, and that the evidence has been ruled inadmissible? That no lawyer has sued the government makes you overlook court rulings?

---

The way I understood it, alot of the evidence was ruled inadmissable because they can't get Anderson to talk, thus it is subjective information based on heresay. If judges have ruled the gathering of some of the evidence unconstitutional, then he should be prosecuted if it caused irrepriable harm. The evidence involving all the other players has nothing to do with this case. The evidence that does pertain to this case, to my knowledge has not been ruled inadmissable because of a constitutional conflict with how it was obtained. It had to do with the evidence being heresay and subjective without Andersons testimony.

Quote:

---

Legally, they were only allowed to confiscate those 10 records. They confiscated the entire collection of records. That doesn't strike you as wrong and/or illegal?

---

Is this fact, or speculation? If it is fact, than yes it does strike me as wrong.

Quote:

---

Just to name another person whose rights have been violated due to this investigation...Alex Rodriguez. His name being leaked is directly related to the Bonds investigation.

---

not relative at all to this investigation. I agree, however bonds name was leaked is concerning and has caused AROd irrepriable harm. We can only speculate on the particulars...and I'd have no problem if AROD got an attorney to investigate wrongdoing. In fact, i'd advise him to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

The way I understood it, alot of the evidence was ruled inadmissable because they can't get Anderson to talk, thus it is subjective information based on heresay. If judges have ruled the gathering of some of the evidence unconstitutional, then he should be prosecuted if it caused irrepriable harm. The evidence involving all the other players has nothing to do with this case. The evidence that does pertain to this case, to my knowledge has not been ruled inadmissable because of a constitutional conflict with how it was obtained. It had to do with the evidence being heresay and subjective without Andersons testimony.

Is this fact, or speculation? If it is fact, than yes it does strike me as wrong.

---

I haven't mentioned Anderson at all. Are you even reading what I'm saying and quoting? I quoted this before, but read it again:

Quote:

---

Novitzky was given the green light by President Bush and Ashcroft to go for the jugular. In 2004, accompanied by eleven agents, he marched into Comprehensive Drug Testing, the nation's largest sports-drug testing company. Armed with a warrant to see the confidential drug tests of ten baseball players, he walked out with 4,000 supposedly sealed medical files, including every baseball player in the major leagues. As Jon Pessah wrote in ESPN magazine, "Three federal judges reviewed the raid. One asked, incredulously, if the Fourth Amendment had been repealed. Another, Susan Illston, who has presided over the BALCO trials, called Novitzky's actions a 'callous disregard' for constitutional rights. All three instructed him to return the records. Instead, Novitzky kept the evidence...."

---

Bonds' drug tests from that raid were ruled inadmissible. (Illston, by the way, is the judge presiding over the perjury case.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

not relative at all to this investigation. I agree, however bonds name was leaked is concerning and has caused AROd irrepriable harm. We can only speculate on the particulars...and I'd have no problem if AROD got an attorney to investigate wrongdoing. In fact, i'd advise him to.

---

It is relative to this investigation...not the perjury investigation alone but the entire BALCO/Bonds investigation. Had the government not confiscated the 2003 "anonymous" test results as part of this investigation, A-Rod's name would not have been leaked.

I think Dickay has a point here, and I'm finding it difficult to follow where you are coming from, HGM. If someone lies under oath in a criminal investigation - which I believe Bonds did - how does this not obstruct an investigation? I think it all comes back to that one question.

As for the government: yes, clearly they violated the civil rights of those involved, and this case should be summarily dismissed. I don't necessarily agree that this means that no one of legal authority outside of MLB itself should ever again oversee baseball - which is what I feel many people commenting over the past few weeks on this board seem to be implying - even though the govvies themselves have caused a great deal of harm to the whole idea with their heavy-handedness. (I also don't feel there is no cause to investigate MLB players any more, so long as Bud Selig and Don Fehr are in charge of the institutions they run...but that is a sermon for another Sunday.)

Quote:

---

I haven't mentioned Anderson at all. Are you even reading what I'm saying and quoting? I quoted this before, but read it again:

---

I know exactly what you said, but from what I've seen prior your info is wrong.

Quote:

---

Bonds' drug tests from that raid were ruled inadmissible. (Illston, by the way, is the judge presiding over the perjury case.)

---

The reason the info is wrong is because there are two different things at play. One, the govt. possibly unconstitutional acquisition of 4000 drug tests, and two the inadmissible drug tests of Bonds, or which you agree the warrent permitted. Those were obtained legally. They are inadmissible because they are subjective heresay and speculation unless they can get Anderson to talk. If Anderson would talk, which he's required to do since he's been granted immunity, the evidence could possibly be made admissible again.

Quote:

---

It is relative to this investigation...not the perjury investigation alone but the entire BALCO/Bonds investigation. Had the government not confiscated the 2003 "anonymous" test results as part of this investigation, A-Rod's name would not have been leaked.

---

lol, the title of this thread is US vs. Bonds. I agreed AROD may have a case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oriole^

I think Dickay has a point here, and I'm finding it difficult to follow where you are coming from, HGM. If someone lies under oath in a criminal investigation - which I believe Bonds did - how does this not obstruct an investigation? I think it all comes back to that one question.

---

But what investigation did it obstruct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I know exactly what you said, but from what I've seen prior your info is wrong.

The reason the info is wrong is because there are two different things at play. One, the govt. possibly unconstitutional acquisition of 4000 drug tests, and two the inadmissible drug tests of Bonds, or which you agree the warrent permitted. Those were obtained legally. They are inadmissible because they are subjective heresay and speculation unless they can get Anderson to talk. If Anderson would talk, which he's required to do since he's been granted immunity, the evidence could possibly be made admissible again.

---

I've been misunderstanding this test evidence. The evidence that was ruled inadmissible were private tests allegedly conducted by Anderson in 2000 and 2001, not the 2003 test results. Sorry

But, either way, Novitzky's actions were called unconstitutional by multiple judges. I don't see how you can even continue to insist that it was "maybe" unconstitutional. Would it be "maybe unconstitutional" if a police armed with a warrant to search a person's car also searched that person's house and workplace?

Quote:

---

lol, the title of this thread is US vs. Bonds. I agreed AROD may have a case.

---

I was just pointing out another person whose rights have been violated in connection with this investigation.

Quote:

---

But, either way, Novitzky's actions were called unconstitutional by multiple judges. I don't see how you can even continue to insist that it was "maybe" unconstitutional. Would it be "maybe unconstitutional" if a police armed with a warrant to search a person's car also searched that person's house and workplace?

---

The unconstitutional offenses were for items unrelated to this investigation. They are in regards to the taking of test results other than those the warrent allowed to be taken. Look..i don't believe everything I read, especially when reading something that appears slanted from the get go. If three judges have given rulings and not opinions (which may or may not be well thought through or educated) that it was unconstitutional, then yes...i'd be willing to say it probably was. If there has been no 'ruling', and this article found three judges out of however many he interviewed to go along with him...then i'd stick to my maybe. I honestly haven't heard there's been rulings on the constitutionality of the acquired evidence. And as I've already stated, if there has been then AROD should then most certainly seek compensation for damages and i'd advise him to. So i'm really not disgreeing with you on that subject.

Again, in reference for what the thread is about, US vs. Bonds....what did the US Govt. do that was unconstitutional with specific regards to this case? They were allowed to obtain the Bonds test results by warrent. They were allowed to raid the mother in laws house by warrent. You keep chiming about 4000 other drug tests that were obtained unconstituionally, and i'm not disputing that but they have nothing to do with this particular case. I'd really just like to know what specifically was done unconstituionally in the US vs. Bonds investigaton.

this just dawned on me...

if the govt. is trying to use the 4000 test results IN THE BONDS PERJURY CASE because they believe the results show a patern of a coverup, then they would be relative to the case. The judge would have to review how they were acquired and determine if they are admissable. If that is how this played out, and the judge 'ruled' them unconstitutionally acquired then they should not be admitted as evidence. Its not uncommon for evidence to be deemed inadmissable for how they were obtained, and I don't see how a mistrial could be awarded or how someone could scream that the govt. has been egregious because of just that.

i'm merely speculating...i don't know what if anything the govt. has tried to do with those 4000 test results. i'm not following the intense drama all that closely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

The unconstitutional offenses were for items unrelated to this investigation. They are in regards to the taking of test results other than those the warrent allowed to be taken.

---

It is related to this investigation. They were taken AS PART of the investigation. It shows that the government has acted unconstitutionally while investigating this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Look..i don't believe everything I read, especially when reading something that appears slanted from the get go. If three judges have given rulings and not opinions (which may or may not be well thought through or educated) that it was unconstitutional, then yes...i'd be willing to say it probably was. If there has been no 'ruling', and this article found three judges out of however many he interviewed to go along with him...then i'd stick to my maybe. I honestly haven't heard there's been rulings on the constitutionality of the acquired evidence.

---

Three judges, INCLUDING THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THE PERJURY CASE, said that Novitzky acted unconstitutionally and ordered him to return the extra results. Officially, it's still being dealt with in court.

There HAVE been rulings on it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

Quote:

---

On Aug. 19, 2004, a Nevada district judge granted the union’s motion, ruling that “the government callously disregarded the affected players’ constitutional rights” and ordered the return of all specimens, notes and memos “other than those pertaining to the 10 BALCO players named in the original search warrant.”

---

Then:

Quote:

---

Two three-judge panels of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court judges. But that wasn’t the end of it. The entire 9th Circuit set the reversal aside and had 11 judges hear the case this past December. In Pasadena, Calif., assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Wilson argued that BALCO investigators could probe all 104 players who tested positive in 2003 because the lab’s computer spreadsheet containing the results of the 10 players also contained those of nearly a hundred more.

---

So, as I said, it's still being dealt with.

Here's more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/sp...tml?ref=sports

Quote:

---

The federal agents who raided Quest Diagnostics in Las Vegas, armed with the code numbers obtained at Comprehensive Drug Testing, seized the matching urine samples for the 10 players. A month later, agents went back and took the urine samples for all the players who tested positive in 2003.

---

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

Quote:

---

It wasn’t Novitzky’s last brush with Illston. During court proceedings in 2004 over whether the government could keep 104 Major League Baseball testing records and urine samples seized by Novitzky in a search of Quest Diagnostic Labs, Illston condemned the tactics and questioned the candor of the agent. In December 2004, Illston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.

“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” Illston said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Again, in reference for what the thread is about, US vs. Bonds....what did the US Govt. do that was unconstitutional with specific regards to this case? They were allowed to obtain the Bonds test results by warrent. They were allowed to raid the mother in laws house by warrent. You keep chiming about 4000 other drug tests that were obtained unconstituionally, and i'm not disputing that but they have nothing to do with this particular case. I'd really just like to know what specifically was done unconstituionally in the US vs. Bonds investigaton.

---

This was PART of the investigation! I don't know what you're not getting. They were taken during this investigation. If your question is what did the government do that violated the constitutional rights of Barry Bonds..I'm not sure, if anything at all...but the government has acted unconstitutional during the investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

this just dawned on me...

if the govt. is trying to use the 4000 test results IN THE BONDS PERJURY CASE because they believe the results show a patern of a coverup, then they would be relative to the case. The judge would have to review how they were acquired and determine if they are admissable. If that is how this played out, and the judge 'ruled' them unconstitutionally acquired then they should not be admitted as evidence. Its not uncommon for evidence to be deemed inadmissable for how they were obtained, and I don't see how a mistrial could be awarded or how someone could scream that the govt. has been egregious because of just that.

i'm merely speculating...i don't know what if anything the govt. has tried to do with those 4000 test results. i'm not following the intense drama all that closely.

---

I corrected myself. The 2003 drug test was not ruled inadmissible. They're not trying to use anything other than Bonds test from that collection of tests. The point is simply that the government greatly overstepped its boundaries by confiscating all the tests, rather than just the ones they had a warrant for. The 2003 Bonds test was not obtained unconstitutionally. They had a warrant for his results. What was unconstitutional was that they took ALL the results instead of just the 10 they had a warrant for.

It should be noted that Bonds originally passed that test. He is not part of the 104 players that tested positive (which A-Rod was). His sample was retested for a substance that wasn't being tested for in 2003. I have major problems with this in the first place because that "anonymous" drug test was completely botched, but that's not the government's fault.

Well, the prosecution has said that it's appealing the judge's ruling that some of its evidence is inadmissible, thereby delaying the trial.

Is there still any doubt that without Anderson the government has no case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Well, the prosecution has said that it's appealing the judge's ruling that some of its evidence is inadmissible, thereby delaying the trial.

Is there still any doubt that without Anderson the government has no case?

---

it appears that way...but i don't see why it matters. andersons refusal to testify is breaking the law as it is and alot of the evidence being admitted apparently is dependant upon him testifying.

if bonds is guilty, and they have evidence which would prove it if not for anderson breaking the law....why are you so against the govt. trying to prosecute someone they know to be guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

if bonds is guilty, and they have evidence which would prove it if not for anderson breaking the law....why are you so against the govt. trying to prosecute someone they know to be guilty?

---

I really don't feel like going through it over, and over, and over again. It's a case of proportion. I don't think what Bonds did warrants years and years and millions and millions of dollars of time and effort. It was all about getting Bonds from the start. The only reason he was called in front of the grand jury to testify is because they wanted to nail him. The government did not need Bonds in anyway to go after BALCO and Greg Anderson, but it was a convenient excuse to get him under oath. Bonds' lie literally had no consequences. It was about himself and whether or not he knowingly used steroids. It obstructed no investigation. If it takes this much time and effort to convict a guy of doing something that literally affected nothing, I'm against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I really don't feel like going through it over, and over, and over again. It's a case of proportion. I don't think what Bonds did warrants years and years and millions and millions of dollars of time and effort. It was all about getting Bonds from the start. The only reason he was called in front of the grand jury to testify is because they wanted to nail him. The government did not need Bonds in anyway to go after BALCO and Greg Anderson, but it was a convenient excuse to get him under oath. Bonds' lie literally had no consequences. It was about himself and whether or not he knowingly used steroids. It obstructed no investigation. If it takes this much time and effort to convict a guy of doing something that literally affected nothing, I'm against it.

---

he lied while under oath. allowing that to happen "literally affects" everything. he took an oath and understood the consequences. the govt. apparently has evidence they feel will clearly find him guilty if not for more obstruction and lawlessness from Anderson. I just assume see them both locked up.

I'm a fan of Bonds. have been for years, and the fact he did roids really doesn't change my perception of him. I can't however accept someone lying while under oath merely because some are to weak to follow through with what was started when roadbumps occur. I don't believe the govt. would have gone this far unless they were confident in Bond's guilt.

In the grand scheme, this is such a small issue. I don't know why you take it so personally. there's so much money wasted in so many worst ways by out govt. Ways much worst than trying to convict someone they strongly feel jeopardized the integrity of our court system.

Let me quote someone from BTF, because he said it better than I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Why Can't We All Get Along?

But it's a case of proportion. Just as it was the height of insanity to go after Bill Clinton for perjury when the underlying "crime" was nothing but a private sexual affair, it's more than a stretch to criminalize "lying" when Bonds's underlying offense is far more of a private concern of baseball than of society as a whole.

I understand the logic of your position, but as is so often the case, to insist upon pure consistency of logic in each and every case can lead us down some pretty dumbassssed roads. Like the Clinton impeachment farce, and in this case the Bonds trial.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Let me quote someone from BTF, because he said it better than I can.

---

clinton lied while under oath as well. while i'm not as wacko as some are about how clinton's lack of morals has effected our youth...there is something to be said about an increase amongst our youth in drug use, sex, and teenage pregnancy. All clintons fault?? absolutely not. Did the leader of our country inspiring a national debate on these type of issues contribute? definetly an argument could be made.

regardless, i think it was right to impeach a president who blantantly lies while under oath. I don't think its right for his private life to become such an issue as it was made to be.....but regardless, his actions on the stand were deplorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

clinton lied while under oath as well. while i'm not as wacko as some are about how clinton's lack of morals has effected our youth...there is something to be said about an increase amongst our youth in drug use, sex, and teenage pregnancy. All clintons fault?? absolutely not. Did the leader of our country inspiring a national debate on these type of issues contribute? definetly an argument could be made.

---

Clinton didn't randomly come out and proclaim "I got a blowjob." It was the media, opposing politicians, etc. that made it into a huge national debate, not Clinton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Clinton didn't randomly come out and proclaim "I got a blowjob." It was the media, opposing politicians, etc. that made it into a huge national debate, not Clinton.

---

true, and i said it a persons private life shouldn't have been made such an issue. regardless though, any top political leader, especially the one in arguably the biggest job in the world has to know it's going to be a big issue. and his blatant and sarcastic lying and/or legal maneuvers (depends on what the meaning of is is) while under oath were appalling.