Bonds Will NOT Be Convicted of Using Steroids

[LouGehrig]

Barry Bonds is not being charged with purchasing, using, or distributing steroids or other illegal drugs. If he is convicted, he will not be convicted of drug use. He will be convicted of perjury.

Barry Bonds' Perjury Trial: If Found Guilty, It Will Not Be For Using Steroids

[nanwynnfan]

Hey, I greeted you post and link with some warm and fuzzy reaction; but, while it comports well with my positions on the whole Bonds investigation, it falls short of supporting your point.

To quote, from the link:

"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so."

All that does is require a number of witnesses or data scources>one [in terms of person and/or source]. Not a very convincing buffer for one inclined to lie deliberately under oath.

Prompted by your allegations, I went to a few cases before the Supreme Court where perjury was pivotal; and the Court seemed to come down on the harsh side of definition and penalty.

If you can quote a specific case reference as your source of "disingenuousness" as a viable tactic, I'd appreciate that reference [and a link, too]; otherwise; sadly, I don't think you've made a convincing argument for the onus being on the court, not upon Bonds.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

Barry Bonds is not being charged with purchasing, using, or distributing steroids or other illegal drugs. If he is convicted, he will not be convicted of drug use. He will be convicted of perjury.

Barry Bonds' Perjury Trial: If Found Guilty, It Will Not Be For Using Steroids

noone has said he'll be convicted of using steroids. the charges are quite clear.

[nanwynnfan]

"Disingenuous" cleverness gives a witness no protection from exposure to perjury, either as a charge by itself, or as an augmenting factor when compounding other underlying charges.

With Bonds, the charge is perjury. The meliorating factors are clearly defined and disingenuity and evasion are not among them.

[kflo]

the question of whether bonds took steroids is not even in dispute. he's already testified under oath that he did take steroids. the only question to be resolved is whether he knew he was taking steroids, or actually believed he was taking flaxseed oil.

[nanwynnfan]

I was responding to the thread author on alleged meliorating conditions he cited for perjury charges [allegedly defined by the SCOTUS], yet you decide to remind us for the second time in two posts what we already know. What's up with that?

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Hey, I greeted you post and link with some warm and fuzzy reaction; but, while it comports well with my positions on the whole Bonds investigation, it falls short of supporting your point.

To quote, from the link:

"In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so."

All that does is require a number of witnesses or data scources>one [in terms of person and/or source]. Not a very convincing buffer for one inclined to lie deliberately under oath.

Prompted by your allegations, I went to a few cases before the Supreme Court where perjury was pivotal; and the Court seemed to come down on the harsh side of definition and penalty.

If you can quote a specific case reference as your source of "disingenuousness" as a viable tactic, I'd appreciate that reference [and a link, too]; otherwise; sadly, I don't think you've made a convincing argument for the onus being on the court, not upon Bonds.

Thank you for checking the Supreme Court cases. The article does not claim that Barry will get off. I simply presented the criteria that must be met for a perjury conviction. I think he WILL be convicted, but I what I think is irrelevant. What IS relevant are the requirements for perjury, and with our new form of government, it is easier for the government to convict on perjury, unless your name is Clinton.

I think Clinton was NOT guilty of perjury, and it the same logic and standards that must be applied to Bonds. But that will not be the case.

The article lists all my sources in "References."

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by kflo

noone has said he'll be convicted of using steroids. the charges are quite clear.

Absolutely, but a perjury conviction will lead many to conclude that since he said he didn't use steroids and it was a lie, then he did use steroids.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I was responding to the thread author on alleged meliorating conditions he cited for perjury charges [allegedly defined by the SCOTUS], yet you decide to remind us for the second time in two posts what we already know. What's up with that?

i was responding to the thread author as well.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

Absolutely, but a perjury conviction will lead many to conclude that since he said he didn't use steroids and it was a lie, then he did use steroids.

he did use steroids.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I was responding to the thread author on alleged meliorating conditions he cited for perjury charges [allegedly defined by the SCOTUS], yet you decide to remind us for the second time in two posts what we already know. What's up with that?

This article and post addresses the legal definitions of perjury. A clear premise must be accepted and then logical conclusions can follow.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by kflo

he did use steroids.

That is conjecture. It is probably true. I believe that he DID use steroids, but that is not the issue. Show us the proof or accept his accomplishments without reservation.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

That is conjecture. It is probably true. I believe that he DID use steroids, but that is not the issue. Show us the proof or accept his accomplishments without reservation.

bonds already testified that he used steroids. his claim is that he didn't know they were steroids. why is this so hard to follow?