Posted on 05/10/2006 12:24:47 PM PDT by Paddlefish
Five people linked to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative were convicted of doling out steroids to elite athletes. But in an ironic twist, two San Francisco Chronicle writers who reported on the probe could end up serving more jail time than any of them.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada are the latest reporters to become entangled in the federal government's ramped-up efforts to investigate leaks. They have been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating who leaked them the secret testimony of Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi and others.
The Chronicle, which published the testimony in a series of stories beginning in late 2004, is challenging the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment protects the reporters and their sources. A lawyer for the Hearst Corp., which owns the paper, has until June 2 to file a request to dismiss the subpoenas.
Both reporters say they aren't going to talk -- which means they could be fined and jailed until they divulge their sources, or sentenced to a fixed term for contempt.
"Of course, we are going to stand up for our sources and we would never betray them," Fainaru-Wada said.
A day in jail would be longer than the probation sentences for BALCO vice president James Valente and track coach Remi Korchemny, who both pleaded guilty to distribution charges.
BALCO president Victor Conte got four months in prison. Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson was sentenced to three months, the same sentence facing BALCO
(Excerpt) Read more at sportsillustrated.cnn.com ...
The NY Times severely damaged all journalists by insisting that the "Plame Leak" go to trial. Now even sports journalists will be spending time in the big house. Way to go, MSM!
...from an anonymous source, of course.
Vinny Davis was a NYC cop whose wife's ex-boyfriend (and stalker) was a low-level mobster.
Davis was glad when the stalker got a 20 year sentence for narcotics trafficking and figured he'd never have to deal with the guy again. Then he found out that the stalker was back on the streets a free man after only a couple of years and was hanging out with a few guys that Davis knew to be "connected." The stalker contacted Davis's wife again. Davis was drinking at a bar when one of the stalker's new mob associates came in. Davis drunkenly mentioned to the boastful associate: "Hey, your pal was up for twenty years in federal prison, now he's out again after a couple of years. Who gets a deal like that? Only rats do."
Davis had only guessed that the stalker was an informant - he was not actually privy to any government information.
He is now in federal prison for obstruction of justice.
So the First Amendment does not protect barroom speculation, but it does protect reporters using privileged information that they willingly obtained illegally.
Double standard.
Note to so called reporters - Don't leak. Buy some morals.
I strongly suspect that there is a bit more to that story about officer Davis...
He hated the stalker and made a comment to the stalker's associate that he hoped would make the stalker's life tougher.
He had no concrete knowledge that the stalker was an official undercover informant.
The NYPD brass themselves, let alone this beat patrolman, were not even informed that the stalker was involved in a federal investigation, since the stalker was not operating in NYC but in Davis' hometown of Yonkers.
As it turns out the stalker was not killed or sanctioned by the Mafia and the feds got a ton of hard convictions of key Lucchese family operatives out of the investigation.
There is a lot of extra backstory about how Davis was not a very competent cop, about how the stalker wound up renewing a sexual relationship with Davis' wife because Davis was an alcoholic clown, etc. - but he was imprisoned because he drunkenly made reference to something that he thought was obvious but which was apparently not obvious to the mobster.
It's great that an attempt at a political coup by the NYT has clarified the issue that reporters are subject to the law. For a long time, they thought they were above the law.
there are no facts on the table. There is illegally obtained grand jury testimony. It is illegal for anyone but the party who testifies to release any part of their grand jury testimony because it is NOT fact, merely their unsubstantiated statment. If the party who testifies says something in public they are not protected from libel and slander laws, and their motives and record can be examined. Since this is not coming from the people that testified it is a crime.
There has been no due process (in the case of testimony the chance to cross examine or rebut the unsubstantiated statements) yet Bonds is in danger of suffering severe consequences based on illegally released information.
"Facts? We don't need no stinking facts! We don't need a trial. We know the truth! String him up!"
Yep. That's the ticket.
Incidentally, there is much more evidence that Bonds did steroids than just that leaked testimony. Whether or not you believe that evidence is up to you.
Good for you. I know of lots of child molestation cases in the past. Why are Catholic priests now, for the very first time, getting charged with this? Yours is perhaps the single stupidist argument ever presented to me on FR, and that's saying quite a lot. You should be "proud."
Incidentally, there is much more evidence that Bonds did steroids than just that leaked testimony. Whether or not you believe that evidence is up to you.
Congratulations. Can it stand up to cross examination of the witness under the rule of law? Without that it is worthless. 100% worthless. I have "evidence" that you are... no, I won't go there.
Frankly I don't care if it can or can't be proven, just like I don't care about Bonds, but until it can be proven under established rules of evidence, anyone who draws ANY conclusion about Barry Bonds is a total jerk.
Frankly I don't care if it can or can't be proven, just like I don't care about Bonds, but until it can be proven under established rules of evidence, anyone who draws ANY conclusion about Barry Bonds is a total jerk.
I'll leave your sad ad hominem attacks alone, but this statement makes no sense. You're saying that you don't make any conclusions about anyone absent established rules of evidence in court? I don't know you at all, but I still don't believe that. Anyway, even if you are that way, that isn't the opinion of most people, nor does it make sense. We make conclusions about people based on the information we have or are given. From what I have read, I believe that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and a whole host of others have done steroids. If you choose not to draw that conclusion after looking at all the evidence (that's evidence - not proof, or the basis of any trial) that's fine. But there is evidence - it doesn't have to hold up in court for evidence to be taken as an indicator of guilt or innocence. The standard you are talking about is the highest possible standard for evidence - a court trial with the presunption of innocence. This forum is neither a court trial, nor does anyone require that all the evidence I considered have to be admissible in court. I draw my opinions based on all that I have read and heard about this case.
Incidentally, if you "know of lots of child molestation cases in the past," you should have reported them. Also, why do you think that Catholic priests, "for the very first time" are getting prosecuted - they have been for quite a while. The scandal was that there were more priests doing this than the church let on, and that they transferred priests around to avoid charges. But it's not like no priest was ever prosecuted.
Anyway, you probably shouldn't bother to respond to this if you aren't able to keep personal attacks out of it. It makes your arguments look very sad and inefective.
It took you four days to come up with that nonsens?
Sad, truly sad.
Go out and lynch a few more people who you KNOW are guilty, with or without evidence. I guess you'll feel better.
No, you expressed your belief that he was guilty even though you based that on illegally obtained information and other untested and unspecified "other evidence" (rumors and hearsay). You expressed your view that rules of evidence only apply in a court room. You expressed your view that "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court room. You expressed your view that you were willing to condemn him to the maximum punishment for his alleged crime without any opportunity to challenge his accusers or the evidence against him.
I'd say that those are the critical elements of a lynching that make it wrong.
After all, if they really are guilty it don't matter if you string 'em up. Rough justice. But maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. With a full fledged lynching the victim is dead and can't be made whole if you find out later that you screwed up. With your approach the same is true, even though Bonds would be alive.
I guess you're ready to convict those lacross players from Duke based on all of the evidence you now have? Or maybe the exotic dancer? Or how do you feel about Richard Jewell?
Yeah, you have all of the intellectual attributes of a member of a lynch mob .
So, you disagree with Clarence Thomas when he called his treatment a "high tech lynching" during his confirmation because no one actually pulled out a rope? Intellectually I'm happy to stand with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and say that you are flat out wrong in your argument above. You must understand the essential elements of a crime to have a hope of arguing about it.
I'm not ready to convict anyone including Barry Bonds. I have my opinion about those cases. That doesn't mean I think my opinion should be binding in a court of law. I'll say it again since you seem to be having trouble with the concept. I'm expressing my opinion. That's all.
That admission is all I was asking for from the beginning. You state "I'll say it again" and if you ever said anything remotely like this I missed it. If I missed it I'm sorry. With that you were almost back to being a ratonal person, but your "since you seem to be having trouble with the concept" just ruins the whole "I'm the reasonable one here" play since that concept was my argument from the beginning. Then you drop this little gem
If you believe that expressing one's opinion is equivalent to lynching someone , I'm sure you can find a lot of people at DU that would agree with you, but I doubt if you'll get much support for that opinion here...
Again, I stand with Justice Thomas. And your suggestion about DU is about what I'd expect from someone of your obvious intelligence and intellectual honesty.
Don't go away mad, little buddy, just go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.