Chronicle Writers Sentenced To Prison

[Skin & Bones]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2597854


SAN FRANCISCO -- Two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were ordered jailed Thursday for a maximum 18 months, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked transcripts of the testimony of Bonds, Jason Giambi and others before a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, a Burlingame-based nutritional supplement company exposed as a steroid ring two years ago.

Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to send the reporters to prison for the full term of the grand jury investigating the leak, or until they agree to testify.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada have said repeatedly they would go to jail rather than comply with the grand jury's subpoena and reveal their source or sources.

Both sides agreed to stay the ruling by White pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The reporters agreed with the government that they are in contempt of court, but had sought a "nominal monetary fine" and other punishment "short of full blown incarceration," including house arrest and weekend jailing, according to court documents.

Authorities want to charge whoever unlawfully leaked the transcripts, and told White that the reporters are the only ones who know who did. White ordered the two to testify on Aug. 15.

The criminal conduct being investigated in the Bonds leak case includes possible perjury and obstruction of justice by government officials, defendants in the BALCO probe and their attorneys. All had access to the leaked documents but have sworn they weren't the source of the reporting by Williams and Fainaru-Wada.

In August, White ruled his hands were tied by a 1972 Supreme Court precedent that said no one -- journalists included -- was above the law and may refuse to testify before a federal grand jury.

The Chronicle reported that Bonds told the grand jury that he believed he was using flaxseed oil and arthritic balm, not steroids, supplied by trainer Greg Anderson, one of five defendants convicted in the BALCO scandal.

Anderson served his three months and is behind bars again for refusing to testify before another federal grand jury investigating whether Bonds committed perjury when he gave that testimony in the BALCO case.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada are the latest reporters ordered to prison for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating government leaks. Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, was jailed for 85 days last year for refusing to testify in an investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name.

[YankeeDJW]

Its an interesting case. I'm in school for journalism and I can see why they won't reveal their sources, but at the same time, I tend to agree with the penalty. They aren't exempt from the law and likely knew the implications when they got the story. It is quite a pickle to be in though.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Yeah - it's not like they are testifying at a trial; it's a hearing, and they cannot refuse without penalty.

Personally, I would like to see them put up or shut up. They are making money selling a book that assassinates several prominent characters. If they don't say how they obtained the information, and show that it is from a reliable source, then they shouldn't see a dime of the profits from their venture.

[agent-g]

They deserve it.

[Brian McKenna]

Sorry to dissent but I, for one, am greatly pleased they took their time to produce their work. The information is invaluable.

It is extremely important that the $ weilding public is aware of the fraud perpetrated against them by professional athletes.

[Brian McKenna]

Yeah - it's not like they are testifying at a trial; it's a hearing, and they cannot refuse without penalty.

Personally, I would like to see them put up or shut up. They are making money selling a book that assassinates several prominent characters. If they don't say how they obtained the information, and show that it is from a reliable source, then they shouldn't see a dime of the profits from their venture.

I didn't realize this was a unique case in American history. :crazy

Let's tar and feather the messenger, throw them in jail and foreclose on their homes. :crazy

I read their work and it seems extremely credible. If they interviewed legitimate sources (which they probably did), than the work is one of the most significant revelations in American sports history.

You mean to tell me that two average guys can get the scoop on the subject and the government with all its resources can't make a case and are completely incapable of uncovering enough evidence to convict a guy that they knew was lying when he gave the testimony. What a joke. Perhaps the district attorney's office should be employing guys like Williams and Fainaru-Wada instead of going after them.

The really comical issue here is that the athletes that originally testified were given immunity to do so. The smart ones copped to their deeds as there was no penalty. They have no worries in this case. Bonds stood in defiance.

So let's toss the men in jail that gave us the story and sparked further investigation. Let's also nail those unamerican whistle blowers Woodward and Bernstein as well. The world would be a better place if we all were just kept in the dark and they people had no say.

BTW, isn't that what they do in other countries. Hmm. :crazy

[Astro]

I didn't realize this was a unique case in American history. :crazy

Let's tar and feather the messenger, throw them in jail and foreclose on their homes. :crazy

I read their work and it seems extremely credible. If they interviewed legitimate sources (which they probably did), than the work is one of the most significant revelations in American sports history.

You mean to tell me that two average guys can get the scoop on the subject and the government with all its resources can't make a case and are completely incapable of uncovering enough evidence to convict a guy that they knew was lying when he gave the testimony. What a joke. Perhaps the district attorney's office should be employing guys like Williams and Fainaru-Wada instead of going after them.

The really comical issue here is that the athletes that originally testified were given immunity to do so. The smart ones copped to their deeds as there was no penalty. They have no worries in this case. Bonds stood in defiance.

So let's toss the men in jail that gave us the story and sparked further investigation. Let's also nail those unamerican whistle blowers Woodward and Bernstein as well. The world would be a better place if we all were just kept in the dark and they people had no say.

BTW, isn't that what they do in other countries. Hmm. :crazy
So you are all for invasion of privacy and detriment of character based upon classified information?

[Brian McKenna]

So you are all for invasion of privacy and detriment of character based upon classified information?

So you're for imprisoning those who merely report information about frauds perpetrated against the American people?

[Ubiquitous]

So you're for imprisoning those who merely report information about frauds perpetrated against the American people?

They are not being imprisoned because they reported information. And no they didn't report about fraud perpetrated against the american people. Using steroids is not fraud against the American people. They are being imprisoned because are not cooperating with the Amnerican people.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Its an interesting case. I'm in school for journalism and I can see why they won't reveal their sources, but at the same time, I tend to agree with the penalty. They aren't exempt from the law and likely knew the implications when they got the story. It is quite a pickle to be in though.

Hear hear. I'm studying journalism myself, so I agree completely. :dance

[Dasperp]

Forcing journalists to disclose their anonymous sources will prevent people from coming forward with important information in the future. If there were no anonymous sources then would the public have learned about Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers, or the NSA wiretapping program?

[rockin500]

they broke the law. well, are accessories to it at any rate. then they are profiting from said actions. Fine, maybe its for a noble cause, but if you're going to stand for your principles, you have to be willing to pay the price if they conflict with the law.

[Skin & Bones]

So you're for imprisoning those who merely report information about frauds perpetrated against the American people?

Leaking grand jury testimony is a crime. Disobeying a judges order to testify is a crime. They belong in jail regardless of what your feelings towards Bonds maybe.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

I don't believe this!!

These guys are innocent, and, if they really write about Bonds was true, then, they SHOULD give up their sources, unless they've been paid to keep their mouths shut. :grouchy

[Mattingly]

I'm curious, who are the witnesses they'd interviewed for this book? US Government employees? Jurors? Prosecutors (or employees of the relevant prosecuting office(s))?

[Skin & Bones]

I'm curious, who are the witnesses they'd interviewed for this book? US Government employees? Jurors? Prosecutors (or employees of the relevant prosecuting office(s))?

All anonymous sources as far as I know, sans Kimberly Belle.

[Mattingly]

All anonymous sources as far as I know, sans Kimberly Belle.
Thanks. So the writers said specifically that they'd excluded her testimony? If so, was this in the book itself, or during interviews (or any publicity tours, etc, for that matter)?

[runningshoes]

Yeah what a shame these guys didn't allow Bonds to pull the wool over our eyes.

I've been in similar, albeit not as risky, situations and I'm happy to report my integrity and reputation are still intact.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

I've been in similar, albeit not as risky, situations and I'm happy to report my integrity and reputation are still intact.
Really?

Your integrity is intact? I didn't even know you had integrity! :D

[W_Marone]

I commend those guys for sticking to thier word and not spilling the beans, shows what they really believe in.

[Mattingly]

I commend those guys for sticking to thier word and not spilling the beans, shows what they really believe in.
So even if the testimony is supposed to be sealed, you're for this being leaked to reporters who then write a book about it? I'm not too sure I'd agree with this.

To me, if you're a juror, you're sworn to privacy, never to utter a word to anyone. If you testify, you say you're there to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If you say that you won't reveal any details of what happened or was said in the grand jury testimony, then your honor should be upheld. People are worrying about the 1st Amendment as they concern reporters. What about the honor of the judicial system? Why is the public's right to know higher than the sanctity of the judicial system, as in people who've sworn not to reveal things, do so when someone's going to write articles then a book about this?

I'm not too sure I'd put a reporter's need to report above this. To me, it's either the reporter's need (to write a story) gets honored *OR* it's the judicial system's need to keep things under wrap. I consider these to be an "either/or" thing, whereby you must choose between one or the other. I would choose the sanctity of the judicial system.

If anyone confuses me with a Barry Bonds supporter, I'd simply tell them that I'm not. Far from it.

[Astro]

I commend those guys for sticking to thier word and not spilling the beans, shows what they really believe in.
Yes, they believe in breaking the law... so they are actually worse than Barry Bonds, because while many people believe he took steroids (which is illegal) he has not been convicted of this... but these reporters have broken the law and the proof is right out in the open

[Mattingly]

Yes, they believe in breaking the law... so they are actually worse than Barry Bonds, because while many people believe he took steroids (which is illegal) he has not been convicted of this... but these reporters have broken the law and the proof is right out in the open
I found it very interesting in that one comment I'd heard from one of the reporters was that if they'd revealed their sources, nobody would want to talk to reporters anymore. I immediately thought, "You mean nobody would want to discuss testimony that's supposed to be sealed with you anymore?"

I figured that's what it would amount to, given that "truth in advertising" were held intact.

[W_Marone]

So even if the testimony is supposed to be sealed, you're for this being leaked to reporters who then write a book about it? I'm not too sure I'd agree with this.

To me, if you're a juror, you're sworn to privacy, never to utter a word to anyone. If you testify, you say you're there to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If you say that you won't reveal any details of what happened or was said in the grand jury testimony, then your honor should be upheld. People are worrying about the 1st Amendment as they concern reporters. What about the honor of the judicial system? Why is the public's right to know higher than the sanctity of the judicial system, as in people who've sworn not to reveal things, do so when someone's going to write articles then a book about this?

I'm not too sure I'd put a reporter's need to report above this. To me, it's either the reporter's need (to write a story) gets honored *OR* it's the judicial system's need to keep things under wrap. I consider these to be an "either/or" thing, whereby you must choose between one or the other. I would choose the sanctity of the judicial system.

If anyone confuses me with a Barry Bonds supporter, I'd simply tell them that I'm not. Far from it.

Hey, I dont have problem with it, whats done is done, I cant do anything to change it, nor can any of us, so for not telling a court who it was and sticking to their word and going to jail for it, good for them.

There are plenty of worse things out there than someone revealing stuff that should have been sealed, lets go after the murderers and rapists and drug dealers before we start making these two guys Public Enemy number 1.

[Skin & Bones]

Thanks. So the writers said specifically that they'd excluded her testimony? If so, was this in the book itself, or during interviews (or any publicity tours, etc, for that matter)?

Yes, her testimony was in the book. She is the only source who isn't anonymous.

[rockin500]

I found it very interesting in that one comment I'd heard from one of the reporters was that if they'd revealed their sources, nobody would want to talk to reporters anymore. I immediately thought, "You mean nobody would want to discuss testimony that's supposed to be sealed with you anymore?"

I figured that's what it would amount to, given that "truth in advertising" were held intact.
most people dont want to talk to reporters anyways since a good 50% are complete scuzbuckets and another 30% are probably shady.

so why would anyone really "want" to talk to a reporter?

[Ubiquitous]

Reporters have given up their sources and anonymous sources have become known before. Being silent for future possible anonymous informers is a red herring. For the most part abstract deterrents that do not directly relate to the people in question do not work.

The simplest answer is that they don't want to give up their source because their source will get into trouble, and in fact the trouble might even implicate the writers in even more legal trouble.
Imagine if it turns out that the reporters went to the leaker's and paid them to give them the testimony. Then the writers wouldn't just be witnesses to a crime but active participants in it.

[EvanAparra]

As a journalist, its sad to see them go to jail for something like this. However, they had to have known that this info was being leaked illegally. I dont know if i would have accepted the info in the first place.

[W_Marone]

as far as accepting it, I would hear the information definanlty, would I choose to compose a book on what I had been told knowing the consequences? Probably not, to me, even though I love baseaball and always will, it's not worth going to jail for to me. I have other things more important in life. I wish I had something cool to say liek my kids, but I dont have any so I'll just say my general well being.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I know for a fact that the source of the Grand Jury leaks is none other than the Federal Government's lawyers who are doing the prosecuting of Mister Bonds.

You can read all about it in my new book, for only 29.95 at fine booksellers everywhere.

Of course, I cannot reveal my source behind this revelation, but I will gladly cash your check nonetheless.

[runningshoes]

I don't believe this!!

These guys are innocent, and, if they really write about Bonds was true, then, they SHOULD give up their sources, unless they've been paid to keep their mouths shut. :grouchy

You have a lot to learn about trust, Steve.

A difficult task in this day and age, but you can do it. I have faith in you.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Trust is a great thing to have, that's for sure, but I do NOT want to be caught up in a situation where I'd have to reveal sources under penalty of jail time.

[Big_Mac]

Forcing journalists to disclose their anonymous sources will prevent people from coming forward with important information in the future. If there were no anonymous sources then would the public have learned about Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers, or the NSA wiretapping program?

i agree with that statement. the only thing journalists can offer informants is confidentality.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I see it two ways, what was revealed and what should happen to those who revealed it. Glad that they blew the cover off the whole deal, the steroids and the connection of Bonds and some others. Like many others, I wanted some info since MLB wouldn't do a damn thing to really look into the deal.

With that said I can't defend the reporters, they should speak up even though they gave their word to the source that they would not reveal them. If they do not then they should be punished. My guess, the judge did what he had to set a sentance but I think they will be spared a jail sentance and be given another form of punishment.

The problem I have with the leak is it's illegal should not be. But lets use some common sense because it was gained illegally does not mean that the info is not true.

[sandlot]

This is a very complicated topic and not one that's solved by one-liners or simplified free press-versus-sancity of the judiciary arguments, no matter how heartfelt. Remember, the jurors, court employees and officers of the court (lawyers) are all forbidden by law not to reveal testimony. As far as they are concerned, the law against leaking is clear. This also applies to witnesses, but the two reporters are being compelled to give witness and are refusing to testify. The sole piece of information they have to offer the Grand Jury is the name or names of the source(s) who leaked them information. They have zero first-hand knowledge of who used, sold, distributed steroids or any other PEDS. In short, they have no additional information beyond that which is already known (or, perhaps, published in the book) to offer the prosecution or the defense. All they know is what they have been told, or have read, as to what has been testified before the Grand Jury.

Now, all of the would-be sources have denied being the leaks; why, when the law regarding them is so clear, are the prosecutors not expending effort the pressure the potential leakers into revealing themselves? Why are their denials not being subjected to similar examination and threat? The answer, of course, is that the only way to get the name of the leaker(s) is to pressure the reporters into breaking what is, for journalists, the deeply held professional, ethical and moral principle of protecting sources. Sources know this code, and they expect journalists to abide by it, just the way Catholics who go to confession expect a priest not to break his vow of confidentiality. Sometimes, journalists even get prosecuted by the very same people who've leaked them information. I am not saying that this has happened in this case, I am just saying that such hypocrisy happens. And what would the reaction be if those who are now calling the reporters names and saying they should be thrown into the slammer, if -- by chance -- it were later revealed that the source was actually somewhere on the prosecution team? Or in the FBI, IRS, US Postal Service or some other agency with access to the information?

Much of the information that fills BBF regarding the Balco-Bonds controversy has come from the reports published by the two reporters. How do you feel about having that information at your disposal? Does it inform your opinions? Help you to reach a conclusion? Confirm your instincts? Challenge your suppositions? Are you glad to know it? Or would you rather be in the dark, and maybe have the Grand jury records someday sealed after the umpteenth extension of the jury's life, perhaps with no charges laid after all the effort? If that happened, would some of the same people charging "hang the reporters" also be out again in full voice, only this time decrying the waste of taxpayers' money?

If you want to live someplace where leaks of information that the government wants to keep secret is not a problem, I invite you to come and see a couple in my part of the world. Spend a little time, then decide if you want to move in.

Glad to see young would-be journalists on BF and thinking about these important subjects.

[Ubiquitous]

If you want to live someplace where leaks of information that the government wants to keep secret is not a problem, I invite you to come and see a couple in my part of the world. Spend a little time, then decide if you want to move in.

This isn't information that our government wants to keep secret, but what we as society have decided should not be public knowledge. Grand jury investigations are private because they are investigations not trials We keep them private so that we can protect individuals from harassment and unfair practices against them because of the investigation and what is said in them. They are not being prosecuted because they shared information. That was not illegal, they broke no laws reporting what they saw and were told. They are going to jail because they think they are above the law, which they are finding out they are not. They are protecting lawbreakers by not cooperating. We can twist and turn this around all day, and give extreme examples on either side. But at the end of the day what remains true is that these reporters are like everybody else they must comply with the law or suffer the consequences.

People want to run around worrying about reporters sources, well forget that. Why isn't anybody worried about the judiciary process. These leaker's went and destroyed the testifiers anonymity. Now in an ironic twist we have people defending the leaker's anonymity. Even though the leaker's decided to not respect the anonymity of others who shared information. Where were these reporters when these testifiers privacy was being trampled?



Much of the information that fills BBF regarding the Balco-Bonds controversy has come from the reports published by the two reporters. How do you feel about having that information at your disposal? Does it inform your opinions? Help you to reach a conclusion? Confirm your instincts? Challenge your suppositions? Are you glad to know it? Or would you rather be in the dark, and maybe have the Grand jury records someday sealed after the umpteenth extension of the jury's life, perhaps with no charges laid after all the effort? If that happened, would some of the same people charging "hang the reporters" also be out again in full voice, only this time decrying the waste of taxpayers' money?


Just because we benefited from the information that doesn't make it right. It doesn't excuse the illegality of the act. It doesn't mean we can subvert the system, to take a short cut so we can have the information faster.

[sandlot]

This isn't information that our government wants to keep secret, but what we as society have decided should not be public knowledge. Grand jury investigations are private because they are investigations not trials. We keep them private so that we can protect individuals from harassment and unfair practices against them because of the investigation and what is said in them. This is a thoughtful reply that deserves a decent response, and I hope the mods will allow it because this has become all tied up with the entire PEDS issue.

Grand Juries are not trials, quite rightly, but as discussed elsewhere at length, they are powerful investigatorial platforms that allow for the bringing of charges (indictments) using a lower standard of proof than would be applied if and when the charges ever reach trial, which they often do not because prosecutors also use (and misuse and abuse) Grand Juries as tools to coerce pleas. The Grand Jury system has been crying out for serious reform for many, many years. But, for starters:

(1) It is indeed the government that wants the information kept secret. The prosecution is the government. This case is the federal government of the US -- in the form of the Justice Department, IRS, FBI, DEA and Postal Service -- versus Balco, et al., and the emphasis has been increasingly upon the et al..

(2) Yes, the law against revealing testimony is intended to protect witnesses and in principle governs all, but in reality it is selectively applied. Note that the law is against "revealing" -- the revelation in this case was made by someone to the reporters, and this is my point: Why are the Feds choosing not to go after every person with knowledge of the Grand Jury testimony in order to identify the leaker(s) and then prosecute accordingly? Why go after the reporters, who received the information -- just because it's easier? Or because if they came down like a ton on the jurors, who might well be leaking testimony, that it would scare off other people from ever agreeing to serve on a Grand Jury panel? Could it be that going after reporters -- knowing they'll resist testifying -- would also be popular, especially if they're actually jailed, and possibly generate some sympathy for a prolonged and costly inquiry that's so far led to precious little? Tell me, is this blind justice at work? Or justice with one eye peeking from beneath the blindfold? I do not ask this rhetorically, nor simply as someone who's sympathetic to journalists (though I am), but as someone who has worked in the field of criminal justice reform, including court reform, and has some knowledge of the issues, as I believe that you have as well.


They are not being prosecuted because they shared information. That was not illegal, they broke no laws reporting what they saw and were told. They are going to jail because they think they are above the law, which they are finding out they are not. They are protecting lawbreakers by not cooperating. Sorry, that is not entirely correct. If someone leaked information to the reporters, but the reporters chose not to report it or their paper elected not to print it, we would not be discussing this at all. A law that's intended to protect witnesses against leaks is being used to punish those who received the information and printed it. Even though, strictly speaking, sharing the information was not illegal, it is in fact what they're being punished for: The act of publishing is completely integral to the issue.

The reporters are refusing to identify the source(s) because that is what reporters are obliged to do by the canons of their profession. They do it because getting information out to the public is based on a simple and enduring premise: Let the people decide. The reporters are not are willingly facing jail or other punishment because their intention is to protect miscreants. They read the First Amendment through the eyes of a strict constructionist, as they must; for if they do not, then who will?


We can twist and turn this around all day, and give extreme examples on either side. But at the end of the day what remains true is that these reporters are like everybody else they must comply with the law or suffer the consequences.They must comply, yes, but they must also fight for what is right and just in their eyes, knowing the potential consequences. Remember, it's not the Chronicle that will go to jail, nor the paper's shareholders, board of directors, publisher or editors. It's two guys, acting as monitors of the government (and that includes the judicial branch) who think people have a right to know whether and how the system is working.


People want to run around worrying about reporters sources, well forget that. Why isn't anybody worried about the judiciary process. These leaker's went and destroyed the testifiers anonymity. Now in an ironic twist we have people defending the leaker's anonymity. Even though the leaker's decided to not respect the anonymity of others who shared information. Where were these reporters when these testifiers privacy was being trampled? I, too, worry about the judicial process, and I think the stories they've published should make lots of people concerned about the judicial process. It's easy to answer where the reporters were when "the testifiers privacy was being trampled." They were outside the courtroom. This, in a nutshell, is core problem with the Grand Jury system, and the entire Balco investigation demonstrates vividly the system's shortcomings. What is fundamentally wrong in this instance is not the reporting, nor the leaking; it is the abuse of the process in the hands of the prosecutors and, it seems from afar, a compliant judge. Grand Juries have all too often become Star Chamber affairs, and that is far from the original intention.


Just because we benefited from the information that doesn't make it right. It doesn't excuse the illegality of the act. It doesn't mean we can subvert the system, to take a short cut so we can have the information faster.Not have it faster. Have it at all. Grand Jury testimony is usually sealed, especially where no indictments are forthcoming. That is why the system is rife with abuse and over-ripe for reform. Finally, punishing the messenger has an ancient and unhappy lineage. And is it never justified to commit a wrong in order to expose a larger one?

[Mattingly]

I'm curious, who are all of the "government people" involved in this whole thing? Prosecutors? I'm wondering what the Federal Government would do if one (or several) of their own prosecuting attorneys were amongst those who'd provided these leaked materials.

[runningshoes]

I'm curious, who are all of the "government people" involved in this whole thing? Prosecutors? I'm wondering what the Federal Government would do if one (or several) of their own prosecuting attorneys were amongst those who'd provided these leaked materials.

Prosecute them...zealously, of course.

I'm almost certain enthusiasm is a prerequisite course in law school.

But then again, if prosecutors prosecuted prosecutors, there would be no prosecutors to prosecute.

[west coast orange and black]

my friends have been very surprised at my take on whether the two sf chronicle writers can legally conceal their source(s). the thing that hangs me up is that williams and fainaru-wada stated that their purpose for writing their story was that the feds had been treating the balco case like any other drug case: climb the ladder to get to the bigger fish. except, to the writers, bonds was the big fish: the two writers flatly declared that the real story was bonds, and so they targeted him.

if they had instead gone to where the story naturally lead, the storyline would have been much different. so, investigative reporting -- no, not really: the writers joined a host of others who have targeted bonds along the way for their own glory/gain/job advancement.

[Mattingly]

Prosecute them...zealously, of course.

I'm almost certain enthusiasm is a prerequisite course in law school.

But then again, if prosecutors prosecuted prosecutors, there would be no prosecutors to prosecute.
I don't know how the federal process works, but since a grand jury is basically trying to ascertain whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go forth onto a trial, I presume that certain evidence, be it factual, witness statements (allegations) or whatever, were presented.

If those people providing the evidence were athletes, trainers, jurors, courtroom employees, prosecutors, then they should all know that this would not be allowed.

If it were prosecutors (I'm not sure which branch of the US Fed Govt is doing this, so perhaps the US Attorneys' office), I would presume that this department would face certain harsh criticism, and defense attorneys for unrelated cases would be having a field day in the media mentioning this to reporters.

To me, I don't care who did this, the testimony was supposed to have been sealed, meaning everyone in the know was expected to zip it firmly. Someone or some people failed to do so, were well aware of what they were doing, and I believe should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of what their so-called involvement in the matter was.

[runningshoes]

I would presume that this department would face certain harsh criticism, and defense attorneys for unrelated cases would be having a field day in the media mentioning this to reporters.

Criticism, a slap on the tush and perhaps a pink slip is all they ever see.

And of course, all you (Joe public) ever see is a white wash, but apparently you all prefer it that way.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

if they had instead gone to where the story naturally lead, the storyline would have been much different. so, investigative reporting -- no, not really: the writers joined a host of others who have targeted bonds along the way for their own glory/gain/job advancement.

That is exactly right, and that is why these hacks can rot in prison wrapped in the Constitution, as they say.

They are not "investigative journalists protecting their sources". They are opportuistic hacks who have been spoon fed leaked "info" and are making money off it. Where did the info come from? Well, it had to be someone with access to Bonds' testimony. Someone who wants Bonds in trouble.

Anyone who thinks that the Federal prosecutors couldn't be the leaks hasn't paid much attention to American history.

Bonds is (deservedly) a free man and these two hacks can rot.

[runningshoes]

Where did the info come from? Well, it had to be someone with access to Bonds' testimony. Someone who wants Bonds in trouble.

Bonds did something that could get him into trouble?

Oh what a tangled tune we sing.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

You have a lot to learn about trust, Steve.

A difficult task in this day and age, but you can do it. I have faith in you.

Most people these days aren't trustworthy, the world has changed, Troy, it's not what it used to be, there's more crime today, more violence, everything is about money. Money, money, I'm sure Feinaru-Wada and Williams both feel that they shouldn't give up their sources because of ''trust'', seriously, and that's not an ironic comment, if someone confided a secret to me, I wouldn't go around telling everyone who told me the secret, but I may tell the secret with no source, maybe the authors did the same, maybe they felt that they can tell the world about Bonds and about his alleged steroid use without ruining their or their source's credibility, imagine if they give up their source?

The grand jury and MLB will be all over them.

What else do I have to learn about trust?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Most people these days aren't trustworthy, the world has changed, Troy, it's not what it used to be, there's more crime today, more violence, everything is about money. Money, money, I'm sure Feinaru-Wada and Williams both feel that they shouldn't give up their sources because of ''trust'', seriously, and that's not an ironic comment, if someone confided a secret to me, I wouldn't go around telling everyone who told me the secret, but I may tell the secret with no source, maybe the authors did the same, maybe they felt that they can tell the world about Bonds and about his alleged steroid use without ruining their or their source's credibility, imagine if they give up their source?

The grand jury and MLB will be all over them.

What else do I have to learn about trust?
The world hasn't changed that much, Steve. There's always been crime, and in many ways it was worse than it is now. Money has always been at the core of it.
I think Ubiquitous does a fine job of summarizing what is happening here.

[runningshoes]

Most people these days aren't trustworthy, the world has changed, Troy, it's not what it used to be, there's more crime today, more violence, everything is about money. Money, money, I'm sure Feinaru-Wada and Williams both feel that they shouldn't give up their sources because of ''trust'', seriously, and that's not an ironic comment, if someone confided a secret to me, I wouldn't go around telling everyone who told me the secret, but I may tell the secret with no source, maybe the authors did the same, maybe they felt that they can tell the world about Bonds and about his alleged steroid use without ruining their or their source's credibility, imagine if they give up their source?

The grand jury and MLB will be all over them.

What else do I have to learn about trust?

Credibility is trust, Steve and these two reporters have that credibility because they can be trusted.

That's your lesson for the day.

Anyone who believes these two should run with their ***** in their hands shouting the names of their sources are the same ones I wouldn't trust to back my car out of my driveway.

And the world hasn't hasn't changed at all; it's just all thrown in your face constantly. I can assure you that anything happening on this God forsaken Earth today was happening with as much, if not more, frequency than it was twenty or thirty or 500 years ago.

If the youth of today, and I'm not necessary referring to you, could drag their ***** away from their computers and video games for more than fifteen minutes at a click, they may begin to realize this.

[Mattingly]

Criticism, a slap on the tush and perhaps a pink slip is all they ever see.

And of course, all you (Joe public) ever see is a white wash, but apparently you all prefer it that way.
Sometimes I wonder if the Feds don't already know what's going on. It seems like a glorified version of when someone is fired, so a person very familiar with the HR Dept walks around the office and say, "Did you know that so-and-so got fired because of __________?" and then laughs about it. Stuff that's supposed to be confidential somehow finds a loophole.

Like Jason Giambi, certain things were supposed to be kept private. However, someone's lips were loose, so the info got out. The reason I believe it got out: to tarnish the players involved, even though all testimony was supposed to be confidential.

Whoever told what they did to those reporters obviously wanted to tarnish the players' names. Not that the players don't deserve it, but if something is to be kept confidential, if you don't like the premise of this, then don't agree to partake in the goings-on. Don't promise to do something, then spill the beans because they suit your greater needs.

Credibility is trust, Steve and these two reporters have that credibility because they can be trusted.

That's your lesson for the day.

Anyone who believes these two should run with their ***** in their hands shouting the names of their sources are the same ones I wouldn't trust to back my car out of my driveway.
As to who I'd trust to back a car out of the driveway, or even to watch that car as I run inside the grocery store, I wouldn't trust either the people speaking to the reporters, nor the reporters themselves. As far as I'm concerned, the people who squealed--be they jurors, trainers, witnesses, prosecutors, courtroom employees or anyone else involved--knew very well that the proceedings were to be kept strictly confidential. If they then talk to a reporter, their respect for the judicial system is absolutely zero to me.

The reporters obviously knew that the people they'd interviewed were doing something illegal. Why should they deserve any respect either? Greater cause or no greater cause, if you raise your right hand, take an oath to remain silent on everything made available to you, then if you can't keep that, you've made a liar out of yourself.

Just my thoughts.

[runningshoes]

As far as I'm concerned, the people who squealed--be they jurors, trainers, witnesses, prosecutors, courtroom employees or anyone else involved--knew very well that the proceedings were to be kept strictly confidential. If they then talk to a reporter, their respect for the judicial system is absolutely zero to me.

Yeah, but a lot of them recognize the justice system for the broken down old jalopy that it is and they also have to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. That can be a pretty strong motivation to reveal what is being hid, especially if they believe Tom's about to apply another coat of whitewash to the fence.

[Mattingly]

Yeah, but a lot of them recognize the justice system for the broken down old jalopy that it is and they also have to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. That can be a pretty strong motivation to reveal what is being hid, especially if they believe Tom's about to apply another coat of whitewash to the fence.
To my knowledge, if you agree to something, if you don't like the language, then guess what? You've still agreed to it.

When you become a grand juror, you take an oath. If there are police officers in the court, they take the oath also. So does any stenographer, court clerk. The judge is presumed to have sworn not to tell.

Since I don't see the defense attorneys nor players' agents to have a motive to want to tarnish their own clients, I'll presume it's not them.

Now then, say you sign a lease to rent a place from me. You don't like some language in there, you can ask me to amend it. However, once you sign it, then the terms apply. Broken jalopy, out of date or whatever, you've agreed to those terms. I don't believe that something simply being passe means that the terms you've fully agreed to can suddenly be ignored at someone's whim.

In the courtroom, the terms which have been ignored are very simple:

Whatever information, testimony, presentation of facts, events, etc, you've been given privilege to in order to do your work involved with this, you have agreed to share this information with nobody outside of this, meaning nobody who's directly involved. If you choose not to keep this confidential, then as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be in there, as you've given an oath of confidentiality. You cannot keep that simple thing--the strict confidence of whatever was said, which is the very reason you are there in the first place--then as far as I'm concerned, you should not have involved yourself in the process.

To me, it's that simple. Find it flawed? Guess what? Leave the system or make it better. I'd say to not involve yourself in a commitment you don't feel like honoring. Each of the interviewees and the reporters who were the interviewers knew of that commitment, yet each of them willingly bypassed this.

I can't respect someone like that.

[runningshoes]

Now then, say you sign a lease to rent a place from me. You don't like some language in there, you can ask me to amend it. However, once you sign it, then the terms apply. Broken jalopy, out of date or whatever, you've agreed to those terms. I don't believe that something simply being passe means that the terms you've fully agreed to can suddenly be ignored at someone's whim.

Are you going to fix or address it?

In this case, you're not going to do that, so, yeah, I am going to break the agreement.

[Mattingly]

Are you going to fix or address it?

In this case, you're not going to do that, so, yeah, I am going to break the agreement.
Not that easy. If you don't like the terms, then fixing it is optional for both parties. They agree to change things and agree to terms, then they can fix or amend it. If not, then both parties are legally bound by the terms previously agreed to. I'm not sure how they work in the Phillipines, but that's how they work in the USA.

There's no such thing as "I don't like this agreement that I've signed, so I'm going to ignore it". Once you've put your John Hancock on the dotted line, you're legally bound to honor all of the terms and conditions agreed to, including all penalties attached to these.

If agreeing to not disclose any of the events made aware to you is too much, then I believe that's just a tad in poor taste. It's simply asking you to do nothing more than to keep everything hush-hush. What is so difficult about that? Simply put, you agree to seal your lips.

[Ubiquitous]

(2) Yes, the law against revealing testimony is intended to protect witnesses and in principle governs all, but in reality it is selectively applied. Note that the law is against "revealing" -- the revelation in this case was made by someone to the reporters, and this is my point: Why are the Feds choosing not to go after every person with knowledge of the Grand Jury testimony in order to identify the leaker(s) and then prosecute accordingly?

Who says they are not? The reporters are witnesses to a crime, and they refusing to testify. That is why they are in jail or will be going to jail.





Sorry, that is not entirely correct. If someone leaked information to the reporters, but the reporters chose not to report it or their paper elected not to print it, we would not be discussing this at all. A law that's intended to protect witnesses against leaks is being used to punish those who received the information and printed it. Even though, strictly speaking, sharing the information was not illegal, it is in fact what they're being punished for: The act of publishing is completely integral to the issue.

This has nothing to do with the first admendment. Even if they had never published the story, they would still be going to jail if they refused to testify. The act of publishing reveals to the government that the reporters are witnesses to a crime. It is a big red flag that says I am a witness. If they hadn't published then the government would not have known they were a witness.


The reporters are refusing to identify the source(s) because that is what reporters are obliged to do by the canons of their profession. They do it because getting information out to the public is based on a simple and enduring premise: Let the people decide. The reporters are not are willingly facing jail or other punishment because their intention is to protect miscreants. They read the First Amendment through the eyes of a strict constructionist, as they must; for if they do not, then who will?


So getting information out to the people is what the media does right? So why then do they hide the source? They are hiding the information from the public. In fact by not knowing who is telling us this information and why they are purposefully slanting the information and leaving it incomplete. Somebody leaked the information to get a private citizen of our country, and it might very well be a member of our government that did it. It might very well be a planned attack by an entire organization or a group in that organization. Don't you think the public should know about that? Shouldn't we the public get to decide? To me that would the bigger story, to me that would be what the public needs to know the most. Not some tabloid story that has no real impact on our lives.


They must comply, yes, but they must also fight for what is right and just in their eyes, knowing the potential consequences. Remember, it's not the Chronicle that will go to jail, nor the paper's shareholders, board of directors, publisher or editors. It's two guys, acting as monitors of the government (and that includes the judicial branch) who think people have a right to know whether and how the system is working.

Nobody else is going to jail because nobody else is a witness to a crime and refusing to testify. If the editor knows the source and refuses to testify then he risks jail times as well. If shareholders are in the same boat then they too risk jail time by refusing to cooperate. And no these two guys are not acting as monitors of the government. They wrote a book about Barry Bonds. They exposed no government corrution or cover up. No incompetent government employees or organizations. What they did was use confidential papers to expose a private citizen. Now then that isn't wrong or illegal on their part but it isn't something worthy of the pedestal that most people put them on.

[Ubiquitous]

Are you going to fix or address it?

In this case, you're not going to do that, so, yeah, I am going to break the agreement.


The big difference here is that nothing is wrong that needs to be fixed or addressed. This is just one side of an agreement refusing to honor the agreement.

[runningshoes]

Not that easy. If you don't like the terms, then fixing it is optional for both parties. They agree to change things and agree to terms, then they can fix or amend it. If not, then both parties are legally bound by the terms previously agreed to. I'm not sure how they work in the Phillipines, but that's how they work in the USA.

There's no such thing as "I don't like this agreement that I've signed, so I'm going to ignore it". Once you've put your John Hancock on the dotted line, you're legally bound to honor all of the terms agreed to.

If agreeing to not disclose any of the events made aware to you is too much, then I believe that's just a tad in poor taste. It's simply asking you to do nothing more than to keep everything hush-hush. What is so difficult about that? Simply put, you agree to seal your lips.


That's the thing.

While all men are said to be created equal, we both know that's just not the case. I don't know about the Philippines because we both know I'm Canadian, but in Canada it's not that difficult to get out of an agreement if you're getting the shaft.

So in broader, moral terms, if I get in there after agreeing to whatever and figure out things are not as I've been led to believe or as they seem or, like I said, the whitewash is going on, I believe I have an obligation that goes beyond our agreement to make sure the truth comes out.

I'm not going in there with a tell all mind set but If I figure out the lies are running thicker than blood, I'm going to let someone know and that someone is more than likely going to be someone capable of letting a whole lot of others know.

[runningshoes]

The big difference here is that nothing is wrong that needs to be fixed or addressed. This is just one side of an agreement refusing to honor the agreement.

I don't see it as being that back and white.

An agreement was broken..no boubt adout it, but that broken agreement blew the lid right off that liar and allowed me to see him for who he is.

So now I get to decide for myself if he "did it."

And I've decided he did, whereas he would have got away with it had someone not piped up and did what I believe to be the right thing and expose him and his activities on the field.

You can look at things in that cold, unemotional way you do till the cows home;I'm just not capable.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Credibility is trust, Steve and these two reporters have that credibility because they can be trusted.

That's your lesson for the day.

Anyone who believes these two should run with their ***** in their hands shouting the names of their sources are the same ones I wouldn't trust to back my car out of my driveway.

And the world hasn't hasn't changed at all; it's just all thrown in your face constantly. I can assure you that anything happening on this God forsaken Earth today was happening with as much, if not more, frequency than it was twenty or thirty or 500 years ago.

If the youth of today, and I'm not necessary referring to you, could drag their ***** away from their computers and video games for more than fifteen minutes at a click, they may begin to realize this.

Interesting.

That last part is ENTIRELY true, in my neigbourhood, kids are so lazy, they play video games and ''chat'' all day long and put their homework and life off until it's too late, these kids will go nowhere and that's why I hope that will change, because we (signifying youth here) are the future, and if we don't start studying life, and learning, then we will never become what the world would like us to be, the next generation, I'm afraid will be a lot worse, irresponsable and insanely lazy than today, I mean, most adults today have comendable jobs because THEY studied long and hard, they learned while other kids went off and did drugs and played video games, and look where they ended up, as dishwashers or as janiotors.

If something doesn't change today, and I mean it, the next decades will see welfare and unemployement rates rise.

That's our speciality here in Quebec, don't care about anything but you and live on welfare.

What a life.

[trosmok]

Often our sytem of justice doesn't determine guilt or innocence, legitimacy or unlawfulness, or even right from wrong. It becomes a contest to see who has the better legal team. Sad as this may sound, it is still among the best systems in force, and the one we are stuck with for now. Reform is always a possibility, but it takes time and perseverance to change the firmly entrenched judiciary branch of our government. The Grand Jury system has its inherent flaws, particularly because the prosecutors hold all, and I mean all the cards in these proceedings, and all parties, including the GJ investigators, gov't agents, and lawyers are duty bound to uphold the secrecy prescribed. In this case, that public trust was breached; which is a far worse thing than any crime, real or imagined, that will be revealed if this ever comes to trial. The prosecutors successfully argued this one point: we need to know who leaked sealed information, the reporters are the only ones who know, therefore they must reveal their sources or be found in contempt. The defense had no such compelling arguement to refute the prosecutors charge, and the judge had really no choice, in the eyes of the law, but to rule in favor of the governments' case.

The reporters have their own reasons for keeping mum, for now, and I tend to doubt the seemingly noble stance they are adopting of somehow defending the Bill of Rights, when their sources quite clearly were trampling on the same, will last very long. Three hots and a cot have a way of loosening lips like few other situations. It will not surprise me in the least if the sources include IRS agent Jeff Novitzky and Conte's attorney Robert Holley, as I have been saying for over two years.

[runningshoes]

Interesting.

That last part is ENTIRELY true, in my neigbourhood, kids are so lazy, they play video games and ''chat'' all day long and put their homework and life off until it's too late, these kids will go nowhere and that's why I hope that will change, because we (signifying youth here) are the future, and if we don't start studying life, and learning, then we will never become what the world would like us to be, the next generation, I'm afraid will be a lot worse, irresponsable and insanely lazy than today, I mean, most adults today have comendable jobs because THEY studied long and hard, they learned while other kids went off and did drugs and played video games, and look where they ended up, as dishwashers or as janiotors.

If something doesn't change today, and I mean it, the next decades will see welfare and unemployement rates rise.

That's our speciality here in Quebec, don't care about anything but you and live on welfare.

What a life.

It's good that you recognize this and haven't allowed yourself to fall into that trap.

It's a discussion for another time and another place, but I'll leave you with this:

My father once said something to me that changed my life. He said..

You think you know all the answers? You don't even know the questions.

Truer words were never spoken to me.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

You think you know all the answers? You don't even know the questions.

Truer words were never spoken to me.

wow, that is deep but I don't really undestand it, does it mean you want to know the answer to something you have not learned yet?

[runningshoes]

wow, that is deep but I don't really undestand it, does it mean you want to know the answer to something you have not learned yet?

No

It meant you think you know everything, but you really know nothing.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

No

It meant you think you know everything, but you really know nothing.
Very interesting quote, really, I mean it, I've never heard anything as true/real as that!

[Ubiquitous]

I don't see it as being that back and white.

An agreement was broken..no boubt adout it, but that broken agreement blew the lid right off that liar and allowed me to see him for who he is.

So now I get to decide for myself if he "did it."

And I've decided he did, whereas he would have got away with it had someone not piped up and did what I believe to be the right thing and expose him and his activities on the field.

You can look at things in that cold, unemotional way you do till the cows home;I'm just not capable.

You didn't need somebody to break the law to decide whether or not he did it. All this did was make you more certain, and for that we have our system trampled on.

Barry Bonds either got away with it or has not gotten away with it. Either answer is acceptable and this grand jury leak didn't change a thing. Is Barry Bonds in jail? Is he suspended from baseball? Has he been punished? Did people think he used drugs before the leak? Was there always going to be suspicion that he used drugs? Leaking the information didn't do anything except break the law and make some people some money. I don't see how knowing a little bit more about Barry Bonds makes that worth it.

[runningshoes]

Very interesting quote, really, I mean it, I've never heard anything as true/real as that!

It did the trick for me.

I didn't get it right away and he didn't explain it. I guess he was hoping I would figure it out on my own. I was a few years older than you but I thought about it for about a month and then it started sinking in.

We had different distractions back then. I was heavy into partying and generally having a good time. we didn't have computers or video games back then. Cabal television was new and generally uninteresting for someone my age.

anyways, I gave up my vices and started taking a closer look at the world around me.

Thanks Dad. :D

[Ubiquitous]

Why was there a grand jury? Well supposedly it was to investigate BALCO, but why was it really created? I think it was created to get the ballplayers. I think what is happening for the most part was the plan all along for the people running this show. The tactics they are using are nothing new. Put the ballplayers on the stand grant them immunity, which basically removes the 5th admendment defense. So now they have to cooperate or else they risk contempt and jail time. If they lie and get caught they lose immunity and also get their statements used against them. Then after the ballplayers testify they leak it to the press so that all will know their wrongdoing. Big whoop dee do. Now we all know Giambi used steroids, that will teach him. I guess he misses playing baseball, I bet he misses all the millions of dollars he lost. . .oh wait he didn't lose anything. But hey at least we know now. Nevermind that a government body or agents totally trampled on our rights. Never mind that they corrupted our systems. At least we know these ballplayers cheated. The leakers are not some heroic crusaders who were attempting to right a wrong. These guys are part of the corruption part of the problem. What they did was a calculated move in their attempt to get Barry Bonds and others. And to get them with what? Public scorn. . . ooohhh. These guys were major drug buyers and distributors. If we bought as much drugs as they did and spent that kind of money on drugs we would be in jail for a very long time. These guys get to go free and that is how the government and these agents designed it. That is the real story that is the scandal with real ramifications. Not Barry Bonds and steroids. These reporters are not defending whistleblowers, they are protecting and hiding corruption.

[Mattingly]

Why was there a grand jury? Well supposedly it was to investigate BALCO, but why was it really created? I think it was created to get the ballplayers. I think what is happening for the most part was the plan all along for the people running this show. The tactics they are using are nothing new. Put the ballplayers on the stand grant them immunity, which basically removes the 5th admendment defense. So now they have to cooperate or else they risk contempt and jail time. If they lie and get caught they lose immunity and also get their statements used against them. Then after the ballplayers testify they leak it to the press so that all will know their wrongdoing. Big whoop dee do.
One thing's for sure? Any ballplayer granted immunity from prosecution on this should simply stay mum. If they have their own people grant immunity, then have their other people leak it once it's granted, so as to tar & feather the player in the most important court of public opinion, then it's blatantly obvious they'll do it again.

I'd like to see the US Govt try this one in the immediate future. I say it'll never work.

[Rowe]

Any ballplayer granted immunity from prosecution on this should simply stay mum. If they have their own people grant immunity, then have their other people leak it once it's granted, so as to tar & feather the player in the most important court of public opinion, then it's blatantly obvious they'll do it again.


I think these are mixed issues. The reporters are not being punished, they are being coerced. That is, they are not even accused of a crime - they are being told to tell what they know about a criminal activity that clearly occurred (and they in fact benefitted from) or sit in jail. Even if they went to jail, it wouldn't be a sentence because they could leave any day one or both gave the information or the leaker came forward making their testimony unnecessary.

Your postulated ballplayer could be in the same boat. He may get immunity from prosecution of crimes he testifies about, but they could still coerce him to testify. I think his only recourse is to be a little less forthcoming and maybe not remember some things if he is (legitimately) afraid that his testimony would be leaked - trying to balance that with outright lying.

Greg Anderson is in jail for refusing to testify and is being coerced into doing so. Supposedly, he couldn't possibly be prosecuted for anything he says he did because he already received his punishment. He certainly has legitimate concern about anything he says becoming public. His lawyer even argues that he has legitimate concerns about testifying truthfully because he believes that if he doesn't say what the prosecutors want to hear, he'll face perjury charges. That said, he's sitting in jail for being mum - being coerced, not punished. He could leave this week just by saying he'll testify.

[Rowe]

BTW, the only reason the transcripts had value is because they were sealed. If they weren't sealed, the testimony would have been on smokinggun.com, ESPN, CNN, and AP that day. These reporters could have written a story, or Kim Bell's book even, but no one would remember their names.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You didn't need somebody to break the law to decide whether or not he did it. All this did was make you more certain, and for that we have our system trampled on.

Barry Bonds either got away with it or has not gotten away with it. Either answer is acceptable and this grand jury leak didn't change a thing. Is Barry Bonds in jail? Is he suspended from baseball? Has he been punished? Did people think he used drugs before the leak? Was there always going to be suspicion that he used drugs? Leaking the information didn't do anything except break the law and make some people some money. I don't see how knowing a little bit more about Barry Bonds makes that worth it.
I agree it was not worth it but I'm sure plenty of people were interested in knowing, finding out about the close ties between Barry, other athletes and Balco and it reinforced what some believed. Sorry the spotlight seems to be on Barry but he's the big story, exploding at an age when most ballplayer level off or tail off.


I'm not defending these reporters, they and the leakers did wrong, should be punished. It's correct to say it's not worth it but I and others wanted to know more about the whole deal. I'm not happy that a law was broken to get this out to the public, not fair to those named but it happened that way and nothing can take it back, hoping the law breakers get what they deserve. There was no proof even before the leak and many had already formed an opinion. Perhaps in the future we may find that all or some of the leak was not what we heard. I'll let the courts take care of the law breakers.

[antihipster]

While my Libertarian views state that steroids ought to be legal [that is another thread under the title of "Doing What I Want To Do To My Own Body As Long As I Do Not Harm Others"], these reporters should not have not been put in prison for giving away their sources

The reporters ought not to be in jail because they had agreed to protect their sources, which in long means that they have agreed not dismember the concept of free speech. Jailing reporters for giving away their sources is stepping dangerously towards Stalinism.

[Ubiquitous]

This has nothing to do with free speech. They are not in jail for writing a column or book. They broke no laws in writing that book. At least we assume they didn't. They are in jail for one very basic reason. They are refusing to testify about a crime they witnessed. The writers were to write whatever they want, they do not have the right to say nothing when it comes to testifying. This is something the Supreme Court itself has ruled 30 some odd years ago. If I am at a bar and I see my friend hit another person over the head with a bottle and it ends up killing him is it my first amendment right to say nothing if put on the stand? Is it my right to keep quiet when the government comes to ask me questions about the incident?
No I don't have those rights, so why should two reporters get those rights?

[antihipster]

They do have the right to be quiet when the government asks. It is the basis of free speech and helps to uncover things in the future so the press does not become afraid to cover the story.

[Ubiquitous]

No it isn't.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay to expound on that.

This is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say you can ignore your government or the due process of the law. The history of law is quite clear on this one. You cannot simply say nothing when called on to testify.

The government is not abridging the rights of free speech or of the press when they call upon these reporters to testify. They witnessed a crime and the government wants them to testify. They cannot ignore that. Where they would have a case and a right to stay silent would be for instance if somebody leaked them pictures of say the President cheating on his wife and they published them. In that scenario the government would have a very difficult case in trying to get them to give up their sources. It would be very unlikely that a judge would order them to give up the source, and even if he did it would be very unlikely that when it was all said and done his ruling would stand.

[sandlot]

Okay to expound on that.

This is the first amendment:


It does not say you can ignore your government or the due process of the law. The history of law is quite clear on this one. You cannot simply say nothing when called on to testify. Sorry, not entirely correct. You certainly can say nothing. First of all, you cannot be compelled to bear witness against yourself (self-incrimination) at trial. That is a constitutional right bestowed by the 5th Amendment. Second, if you have taken on the stand, or have been subpoenad to testify before a Grand Jury or Congress, you can always choose to assert your 5th Amendment right -- i.e., "take the 5th." (3) If called as a witness in circumstances where you are not yourself incriminated, you can refuse to testify or to answer certain questions, as Anderson has done in the Balco case, but you face possible prosecution for it. In this case, however, the reporters are asserting that their silence is necessary because they have to protect sources if they are going to be able to exercise the rights and enjoy the protection specifically guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Thus arises the classic free press-fair trial tension, because the constitution contains two amendments, the 1st and 5th, offering protections that occasionally conflict.


The government is not abridging the rights of free speech or of the press when they call upon these reporters to testify. They witnessed a crime and the government wants them to testify. They cannot ignore that.Whenever the government wants to obtain silence and tries to compel reporters to testify because of what they have published or aired, there is most certainly an effort to abridge freedom of the press. That is undeniable, and I would expect the prosecutors themselves to agree. The issue, however, is whether this abridgement is justified in the circumstances. In this case the reporters have witnessed no crime -- certainly not the suspected crime(s) for which the Grand Jury was empaneled to begin with. If you are saying that the "crime" they witnessed was someone giving them information, then (a) it was not a crime for them to receive it, and (b) that might depend on how it was done. For example, if someone left a stack of papers on a park bench for them to pick up, what have they witnessed? But you have not addressed the key point that I repeat again: Why go after the recipients but not the source(s)?

Where they would have a case and a right to stay silent would be for instance if somebody leaked them pictures of say the President cheating on his wife and they published them. In that scenario the government would have a very difficult case in trying to get them to give up their sources. It would be very unlikely that a judge would order them to give up the source, and even if he did it would be very unlikely that when it was all said and done his ruling would stand.The reason in the case you posit is that the invasion of privacy, as it would surely be, would be justified in the circumstances because the President is the nation's highest public figure (with a high expectation of personal probity and a very low expectation of privacy) [cf., Sullivan v. The New York Times] And you are right, it would be hard to force disclosure, although I suspect that an administration would in certain cases seek to prevent disclosure and launch an investigation on the grounds of national security, especially if someone could get close enough with a camera to catch the President in flagrante delicto. But that's a very long, long way away from whether Conte-gave-to-Anderson-gave-to-Bonds a bottle of steroid-spiked flaxseed oil.

[sandlot]

I'm curious, who are all of the "government people" involved in this whole thing? Prosecutors? I'm wondering what the Federal Government would do if one (or several) of their own prosecuting attorneys were amongst those who'd provided these leaked materials.Excellent question. The prosecutors are in court and other government departments stand behind them, backing up their work and benefiting from it. What would they do if, hypothetically speaking, it were revealed that the prosecution was itself the source? Answer: Nothing. This is like discovering gambling in Casablanca.

[Ubiquitous]

Sorry, not entirely correct. You certainly can say nothing. First of all, you cannot be compelled to bear witness against yourself (self-incrimination) at trial. That is a constitutional right bestowed by the 5th Amendment. Second, if you have taken on the stand, or have been subpoenad to testify before a Grand Jury or Congress, you can always choose to assert your 5th Amendment right -- i.e., "take the 5th." (3) If called as a witness in circumstances where you are not yourself incriminated, you can refuse to testify or to answer certain questions, as Anderson has done in the Balco case, but you face possible prosecution for it. In this case, however, the reporters are asserting that their silence is necessary because they have to protect sources if they are going to be able to exercise the rights and enjoy the protection specifically guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. Thus arises the classic free press-fair trial tension, because the constitution contains two amendments, the 1st and 5th, offering protections that occasionally conflict.


Yes I know about the 5th but it doesn't pertain to what we are discussing. Which is testifying about what one witnesses.




Whenever the government wants to obtain silence and tries to compel reporters to testify because of what they have published or aired, there is most certainly an effort to abridge freedom of the press. That is undeniable, and I would expect the prosecutors themselves to agree. The issue, however, is whether this abridgement is justified in the circumstances. In this case the reporters have witnessed no crime -- certainly not the suspected crime(s) for which the Grand Jury was empaneled to begin with. If you are saying that the "crime" they witnessed was someone giving them information, then (a) it was not a crime for them to receive it, and (b) that might depend on how it was done. For example, if someone left a stack of papers on a park bench for them to pick up, what have they witnessed? But you have not addressed the key point that I repeat again: Why go after the recipients but not the source(s)?
The government is not going after these guys. These guys refuse to cooperate, they were asked to cooperate and they refused. It is now a seperate issue then who is the source.

AS for the crime they did witness a crime. Regardless of the form in which the information was recieved. If the revealing of info was intentiontal and planned then they witnessed a crime. That crime being their source leaking the information.



The reason in the case you posit is that the invasion of privacy, as it would surely be, would be justified in the circumstances because the President is the nation's highest public figure (with a high expectation of personal probity and a very low expectation of privacy) [cf., Sullivan v. The New York Times] And you are right, it would be hard to force disclosure, although I suspect that an administration would in certain cases seek to prevent disclosure and launch an investigation on the grounds of national security, especially if someone could get close enough with a camera to catch the President in flagrante delicto. But that's a very long, long way away from whether Conte-gave-to-Anderson-gave-to-Bonds a bottle of steroid-spiked flaxseed oil.


It would be hard to force disclosure because the source committed no crime, thus the reporters would not be witnesses to a crime.

[Ubiquitous]

Excellent question. The prosecutors are in court and other government departments stand behind them, backing up their work and benefiting from it. What would they do if, hypothetically speaking, it were revealed that the prosecution was itself the source? Answer: Nothing. This is like discovering gambling in Casablanca.


I don't believe that is true for a minute

[Ubiquitous]

To me I think the biggest problem with coming to a proper decision on this is people and subject involved in it. We have Barry Bonds, lightning rod for opinion. We have drugs and hallowed numbers in a much beloved sport. All of that thrown on top of the issue I think clouds the issue. How would people view a case in which a reporter is approached by Jeffrey Dahmer and Jeffrey shows explains all that he did, the reporter then writes a story about a serial killer but doesn't give a name, then the government asks the reporter to give the name, he refuses, and the courts throw him in jail?

Now I think most people would be for the jailing to force the reporter to give up the killer even though in all probability the reporter is on firmer ground for not wanting to give up the source in this case then in the Bonds case.

Or how about this, for whatever reason the police are investigating you for rape. You didn't do it, but it has gotten to the point where it has reached the grand jury stage. Somebody involved in the process leaks information to the local media. Perhaps you have a fetish or two that while legal is not commonly accepted. Or maybe simply you or others have to reveal secrets that while legal are things you do not want to share publicly. The local media then run the story and the info and overnight you become a pariah in your community. At the end of the run you are not indicted. Now then don't you want to know who broke the law and consequently made your life miserable? Don't you think they should be punishedd? Would you still be on the side of the reporters if it was you who had to suffer the consequences of the lawbreaker sharing your info?

[west coast orange and black]

Ubiquitous: Why was there a grand jury? I think it was created to get the ballplayers.

i believe that the intention of taking the balco case before the grand jury was to land the big fish. the federal prosecutors handled the case as most other drug cases: use the little fish to get to the big fish. (and according to the testimonies, the bigger the fish that testified 3 years ago, the less information that was gained.)

the two reporters realized that to the feds, the big fish were the drug suppliers, and they took aim to go after their own big fish: barry bonds.

so, rather than simply "follow the story", they targeted someone. rather than a truly big, important story, the two reporters mhad already made up their minds to where their road taken would end: #25.

this is the sole reason why i am having such a difficult time with this portion of this story. for, ordinarily, i would defend the reporters to the teeth. it's just that it is difficult to do so knowing that they targeted an individual.

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: For example, if someone left a stack of papers on a park bench for them to pick up, what have they witnessed? But you have not addressed the key point that I repeat again: Why go after the recipients but not the source(s)?

very good example and follow-up point, sandlot.
but, the two reporters (recipients) behind bars is an attempt to discover the source(s). no?

due diligence was done, i believe, when all those who signed for possession of the grand jury testimony were questioned regarding the leak, and all swore that they did not leak.

[Ubiquitous]

I think BALCO was the excuse to get Barry and the other players on the stand to testify. BALCO was the pawn not the king in this game. Pretty much at every turn in the investigation they were trying to get Bonds. What the Feds were trying to do was the Sam Giancanna technique. Give Bonds immunity which leaves him with few choices. Say nothing and go to prison until he decided to cooperate. Lie and risk punishment, or tell the truth and have it revealed that he cheated. Getting BALCO would simply be a bonus to the Feds. For starters I am not even sure the Feds could launch a grand jury investigation against Barry Bonds and his drug use. I do not believe they would have jurisdiction in that matter. So to get him on the stand they would need to find another route, that route being BALCO. The Feds wanted Bonds because it is a high profile case and could make a lot of careers and be good PR. Would any of us know who Jeff Novitsky was if he was looking into John Smith from Burbank? Now imagine if Jeff or some other prosecutor manages to nail Bonds, what do you think his option would be after that? He could write his own ticket afterwards.

[Ubiquitous]

sandlot: For example, if someone left a stack of papers on a park bench for them to pick up, what have they witnessed? But you have not addressed the key point that I repeat again: Why go after the recipients but not the source(s)?

very good example and follow-up point, sandlot.
but, the two reporters (recipients) behind bars is an attempt to discover the source(s). no?



Not really a good example because if leaving the stack of papers was planned and arranged then they are witnessing a crime being committed. Possibly even involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. Which I believe the reporters themselves talked about in their emails to one another. Now then if somebody had accidentally left the papers and the reporters found them by coincidence then they witnessed no crime. But then the reporters could simply say that. They are not saying that because that did not happen. Them receiving the information was a planned event, it was by no accident that they have the information.

[west coast orange and black]

Ubiquitous: The Feds wanted Bonds because it is a high profile case .... imagine if [a] prosecutor manages to nail Bonds .... He could write his own ticket afterwards.

agreed on the matter of writing one's own ticket, everywhereman. but i believe that the grand jury would not have convened as a way to get bonds. maybe i am simply kidding myself because i want to hang on to the notion that, at least in the beginning, good and proper intentions led to the grand jury hearing the balco case.

[west coast orange and black]

Ubiquitous: Not really a good example because if leaving the stack of papers was planned and arranged then they are witnessing a crime being committed. Possibly even involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime.

a few *ifs* involved, such as this one: if the two knew the content of the handed-over papers before taking possession.

Them receiving the information was a planned event, it was by no accident that they have the information.
i have not read nor heard the circumstances that realizes this scenario; i do not know how the two reporters received the alleged testimony.

[trosmok]

Having a real hard time myself, wcoab. Normally I would argue that reporters' sources, all of them, must be shielded from disclosure to preserve the value of whistleblowers and rooting out government corruption. Yet, we cannot simply let people run around leaking stuff for their own purposes. If Bernstein and Woodward had been forced to reveal the identity of "deep throat" the criminals in CREEP and the plumbers might have disappeared him quickly, and he would likely not have died from natural causes. The outing of the identity of a CIA operative for political retribution purposes is still being pursued, and shows just how harmful leaking supposedly secret information can be. Most recently a report from high ranking intelligence officials was leaked, and both sides are scrambling to make political hay from it. The SF Chronicle reporters have no such world importance for concealing the source of the leak from the GS testimony. Persons or people in that room where sworn statements were made with the promise of being sealed unless or until indictments are handed down talked to the media. No matter how you slice it, that is wrong, real wrong, and they can't hide behind the bill of rights to protect the slime that obviously violated those same protections in this case.

[sandlot]

I don't believe that is true for a minuteYou might not, and I appreciate your faith in the prosecutorial arm of the justice system. While I think that faith is misplaced, sadly, I sincerely respect it. The Grand Jury system was described in another BBF post as a "broken-down jalopy." Broken-down it is, in relation to its intent, but in the hands of those who know how to use it, it is a very potent weapon indeed for investigatory and intimidatory purposes. As a tool for the enhancement of justice, however, it leaves a great deal to be desired. This, from the (late) Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: "It is, indeed, common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of the Executive."

[sandlot]

Not really a good example because if leaving the stack of papers was planned and arranged then they are witnessing a crime being committed. Possibly even involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. Which I believe the reporters themselves talked about in their emails to one another. Now then if somebody had accidentally left the papers and the reporters found them by coincidence then they witnessed no crime. But then the reporters could simply say that. They are not saying that because that did not happen. Them receiving the information was a planned event, it was by no accident that they have the information.As you wrote earlier, and I agreed, publishing the material is no crime. Leaking it, however, is -- unless of course you are a witness and are therefore not bound to keep secrecy, or you have on hand materials not submitted as the result of a Grand Jury subpoena and therefore exempt from secrecy, etc. In fact, the Grand Jury now sitting is, as I understand it, empaneled precisely to investigate leaks from the previous Grand Jury, which expired without bringing any indictments. If you think justice is being harmed, go after the leakers. Threaten everyone who could be a source with jail and if they don't talk, follow through. Oh, problems with that? Everybody who could be a leaker denies it? Too many people? Too hard? Or, everyone who could be a leaker includes the prosecution and its staff? And could they fairly investigate/prosecute themselves if that were where the leak was to be found? Or is it just easier to go after the reporters? I think we all know the answer. But IMO, ease is not a sufficient justification for tossing into jail persons who have committed no offense other than refusal to identify the source(s) of a leak that may (or may not) violate the law. That means the reporters are in contempt of court, a point which they and their attorneys accept (though the order to jail them is on appeal). Conspiracy to be in contempt would be a very odd charge. Personally, I think the really serious damage to justice is not being done by the reporters, or by the leaker(s); it's being done by misuse/abuse of the Grand Jury process. Who's going to jail? PEDs producers? PED users? PEDs peddlers? PEDs investors? No. To date, one witness is in jail, and two more witnesses are threatened. All for refusal to testify. Full stop. Does anyone not see that the prosecution and the reporters have, at the end of the day, a shared interest? Bonds is the feds target, and Bonds is also the big story. The feds so far haven't proven Bonds guilty of anything in court. The reporters have helped to get Bonds found guilty in the court of public opinion. It might be coincidental, like going to sleep at night with a tooth under your pillow and waking up to find a quarter, but it's still worth noting.

BTW, here's the URL for an article -- by a federal prosecutor -- that may be helpful in understanding how some (but by no means all) information becomes public during a Grand Jury investigation: <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011025_kwan-gett.html>

[ESPNFan]

I really don't see the "out to get Bonds" argument. Initially the obvious target of the Feds case was the BALCO leadership. I really do not think that the DA would offer Bonds Immunity if he was really out to get him. What I think happened, and this is purely conjecture on my part, is that what Bonds said behind closed doors to the DA when confronted with the accusations initially and what went on on the stand for the Grand Jury were to entirely differnet things. I think that Barry's ego possibly got the best of him and he became a hostile witness, unwilling to admit to what was discussed previously. Now after being double crossed I believe that the DA and investigators chose to try and incriminate Barry on perjury etc...

I also believe that the leaked info was from someone inside the investigation. Not so much to get Barry as again more info than what was Barry related was leaked. But I believe it was an effort to let people know what was happening in a case that would in all likelyhood never be tired and also don't underestimate the urge for people involved in this to leak this info in an attempt to give themselves a very nice professional pat on the back. Nothing like letting the public know how successful you were in order to line up future employment.

[sandlot]

I really don't see the "out to get Bonds" argument. Initially the obvious target of the Feds case was the BALCO leadership. I really do not think that the DA would offer Bonds Immunity if he was really out to get him. What I think happened, and this is purely conjecture on my part, is that what Bonds said behind closed doors to the DA when confronted with the accusations initially and what went on on the stand for the Grand Jury were to entirely differnet things. I think that Barry's ego possibly got the best of him and he became a hostile witness, unwilling to admit to what was discussed previously. Now after being double crossed I believe that the DA and investigators chose to try and incriminate Barry on perjury etc.The Grand Jury now sitting is to investigate the possibility of perjury by Bonds. He is the target. I happen to think he always was, but that's just my belief. As a practical matter, I think a Grand Jury could only investigate potentially perjured testimony that was presented to the Grand Jury, not in another venue during a different procedure, although I'd be interested in hearing from BBF lawyers on that point.


I also believe that the leaked info was from someone inside the investigation. Not so much to get Barry as again more info than what was Barry related was leaked. But I believe it was an effort to let people know what was happening in a case that would in all likelyhood never be tired and also don't underestimate the urge for people involved in this to leak this info in an attempt to give themselves a very nice professional pat on the back. Nothing like letting the public know how successful you were in order to line up future employment.If I catch your drift, you mean that even though Bonds would be unlikely to be proven guilty in a court, someone might want to destroy his credibility? Be careful, ESPNfan, or pretty soon you'll believe that Oliver Stone films are documentaries! ;)

[Ubiquitous]

You might not, and I appreciate your faith in the prosecutorial arm of the justice system. While I think that faith is misplaced, sadly, I sincerely respect it. The Grand Jury system was described in another BBF post as a "broken-down jalopy." Broken-down it is, in relation to its intent, but in the hands of those who know how to use it, it is a very potent weapon indeed for investigatory and intimidatory purposes. As a tool for the enhancement of justice, however, it leaves a great deal to be desired. This, from the (late) Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: "It is, indeed, common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of the Executive."

No I don't believe it is true for a minute in this case. Nor were we talking about the Grand Jury process. You asked what they do if they discovered the prosecution itself was the source. You answered nothing. I don't believe that to be the right answer in this case. Too much attention is on this, no way they would be able to cover it up.

[Ubiquitous]

I really don't see the "out to get Bonds" argument. Initially the obvious target of the Feds case was the BALCO leadership. I really do not think that the DA would offer Bonds Immunity if he was really out to get him. What I think happened, and this is purely conjecture on my part, is that what Bonds said behind closed doors to the DA when confronted with the accusations initially and what went on on the stand for the Grand Jury were to entirely differnet things. I think that Barry's ego possibly got the best of him and he became a hostile witness, unwilling to admit to what was discussed previously. Now after being double crossed I believe that the DA and investigators chose to try and incriminate Barry on perjury etc...

I also believe that the leaked info was from someone inside the investigation. Not so much to get Barry as again more info than what was Barry related was leaked. But I believe it was an effort to let people know what was happening in a case that would in all likelyhood never be tired and also don't underestimate the urge for people involved in this to leak this info in an attempt to give themselves a very nice professional pat on the back. Nothing like letting the public know how successful you were in order to line up future employment.


If this is true then the reporters didn't report it that way. I haven't read the book but I read the SI article, and in that SI article Bonds was ambushed at the hearing.


What was leaked and what was reported? What was reported was that Giambi and Bonds used drugs. Nobody cared that some guys at BALCO gave them the drugs. What was page 1 info was the ballplayers and everybody involved knew it would be. Nobody leaked this so everybody could know what a scumbag Anderson or Conte was they leaked it to show the world Bonds and others are scumbags. Like I said before BALCO was away for federal agents to "get" Bonds, because with BALCO I do not believe the federal government has jurisdiction over Barry Bonds and his deeds. It was certain federal agents that had been chasing him for awhile, not local agents so they needed something federal and they got it.

To ignore that BOnds was the target is like ignoring that Sam Giancanna was the target when the government called him up to testify.

[Mattingly]

I'm late in reading it, but Bob Klapisch offered this piece in Sunday's Bergen Record, a New Jersey news daily:

Judge gets it wrong (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNjgmZmdi ZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5OTYyOTQmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZU VFeXk2)

It was a bad week for any baseball fan who believes Barry Bonds has spent the last seven years cheating his way to Hank Aaron's home run record, as well any American who cherishes freedom of the press. A judge's decision that "Game of Shadows" authors Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada should be imprisoned for up to 18 months -- unless they disclose their source of the leaked grand jury testimony -- tells you the government has it all wrong in the pursuit of lawbreakers.

While Williams and Fainaru-Wada knew they were taking a risk running those transcripts, the feds should take into account two factors before sending them to jail. First, none other than President Bush praised the pair for the dogged investigation of baseball's steroids scandal.

"You've done a service," Bush told them at the White House correspondents' dinner last year.

If the authors weren't able to consider that a legitimate vote of confidence from the White House, then what is? No one is doubting that secrecy of grand jury testimony is a cornerstone of this country's legal process, but it's a bizarre time to start prosecuting those who use that testimony for the public good.

And that's what this is all about. Bonds somehow has been let off this hook, while Williams and Fainaru-Wada are fighting for their legal lives. The point of using the leaked testimony -- indeed, the very basis of the best-selling book -- was to expose just how fraudulently Bonds stole Roger Maris' and Mark McGwire's single-season home run records in 2001 and how he's doing the same thing to Aaron today.

If baseball allows this all-time record to fall, it will end up no better than professional wrestling. Entertaining, sure, but just as dishonest. The analogy that's been used in the past fits now more snugly than ever: If you knew that two race cars were about to compete, and that one of them used a secret, special fuel not only to win the race but to set a world record, would you consider that a fair contest?

[ESPNFan]

If this is true then the reporters didn't report it that way. I haven't read the book but I read the SI article, and in that SI article Bonds was ambushed at the hearing.


What was leaked and what was reported? What was reported was that Giambi and Bonds used drugs. Nobody cared that some guys at BALCO gave them the drugs. What was page 1 info was the ballplayers and everybody involved knew it would be. Nobody leaked this so everybody could know what a scumbag Anderson or Conte was they leaked it to show the world Bonds and others are scumbags. Like I said before BALCO was away for federal agents to "get" Bonds, because with BALCO I do not believe the federal government has jurisdiction over Barry Bonds and his deeds. It was certain federal agents that had been chasing him for awhile, not local agents so they needed something federal and they got it.

To ignore that BOnds was the target is like ignoring that Sam Giancanna was the target when the government called him up to testify.

My answer is a simple question. If Bonds was the target all along why was he offered immunity?

[Mattingly]

My answer is a simple question. If Bonds was the target all along why was he offered immunity?
My theory is as a "setup":

US GOVT: Barry, we'll offer you immunity if you confess to whatever you know. OK?

BONDS: I'll spill the beans. Fine.

BONDS (on the witness stand): Yadda, yadda, yadda.

US GOVT (to certain reporters): OK, he's spilled the beans. Now we'll leak to you what he said.

CERTAIN REPORTERS: We'll report it.

^^Something like that.

[Ubiquitous]

My answer is a simple question. If Bonds was the target all along why was he offered immunity?


I've answered that several times now, and Mattingly has said it basically again for me.

When you give Bonds immunity you take away his right to plea the 5th. So he now has to answer the questions. So Bonds is left with several choices none of them appealing. He can answer the questions truthfully, he can lie, or he can say nothing. None of those options are risk free and none of them are appealing. If he says he took drugs then the public finds out he is a cheater he is discredited, the agents get to act like heros because they revealed the big bad guy, and all is right in the world. Does he need to go to jail for the public to be happy? No not all, most people just wanted it to be a known fact that he cheated, and this would achieve it. If he lies or says nothing then he might do jail time, which again makes the public happy because at least he gets punished. So for the prosecuters it is a no lose situation to give Bonds immunity.

[ESPNFan]

See by "out to get" and "target" I take that as meaning the Feds wanted Bonds jailed at all costs.
Bonds being forced to tell the truth to me is incidental and a product of a situation he created. And all the testimony was leaked to the writers not just Barry's. Like I said before I think the court documents were released to make the DA,investigators etc.. look better, not solely to "Get Barry", but if that had happened it would have been the cherry on top for them.

Bonds is linked to Balco who were busted for Steroids. As far as the court of public opinion goes testimony or not this is enough to convict him in the minds of many. Bonds freely decided to associate himself with these people and ultimately "got" himself.

I just fail to see how using immunity to force someone to tell the truth is "getting them". If telling the truth means you admit to wrongdoing with no criminal ramifications the reality of the situation is you have ultimately gotten yourself.

[Ubiquitous]

Sam Giancana was a crime boss, he was THE crime boss of his day, he was given immunity for his testimony and this tactic help bring down Sam. Did they "get" Sam in terms of putting him away forever? No but they destroyed his power.

Now then why are federal agents after Barry Bonds? Why is Jeff Novitsky after Barry Bonds? I don't think it is a secret or that it is unkown that Jeff wants to get Barry, and all that has come after has stemmed from the wanting to get Barry.

If Barry admits to cheating then has been gotten, has he not? Isn't that what everybody wants? I mean did you want Barry Bonds in jail in 2002? That wasn't anybodies goal in this saga. What everybody wanted was their to be absolute proof that he cheated or didn't. If Barry admits to PEDs he is done, game over. Sure he keeps playing, and sure he hits homers. But nobody will care, and baseball might even strip his stats from the record. Okay so let us say he doesn't admit to cheating which means two things. Either he lies or he says nothing. If he says nothing he probably sits in jail for a year or until he cooperates. Which would basically end his baseball career. Now if he lies he runs the risk of perjury and jail time, which again end his playing career. It is a no lose situation for the DA. If comes clean they get to say they righted a wrong and even get to put some "bad" drug dealers away. If he lies or says nothing they get to put him away for awhile and again they get to act like they righted a wrong. It is going to be very hard for the DA to not come away from this looking real good and having great future prospects. Barry Bonds is a career maker, without Barry Bonds nobody cares to know about BALCO. Without Barry BALCO isn't front page news. So to me saying this isn't about Barry is kind of odd.

[sandlot]

No I don't believe it is true for a minute in this case. Nor were we talking about the Grand Jury process. You asked what they do if they discovered the prosecution itself was the source. You answered nothing. I don't believe that to be the right answer in this case. Too much attention is on this, no way they would be able to cover it up.I took your statement to be a general one, not limited solely to this case. But if your comment's restricted only to this Grand Jury, that's different. Who the source is, or sources are, I have no clue. I have been told by a reliable person that in fact the reporters have multiple sources for just about everything, so who knows how much of their material comes from sources pertaining to the Grand Jury and what comes from elsewhere? There are, however, materials and statements that can form part of any Grand Jury inquiry but which are not at all protected by secrecy, and reporters would be free use these materials and statements with impunity. What I am trying to say, overall, is that frequently the Grand Jury process is to justice what Howard Stern is to civilized discourse. From what I can see, this Grand Jury process -- and I call it a process because there have been plural Grand Juries -- leaves much to be desired. Can I say definitively that the prosecution team is the source of any information? No. Can I definitively say that it's not a source? No. No one can, except the reporters. Can I say that what started out, ostensibly, to be an investigation onto PEDS has morphed into an inquiry focusing on Bonds and his personal integrity? I think the facts are in support. Have the reporters focused on Bonds? The book speaks a volume. To believe that the prosecution team was not a source in this case is one thing, but to believe that it would never be a source of leaks is something else. I can accept the possibility of the former, but not the latter.

[sandlot]

Or how about this, for whatever reason the police are investigating you for rape. You didn't do it, but it has gotten to the point where it has reached the grand jury stage. Somebody involved in the process leaks information to the local media. Perhaps you have a fetish or two that while legal is not commonly accepted. Or maybe simply you or others have to reveal secrets that while legal are things you do not want to share publicly. The local media then run the story and the info and overnight you become a pariah in your community. At the end of the run you are not indicted. Now then don't you want to know who broke the law and consequently made your life miserable? Don't you think they should be punishedd? Would you still be on the side of the reporters if it was you who had to suffer the consequences of the lawbreaker sharing your info?You have put your finger precisely on the explanation for why witnesses who appear before Grand Juries -- and who are not bound to secrecy for what they've said in testimony-- rarely ever say anything later. They also keep their mouths shut in some cases because if they're testifying against someone who's nasty, their safety or that of their family, could be endangered. Respect for the integrity of the Grand Jury process isn't much of a factor.

[sandlot]

Let's just ask ourselves two questions: (1) Why did the President of the United States, who's usually no buddy of the news media and a free press, tell two reporters -- who're now fighting against a jail order for refusal to testify before a "conerstone of American justice" -- that they ought to be honored for what they've done? (2) What would the popular reaction be (and I include the reaction of politicans who need issues like yo-yos need a string) if, after all the time and expense of these Grand Jury sittings, the only people to serve jail time are three prospective witnesses, two of them reporters, and Barry Bonds has gone scot-free and is heading for Aaron's all-time NR record and the HOF, with his reputation as intact as it can possibly be after all of this?

[Ubiquitous]

question 1,
Answer 1: Because GW is a baseball fan and siding on the popular side is what politicians do. Do you honestly think that GW after all of this would be on Bonds side publicly?


question 2,
Answer 2: The reaction will be next to nothing. We are not talking rodney King here, or OJ, or anything close to it. Nothing really needs to happen in this case. The people that want to hate Barry have got their facts to further support that view. Again nobody wanted Barry Bonds to go to jail because he hit 73 homers. They just wanted him to get exposed, which many feel happened.

[ESPNFan]

question 1,
Answer 1: Because GW is a baseball fan and siding on the popular side is what politicians do. Do you honestly think that GW after all of this would be on Bonds side publicly?


question 2,
Answer 2: The reaction will be next to nothing. We are not talking rodney King here, or OJ, or anything close to it. Nothing really needs to happen in this case. The people that want to hate Barry have got their facts to further support that view. Again nobody wanted Barry Bonds to go to jail because he hit 73 homers. They just wanted him to get exposed, which many feel happened.

I agree with you on the GW issue.

As far as the Barry getting exposed issue goes I really don't its a big deal. If the reporters go to jail fine, thats the law. Concerning people getting exposed hurting their reputation, again it is ultimately their own doing and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: the Grand Jury now sitting is, as I understand it, empaneled precisely to investigate leaks from the previous Grand Jury, which expired without bringing any indictments.
correct.

If you think justice is being harmed, go after the leakers.
u.s. district judge white ordered fainaru-wada and williams to jail in the hope of persuading them to reveal their source(s)... and also because the court is simply doing its job.

...Or is it just easier to go after the reporters? I think we all know the answer.
well, it certainly is easiest to go after the reporters. logistically it is two people instead of dozens. and, judge white has the benefit of already knowing that the two reporters know* who passed along the information to them.

*by way of the statements of the reporters themselves.

Does anyone not see that the prosecution and the reporters have, at the end of the day, a shared interest? Bonds is the feds target, and Bonds is also the big story.
ding-ding-ding!

[west coast orange and black]

"You've done a service," President Bush told the the two reporters at the White House correspondents' dinner last year.
a kiss of death.

[west coast orange and black]

My answer is a simple question. If Bonds was the target all along why was he offered immunity?

ubiquitous: for the prosecuters it is a no lose situation to give Bonds immunity.

double-ding-ding-ding, ubi.

[west coast orange and black]

sandlot: I have been told by a reliable person that in fact the reporters have multiple sources for just about everything...
i think that there is much to that, sandlot.

Can I say that what started out, ostensibly, to be an investigation onto PEDS has morphed into an inquiry focusing on Bonds and his personal integrity? I think the facts are in support. Have the reporters focused on Bonds? The book speaks a volume.
i believe that the initial investigation was not about bonds, but the further things developed, the more a handful* of people wanted bonds' head on a stick.
the two reporters, it seems, targeted bonds when they realized that bonds would not be arraigned. fainaru-wada and williams had inroads to the big story, the real story, but they instead chose to go after bonds.
why would professional reporters do such? hmmm...?

*large hands :rolleyes:

[YankeeDJW]

the two reporters, it seems, targeted bonds when they realized that bonds would not be arraigned. fainaru-wada and williams had inroads to the big story, the real story, but they instead chose to go after bonds.
why would professional reporters do such? hmmm...?

*large hands :rolleyes:

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "the real story." I would say exposing Bonds is the "big" story. Everybody know steroids are in sports so I'm pretty sure that's not the real story. Also, Bonds is a hot topic and reporters live and die by getting the biggest scoops on the hottest topics. If you could just clarify what you mean by "real story" I would appreciate it.

[west coast orange and black]

while it's true that everybody know steroids are in sports, very few know the true scope and depth of substance use. mlb has relied upon "5-7%" when referring to the percentage of substance users, not actual numbers or a calculated estimate, so, no help there. fainaru-wada and williams could have gone after the real story, not the sexy one.

on this board alone, scores of posters have written of bonds' size increase an unprecedented numbers as proof positive that he used. ok, so why would bonds be considered a hot topic since *everyone knows* that he used? where is the big scoop?

it's not as though the chronicle reporters' story lead to an indictment or anything.

the percentage of users and the player names involved are the real story. but maybe that story would be too much work to go out and get. it was for those two.

also, so many people by now have had their fill of the bonds story. the real story would involve hundreds of players -- fodder for a few years, yet.

[trosmok]

while it's true that everybody know steroids are in sports,....
it's not as though the chronicle reporters' story lead to an indictment or anything.....
the percentage of users and the player names involved are the real story.

Unfortunately not in the eyes of the law, the court of public opinion, the grandstanders inside the beltway, and certainly the not in the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. The real story (according to them) is there was a scandal, it is over, and we are each going to take all the credit for handling it ever so well. The truth be damned; we just want to get back to our enormous profits and concentrate on moving forward. That is, except for the Federal Prosecutors that convened the second Grand Jury to determine which rats, ours or theirs, or both, leaked secret testimony for their own purposes. It could be another eighteen months before the jailbirds crack and spill their guts, but I'd wager it will be well before the holidays when they fess up to revealing the real criminals (the leakers), in this affair.

[Brownie31]

also, so many people by now have had their fill of the bonds story. the real story would involve hundreds of players -- fodder for a few years, yet.

Quite true. In the same vein it was also much more than the "Eight
Men Out" in the gambling scandals of the 1910s and early 1920s.

Brownie31