Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
BLafferty wrote:
If the US Attorney has enough evidence from others to obtain a
perjury conviction, I think he will go after her. It has nothing to
do with Armstrong. It has to do with lying to a Federal grand jury.
That is something US Attorneys will generally not tolerate. Ask
Tammy.
Dumbass,

Aren't you the guy that was certain that Floyd was in the **** for
hackign the French lab's computer?

I think the qualifier you put on that statement means we both know
that she's not going to go down for perjury.

Fred Flintstein

And that sends a signal to everyone else who hasn't yet testified. It
remains a he-said she-said situation with opportunities for
relatively-safe plausible deniability. Unless someone is worried about
physical evidence turning up, there's not much to come back to them.
That's not to say that Armstrong wouldn't have a problem himself if the
1999 samples play out badly for him, but there's nothing about those
samples that would cause problems for the others who have testified,
near as I can tell.

The lawyers here can argue this one back & forth as much as they want,
but at some point you have to think like a "normal" person and a
"normal" person who's been caught up in all of this and concerned about
the ramifications of "not recalling" things is going to feel great
comfort from a situation in which Stephanie walks. I certainly would,
even if I had nothing to hide.

At this point, I would be bringing in financial forensics specialists
and really put the hurt on the money players involved. Whether it's
Wiesel or Lance or whomever, if you've got reason to believe that $$$
were used inappropriately and start digging through the books, who knows
what you might find, and such a threat would be, I think, the easiest
path to a victory, or at least a plea bargain, for the prosecution.
Bring on the accountants. Nobody likes accountants. My apologies to
those here who are accountants.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Given that you have no clear proof that she lied, I think
that's a huge overreaction. Remember, she isn't the least
bit relevant to what might have happened years later.

If you are going to go fishing, only a dumbass casts into
a rain barrel.

Fred Flintstein