On Sep 26, 12:12*pm, "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.

Signal, shmignal.

If you read what Lafferty said literally, I think it's
pretty much correct, and not inconsistent with what
Flintstein said either. The prosecutors will go after
someone who provably lies to a grand jury. Forget
what signal McIlvain's testimony sent. If you are a
potential witness in this case, you are well advised
to tell the truth and the whole truth if there is a possibility
that evidence exists that will contradict your evasion.

That doesn't mean you can't say "I don't recall" about
something that happened 10-15 years ago. It means
that if last year you told your 5 best friends about X and
this year you say you don't recall X, you may be in deep
trouble. Remember that we don't actually know what
McIlvain literally said (and the literalities matter) and
so our ideas about whether she dissembled in her
testimony are based mostly on our presumptions.

Again to bring up the Scooter Libby case, there was a
lot of documentary evidence that Libby had been so
deeply involved that his lack of recollection was not
believable. Similar evidence did not exist against Karl
Rove, for example, which is why he skated and did not
get indicted.

As for the accountants, the money trail has always been
the best angle for uncovering illicit behavior, even though
it is not as media-friendly as whether "OMG LANCE
confessed to doping on his near-death-bed!!"
Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is
supposed to be a fraud case.

Fredfollowthemoney Ben