"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message
...
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.

But that's my point. We have contradictory statements, but no clear
proof as to who lied.

As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in
during the USPS time period?

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

Fred Flintstein

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