|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in during the USPS time period? Betsy is 1996, that's Motorola. USPS is 1998. Fred Flintstein |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"Fred Flintstein" wrote in message ... Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: As for "years later" I thought this was all about things past, as in during the USPS time period? Betsy is 1996, that's Motorola. USPS is 1998. Fred Flintstein Right, I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. I wonder how wide the supboenas will go? I remember very well the excited phone call I got from the guy who was the Trek team coordinator at the time, almost foaming at the mouth over the fact that he'd gotten Trek to help sign Lance a contract with the USPS team. I even have photos from my visit to Lance's first training camp with the team. I will admit that I didn't see the future then, not in the slightest. Lance was just a guy with an interesting past but I certainly didn't visualize what he might accomplish. This other guy did. Whether he knows anything at all about stuff relevant to this case, I have no idea. He was certainly an excellent judge of talent though, and to be around pro cyclists that much... (Nope, just checked, not of my photos from that training camp show any cyclists with syringes they forgot to pull out of their arms when leaving their rooms for a ride). --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"BLafferty" wrote in message
... On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: 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 ... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-) "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On Sep 26, 2:46*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: I see we're on the same page regarding the money at least. On the Stephanie issue though, the problem is that without physical evidence, we have nothing but contradictory statements and no way to prove who's lying. You say "The prosecutors will go after someone who provably lies to a grand jury." I'm saying there's no there there. Not yet anyway. Not until someone comes up with a way to corroborate testimony with photos or receipts detailing or whatever. They're working their weakest angle first, which doesn't make sense. Make the case the other way around (enough financial forensics to prove that something happened) and then your "witnesses" are under pressure to say a lot more than "I don't recall" because they become part of a cover-up. But you are correct that we don't actually know what Stephanie testified to, and there could be reasons that I don't understand for her attorney suggesting that, publicly, she sticks to a different story than what she tells the grand jury. I'll leave it for you or Brian or whomever to fill in the reasons why that might be. I don't think her attorney would advise doing that. I just mean that it matters _exactly_ what she said and we don't have a direct quote, we have her lawyer saying she said she had no personal knowledge of doping by Mr. Armstrong, and what that means leaves enough room for interpretation that I at least am totally uncomfortable pontificating about whether she lied or not. Not sure the Libby case is relevant here; I think most are reasonably comfortable with assumptions that the prosecution's actions were being called from high-up (by "most" I mean people on both left & right). I don't think Lance has that kind of pull. Do you? I don't agree on Libby. I think the prosecutor brought and tried the case he thought he could win, and declined to bring charges against people when he thought the case would be unprovable, that is when people could get away with "I don't recall" to a reasonable doubt, which is why I think it's relevant. Whether the prosecutor thought those people were lying is somewhat extraneous - it doesn't matter what he thinks, only what he thinks he can prove. IMO, there was certainly obstruction of that investigation, but with enough fog that some of the obstructors got away with it. From Cheney's complaints about Libby taking the fall for other people, I think he agreed, in a sense. Fredmaster Ben |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message ... On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: 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 ... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-) "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: wrote in message ... On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: 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 ... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-) "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein I have predictions, too. 1. We'll all know what happens within two years. 2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ****Tard. :-) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"BLafferty" wrote in message
... On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: wrote in message ... On 9/26/2010 2:40 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: 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 ... you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-) "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein I have predictions, too. 1. We'll all know what happens within two years. 2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ... Brian: You are in a position to hazard a reasonable guess on whether or not they'll attempt to nail Stephanie on perjury. I'm not talking about the big picture here, just this one thing. What do you think? --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
BLafferty wrote:
On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein I have predictions, too. 1. We'll all know what happens within two years. 2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ****Tard. :-) I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks. She won't go down for perjury. Fred Flintstein |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote: On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein I have predictions, too. 1. We'll all know what happens within two years. 2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ****Tard. :-) I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks. She won't go down for perjury. He has a history of candyassing in this precise way. It's why he'll never be able to convincingly say "I told you so". "I candyassed you so" doesn't have the same ring. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On 9/27/2010 10:07 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
BLafferty wrote: On 9/27/2010 4:02 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote: On 9/26/2010 5:21 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: "Witty" comments aside, what's your best guess? Does she or doesn't get go down for perjury? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com. :-) I have two predictions: 1) She doesn't go down for perjury. 2) Laff will either ignore you or candyass his response. Fred Flintstein I have predictions, too. 1. We'll all know what happens within two years. 2. Fred will see the light, to wit, he will understand that he's a ****Tard. :-) I think that qualifies as a major candyass. Thanks. She won't go down for perjury. Fred Flintstein Whatever, ****Tard. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
McIlvain subpoenaed by feds | Magilla Gorilla[_2_] | Racing | 10 | September 16th 10 10:58 PM |
Lance hates whistleblowers | Frankie VDB | Racing | 2 | September 14th 10 05:14 AM |
What Will McIlvain Tell A Grand Jury? | B. Lafferty[_3_] | Racing | 12 | July 27th 10 03:34 AM |
Stephanie Flanders interview | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 2 | July 28th 09 01:37 AM |
Lance Armstrong hates Plano Texas | explorer | Racing | 25 | August 3rd 04 02:18 AM |