|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On Sep 23, 9:33*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process (no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a promise of significant compensation for her, er, work). It could work. I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony risks sending all of upper management within the blast radius to jail. Fredmaster Ben |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"Fredmaster of Brainerd" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: Whatever she did, she did with the advice of very-well-paid legal counsel; it was not a decision she made on her own. In you're into conspiracies (I'm suggesting that's a question and not a statement of fact???) then your next move is to suggest that she's being promised the moon by Oakley to protect Lance, basically taking the bullet for the team. A high-stakes gamble that could either derail the entire process (no perjury charges brought to bear on her, emboldening others to "not recall" thing) or, if that fails, put her away for a while (with a promise of significant compensation for her, er, work). It could work. ========= I doubt that any responsible legal counsel for Oakley would touch that with a hundred-foot pole. They could easily arrange for her to have as good legal advice as they can afford, but any quid pro quo for testimony risks sending all of upper management within the blast radius to jail. Fredmaster Ben ========= You're not into conspiracies like some. Relax your standards a bit. It makes the normal mundane day-to-day stuff more interesting. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
On 9/24/2010 10:01 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad Anders" wrote in message ... On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: How long do you think it would be before perjury charges would be brought up? For best effect, I think it would have to be fairly soon. ======== IMO, wasting time charging and prosecuring her isn't a priority for the "get Lance!" team. Why waste ammo on small fry when you've got the prize in your sights? Brad Anders ======== Brad: The issue with Stephanie is that it's the best publicly-documented he-said she-said thing out there. Everybody knows about it, and in the absence of any hard physical evidence, the entire case is going to hinge on he-said she-said stuff. It has been assumed that people would be coerced to testify (I say "coerced" because if they'd wanted to talk about this stuff previously, they would have) due to the legal ramifications of denying that you know something that the prosecutor thinks you do. So they offer immunity. But immunity is not such a huge deal if the bear has no teeth, and if the bear doesn't go after Stephanie... If I were Novitsky, I'd be throwing everything at Stephanie. No way would I let her walk away claiming she doesn't recall, or she has no recollection of any conversation in which Lance said he had taken PEDs. That's not the sort of conversation you'd forget. If you don't go after her, you're giving credibility to her version of the story, and letting everyone else know they can say or not say whatever they want. Her testimony cannot go unchallenged. Novitsky's no dummy, so I suspect something will come of this. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
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 ****Tard, you're flogging a dead horse. This must be your default attempt at witticism when all else fails you. Carry on. :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
They can't let Stephanie walk
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
Especially since somewhere down in the murk, this is supposed to be a fraud case. Oh yeah, fraud. And given that US Postal certainly saw tremendous benefit from an association with a multiple Tour de France winner and cancer philanthropist, I can't wait until Novitsky stops screwing around and gets down to the fraud angle. What I wonder about is whether Novitsky has to justify his time to anyone. And when that person will consider pulling the plug. Fred Flintstein |
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 |