FBI Goes to the Tape

On 6/15/2011 1:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 15, 6:12 am, Anton wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:21 am, Brad wrote:

On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/sp...ation-between-...

I'll bet the FBI will be interviewing the guys from Outside and anyone
else who might have been there. It should go without saying that volume
is not necessary for threats and intimidation. Lance is a true ****Tard.

Question he can you be accused of intimidating a witness when you
haven't been indicted of anything? To my knowledge, LA has only been
under investigation by the FDA and the GJ. TH has already testified
before the GJ, so it can't be that. I could see LA being accused of
threats against TH, but "witness intimidation" seems a stretch.

Brad - really ?

You said it yourself, Tyler should have simply said "**** off". If
having LA in his face is "intimidation", it's no wonder it took him a
decade to get the balls to spill the beans.

That's not the legal standard. If you physically touch and block a
witness' way and then make comments about what will happen when he
testifies at your trial, you will likely have intimidated him even if he
says **** off to you. And if it wasn't actual intimidation, it was
certainly attempted intimidation/witness tampering. Armstrong acted like
the total ****Tard that he is and is about to get royally ****ed by the
Feds.

On Jun 15, 12:45*pm, BL wrote:
On 6/15/2011 1:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:



On Jun 15, 6:12 am, Anton *wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:21 am, Brad *wrote:

On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, *wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/sp...ation-between-....

I'll bet the FBI will be interviewing the guys from Outside and anyone
else who might have been there. It should go without saying that volume
is not necessary for threats and intimidation. *Lance is a true ****Tard.

Question he can you be accused of intimidating a witness when you
haven't been indicted of anything? To my knowledge, LA has only been
under investigation by the FDA and the GJ. TH has already testified
before the GJ, so it can't be that. I could see LA being accused of
threats against TH, but "witness intimidation" seems a stretch.

Brad - really ?

You said it yourself, Tyler should have simply said "**** off". If
having LA in his face is "intimidation", it's no wonder it took him a
decade to get the balls to spill the beans.

That's not the legal standard. *If you physically touch and block a
witness' way and then make comments about what will happen when he
testifies at your trial, you will likely have intimidated him even if he
says **** off to you. And if it wasn't actual intimidation, it was
certainly attempted intimidation/witness tampering. Armstrong acted like
the total ****Tard that he is and is about to get royally ****ed by the
Feds.

no tape - only of kitchen

On 6/15/2011 2:47 PM, Choppy Warburton wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:45 pm, wrote:
On 6/15/2011 1:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:



On Jun 15, 6:12 am, Anton wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:21 am, Brad wrote:

On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/sp...ation-between-...

I'll bet the FBI will be interviewing the guys from Outside and anyone
else who might have been there. It should go without saying that volume
is not necessary for threats and intimidation. Lance is a true ****Tard.

Question he can you be accused of intimidating a witness when you
haven't been indicted of anything? To my knowledge, LA has only been
under investigation by the FDA and the GJ. TH has already testified
before the GJ, so it can't be that. I could see LA being accused of
threats against TH, but "witness intimidation" seems a stretch.

Brad - really ?

You said it yourself, Tyler should have simply said "**** off". If
having LA in his face is "intimidation", it's no wonder it took him a
decade to get the balls to spill the beans.

That's not the legal standard. If you physically touch and block a
witness' way and then make comments about what will happen when he
testifies at your trial, you will likely have intimidated him even if he
says **** off to you. And if it wasn't actual intimidation, it was
certainly attempted intimidation/witness tampering. Armstrong acted like
the total ****Tard that he is and is about to get royally ****ed by the
Feds.

no tape - only of kitchen
The FBI will look at all the cameras that are there. She now says there
are cameras in the other rooms, but that they are not now functional.
Lance may turn out to be a very problematic customer for her. Lance's
biggest problem will be the witnesses from Outside and any others who
don't own a thing to him.

On Jun 15, 10:45*am, BL wrote:
On 6/15/2011 1:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:









On Jun 15, 6:12 am, Anton *wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:21 am, Brad *wrote:

On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, *wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/sp...ation-between-....

I'll bet the FBI will be interviewing the guys from Outside and anyone
else who might have been there. It should go without saying that volume
is not necessary for threats and intimidation. *Lance is a true ****Tard.

Question he can you be accused of intimidating a witness when you
haven't been indicted of anything? To my knowledge, LA has only been
under investigation by the FDA and the GJ. TH has already testified
before the GJ, so it can't be that. I could see LA being accused of
threats against TH, but "witness intimidation" seems a stretch.

Brad - really ?

You said it yourself, Tyler should have simply said "**** off". If
having LA in his face is "intimidation", it's no wonder it took him a
decade to get the balls to spill the beans.

That's not the legal standard. *If you physically touch and block a
witness' way and then make comments about what will happen when he
testifies at your trial, you will likely have intimidated him even if he
says **** off to you. And if it wasn't actual intimidation, it was
certainly attempted intimidation/witness tampering. Armstrong acted like
the total ****Tard that he is and is about to get royally ****ed by the
Feds.

Not everybody needs to handle every interaction in a courtroom, Brian.

On 6/15/2011 5:05 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:45 am, wrote:
On 6/15/2011 1:24 PM, Brad Anders wrote:









On Jun 15, 6:12 am, Anton wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:21 am, Brad wrote:

On Jun 14, 3:02 pm, wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/sp...ation-between-...

I'll bet the FBI will be interviewing the guys from Outside and anyone
else who might have been there. It should go without saying that volume
is not necessary for threats and intimidation. Lance is a true ****Tard.

Question he can you be accused of intimidating a witness when you
haven't been indicted of anything? To my knowledge, LA has only been
under investigation by the FDA and the GJ. TH has already testified
before the GJ, so it can't be that. I could see LA being accused of
threats against TH, but "witness intimidation" seems a stretch.

Brad - really ?

You said it yourself, Tyler should have simply said "**** off". If
having LA in his face is "intimidation", it's no wonder it took him a
decade to get the balls to spill the beans.

That's not the legal standard. If you physically touch and block a
witness' way and then make comments about what will happen when he
testifies at your trial, you will likely have intimidated him even if he
says **** off to you. And if it wasn't actual intimidation, it was
certainly attempted intimidation/witness tampering. Armstrong acted like
the total ****Tard that he is and is about to get royally ****ed by the
Feds.

Not everybody needs to handle every interaction in a courtroom, Brian.
That's true, but beside the point here. The FBI will do its
investigation and the US Attorney will decide what to do or not do.
It's going to be one hell of a show from here on.

On 6/15/2011 4:32 AM, BL wrote:
On 6/14/2011 9:14 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 14, 7:41 pm, Anton wrote:

Boss Armstrong should have used some of the thugs from the Armstrong
Doping Syndicate instead of doing the dirty work himself.

Yeah, Al, keep pumping up the Tawana Brawley non-event. I'm sure
it'll pan out.

R
I think your bias is clearly showing at this point. Saying that it was a
"non-event" only parrots the Pharmstrong line at this point. Let's see
what the FBI turns up after interviewing witnesses

.... because what will obviously turn up is that LA funded the
construction of Osama Bin Laden's hide out!

On Jun 15, 3:10 pm, BL wrote:

That's true, but beside the point here. The FBI will do its
investigation and the US Attorney will decide what to do or not do.
It's going to be one hell of a show from here on.

'Show' being the operative term.

Pursuit of sports criminals as the crimes of the century go
unpunished, and as the FBI and other federal agencies receive vastly
expanded power of surveillance against American citizens.

Enjoy the show.

BL wrote:
I think your bias is clearly showing at this point. Saying that it was a
"non-event" only parrots the Pharmstrong line at this point. Let's see
what the FBI turns up after interviewing witnesses

Jimmy July wrote:
... because what will obviously turn up is that LA funded the
construction of Osama Bin Laden's hide out!

I bet he knows where Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Abominable Snowman are
too. Can you buy a waterboard at Walmarts in Arizona ?