Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
i'd be surprise if the federal prosecuter brought a high profile case like this and wasn't sure he had a conviction in his pocket.
they won't have rolled the dice on a case that is going to be headlines.
typically prosecuter's in cases like this go after the main conspirator's early and only when the case is wrapping up bring indictments for perjury against witnesses who testified falsely.
they weren't after barry bonds or marion jones. they were after balco.
and there was little downside for the prosecuter if no charges were brought against bonds. there will be a pretty big downside if they fail to prove it in court. i do the math and say that is one confident u.s. atty bringing this case.
|
They were after Balco. And they got Victor Conti who served a whole 4 months.
Of course there is no downside for the prosecutor. Especially when he has political aspirations and unlimited access to public funds to make a name for himself "trying" the case.
If I were a US Attorney and wanted to run for office and had free and unfettered access to as much of the public purse as I wanted in order to get exposure, I'd probably do the same thing.
I remember reading they wanted to cut Bonds a deal where he'd cop to one count of perjury and get 3 months suspended.
Now, it's worth $10,000,000+ to get to what is likely to be the same result?