T1B

So, I'm having an argument in regards to Mark McGwire.


I believe he has committed a crime of some sort. When asked about taking illegal steroids, he refused to answer the questions directly. He instead went with "I'm not here to talk about the past."


Am I right in assuming that because he refused to answer direct questions, it would be because those answers would incriminate him, or by Congressional standards "put him in a bad light" (or however they word those standards for Congress)?

If those answers were to incriminate him, he was wise to not answer those questions(funny how high-dollar lawyers give decent advice). If these statements were incriminating, then they would have been, by default, an admission of guilt. But, if he wasn't guilty of illegal steroid use, would that not have been some form of perjury, since he didn't answer direct questions truthfully that were pertinent to the investigation?


It seems like that's "having your cake, and eating it too," or some such analogy. It seems to me, that it's an either/or proposition...but there's the catch...I ain't a lawyer. Occasional defendant? Sure. But not a lawyer.


I'm hoping some of the fly-by-night scumbag lawyers on this board can shed some light.


TIA

I appreciate your link, JSC, but in my uneducated opinion, it doesn't really adress McGwire's case. That article deals with people who refuse to show up when subpoenaed, or refuse to testify at all.

Mac showed up at the hearings, but went with "I'm not here to talk about the past." To me, that sounds like a thinly-veiled invoking of the 5th. I realize you do have to show up, but are not required to make incriminating statements, or in the case of Congress, I believe the standard is "admissions that put the witness in a bad light," which is obviously a much more loose standard that a courtroom.

But still...if his refusals were based upon his answers "putting him in a bad light"(or however the hell they word that), would that not logically mean that when asked whether he used illegal steroids, and he refused to directly answer the question, doesn't that mean the answer is essentially "yes"? Since a truthful "no" answer would only put him in a "positive light," and only a "yes" answer would put him in a "bad light."

The point I'm getting at, is that he either A) Used illegal steroids, or B) gave (non)answers, under oath, that wouldn't have out him in a "bad light," and may have protected others of whose guilt he had firsthand knowledge(something that very clearly isn't covered by the 5th Amendment).

The way it looks to an armchair lawyer, it seems he's guilty of one or the other, both of which are crimes. He either used illegal steroids, or he failed to perform the duties of someone under oath at a legal hearing. Otherwise, he gets the best of both worlds. He's in a catch-22...he's guilty of one crime or the other.


That's kind of the point I was getting at.


JSC, let's say hypothetically that this happened in courtroom, rather than at a Congressional hearing(I'm well aware the rules are somewhat different, but I pose this hypothetical simply because you're obviously familiar with courtroom procedings, and unfamiliar with Congressional hearings, which is fair enough). If that were the case, would there be reason to believe he's guilty of one of the two crimes, hypothetically?

Dinsdale wrote:So, I'm having an argument in regards to Mark McGwire.

......

I'm hoping some of the fly-by-night scumbag lawyers on this board can shed some light.


TIA

Is this how you "know" so much. Is there another board on the interwebs that will soon be seeing a post like ......



As you know on the eighth day God created the U&L aaaaaand....... anyway ....

Somebody who isn't well-familiar with protocol of a congressional hearing starts a thread about McGwire's skirting the issue.

Priceless.

I actually do know what I'm talking about, and with that said...


you're an idiot.


......

Jsc810 wrote:

uneducated opinion

finally--the truth !!

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Is this how you "know" so much.

Why yes, Tom. Asking questions of people who might have some knowledge of the subject matter is a widely used method of obtaining said knowledge.

No shit. Poor attempt at some light hearted humour and ribbing on my part.


But thanks for the enlightenment there mvscal.



Sorry for the thread hijack as well. I'm actually intrigued by the question.

mvscal wrote:Why yes, Tom. Asking questions of people who might have some knowledge of the subject matter is a widely used method of obtaining said knowledge.

Does this shed some light as to how I appear to know so much more than most others here, on such a wide range of topics?

The notion that it's incredible to some that I asked questions on a subject on which I wasn't terribly familiar of those who I thought were?

Are you fucking serious?

No wonder you tards wallow in ignorance.


But really -- way to MAN UP there, Tom in Dipshitville. Claim to have knowledge on a subject, then offer no input whatsoever to back your claims. :bigshoker: you often come across as quite the moron on here.


Hey, remember that time I insinuated that Goobs was an idiot for doing an unpermitted basement finish on his house(OK, I probably did more than "insinuate")? You think that was because I just decided to make shit up and take a run at Goobs(not that there's anything wrong with that), or was it maybe based on a degree of professional experience, and a familiarity with permitted work versus unpermitted work on long-term home value?(I cite this as something of a pertinent example, although I'm sure there's myrioad other exaples...like a lack of proper prep on a wooden deck in Alabama, for instance.) And guess what -- I don't know about such things(along with a host of other areas of expertise) simply by waking up one morning and deciding I knew all about the subject. I learned everything I know about that(and every other subject) through "education," be it school, personal study, or professional experience...and all of these methods od edification all have something in common -- they involve asking questions of those who are more familiar with a given subject than myself(or getting differing viewpoints even from those less familiar with a given subject than myself...knowledge is a sum of parts).


But wow, Tom...this really lent some insight as to how you manage to be such a fucking moron.

Overlook the fact that the hearings were 100% a fucking joke.

McGwire asked for and was not given immunity. After that, his lawyer gave him the "talk about the past" line. He used it a lot. With that, he didn't incriminate himself OR leave himself subject to calls for future hearings against other baseball players. This could be seen as selfish for not standing up to his accusers or laudable for not talking out of school.

If McGwire did something illegal with these hearings, is that the reason he won't get in? Fergie Jenkins got busted for coke and he's in the hall. I doubt his "non-answers" were anything illegal seeing as he hasn't been prosecuted for the act.

But really -- way to MAN UP there, Tom in Dipshitville. Claim to have knowledge on a subject, then offer no input whatsoever to back your claims. :bigshoker: you often come across as quite the moron on here.

An attempt at humour backfired. That's about it. I didn't claim anything Dins. Quite frankly, if I don't know something, I'm the first to admit it and defer to those who do.

As for me coming across as a moron here, I'll accept that my mistakes and miscues have earned me that. Even if I didn't I'm sure you have scores of PM's and emails and accolades from the entire board saying such.

Tom In VA wrote:An attempt at humour backfired. That's about it.

Such an obvious affront is worth about 15,000 words from the U&L genius. I'm leaving work, but expect Dins to still be going on by the time I get back 7am sharp.

Bizzarofelice wrote: If McGwire did something illegal with these hearings, is that the reason he won't get in? Fergie Jenkins got busted for coke and he's in the hall. I doubt his "non-answers" were anything illegal seeing as he hasn't been prosecuted for the act.

Ah, a McGuire apologist, I see.

McGuire won't get in because he cheated and used performance enhancing drugs to pad his HR totals. His numbers are tainted. It has nothing to with his actions before congress, legal or not.

I doubt Jenkins coke habit enhanced his performance much.

I also doubt that Barry Bonds will ever see the HOF either.

Pujols on the other hand? As long as he's clean, he's almost a shoe-in.

if you get pulled over and you have an open ODOULS beer , completely .5percent sober, what are the ram*ifications??


*other than being called a faggot.

seriously.

open container?
dwi?
drive on ya queer?

Tom In VA wrote:I didn't claim anything Dins.

Tom In VA wrote:Somebody who isn't well-familiar with protocol of a congressional hearing starts a thread about McGwire's skirting the issue.

Priceless.

I actually do know what I'm talking about...

You're such a pathetic waste of bandwidth, it's gone beyond the point of getting any satisfaction from ridiculing you, so I'll try to help, instead.

See, when I accuse you of being a moron, it's a good idea to post stuff that refutes it, rather than conforms it.

Just a FYI.


And seriously, what's with this board lately? The masses here seem to have no problem resorting to outright LIES when trying to "get over."

Tom claimed he "didn't claim anything," very shortly after making a stright-up "claim" (in the form of "I do know what I'm talking about...which is, by its very definition, a "claim."). If you're going to LIE, maybe you should at minimum restrict it to a thread that is different from the one that contains the proof of your LIES.

Mikey has been quite horrible with this lately. When he(and many others here) can't make their point intelligently(tough order, considering the sorces), they go to "well, you said THIS," when in fact the target of their "smack" in fact said no such thing. Of course in Mikey's case, that didn't deter him in the least...he simply altered it to "you guys," and kept right on going with his lies, still attributing statements to me that I never nade, DESPITE me calling him out for attributing statements to me that I never made, even after repeated requests to show wjere I had made the statements he was "smacking" me for.

Fucking PONDEROUS.


Are you people really this fucking feeble at this "online debate" thing, even after all of the practice you've had over the years?

Really?

You're so inept that you adress points you wish the other guy made, rather than adressing the statements they actually did make? I believe medical professionals have a name for that affliction -- they call it "psychosis."


Fuck, it's gone beyond the point I even need to remind you people that you're fucking retards -- you should be well fucking aware of it every time you look in a mirror. If not, then do a search through your previous posts, and conform it.


I guess what I'm saying is...dear fucking god, you people really suck at this. Don't fucking hate on me, just because I DON'T. I don't need to falsely attribute staements to you to try and prove a point -- the words you post on here are PLENTY fucking retarded enough that they don't need embellishing.

if you get pulled over and you have an open ODOULS beer , completely .5percent sober, what are the ram*ifications??


*other than being called a faggot.

seriously.

open container?
dwi?
drive on ya queer?

Dinsdale wrote: You're such a pathetic waste of bandwidth,

Then why waste it you uptight little crybaby. It was a "Sincerely Dinsdale" reset gone awry. That's all it was. In fact, here's the thread where I pulled YOUR words in an attempt to lampoon you a little.

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... eck+screws

Somebody who isn't well-familiar with the advantages of cordless tools starts a thread dicussing the merits of the various cordless tools?

Priceless.

I actually do know what I'm talking about, and with that said...


you're an idiot.


Overall, Dewalt makes by far the best cordless tools. Not even up for debate, unless I suppose you're a person with no professional experience who is willing to start a thread telling people how cordless tools suck and Dewalt is no good.

Unfortunately I missed this part.

Something about "better to remain silent and have people think you're an idiot, rather than open your mouth and confirm it."

if you get pulled over and you have an open ODOULS beer , completely .5percent sober, what are the ram*ifications??


*other than being called a faggot.

seriously.

open container?
dwi?
drive on ya queer?

Getting back to the topic at hand . . .

Like JSC, I've never testified before Congress nor have I ever represented anyone who has (or at least, I've never represented anyone in the context of their testimony before Congress). And while I see, to an extent, where Dins is going with his line of thinking, I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

Federal perjury statute.

Rafael Palmeiro, on the other hand, probably did commit perjury, unless he got popped on the first occasion he ever used steroids. But it would probably be too difficult to prove to make it worthwhile to try to prosecute him.

Dinsdale wrote: I'm hoping some of the fly-by-night scumbag lawyers on this board can shed some light.


TIA

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Like JSC, I've never testified before Congress nor have I ever represented anyone who has (or at least, I've never represented anyone in the context of their testimony before Congress). And while I see, to an extent, where Dins is going with his line of thinking, I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

Sorry Dins, no light shown from the above even if condensed.

dins, you know everything. can you answer my question. "/>"?

Atomic Punk wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: I'm hoping some of the fly-by-night scumbag lawyers on this board can shed some light.


TIA

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Like JSC, I've never testified before Congress nor have I ever represented anyone who has (or at least, I've never represented anyone in the context of their testimony before Congress). And while I see, to an extent, where Dins is going with his line of thinking, I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

Sorry Dins, no light shown from the above even if condensed.

What part of this

I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

don't you get? Or are you really that dumb?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

But if it wasn't perjury, then would it not be an admission-by-proxy(not a legal standard, I realize) to using illegal steroids?

Or more along my lines of thinking, wouldn't a prosecutor at least try to sell it to a jury this way? If he was innocent of using steroids, then he had no reason to withhold testimony. If he did use them, then not testifying would be neccessary so as to not incriminate himself.




Actually, Terry, I did some poking around on the site you linked, and it appears that Congress dropped the ball, from what I can tell. They could have ordered him to testify, and he would have been in contempt if he did not. Other side of the coin being that his self-incrminating testimony couldn't have been used against him if he were to be prosecuted.


So, if my newfound knowledge is correct(I think they make lawyers pass a bar exam for a reason), then it seems Congress was just looking for a change of pace from their normal routine, a few reps wanted to get their names in the news, and Congress had no interest whatsoever in getting to the bottom of the steroid controversy, even though theuy spent plenty of taxpayer dollars persuing it.


I think that clears things up a little.


Thanks, TiC, et al.

Yup...just a bullshit PR stunt by John McCain, at the taxpayers' expense. He had no intention of seeking out the facts, and merely found a way to get his name in the headlines while contemplating a run for president.


What a POS that guy has become. Washington seems to do that to everyone, sooner or later.

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I don't think you can shoehorn an evasive, but not untruthful, answer into criminal liability for perjury.

But if it wasn't perjury, then would it not be an admission-by-proxy(not a legal standard, I realize) to using illegal steroids?

Or more along my lines of thinking, wouldn't a prosecutor at least try to sell it to a jury this way?

That's just it. I don't think a prosecutor can do this. Otherwise, the Fifth Amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Actually, Terry, I did some poking around on the site you linked, and it appears that Congress dropped the ball, from what I can tell. They could have ordered him to testify, and he would have been in contempt if he did not. Other side of the coin being that his self-incrminating testimony couldn't have been used against him if he were to be prosecuted.

I don't know all the particulars of McGwire's testimony before Congress, i.e., whether he was "ordered" to do so, or it was something else. Or if there's even a practical difference, for that matter.

So, if my newfound knowledge is correct(I think they make lawyers pass a bar exam for a reason), then it seems Congress was just looking for a change of pace from their normal routine, a few reps wanted to get their names in the news, and Congress had no interest whatsoever in getting to the bottom of the steroid controversy, even though theuy spent plenty of taxpayer dollars persuing it.

Ding, ding, ding!

Btw, one of the members of the U.S. Senate is none other than Jim Bunning. He was a pretty fair pitcher back in his day (and before anyone runs any age smack at me, that was before my day, I've just happened to read about it). From everything I've heard about him in the Senate, baseball is about the only thing he's shown any interest in.

Mace wrote:Refusing to give a direct and honest answer under Oath in a Courtroom could result in the witness being found in Contempt of Court. I'm sure you've read of journalists being found in Contempt and sentenced to jail for failing to divulge their source.

True, although we're talking here about a Contempt of Congress scenario. I don't think the rules are exactly the same.

You have to actually lie under Oath to be found guilty of Perjury.....

True again. I think McGwire was under oath at the time he testified before Congress.

Also, with respect to perjury, in some jurisdictions the testimony has to be about a material matter in order for one to be found guilty of perjury.

Mace wrote:Refusing to give a direct and honest answer under Oath in a Courtroom could result in the witness being found in Contempt of Court.

You have to actually lie under Oath to be found guilty of Perjury.....at least that's been my experience in dealing with the Courts.

I knew this, but it's not what I wrote. But, I certainly meant to use "contempt" where I instead used "perjury."

My bad, although I see you and everyone else understood my point.

Doing some further reading, he wasn't in contempt, since no one at the hearing ordered him to give testimony(and such an order would have been inadmissable against him). Congress was certainly free to order him, but since it was nothing more than a publicity stunt by John McCain, his reason for being there had already been served.

It became a publicity stunt the moment that the senators failed to follow up on McGwire's statement that he "didn't want to talk about the past." The senators should have told him that discomfort about the past is only protected by the 5th Amendment, and he would have to either answer the questions or assert that right. Pretty stupid to have them testify under oath but not hold them to abide by their swearing.

Diego in Seattle wrote:The senators should have told him that discomfort about the past is only protected by the 5th Amendment, and he would have to either answer the questions or assert that right.

From my understanding, they could have overruled his asserting that right, and forced him to give truthful statements, or be held in contempt(he could have only been jailed until a new Congressional session, if I'm not mistaken). The opposite side of the coin being that no statements he made after being compelled to do so could have been used as evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.


The 5th doesn't cover being able to not testify -- it covers self-incrimination. You can still be ordered to testify, but that testimony can't be used against you. And it certainly doesn't cover him being able to withhold testimony as to other players who might have broken laws, should they have asked...this much I do know of the law.


Regardless, Congress was using it as nothing more than a publicity stunt. "Testify if you feel like it"...yeah, that some hardcore "investigating," right there. Imagine if you or I sat in a courtroom or in front of Congress and pulled that shit...think we'd still be living in the lap of luxury?

Dinsdale wrote:Regardless, Congress was using it as nothing more than a publicity stunt. "Testify if you feel like it"...yeah, that some hardcore "investigating," right there. Imagine if you or I sat in a courtroom or in front of Congress and pulled that shit...think we'd still be living in the lap of luxury?

Yup!

Sincerely,
Oil Industry Executives

Essentially, McGuires response was appropriate for the moment.

Brings back memories of my undergrad days, I think it was an upper division elective, something like "The History of the Olympics." Anyhoo, a track coach stopped by for a guest lecture and he flat out told the class that roids are a necessity at the upper levels. I got his drift and shifted my opinions from that day forward.......

mvscal wrote:That's OK. I'd rather have Congress thinking about baseball than fucking us in the ass.

True. But if they're going to hold dog and pony shows, the least they could do is insert a plunger or two into the sanctimonious cheating bitches for the kids.

mvscal wrote:That's OK. I'd rather have Congress thinking about baseball than fucking us in the ass.

Excellent point. But using the steroid "scandal" as a publicity stunt for a presidebtial bid?

That's a little much. If they didn't plan on conducting proper hearings, then why did they spend our money on it in the firts place?


And here's some devil's advocate shit --

McGwire technically committed perjury. Sure, a little far-fetched, and no court would touch it, but he did actually commit perjury. Hear me out...it's a good one...

McGwire was subpoenaed. When asked to testify, his curt response was "I'm not here to talk about the past."

This was a false statement.

What the fuck did you think you were subpoenaed to do, Mac? Hit home runs in front of Congress? Speculate about the future? Of fucking course you were there to talk about the past...since that's the only fucking function of a subpoena.

Therefore, Mac made false statements under oath, and they were obviously material to the investigation at hand...since it was the very matter that was being investigated that he refused to provide testimony for.

Ergo, he is guilty of perjury.


Hey...I said it was far-fetched.

Dinsdale wrote: McGwire was subpoenaed. When asked to testify, his curt response was "I'm not here to talk about the past."

This was a false statement.

What the fuck did you think you were subpoenaed to do, Mac? Hit home runs in front of Congress? Speculate about the future? Of fucking course you were there to talk about the past...since that's the only fucking function of a subpoena.

Bwa.

Some eager young Congressman should have told him that he's only here to answer the fucking questions we brought you here for, and shove whatever other reason you thought you were here for.

Oh well, that's show bidness, and those hearings were simply for show.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Regardless, Congress was using it as nothing more than a publicity stunt. "Testify if you feel like it"...yeah, that some hardcore "investigating," right there.

That's OK. I'd rather have Congress thinking about baseball than fucking us in the ass.

This is some funny shit...

The guy that post's on a message board all day long as a "government worker" , at the expense of those of us that work for a living.

I guess we need to find work for the legal Mexicans in California as well.

We can't put them all in the military, because they just get out and sponge off the government. (mvscal)

What a drain on society.