Obama Victory=Indictments??

May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
New political situation. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance of criminal indictments.
Hard to tell, wasn't the DA in LA who stopped the investigation an Obama guy?
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
New political situation. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance of criminal indictments.
Would that still be possible? I know the Feds didn't turn their findings over to USADA, but I'm pretty sure there's a large overlap in the evidence of the two. And in case the Feds ever get this far, would it still be possible to get jurors?
 
Cimacoppi49 said:
New political situation. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance of criminal indictments.
Doubtful. Obama appears to be a compromiser. The compromise between lots of noisy"witch hunt" PR and actual criminal indictments is do nothing. That's assuming it ever crosses his desk in the first place.
 
I'd expect news, one way or the other, on the qui tam.

Anybody thinking criminal indictments now, based on Postal fraud, is ignoring the SOL. Maybe there is some good recent stuff, like illegal fund transfers, but ancient doping and ancient fraud indictments just are not happening.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
Hard to tell, wasn't the DA in LA who stopped the investigation an Obama guy?
Yes. California state Senator Feinstein recommended Birotte to Obama for the position.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Now that LA had finally been declared a non saint it is possible the fraud case could re-emerge but I really don't expect it would. I think in the end, a good defence attorney could prove that the doping on USPS actually improved the return on their investment.
The entire fraud premiss must prove that the doping on USPS caused the USPS actual harm. I think they probably did very well by all measure of advertising returns. I would bet this was the real reason the case was dropped. The US attorney could prove the case and lose by the proof of it.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
I would've though that if the Feds case was reopened, in light of the USADA evidence, wouldnt there be questions asked about why it was closed in the first place? Isn't that going to be a box of secrets no-one is going to want opening?
 
Jun 16, 2012
210
0
0
Much information suggestive of money laundering and tax violations has come out since Birotte acted. Info suggestive of a network of players that is a bit different than those banned by USADA. Weasel comes to mind. I'm guessing related investigations are underway. Gov't rarely can ignore "known" violations involving high profile figures. And now that it's clear Clinton got his hands dirty on this one, pressure to do the right thing will intensify.
 
Aug 8, 2009
142
0
0
Unfortunately the FDA has a number of arguably more important public heath issues to deal with. And Birotte's office probably has no shortage of cases either. I don't know if going after any sports doping ever made logical sense, although I'm glad Novitsky pursued it.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
reginagold said:
And now that it's clear Clinton got his hands dirty on this one, pressure to do the right thing will intensify.
Clinton!?! What are you referring to?

I doubt the investigation will be reopened. At this point, I'm more interested in Landis' whistle-blower qui tam lawsuit. Does anyone know the status of this thing? Or have any sort of idea as to a timeline?
 
will10 said:
I would've though that if the Feds case was reopened, in light of the USADA evidence, wouldnt there be questions asked about why it was closed in the first place? Isn't that going to be a box of secrets no-one is going to want opening?
There are some subtleties to the way the case was stopped. AFAICT, the case was shelved, not officially closed, not officially complete. There's no more resources devoted to the case.

My guess is Fabiani's reach is so far and wide inside the political end of law enforcement that there won't be any interest in the case for fear of budget cutback reprisals from Congress.
 
sashimono said:
Unfortunately the FDA has a number of arguably more important public heath issues to deal with.
So, the guy runs a doping operation, opens another lifestyle brand that redirected non-profit funds to his private entity, has likely committed a number of Federal felonies of the white collar variety, has mocked the judicial system with obvious perjury, and there are bigger law enforcement problems.

Is Wonderboy too big to fail? Must be nice to know Law Enforcement and the Judicial system is Wonderboy's b!tch. The good news here is Wonderboy will be back and he'll screw THAT up too. Let's hope the next time the only cost is Wonderboy being sent to prison.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
I doubt that Obama would toss the husband of one of his cabinet members under the bus.

The Qui Tam case is another story. The question is not IF Thom and Lance will have to write a check......the question is how big?
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
New political situation. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance of criminal indictments.
dream on.

given obama's track record the only indictments will be for the whistleblowers:D
 
Nov 16, 2011
426
0
0
Obama has no direct influence on this issue whatsoever. However, he will continue to fund government agencies so this may free up some staffing and resources to pursue the topic if that so makes any difference. Compared to a Romney administration, which would have strip mined government budgets and allocate the money to defense contractor buddies of his, including new firms dedicated to building bayonets so he can counter Obama's claims.
 
Nov 2, 2012
3
0
0
Interesting issues

My first post to this board although I've been poking around various threads.

A few comments:
1) According to Birotte's office, the investigation is closed. http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/2012/024.html

2) We definitely need to separate qui tam civil case from criminal investigation. DOJ civil was working on Landis qui tam after criminal was closed down. But then I think it bailed. Does anyone know the status?

3) I have to think that the DOJ criminal has better things to do than reopen the Armstrong team investigation. I don't think anyone in the public clearly knows what was at issue (wire fraud? racketeering? criminal conspiracy? witness retaliation? criminal fraud?) But it's so expensive against a well funded defendant, and there are so many civil actions that are or will be filed against Armstrong that have a good probability of excavating the truth.

4) In my view, if there's any government involvement, DOJ civil may intervene in Landis suit and concentrate on the USPS fraud. Not sure how far DOJ/Landis can reach back. He filed in 2010, and it is fraud so statute of limitations may not be as constraining.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
gregod said:
dream on.

given obama's track record the only indictments will be for the whistleblowers:D
How does this come under the responsibility of the executive office? How does a president of the US get blamed for anything to do with drugs in cycling? This is so far from a presidential responsibility that even making the connection shows something unrelated to distain of a drug scandal. How does the choice of the presidential election have anything to do with LA?
Except for the repubs making a law and order move I doubt this subject is on their list of important presidential decisions. I mean given the democrats track record that pothole on Santa Barbara Boulevard might not get the attention it deserves. Please make the connection or leave this level of nonsense out of the discussion
 
Master50 said:
How does this come under the responsibility of the executive office? How does a president of the US get blamed for anything to do with drugs in cycling? This is so far from a presidential responsibility that even making the connection shows something unrelated to distain of a drug scandal. How does the choice of the presidential election have anything to do with LA?
Except for the repubs making a law and order move I doubt this subject is on their list of important presidential decisions. I mean given the democrats track record that pothole on Santa Barbara Boulevard might not get the attention it deserves. Please make the connection or leave this level of nonsense out of the discussion
I don't think you understand how deep the conspiracy goes. The truth is out there.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
MarkvW said:
I don't think you understand how deep the conspiracy goes. The truth is out there.
It goes pretty deep. Some are still blaming Bush for our current economic state.

Didn't see it posted here, but Holder looks to be leaving Justice. Maybe that changes things, maybe not.

I don't see Justice going after LA again if they won't pursue somebody like Angelo Mozilo.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
Master50 said:
How does this come under the responsibility of the executive office? How does a president of the US get blamed for anything to do with drugs in cycling? ... How does the choice of the presidential election have anything to do with LA?

Except for the repubs making a law and order move I doubt this subject is on their list of important presidential decisions. ...
That's what I was thinking ... perhaps I don't understand the connection, but I'm sure the president's office has other things they'd prefer to attend to?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS