US prosecutors drop case against Armstrong/USPS

[Velodude]

And how many of those were crimes in the US, exactly? And demonstrably so?

I'm pretty sure that this is the question I addressed to you about 3 or 4 pages ago.

Relevance?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're doing a pretty poor job of skipping my irrelevant arguments.

No, they're not strawman arguments. They're realities in this country. Do some reading on the current state of law enforcement.

Yes, when you suggest that if one cares they should "emigrate and volunteer for an auxiliary police force" - thats a strawman.

And you are confusing the cost of investigations - which did not appear to be a consideration here - with political interference for solely political benefit.

 

[aphronesis]

Relevance?

Political. How would it be connected for the charges to stick? Fraud of the USPS. Wouldn't that require one set of evidence. RICO charges? Another. Some overlap yes. It's not clear that it could have been easily aligned as a case. Especially if various defendants started peeling off.

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, when you suggest that if one cares they should "emigrate and volunteer for an auxiliary police force" - thats a strawman.

And you are confusing the cost of investigations - which did not appear to be a consideration here - with political interference for solely political benefit.

It's no more a strawman then the dozens that litter your posts. I didn't say if one cares. I said if you dispute the reality that there are many, many crimes in evidence that will not be prosecuted, then you can take steps to change that.

I'm pretty sure that none of my posts have confused the cost of the investigation with the political interference. Among other things, I'm suggesting that that cost would have continued for a few years, which would not have sat well in the current political climate. Which may have made interference that much easier to achieve.

If you actually asked me questions in good faith rather than making your own strawmen, you would find that I'm not much confused about any of this to the extent that I'm familiar with the facts. But rather that I don't share your relation to the case. That doesn't make my estimation of LA any higher than yours either.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I'm only playing the Devil's Advocate here (I think you know I'm generally with you on this)...

Those close to the investigation are exactly that... Close. Perhaps so close that they can't be objective about their chances for an actual conviction (not a mere indictment). Those sources (when speaking to WSJ, NPR, etc) haven't gone as far as suggesting impropriety on the part of their superiors. If they were so certain of their chances for an actual conviction, then it would be hard for them to walk away from this with any perception other than either politics or lobbying got in the way... and yet they have not said that. They've actually said very little. If they spent 2 years working a rock-solid case, and their boss came along and squashed it the same day the subject makes a huge donation to the planned parenthood cause, don't you think they'd make a bigger stink about it?

I'm diassapointed in how the underlings have rolled-over. Birotte? That's easy. But why have his underlings only spoken in little "hints"?

This case is just too big to sweep under the rug. The dust is not stuff you can hide.

The Birrote decision really only just happened. Give it time.

The "underlings" have job's, family's, and pensions to worry about. I would not be surprised if the conflict between the political side and the actual people who worked the case is not explored further in the coming months.....and I doubt a donation to Planed Parenthood will have anything to do with it

I doubt it hurts. I don't see Armstrong doing anything soley out of the goodness of his heart. There is always some angle with him. Is there any way a donation to PP could be proven to have directly influenced the decision? I doubt it.

But to say it had nothing to do with it either isn't accurate IMHO. Everything has to do with everything at that level. Especially whimsical decisions made behind closed doors without elaboration, ostensibly by one flunky, to drop 2 year investigations into the criminal behavior of global icons.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's no more a strawman then the dozens that litter your posts. I didn't say if one cares. I said if you dispute the reality that there are many, many crimes in evidence that will not be prosecuted, then you can take steps to change that.

I'm pretty sure that none of my posts have confused the cost of the investigation with the political interference. Among other things, I'm suggesting that that cost would have continued for a few years, which would not have sat well in the current political climate. Which may have made interference that much easier to achieve.

If you actually asked me questions in good faith rather than making your own strawmen, you would find that I'm not much confused about any of this to the extent that I'm familiar with the facts. But rather that I don't share your relation to the case. That doesn't make my estimation of LA any higher than yours either.

Why would I need to ask you questions when you are very capable of offering your view?

It is not my fault that you added in things I did not say, or other pieces that are irrelevant.

To the blue -well as you continue to bring up cost as a factor that ignores that if cost was an issue the investigation would never have started.

 

[Velodude]

Political. How would it be connected for the charges to stick? Fraud of the USPS. Wouldn't that require one set of evidence. RICO charges? Another. Some overlap yes. It's not clear that it could have been easily aligned as a case. Especially if various defendants started peeling off.

They are all stand alone crimes but only require two crimes defined under "Racketeering" for a RICO indictment.

Say I held an unlicensed weapon and stole an automobile for the intent of commissioning a future crime which was carried out.

What you are alluding to if one or more of my crimes could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then I would be acquitted of all crimes

 

[aphronesis]

Why would I need to ask you questions when you are very capable of offering your view?

It is not my fault that you added in things I did not say, or other pieces that are irrelevant.

To the blue -well as you continue to bring up cost as a factor that ignores that if cost was an issue the investigation would never have started.

I didn't add in anything you didn't say. You have made several posts to the effect that crime is there because crime can be shown to be there. How that matters in the real world isn't really clear.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Just when I thought we had hit a new peak for absurdity. So you're saying no endeavors have ever been broken off (federal, commercial, etc.) when the outlay began to exceed the perceived returns--however qualified and quantified?

Interesting position. So you're saying that everything in the history of the world that was ever started was followed through on because of its original determinations?

 

[aphronesis]

They are all stand alone crimes but only require two crimes defined under "Racketeering" for a RICO indictment.

Say I held an unlicensed weapon and stole an automobile for the intent of commissioning a future crime which was carried out.

What you are alluding to if one or more of my crimes could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then I would be acquitted of all crimes

Not quite. What I'm alluding to is that if the more significant crimes could not be successfully tried, it would make the lesser ones seem a rather trivial exercise.

 

[thehog]

Look like Lance has upset the religious nutjobs. This could be his biggest battle yet!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1540408

"Certainly from an evidentiary standpoint, there is circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that this is politically motivated and that Lance Armstrong essentially greased the right palms with money, in this case, Planned Parenthood,” Barber says. “And with President Obama being a radical pro-abortion activist president, it certainly seems that there is a quid pro quo going on here."

Barber tells OneNewsNow it's immoral for Armstrong to donate to an organization that kills pre-born babies.

"But the irony here is palpable as well. We know there is a clear scientific and medical connection between cancer -- particularly breast cancer -- and abortion; it increases the risk of breast cancer,” he points out. “So what's sad is that, by contributing to Planned Parenthood, Lance Armstrong is indirectly facilitating and contributing to the spread of cancer, in this case breast cancer."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't add in anything you didn't say. You have made several posts to the effect that crime is there because crime can be shown to be there. How that matters in the real world isn't really clear.

The parts where you said I could skip references to things I did not say.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Just when I thought we had hit a new peak for absurdity. So you're saying no endeavors have ever been broken off (federal, commercial, etc.) when the outlay began to exceed the perceived returns--however qualified and quantified?

Interesting position. So you're saying that everything in the history of the world that was ever started was followed through on because of its original determinations?

Indeed - you have a new level of absurdity, as I never suggested that.

We are talking about this case and why it stopped.
Money does not appear to have been an issue, we agree that there was illegal activity so the only conclusion left would be that the case stopped because of political interference.

(..if you wish to discuss other cases or general politics etc then open an appropriate thread so I can ignore it)

 

[Velodude]

Not quite. What I'm alluding to is that if the more significant crimes could not be successfully tried, it would make the lesser ones seem a rather trivial exercise.

So how doe we solve your problem?

Just a suggestion. Why don't we gather a group of citizens together to make a collective decision on whether there exists sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction on each of the crimes.

Let's call it a Grand Jury and include the process in the Constitution.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

This....

Look like Lance has upset the religious nutjobs. This could be his biggest battle yet!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1540408

"Certainly from an evidentiary standpoint, there is circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that this is politically motivated and that Lance Armstrong essentially greased the right palms with money, in this case, Planned Parenthood,” Barber says. “And with President Obama being a radical pro-abortion activist president, it certainly seems that there is a quid pro quo going on here."

Barber tells OneNewsNow it's immoral for Armstrong to donate to an organization that kills pre-born babies.

"But the irony here is palpable as well. We know there is a clear scientific and medical connection between cancer -- particularly breast cancer -- and abortion; it increases the risk of breast cancer,” he points out. “So what's sad is that, by contributing to Planned Parenthood, Lance Armstrong is indirectly facilitating and contributing to the spread of cancer, in this case breast cancer."

I agree with 100%.

 

[Benotti69]

Look like Lance has upset the religious nutjobs. This could be his biggest battle yet!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1540408

"Certainly from an evidentiary standpoint, there is circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that this is politically motivated and that Lance Armstrong essentially greased the right palms with money, in this case, Planned Parenthood,” Barber says. “And with President Obama being a radical pro-abortion activist president, it certainly seems that there is a quid pro quo going on here."

Barber tells OneNewsNow it's immoral for Armstrong to donate to an organization that kills pre-born babies.

"But the irony here is palpable as well. We know there is a clear scientific and medical connection between cancer -- particularly breast cancer -- and abortion; it increases the risk of breast cancer,” he points out. “So what's sad is that, by contributing to Planned Parenthood, Lance Armstrong is indirectly facilitating and contributing to the spread of cancer, in this case breast cancer."

Wow that's a fight his minions will lose, those guys are more fundamental than the Armstrong sycophants that turn up here.

 

[thehog]

Wow that's a fight his minions will lose, those guys are more fundamental than the Armstrong sycophants that turn up here.

I want to see segregations praying for Lance to be captured by the Feds!

 

[Wallace]

Look like Lance has upset the religious nutjobs. This could be his biggest battle yet!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1540408

"Certainly from an evidentiary standpoint, there is circumstantial evidence that would seem to indicate that this is politically motivated and that Lance Armstrong essentially greased the right palms with money, in this case, Planned Parenthood,” Barber says. “And with President Obama being a radical pro-abortion activist president, it certainly seems that there is a quid pro quo going on here."

Barber tells OneNewsNow it's immoral for Armstrong to donate to an organization that kills pre-born babies.

"But the irony here is palpable as well. We know there is a clear scientific and medical connection between cancer -- particularly breast cancer -- and abortion; it increases the risk of breast cancer,” he points out. “So what's sad is that, by contributing to Planned Parenthood, Lance Armstrong is indirectly facilitating and contributing to the spread of cancer, in this case breast cancer."

I've never been a fan of Armstrong, because of that whole cheating-his-way-to-winning-seven-Tours thing, but if he lines up in a battle against these goons, then I'll have to totally revise my opinion of him. There are things more important than cycling. Planned Parenthood is one of them.

 

[BotanyBay]

The "underlings" have job's, family's, and pensions to worry about. I would not be surprised if the conflict between the political side and the actual people who worked the case is not explored further in the coming months.....and I doubt a donation to Planed Parenthood will have anything to do with it

I just wonder why these people would speak to the press (at all) and then say only what they said (which isn't much). Everyone on the investigative team would be a suspect anyway.

I'm certain that they could get indictments (ham sandwich metaphors notwithstanding). But can they get convictions with the witness list as it stood?

In an election year, you don't indict Santa Claus unless you can put him away for real.

 

[aphronesis]

The parts where you said I could skip references to things I did not say.



Indeed - you have a new level of absurdity, as I never suggested that.

We are talking about this case and why it stopped.
Money does not appear to have been an issue, we agree that there was illegal activity so the only conclusion left would be that the case stopped because of political interference.

(..if you wish to discuss other cases or general politics etc then open an appropriate thread so I can ignore it)

Got a link for the fact that money was in no way a determining factor?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I just wonder why these people would speak to the press (at all) and then say only what they said (which isn't much). Everyone on the investigative team would be a suspect anyway.

I'm certain that they could get indictments (ham sandwich metaphors notwithstanding). But can they get convictions with the witness list as it stood?

In an election year, you don't indict Santa Claus unless you can put him away for real.

I assume you mean "could" have got - regardless, I don't see why the witness list would have any bearing.

If you mean Floyd, Tyler, Frankie etc well they would not have much evidence as PED use is not in itself illegal.
However their statements would have been able to show how the operation worked and point investigators in the right direction.
Any case would have relied more on a data or paper trail than a witness, unless the Feds could have turned someone within the actual operation.

 

[aphronesis]

So how doe we solve your problem?

Just a suggestion. Why don't we gather a group of citizens together to make a collective decision on whether there exists sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction on each of the crimes.

Let's call it a Grand Jury and include the process in the Constitution.

I'd have to say, given the sum total and tone of posts in this thread, I'm not suffering from any problem in this matter.

Let's take your suggestion. (I would put in a roll-eyes, but don't know how). Seems that happened. Didn't work. What's up with the thread?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Got a link for the fact that money was in know way a determining factor?

Learn to read - I wrote, "money does not appear to have been an issue..."

Have you a link to suggest otherwise?

 

[aphronesis]

Learn to read - I wrote, "money does not appear to have been an issue..."

Have you a link to suggest otherwise?

Got it. So because it does not appear to you, it didn't happen. No, I don't, but many have suggested that details will make their way out. Interesting. There are some fans out there you might want to chat with.

So, it's not clear why your interpretation would take precedence here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Got it. So because it does not appear to you, it didn't happen. No, I don't, but many have suggested that details will make their way out. Interesting. There are some fans out there you might want to chat with.

So, it's not clear why your interpretation would take precedence here.

Well, as you failed to find anything different it does not appear. Period.

Should it be considered? Sure, why not.
As the investigation went beyond the normal 18 months of a GJ and would have required an extension, one can conclude that those in charge did not feel the need to shut it down on financial grounds.
I am sure Jeff and the others get paid the same regardless who are what the target is.

Add to that, the decision was made by Birotte and appears to have surprised many then it would seem obvious that it was not a financial decision.

 

[Velodude]

I'd have to say, given the sum total and tone of posts in this thread, I'm suffering from any problem in this matter.

Let's take your suggestion. (I would put in a roll-eyes, but don't know how). Seems that happened. Didn't work. What's up with the thread?

Why didn't it work?

If it didn't work to its finality it means the jurors no billed all indictment counts put up by the prosecutors. I heard no inkling of such a tale.

The information I had read was that there was a political type intervention to curtail the investigation and thereby ending the GJ hearing of all the witnesses and deliberating on decisions on the indictments.

Have you information to the contrary that the GJ ran its course and, as I have heard many times in this thread, Armstrong was "cleared"?

 

[BotanyBay]

unless the Feds could have turned someone within the actual operation.

I think this is what they tried to do. But I think Lance and crew have a 'fridge full of horse heads.