Question in the whole Bonds fiasco....

[salsadancer7]

....it's it a federal offense to leak grand jury testimony, especially if it's suppose to be sealed? IF it is, why isn't the reporter that leaked all the steriod information from the grand jury testimony not in jail? And why is HE not getting any flack?

 

[sidekick]

Because he's not part of the witchhunt .....

....it's it a federal offense to leak grand jury testimony, especially if it's suppose to be sealed? IF it is, why isn't the reporter that leaked all the steriod information from the grand jury testimony not in jail? And why is HE not getting any flack?

 

[Peter Parker]

What reporter are you referring to and how did he break the law? It is a crime to leak grand jury testimony but not for the press to print it. The reporter could be asked to reveal his sources but the act or reporting it is not a crime. In fact if you are referring to these guys they WERE asked to reveal their sources.

BALCO reporters to avoid prison time - USATODAY.com


BTW this same subject came up in the pit over the Scooter Libby case.

 

[salsadancer7]

What reporter are you referring to and how did he break the law? It is a crime to leak grand jury testimony but not for the press to print it. The reporter could be asked to reveal his sources but the act or reporting it is not a crime. In fact if you are referring to these guys they WERE asked to reveal their sources.

BALCO reporters to avoid prison time - USATODAY.com


BTW this same subject came up in the pit over the Scooter Libby case.

But wasn't the testimony suppose to be sealed? AND isn't SEALED testimony supposed to be that....? Sealed?

 

[Jimbo]

IF it was, then NONE of this would be out in the open and baseball would still be going on like it was in previous years.

 

[Peter Parker]

Yes sealed testimony is sealed. But what I tried to explain in my original pot was that the crime is the leak----telling the press----not the press priniting it. The individual(S) that leaked it can be prosecuted and reporters are sometimes jailed to get them to reveal their sources. But the publication is not a crime.

 

[salsadancer7]

IF it was, then NONE of this would be out in the open and baseball would still be going on like it was in previous years.

I agree with you 100% ! BUT, if it was supposed to be sealed testimony...and our laws says it's against the law to reveal sealed testimony...then the reporters/reporter broke the law...period.

 

[Peter Parker]

NO salsa that is NOT what the laws say. The law says that it si illegal to reveal it to the press but not for the press to print it. But I can see that we are getting nowhere here.

 

[salsadancer7]

NO salsa that is NOT what the laws say. The law says that it si illegal to reveal it to the press but not for the press to print it. But I can see that we are getting nowhere here.

You are confussing disagreement with not believing you. I believe you....AND I did NOT say what "the law says". I was 'wondering' why the reporter was not reprimanded for some reason...IF he did do something illegal.

 

[Peter Parker]

Because he did nothing illegal. He simply passed on information. That is legal. IF he got it by stealing it or by bribing someone connected to the grand jury that would be a crime. but simply printing what your source tells you is 100% legal.

Freedom of the press trumps grand jury secrecy. But again if there were evidence that they obtained it illegally you have a whole new ballgame.

As for my confusion you keep insisting that the fact that testimony was s ealed means it cannot be printed. The law does not quite say that. It make the transmission of the information to the press illegal (Potentially) but not the publication or broadcast of that information.