Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (92761)	10/10/2005 5:04:15 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Do you think there were any other site members who could have offered a stronger defense for Tony, had they testified?

To: peter michaelson who wrote (92761)	10/11/2005 1:14:37 AM
From: realitybytes	Respond to of 122087

Well Peter for what it's worth, I don't think anyone thinks you lied in whatever you were you attempting to say on the stand. I think you were trying to not disappoint Elgindy. It seems obvious instead of simply answering the questions, that you were trying to modify your answers in a way that the jury would perceive Elgindy in the best possible light. Nevertheless, that task was just too much for you, and you should have just answered the questions, yes and no. Does the FBI need to keep confidential information confidential? JUST ANSWER YES Saying well all depends what you mean by the word confidential is just foolish. Besides that, it is clear that anyone else from the site or anyone else that could have been called from the site, would have nothing more contribute to help Elgindy fight the charges. Somehow the defense seem to want to focus in on what good things that Elgindy did. He may have done good things, but doing good things is no defense to the charges. When the judge told the defense lawyers multiple times that their defense was not addressing the charges, Team Elgindy ignored it. Maybe that is why he could not stay with Lefcourt Firm, because Elgindy wanted a different defense. He got what he wanted. It's not credible for him to try to say now that he did not have a vigorous defense. Peter if the government was going after Shorters in general they would have arrested you. You said on the stand you traded on inside information, and at the time, you understood it to be insider information. The government went after Royer and Elgindy because they compromised the integrity of the FBI. At a time where the FBI was in question for their abilities. This was not about a Shorter, this story was about an FBI agent, who worked with a corrupt individual to extort. Nothing you could have said on the stand would have change that. Beyond avoid being charge, your testimony remains some of the funniest reading in this entire event. Should you just ignore everything I just said? I rather you would