Because, again, it happened here. And he's no longer a Blazer, making him an ex-blazer. It just makes geographical sense.
Possibly... Statements made by the DA or a defense attorney at this juncture should probably be taken with a grain of salt. The system isn't designed to incentivize honesty and showing your hand early.
I doubt it's Ben that wrote that, although I certainly have no evidence either way. It looks to me like he has a very good PR person. barfo
It’s a statement from Ben McClemore. Yes he most certainly had someone proof it and possibly even help him format it but he made the statement and he signed off on it. There is direct statements about his actions and intentions. Facts are facts. He is and has been willing to work with the authorities regarding the accusations against him. The court of public opinion needs to let the system take care of the rest.
I can't disprove this, but I would highly bet against it. In these situations, virtually everything is attorney driven. Did he know about it and sign off on it before it was released? Yes, I would assume so.
I 100% agree with you that people should wait and let it play out. I don't put much weight on the DA's press release or the statement from Ben; both sides are playing the game.
The DA not only allowed him to travel but allowed him to travel out of country. That is fact and does not happen unless someone has been straightforward. Even Ex Presidents have to follow what judges demand. Now here is my "Opinion" on this. This thing will never make it to trial. There will be a settlement in the future.
Arrested in Clackamas county and still playing ball. Seems pretty PNW to me. And no where did I say anything about "TRAILBLAZERS." Did you get run over by your own lawnmower?
Your first statement isn't a fact. For starters, the DA doesn't decide if someone gets bail and/or can travel while out on bail. Secondly, if the DA believed Ben's statement, they wouldn't have pressed charges. Your opinion that the case doesn't end up going to trial would be a good one as nearly 90% of cases never make it to try. The odds are on your side. Now when you say "settlement", do you mean a plea with the state?
The judge decides that but yes the DA makes the case to deny travel. In this case he did not. Yes that is fact.
Also you are wrong on the premise that the DA pressed charges. The Grand Jury indicted him. As the saying goes they can indict a hamburger if they want to.
Right, so you are saying the fact is the DA didn't object to the defenses request to travel because he had been "straightforward". Is that what the DA said?
This is incorrect...A grand jury can indict, then the DA decides whether to press charges are not. The grand jury indictment does not press charges. You are correct in pointing out the standard of evidence to indict is extremely low and therefore should not be taken as proof that a crime was committed.
Well you can say it however you want but bottom line if there is no indictment he ain’t pressing charges.
You got this one right(ish). An indictment is required in order for the DA to press formal charges. And as I originally said, the DA presses charges. You said that was incorrect. In summary: Judge decides if a defendant on bail can leave the country, not the DA. The DA can decide to not object to a defendants travel request for many reasons, or no reason at all. The DA presses charges, not a grand jury
