Looks like...

by slurve on Feb 27, 2008 1:49 PM EST

Clemens is going to be in some trouble:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/sports/main3882845.shtml

It's always been about the criminalization of white people. Where's the white people's version of Al Sharpton to take a stand? Hell... where's Al Sharpton? [crickets]

I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries
I will not post one-line diaries

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Al Sharpton is Clay Davis

without actually being elected to anything.

by Galt on Feb 27, 2008 2:30 PM EST reply actions

SHEEEEEeeeeeeeeEEEEYAT

by mroak89 on Feb 27, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions

Going back

to the original diary that spawned this one... I know I for one never denied that race/discrimination was part of the legal system. There is overwhelming stats to support it. In fact that was pointed out emphatically more than once.

The whole thing was Sharpton was out of line to play the race card - especially that early in the grand scheme of things.

by slurve on Feb 27, 2008 2:37 PM EST reply actions

"so early"

did you ever consider that he used it prophylatically as a strategic move, rather than wait for the ship to get set in motion?

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

If you mean

from Sharpton's perspective - then yes I considered it. I posted this a few eeeks ago:

"The Clemens chapter hasn't even gotten past the opening stanza and he's already drawing this conclusion? BS - this is posturing on his part for both personal gain and a thinly veiled attempt to pressure Congress into giving him a pound of Clemens flesh."

by slurve on Feb 27, 2008 9:03 PM EST up reply actions

Looks like....

....Clemens picked the wrong week to give up shooting steroids.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 3:19 PM EST reply actions

Surely...

you must be joking.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Feb 27, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions

Clemens used to lie.....

....to women back in college, but those were white lies. These lies were in front of Congress. It's an entirely different type of lying altogether.

OK.....maybe i'm stretching that quote too much. especially since it's hard to appropriately give the response in text form.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

um

you forgot to say "and don't call me shirley."

by jpahk on Feb 27, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions

Thank you!

That's all I wanted. Was that too much to ask, really? Now I can dry my eyes and get on with my day.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Feb 27, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions

If Clemens is indicted for purgery

then why not Jose Canseco? I mean he did say under oath that Clemens was not at the party. Or, did he just misremember??

by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 6:15 PM EST reply actions

You have to prove

knowledge. You couldn't prove Canseco remembers Clemens being at the party, and even if a picture of them together shows up, Canseco could always claim he forgot or didn't remember.

On the other hand, Clemens cannot make that same claim about taking HGH and steroids.

by Tyler on Feb 27, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

then

he should have said under oath he did not rememeber instead of saying 100% no..and that is how he said it

by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

people misassess....

.....the confidence in their own memories all the time. see how awful eyewitness testimony is.

anyway, put yourself in Canseco's shoes. pretend you had a party with a ton of people. obviously, you won't accurately remember everyone who was or wasn't there. if i ask you about someone who you know, but don't remember seeing, wouldn't you respond that they weren't there?

testimony ALWAYS implicitly says, "to the best of my memory....," because there's nothing else we can give. and taking "guesses" based on what we remember is more useful than simply refusing to answer ANYTHING for fear of misremembering and getting hit with a perjury charge.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

No I would say

I do not recall or I do not remember, not say you are 100% sure and sign an affadvit.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/Story?id=4342995&page=2

Hardin had secured a sworn affidavit from Canseco and submitted it to Congress. In the affidavit, Canseco said that he held a party on June 9, but that he was "disappointed" that Clemens "did not attend." The affidavit goes on to say that the statement in the Mitchell Report, saying that Clemens was at the party, was "absolutely false."

by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 6:48 PM EST up reply actions

glad to hear....

.....you'd have been so vigilant.

here in America, though, we don't usually make deductive reasoning ("i didn't see him, ergo i believe he wasn't there") a crime.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions

my problem is

he was so positive, so sure of himself. There have been charges of lying under oath that were less than this. I believe partly this is his ego talking, as he believes he is the George Jung of the steroid trade. If he didn't get them from me, he didn't use him BS.

Of course he could have pulled the what is the definition of at when asked was Roger Clemens at the party

by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 7:23 PM EST up reply actions