Looks like...
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
0 recs |
19 comments
Comments
Al Sharpton is Clay Davis
by Galt on Feb 27, 2008 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Going back
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 0 recs
"so early"
by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you mean
"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 0 recs
Looks like....
by bleedjaxblue on Feb 27, 2008 3:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Surely...
by Boxkutter on Feb 27, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clemens used to lie.....
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 0 recs
um
by jpahk on Feb 27, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you!
by Boxkutter on Feb 27, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Clemens is indicted for purgery
by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You have to prove
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 0 recs
then
by dlpme77 on Feb 27, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
people misassess....
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 0 recs
No I would say
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 0 recs
glad to hear....
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 0 recs
my problem is
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 0 recs
My new favorite summary of this
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3267304&sportCa t=mlb
by siddfynch on Feb 28, 2008 4:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
And more great reading
http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0227/mlb_clemensreferal.pdf
by siddfynch on Feb 28, 2008 4:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 











