Wow, Reverend Al cleaned Brokaw's clock tonight

[annagull]

I'm still looking for a transcript, but Brokaw made the mistake of asking Rev. Al if he would apolegize for the Brawley case since Dean apolegized for the confederate flag remark. Rev. Al chewed him a new one for comparing the confederate flag to a court case. Catch it if you can, he makes Brokaw look like a chump! :spank:

[pruner]

1. you're kidding, right?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Transcript

BROKAW: Reverend Sharpton, Howard Dean did apologize for his remarks about the Confederate flag on the back of a pickup truck. But a lot of people who admire you and especially like your spirit in engagements like this are wondering whether you're ever going to apologize for your role in the Tawana Brawley case.

SHARPTON: Absolutely. If -- I would apologize if I felt I was wrong.

I think if you think you're right, you pay the penalty for it and you stand there. If Governor Dean thought he was right, he should have taken whatever that was. He, after some assessment, felt he was wrong. I don't feel I was wrong. I've stood up on cases, one was the Central Park jogger case -- 13 years later people felt I was right.

But I think also, Tom, to compare a case of a young lady telling us something that we believe with a Confederate flag that represented a society's commitment to lynching, to rape, to murder and treason, I think that's a stretch even for Tom Brokaw.

(LAUGHTER)

BROKAW: I wasn't making -- I wasn't making a judgment. What I was saying was that people, once there was a body of evidence in the Tawana Brawley case...

SHARPTON: Well, there was a body of evidence the jury didn't believe. I just cited you a body of evidence where people went to jail eight years and it was overturned.

We're not talking about a case when we're talking about the Confederacy. We're talking about people that were committed against a race of people.

I may have a disagreement on any case. Right now a lot of people think O.J. Simpson was guilty. The jury said he wasn't. Should they apologize? I mean, you're covering right now a lot of cases.

So to try and make a case something and equate that with what we talked about -- when I see a pickup truck and Confederate flag, I see James Byrd dragged through Jasper, Texas. I'm not talking about a jury making a decision on a case.

You know, it's funny, a lot of people -- Jessica Lynch said something didn't happen to her, and this administration believes it. I believe in a girl that said something did happen to her. I'd like to have that debate with George Bush.

BROKAW: But that was a -- and we'll try to leave it at that.

(LAUGHTER)

SHARPTON: You're trying to come up with the next question.

BROKAW: No, no. There was -- in fact, it's undeniable that there was a racial component to the Tawana Brawley case.

SHARPTON: The girl told her story. And we believed her story and represent her story, and still do. But the racial implication of the case is, again, way away from what I debated Mr. Dean about.

SHARPTON: If, in fact, someone is trying to equate the two, I think that's even more of an insult to people that were victimized by the Confederacy. And I don't think any candidate in this race would try to act like those are two of the same, whatever their opinions may be of a case that I represented or not.

I've never represented a case that everybody believed in and everybody agreed with. And I'm willing to pay the penalty for what I believe. And I just want everybody up here to do the same thing, which is what I offered my good friend Brother Howard.

BROKAW: Thank you very much, Reverend Al Sharpton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10799-2003Nov24?language=printer

[annagull]

3. Thanks for that!

Tom was squirming, I thought it was pretty funny.

[JI7]

5. VERY GOOD

it is very good. you can tell brokaw didn't expect that and didn't know what to say. hahahah. al sharpton was right on point.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. Holy Shit, Brokaw Got SCHOOLED

I must find a way to see this debate. I was working until the evening, and then I had a local Clark organizational event.

DTH

[dfong63]

11. like a lot of what Rev Al says, this doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny

But I think also, Tom, to compare a case of a young lady telling us something that we believe with a Confederate flag that represented a society's commitment to lynching, to rape, to murder and treason, I think that's a stretch even for Tom Brokaw.

Sharpton is being conveniently obtuse. Brokaw's point is that Dean possesses enough humility to apologize for a mistake, so why doesn't Sharpton? instead of giving a straight answer, Sharpton employs the diversionary tactic of smearing Dean.

yes, Al, as a matter of fact, "believing a young lady" can be a huge mistake, when you believe her to the exclusion of all other evidence, and when you try to destroy people's reputations based on just her unsupported word alone. by that act alone, you show yourself to be unqualified for any public office, let alone the highest office in the land. and by continuing to insist that you're right, you show either a dangerous inability to learn from your mistakes, or a disingenous streak a mile wide.

and no, Al, Dean didn't defend the Confederate flag or what it stands for. just another cheap shot, worthy of Karl Rove.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. boy you really missed the point didn't you?

Al was exactly right. Did you miss the reference to the central park jogger case? Why is Sharpton supposed to apologise for beleiving that young girl? The case went to court, he lost but he still beleives he did the right thing. What is to apologize for? This is the way the american justice system works. I think you are buying the racist spin.

[dfong63]

23. i didn't miss it - sharpton's logic is completely bogus

the court was wrong in the central park jogger case, but that doesn't mean the courts are wrong in every case. Sharpton's retort sounds good until you look at the facts. "believing a young lady" sounds good, except that a smart person doesn't just "believe" every lady that comes along, when there is no supporting evidence, and plenty of contrary evidence. Sharpton is a fool with a gift for sound bites, nothing more.

[sangh0]

32. You're logic is completely bogus

the court was wrong in the central park jogger case, but that doesn't mean the courts are wrong in every case.

Most importantly, it doesn't mean they were right in the Brawley case. You skipped that part.

except that a smart person doesn't just "believe" every lady that comes along, when there is no supporting evidence, and plenty of contrary evidence.

When Sharpton took on Brawley as a client, there hadn't yet been an investigation, so your claim that there was "plenty of contrary evidence" is completely bogus. It was only later, after Sharpton successfully forced the DA to investigate, that any exculpatory evidence was uncovered, and unless you were a juror in the case, I would assume you are less familiar with the sum total of evidence that Sharpton is.

Furthermore, Sharpton has a better track record that you do. He has uncovered police misconduct and racist governmental policies and EVERY other case he has handled has refelected well on his judgement

[Justice]

18. Brokaw Didn't Phrase the Question Correctly

It is surprising that the question has not come up in past debates, as it is a legitimate question (about the Brawley case).

Instead of just asking the question, Brokaw tried to pin Sharpton into a corner. Brokaw would have been smarter to just ask the question about Sharpton's role in the Brawley case.

Instead Brokaw looked silly - because he tried to compare apples and oranges.

[SemperEadem]

60. then you didn't read the article very well...

" Brokaw's point is that Dean possesses enough humility to apologize for a mistake, so why doesn't Sharpton? "



Sharpton: "If Governor Dean thought he was right, he should have taken whatever that was. He, after some assessment, felt he was wrong. I don't feel I was wrong."

edit

"I've never represented a case that everybody believed in and everybody agreed with. And I'm willing to pay the penalty for what I believe."

That's why he's not going to apologize. As far as he's concerned, he's got nothing to apologize about.

Now, if your premise is that he should apologize to you because your "tender sensibilities" were offended by his belief in that case, then that's straight up drama.

[Nlighten1]

17. PWNT!

Damn, Mr. Blowchow will think twice before messing with Al again.

[Colin Ex]

49. Holy damn.

Sharpton has it going on.

Props to him.

-C

[YNGW]

68. comment

Nice dodge and disassemble there, Rev.

I remember when that all happened. He should have bailed when it became obvious she was lying.

[LeahMira]

81. No, he did the right thing.

He should have bailed when it became obvious she was lying.

Not if he's representing her he shouldn't. I guess the guy representing John Muhammed knows he's guilty as sin, but he's also entitled to the best representation his lawyer can give him.

[Hieronymus]

4. I aplaud Brokaw

for daring to ask the question.
Sharpton is a joke.

[Julien Sorel]

8. I agree with you halfway.

It does take guts to ask the question, specifically because Sharpton isn't a joke. If he was, people wouldn't be intimidated by him, and he wouldn't be routinely schooling people like Dean and Brokaw who choose to push issues they don't understand with him.

Notice: you called him a 'joke,' but have nothing substantive to say about his response to Brokaw's question. Now why is that?

[sangh0]

33. Are you serious?

Do you really think it "takes guts" to ask Sharpton about Brawley? *EVERY* jouornalists asks Sharpton about it.

[gully]

38. The subject has not come up in a debate...

;)

[Julien Sorel]

39. In an environment where they can control

his output, sure they will. For a print journalist, it's a particularly easy question to ask, because no one sees his response unless you decide to put it in your story, and then you get to frame it as you like. In a TV interview, you can try to badger him when he gets going, use your position as host to at least try to maintain some control. In an environment like the debate, however, Sharpton has a raw forum to work with, and he's lethal under those circumstances -- his charisma and mental quickness allow him to overwhelm people, particularly on racial issues, which he understands inside and out, and there is no editing: you have to take your beating as it comes. So yes, I think you have to be very brave, very foolish, or incredibly well-prepared to take him on, particularly with a back-door approach like Brokaw used. Brokaw obviously wasn't well-prepared, because the question itself was essentially leading with his chin. I wouldn't be surprised if he under-estimated Sharpton, though, as it's really easy to do, especially if one is suffering from subconscious racism, as so many are.

[sangh0]

42. You make it sound like stupidity, not courage

on Rather's part. That I could agree with

[el_gato]

40. I applaud Sharpton

Brokaw is nothing but a media whore with an agenda.

fuck brokaw

[realFedUp]

43. Brokaw worked well for the RNC

This is the problem with the rightwing networks
hosting these debates...Brokaw couched the gotcha
questions with a commentary of his own first.

This was a gotcha debate. Is the DNC overseeing
these at all?

[no name no slogan]

46. Sharpton IS NOT a joke

Sharpton is a serious as a heart attack.

I may not agree with him on everything he says and/or does, but his voice is a welcome addition to this debate. He's not afraid to say what needs to be said, irregardless of how the media is going to spin it. He's a welcome breath of fresh air in a format dominated by rehashed stump speaches and soundbites scripted for the 11 o'clock news.

[lumpy]

7. Sharpton is sharp

I understand what he was saying about the Brawley case. She told a believable story, he believed it happened and decided to defend her as her lawyer. Lawyers do this, it's their job, whether they are black or white or read all over. He explaination was easy enough to understand.

[Jerseycoa]

9. Sharpton is Sharp

But he wasn't her lawyer. The Tawana Brawley case was a false charge of rape against a white man by a young girl who was troubled. Sharpton was a community activist who took up her cause. The charges were disproven. It was reverse racism on Sharpton's part. He's grown since then in many ways, but this situation is nothing he should be proud of. I was sorry Brokaw ever brought it up, but Sharpton should apologize for ruining an innocent man's life and reputation. This was not good.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. nonsense

he took up a cause, whether that girl was telling the truth or not is not Al Sharptons fault. Where are the demands that they system apologize for locking up young black men all the time for crimes they don't commit? Fuck their lives right? But God forbid a white man be falsely accused, then all the black folk involved must apologize!

[Jerseycoa]

15. Oh, please

It was a black security guard on Tawana Brawley's legal team who testified that Sharpton and his colleagues knew she was lying. It was a mixed race jury who hit Sharpton with a fine for defamation. And, no, it was not wrong to believe the girl. It was wrong to continue pretending she was telling the truth just because it fit his agenda.

And you can shove your pc baloney.

[AP]

31. What does the security guard's race have to do with anything?

Or the race of the jury?

And are you sure he was liable for defamation. That's the first time I've heard that.

[Jerseycoa]

41. It has to do with Post#13

To which I was responding. And yes.

[AP]

29. Well said.

I don't see anyone going around here saying the prosecutors and cops in the Central Park trial should lose their jobs and their licenses to practice law.

How many people, former DAs and AGs, do you think run for public office, who sent an innocent black OR white person down the river (much less, make him stand trial for a crime he didn't compete), and played it up for the press so the person's life was ruined? But nobody says the things they say about Sharpton, like "he's a fraud" and "he shouldn't be allowed to run for office." I've never seen this standared ever applied to anyone by DU duers except to Sharpton.

Give me a break.

[dfong63]

10. it wasn't a mistake - Brokaw asked a legit question

Rev Al may have embarrassed Brokaw, but he didn't win any votes. no amount of clever answers will make people forget about Tawana Brawley and Sharpton's race baiting in that case.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. I think he did win votes and he will have an effect on the next election

you on the other hand are busy posting racebaiting messages on a public board and you will have no effect except to continue the ugly backlash against a dedicated activist who may or may not have made a mistake in believing Tawana B. but who owes no apology to anyone for it.

[dfong63]

25. racebaiting? that's rich coming from a sharpton apologist

[SemperEadem]

62. that rhetoric only flies in NY, not out west

the further west you go, the less of an immediate hair-trigger reaction to hearing the name Tawanna Brawley has on people. That is an east coast obsession--very localized.

the rest of the country isn't triggered in the same way by the sound of her name as those in NY appear to be.

[Carolina]

63. votes

perhaps not, but I love how he challeneges the media whores. He won't let them put words in his mouth, he won't be baited by their traps, and he won't back down. More Dems should speak up and out as he does. Reading the transcript lacks the effect of watching it because using a heavy weight fight analogy, for one wonderful moment Al had GE Brokejaw on the ropes. And later when Tommy boy tried to bait him with Clark's position on flag burning, he turned it around and talked about how * had desecrated the flag through his policies and actions. Wouldn't fall for the bash Clark tactic. Touche, Al!

I may be for a Clark-Dean ticket, but with each debate, I find myself striking a touchdown pose when Al gives 'em hell.

[salmonhorse]

16. Sharpton will never apologize...

As a black racist it is not within his template to do so.

[PDittie]

19. You mean, "Brother Ralph", don't you?

;)

[Q]

20. Wow...and some of you call yourselves 'Democrats'?

- I'm always shocked to see so many hateful people posting on Sharpton threads. You're entitled to your opinions...but this is the type of thinking more common on the 'other side'.

- I find it strange that WHITE politicians like Bush* can campaign for president without anyone daring to bring up his horrible past. Can you imagine BroKaw asking Bush* a question like this?

- We're still a racist nation...just more subtle about it.

[Jerseycoa]

26. I do call myself a Democrat

Howard Dean is right when he says there needs to be a discussion about race in this campaign. But why is it when anybody talks about something having to do with race there is the outcry -- racism!! Run for the exits. Saying this is still a racist nation is stating the obvious, and it's going to stay that way as long as we keep shuddering every time a black person is treated equally in a discussion. Al Sharpton is a big man and should be able to take the hits like anybody else. Protecting him from a valid criticism is just another form of racism. For the record, I believed Tawana Brawley, too. A whole lot of New Yorkers did and were proven wrong. We just admit it.

[sangh0]

36. "we keep shuddering every time a black person is treated equally"

You mean Bush* is questioned about his past mistakes at every interview the way Sharpton is? Jesse Jackson is still getting questions about his Hymietown remarks. When was the last time a reporter asked Cheney about asbestos?

[Jerseycoa]

53. Shuddering

Obviously, I was referring to the discussion here on this thread. Try to follow it. But having any kind of sensible discussion on this issue is out of the question and I should have known better. Just makes the usual knees jerk.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. Wow, People Sure Are Brave on Internet Forums!

But having any kind of sensible discussion on this issue is out of the question and I should have known better. Just makes the usual knees jerk.

:puke:

DTH

[sangh0]

57. On this thread?

Here's what you said:

"Howard Dean is right when he says there needs to be a discussion about race in this campaign. But why is it when anybody talks about something having to do with race there is the outcry -- racism!! Run for the exits. Saying this is still a racist nation is stating the obvious, and it's going to stay that way as long as we keep shuddering every time a black person is treated equally in a discussion. Al Sharpton is a big man and should be able to take the hits like anybody else. Protecting him from a valid criticism is just another form of racism. For the record, I believed Tawana Brawley, too. A whole lot of New Yorkers did and were proven wrong. We just admit it."

So you think "fairness" is something we can create in this thread even though society at large is racist?

It's funny how you want to talk about how unfair it is here on DU in order to criticize Sharpton, but avoid the unfairness of the world at large. It's so unfair that you can't attack Sharpton on DU!!! (even though you can, and you have)

[remfan]

21. kick

'

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Kick

:kick:

[AmericanDem]

24. Sharpton also slapped around Chris Matthews

It happened during one of those college candidates shows. Sharpton really put it to him.

[UTUSN]

27. Kick for Kicking BROKAW and Tweety

and to kick past the disruptor threads.

[Caution]

28. Why a transcript doesnt tell the tale.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I like Sharpton, I like what he stands for and I tend to agree with him quite often. I also think he did very well overall in this debate. But on this issue the transcript doesnt tell the tale. He came off as ducking the question, stuttering, basically making it up as he went and repeating himself. This may have looked better in the transcript (I havent read the transcript) but live...he sounded like a fool plain and simple. It was his only misstep of the evening.

Having listened to the debate, it became clear to me that Dean is going to win. I like Kerry, but he sounded like a commercial, he had an agenda and he decided to push that rather than actually following the format of the debate. Dean was on the attack and his message was clearer than Kerry's. Edwards was ok, but basically came off as an afterthought. Kucinich was powerful and great overall but when one of my best friends who is a man who knows politics, is engaged and intelligent said "who is kucinich?" when i mentioned him i knew that kucinich was doomed. Braun and Sharpton were great but they have been marginalized. Gephardt was wishy-washy as usual. Clark harped on national security to the point of being incredibly annoying. This is all IMHO.

[Kazak]

30. Man, Sharpton is awesome.

I love that guy...I'm not so sure I would want him to win the nomination, but I think his role in this whole process is absolutely indispensible.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. yep....God bless you Sharpton!

[theboss]

35. Could Sharpton build a bigger strawman?

So he was apparently correct about the Central Park joggers. That means he is correct about Tawana Brawley?

How does that work again?

[sangh0]

37. Could you?

So he was apparently correct about the Central Park joggers. That means he is correct about Tawana Brawley?

It means, he is not unreasonable in believing his client's story. He's been right about these things more often than you have.

[Nederland]

44. Ruining peoples lives

It means, he is not unreasonable in believing his client's story.

It may be perfectly reasonable to believe a client' story, especially before an investigation has been done and the facts are assembled.

However, it is a completely different matter months later to continue to push a story long after it has become clear that the "young woman" was lying. It is completely different matter to claim without any evidence whatsoever that a District Attorney assassinated a police officer in order to silence him. It is completely different matter to claim without any evidence whatsoever that the Attorney General masturbated while leering at photos of Tawana. It is completely different matter to compare that Attorney General, who is Jewish, to Adolph Hitler. It is completely different matter to claim that Mario Coumo had links to organized crime and the KKK. It is completely different matter to be found guilty of defamation by a court of law and then refuse to pay fines levied upon you.

In sum, it is one thing to be wrong about something. It is a completely different matter to be completely unable to admit you were wrong about something 15 years later. Al Sharpton is a disgrace to the Democratic Party and not worthy of our support.

[sangh0]

45. More straw men

However, it is a completely different matter months later to continue to push a story long after it has become clear that the "young woman" was lying.

And you KNOW she was lying? How?

I'm more likely to believe someone who has said this before and been proven correct over someone who doesn't know nearly as much about the case, and who falsely claims that the DA was "silenced"

It is completely different matter to claim without any evidence whatsoever that a District Attorney assassinated a police officer in order to silence him.

That's how Al gets the media attention he needs to force the government to investigate. Before Sharpton made that statement, the DA didn't want to investigate. They were gonna close the case without investigating it.

It is completely different matter to claim without any evidence whatsoever that the Attorney General masturbated while leering at photos of Tawana. It is completely different matter to compare that Attorney General, who is Jewish, to Adolph Hitler. It is completely different matter to claim that Mario Coumo had links to organized crime and the KKK. It is completely different matter to be found guilty of defamation by a court of law and then refuse to pay fines levied upon you.

You are desperate. Get help, now.

[Nederland]

48. Response

And you KNOW she was lying? How?

I know because a court of law found her to be lying. This is what the judge said regarding the case:

It is probable that in the history of this state, never has a teenager turned the prosecutorial and judicial systems literally upside down with such false claims. The cost of the lengthy, thorough and complete grand jury investigation was reportedly estimated at one-half million dollars. The Grand Jury was supervised ably by Justice Ingrassia who carefully reviewed over six thousand pages of testimony by 180 witnesses as well as 250 exhibits. He accepted the extensive grand jury report as being supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence.

The total costs and expenses of the lengthy trial before this Court must be staggering. All of this was presumably unnecessary had Brawley come forward to cooperate with authorities. Even absent initial cooperation, once the Grand Jury report was released and it revealed in detail that Brawley had been personally observed by a credible witness crawling into the garbage bag, it would have been most appropriate for Brawley as a young teenager to come forward, admit the allegations were not true and apologize for the pain and upset she had caused Pagones, the Crist family and State Trooper Scott Patterson by her false accusations. In all likelihood, plaintiff would not have commenced this civil lawsuit nor felt the need to hold the four defendants accountable for their wrongful and false accusations had an apology been forthcoming.

As a teenager Brawley might well be entitled to and deserve some special consideration for her actions. This Court would certainly consider judging a teenager’s actions in that context, if appropriate. However, that is not the case here. The Court is now dealing with a twenty six year old woman who isunderstood to have a college education and to be employed in a responsible position. She continues to deny the truth which has now been determined not only by the Grand Jury but also by a dedicated and committed trial jury whose members sacrificed eight and one-half months of their lives to do justice and to make our system work. Every opportunity was afforded Mason and Maddox to prove that Brawley’s allegations were true. The jury found them false by clear and convincing evidence, a high burden of proof.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/press/old_keep/brawley.htm

This is not a statement made on a TV show. It is the written words of an esteemed state court judge placed into the public record.

You sir, are the one in need of help, not I.

[sangh0]

51. LOL!

I know because a court of law found her to be lying. This is what the judge said regarding the case:

Should I quote from the who sentenced the black kids who were arrested for "wilding" in Central Park, but who were later freed when it was discovered that someone else did the crime?

And can I assume you believe that OJ is innocent?

This is not a statement made on a TV show. It is the written words of an esteemed state court judge placed into the public record

"Esteemed"? Now THAT's funny.

Next thing, you'll be telling us about the "esteemed" OJ Judge Ito!!

[Nederland]

52. Give some proof

Should I quote from the who sentenced the black kids who were arrested for "wilding" in Central Park, but who were later freed when it was discovered that someone else did the crime?

No, I would suggest that, for the first time on this thread, that you present some actual facts. Perhaps you could explain the following:

1) Brawley's next door neighbor, that Mrs. Joyce Lloray, testified under oath that she saw Brawley sneak around the corner of the building opposite the Lloray apartment, climb into the garbage bag and lie down. Was Mrs. Joyce Lloray lying? How do you know?

2) Dr Park Dietz, famous for his study of the psychotic gay cannibal Jeffery Dahmer, testified that “Tawana Brawley’s physical appearance when she was found is consistent with self-infliction and a false accusation.” Was Dr Park Dietz lying?

3) Why did Sharpton fail to call an opposing expert to testify? Why was the testimony of Michael Baden, a witness for the defense of OJ Simpson, cancelled at the last minute? (Perhaps its because if you can't even get the guy who told us that OJ was innocent to appear, you've run out of options????)

4) Why did Brawley herself refuse to testify at trial?

5) Rebute on a point by point basis the testimony of 180 witnesses and 250 exhibits of evidence that says Brawley was lying.


When you're done with that you can crawl out from beneath that rock you've been living under.

[sangh0]

54. Are you arguing the Central Park rapists weren't innocent?

1) Brawley's next door neighbor, that Mrs. Joyce Lloray, testified under oath that she saw Brawley sneak around the corner of the building opposite the Lloray apartment, climb into the garbage bag and lie down. Was Mrs. Joyce Lloray lying? How do you know?

Was Mrs. Joyce Lloray telling the truth? How do you know?

OJ testified that he didnt kill Nicole. Was he lying? How do you know?


2) Dr Park Dietz, famous for his study of the psychotic gay cannibal Jeffery Dahmer, testified that “Tawana Brawley’s physical appearance when she was found is consistent with self-infliction and a false accusation.” Was Dr Park Dietz lying?

Was Dr Dietz telling the truth? How do you know?

Besides, so what? "consistent with self-infliction" isn't "was self-inflicted"

3) Why did Sharpton fail to call an opposing expert to testify? Why was the testimony of Michael Baden, a witness for the defense of OJ Simpson, cancelled at the last minute? (Perhaps its because if you can't even get the guy who told us that OJ was innocent to appear, you've run out of options????)

Waste of time. If you have a point, make it.

4) Why did Brawley herself refuse to testify at trial?

That's what happens in most cases.

5) Rebute on a point by point basis the testimony of 180 witnesses and 250 exhibits of evidence that says Brawley was lying.

LOL! I believe ya'!!

[Nederland]

58. Response

Are you arguing the Central Park rapists weren't innocent?

No I am not. That would be you trying to duck the real issue, which is the Brawley case.

Once again your entire post is complete devoid of facts. Proving a point takes more than merely suggesting that a person is lying. If you want to prove that Mrs. Joyce Lloray is lying, simply produce a quote from a person that testified to an account that was different than hers. If you think that Dr Park Dietz is wrong, you should produce some evidence or argument to explain why you believe this. That's they way things work in a court of law and in the court of public opinion. It doesn't prove anything to merely sugggest that such and such a person is wrong or is lying. It takes facts and counter testimony--something you simply don't have.

Like Sharpton, it appears that all you have is empty rhetoric. That, and an inability to admit when you're wrong.

[Character Assassin]

59. There are those who will give that clown Sharpton the benefit of doubt

forever, regardless of any proof to the contrary.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make Sharpton apologists think.

[sangh0]

64. LOL!

If you want to prove that Mrs. Joyce Lloray is lying, simply produce a quote from a person that testified to an account that was different than hers.

DO you suppose Sharpton's account differed from hers?

If you think that Dr Park Dietz is wrong...

I don't think she was wrong. I just don't think she was right. If you want me to think she was right, you will first have to prove that she is right. Then, I'll believe it.

It doesn't prove anything to merely sugggest that such and such a person is wrong or is lying. It takes facts and counter testimony--something you simply don't have.

Ironic.

[Nederland]

65. Pure Ignorance

DO you suppose Sharpton's account differed from hers?

Given that Sharpton himself said he wasn't at that location at the time--no, he doesn't have a different account. Obviously you aren't even familar with the facts of the case. This is a complete waste of time. Enjoy keeping your head deep in the sand. Cheers.

[sangh0]

66. Really?

So Sharpton's claim that Brawley was raped doesn't contradict the witnesses testimony?

[Nederland]

67. Clueless

Please read slowly so you can understand:

Shapton wasn't there.

Get it? You can't contradict the testimony of a witness if you yourself aren't a witness. Is that so hard to understand?

[sangh0]

70. Again

So Sharpton's claim that Brawley was raped doesn't contradict the witnesses testimony?

You can't contradict the testimony of a witness if you yourself aren't a witness. Is that so hard to understand?

No, I understand that you're wrong.

I can and have contradicted witnesses without testifying. I explained to a lawyer how the witness had lied, and the lawyer then crossed them and exposed the lie.

The man who DID rape the Central Park Jogger contradicted many of the city's witnesses without ever giving any testimony at the kids trials.


You seem to think if it didn't happen in a courtroom, it didn't happen

[theboss]

69. Sharpton's account is hearsay

And is therefore inadmissable. All Sharpton can do is recount Tawana's statement since he was not eyewitness to the alleged "rape."

And Tawana's statements are utterly indefensible. There is not one shread of evidence that gives her any credibility. She was a troubled kid who made up a story that has been disproven in court.

[sangh0]

71. So what?

We're not arguing whether Sharpton's account is hearsay or not. We're arguing whether or not Nederland KNOWS that Tawana lied.

He doesn't. He has an opinion. So do you. So do I. But none of us KNOWS what really happened.

[theboss]

80. Then let's shut down the courts

Because none of us ever knows 100 percent what happened. But if we shut down the legal system, things would be - um - bad. All we have is what we can prove. And it was proven in a court of law - correctly, I believe - that Sharpton and Company were lying a blue streak.

Sharpton, of course, has never paid a dime because he is the Left's version of a televangelist and knows how to keep his money hidden.

[theboss]

47. Client?!?!?!?!?

When did Al Sharpton get his law license?

What is his job anyway?

[sangh0]

55. Breaking News!!

Lawyers aren't the only people who have clients!!!!!

When did Al Sharpton get his law license?

Al is a preacher, a social worker, and an activist for civil rights.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

50. Tawana Brawley punked Al Sharpton

Just like Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt got punked by bushie into voting for the IWR, the Rev Al, who talks a good game but has obviously poor judgement, got punked by a teenager who made up a wild story of rape and racial abuse to aviod being busted by her Mom for spending the weekend across the river with her jailbird boyfriend.

We don't need a nominee who is easily punked - whether he knows how to apologize or not. I couldn't give a rat's behind whether he apologizes to Greg Pagonis or the citizens of Wappingers Falls, Dutchess County, the Hudson Valley, New York State, America, or the whole damn world for that matter. The point is he was wrong about Tawana and really stubborn about being wrong to the point where he looks like a jackass. Punked, and easily punkable.

We don't need dopes (see list above) who are easily manipulated running for president. We already have one of those pretending to be president right now.

[Cocoa]

61. the transcript omits a Sharpton comment

It has him saying this:

SHARPTON: You're trying to come up with the next question.

But I clearly heard him add "go ahead, I'm still here."

I wonder why all the dems are so contentious with the "liberal media" like Brokaw while the republicans seem to get along with them just fine. :shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

72. Preach On Reverend!

I'd love to hear what the freepers have to say about this!

[David Zephyr]

73. Sharpton Did Indeed Clean Brokaw's Clock!

Annagull, you got that right. Sharpton correctly exposed chewed Brokaw up and spit him out. It was a lovely thing to behold.

[Undemcided]

74. Sharpton is just being stubborn.

He should apologise and move onto the real issues. How much time did he just lose to talk about real issues? :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

75. what exactly should he apologize for?

He beleived someone you don't think he should have believed. Why should he apologize for that?

[Nederland]

76. For calling Mario Cuomo a KKK supporter perhaps?

...or do you think that falls into the category of "acceptable beliefs"?

[Character Assassin]

77. For having left Clown School early?

Think of the contributions to the country he could have made if he's only stayed in past the make-up classes.

Or perhaps for being a perpetual loud-mouthed embarassment to the Democratic Party?

[sangh0]

78. How awful!!!

Meanwhile, Bush* calls half the country "terrorists".

Besides, Mario Cuomo is a scumbag. Why do you think NY now has a Repuke Mayor and a Repuke Governor?

[Nederland]

79. Thank You

Mario Cuomo is a scumbag.

Thank you for telling us what you really believe.

[Undemcided]

82. What should he apologise for?

Well how about this for starters? Do you find this acceptable from a Presidential candidate?

Sharpton at Kean Univeristy
“We were the masters of the universe. . .That’s a historical fact. That ain’t racism; that’s facts. White folks was in the cave when we had built empires. . .We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”