Vick to be sentenced Dec. 10 after guilty plea
ESPN.com news services
Updated: August 27, 2007, 12:32 PM ET
RICHMOND, Va. -- Michael Vick pleaded guilty Monday to a federal dogfighting charge and awaits a Dec. 10 sentencing date that could send the NFL star to prison.
In a statement before the media, Vick said he took full responsibility for his actions. He concluded by saying: "I will redeem myself. I have to."
"First, I want to apologize for all the things that I have done and I have allowed to happen. I want to personally apologize to Commissioner Goodell, Arthur Blank, coach Bobby Petrino, and my Atlanta Falcons teammates, for I was not honest and forthright in our discussions," Vick said.
"I was ashamed and totally disappointed in myself, to say the least. I want to apologize to all the young kids out there for my immature acts. What I did was very immature, so that means I need to grow up."
Vick said he now has renounced dogfighting and has found religion as a result of the federal charges. "Dogfighting is a terrible thing. I reject it," he said.
"I totally ask for forgiveness and understanding as I move forward to better Michael Vick the person, not the football player," Vick said.
"I take full responsibility for my actions … I am totally responsible."
The plea by the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback was accepted by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, who asked: "Are you entering the plea of guilty to a conspiracy charge because you are in fact guilty?"
Vick replied, "Yes, sir."
Hudson emphasized he is not bound by sentencing guidelines and can impose the maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.
"You're taking your chances here. You'll have to live with whatever decision I make," Hudson said.
In his written plea filed in federal court Friday, Vick admitted helping kill six to eight pit bulls and supplying money for gambling on the fights. He said he did not personally place any bets or share in any winnings.
The NFL suspended him indefinitely and without pay Friday after his plea agreement was filed. Merely associating with gamblers can trigger a lifetime ban under the league's personal conduct policy.
ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that Vick stands to lose approximately $100 million because of his conviction.
Federal prosecutors recommended 12-18 months in prison.
"A first-time offender might well receive no jail time for this offense," U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said in a statement. "We thought, however, that the conduct in this conspiracy was heinous, cruel and inhumane" so three of the four defendants, including Vick, should receive harsher sentences.
The first defendant to plead guilty left the conspiracy in 2004 and is not as culpable, he said.
The case began in late April when authorities conducting a drug investigation of Vick's cousin raided the former Virginia Tech star's rural Surry County property and seized dozens of dogs, some injured, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting.
Vick's plea came hours before the Falcons are scheduled to play an exhibition game at home against the Cincinnati Bengals. This will be the first chance for the team to see what effect Vick's case has on attendance at the Georgia Dome. Vick wears the biggest-selling jersey in team history and is given much credit for the team's 51 consecutive sellouts.
After initially denying his involvement, Vick has said little publicly about the case. Privately, he met with Goodell and Falcons owner Arthur Blank when the investigation was just beginning, and almost certainly lied to both.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Alberto Gonsales Resigns - Power-Mad AG Let Position Go To His Head - SFGate and AP
There's an old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'll amend that to read that the desire for absolute power also corrupts absolutely. That was the case with AG Gonsales.
Officials Say Gonzales Has Resigned
By JENNIFER LOVEN and LARA JAKES JORDAN
Monday, August 27, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article
(08-27) 07:17 PDT Waco, Texas (AP)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned, officials said Monday, ending a monthslong standoff with critics who questioned his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.
Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department planned a news conference for 10:30 a.m. EDT, in Washington. Bush planned to discuss Gonzales' departure at his Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly thereafter.
Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the announcement.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors. However, a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.
"Better late than never," said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, summing up the response of many in Washington to Gonzales' resignation.
Gonzales served more than two years as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.
Bush steadfastly — and at times angrily — refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go. Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.
"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily.
Gonzales, 52, called Bush on Friday to inform him of his resignation, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to not pre-empt Gonzales' statement. The president had Gonzales come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture.
Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006. Donald H. Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned as defense secretary one day after the November elections. Paul Wolfowitz agreed in May to step down as president of the World Bank after an ethics inquiry. And top Bush adviser Karl Rove earlier this month announced that he was stepping down.
Reacting to Monday's developments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Gonzales' department had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."
Gonzales could not satisfy critics who said he had lost credibility over the Justice Department's handling of warrantless wiretaps related to the threat of terrorism and the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay — prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.
There were indications that the development came suddenly. Bush normally handles Cabinet resignations with efficiency, only allowing news of them to leak when a successor has been chosen and appearing with both the person departing and the replacement when the public announcement was made. That was not to be the case this time, the official said.
"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," Reid warned.
The flap over the fired prosecutors proved to be the final straw for Gonzales, whose truthfulness in testimony to Congress was drawn into question.
Lawmakers said the dismissals of the federal prosecutors appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.
Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials, including Rove, suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, eight were ordered to resign.
In several House and Senate hearings into the firings, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials failed to fully explain the ousters without contradicting each other.
During his congressional testimony, Gonzales answered "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be removed. But congressional Democrats said politics played an unusually critical role in the ouster of several prosecutors.
In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care. Ashcroft refused.
The White House subsequently reauthorized the program without the department's approval. Later, Bush ordered changes to the program to help the department defend its legality. The domestic surveillance program was later declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and since has been changed to require court approval before surveillance can be conducted.
Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive in early March for FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes. On March 9, the Justice Department's inspector general released an audit showing that FBI agents, over a three-year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers' personal information without official authorization.
The damning audit also found that the FBI had improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances, and concluded that it underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.
Gonzales declared himself upset and frustrated over the findings. But lawmakers said they had begun to lose confidence in him.
___
AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt and Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report from Peru, Vt.
Officials Say Gonzales Has Resigned
By JENNIFER LOVEN and LARA JAKES JORDAN
Monday, August 27, 2007
Printable Version
Email This Article
(08-27) 07:17 PDT Waco, Texas (AP)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned, officials said Monday, ending a monthslong standoff with critics who questioned his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.
Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department planned a news conference for 10:30 a.m. EDT, in Washington. Bush planned to discuss Gonzales' departure at his Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly thereafter.
Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the announcement.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors. However, a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.
"Better late than never," said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, summing up the response of many in Washington to Gonzales' resignation.
Gonzales served more than two years as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.
Bush steadfastly — and at times angrily — refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go. Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.
"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily.
Gonzales, 52, called Bush on Friday to inform him of his resignation, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to not pre-empt Gonzales' statement. The president had Gonzales come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture.
Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006. Donald H. Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned as defense secretary one day after the November elections. Paul Wolfowitz agreed in May to step down as president of the World Bank after an ethics inquiry. And top Bush adviser Karl Rove earlier this month announced that he was stepping down.
Reacting to Monday's developments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Gonzales' department had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."
Gonzales could not satisfy critics who said he had lost credibility over the Justice Department's handling of warrantless wiretaps related to the threat of terrorism and the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay — prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.
There were indications that the development came suddenly. Bush normally handles Cabinet resignations with efficiency, only allowing news of them to leak when a successor has been chosen and appearing with both the person departing and the replacement when the public announcement was made. That was not to be the case this time, the official said.
"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," Reid warned.
The flap over the fired prosecutors proved to be the final straw for Gonzales, whose truthfulness in testimony to Congress was drawn into question.
Lawmakers said the dismissals of the federal prosecutors appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.
Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials, including Rove, suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, eight were ordered to resign.
In several House and Senate hearings into the firings, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials failed to fully explain the ousters without contradicting each other.
During his congressional testimony, Gonzales answered "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be removed. But congressional Democrats said politics played an unusually critical role in the ouster of several prosecutors.
In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care. Ashcroft refused.
The White House subsequently reauthorized the program without the department's approval. Later, Bush ordered changes to the program to help the department defend its legality. The domestic surveillance program was later declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and since has been changed to require court approval before surveillance can be conducted.
Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive in early March for FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes. On March 9, the Justice Department's inspector general released an audit showing that FBI agents, over a three-year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers' personal information without official authorization.
The damning audit also found that the FBI had improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances, and concluded that it underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.
Gonzales declared himself upset and frustrated over the findings. But lawmakers said they had begun to lose confidence in him.
___
AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt and Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report from Peru, Vt.
Americans Watching TV Less Due To DVRs - Niesen and MediaPost
For Nielsen to write this, and MediaPost too, and not point to The Internet and video is myopic at best.
Nielsen Finds Drop In TV Usage Is Real, Not Methodological, Impact Greatest Among Heavy Viewers
by Joe Mandese, Monday, Aug 27, 2007 9:00 AM ET
IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS client concerns over declines in TV usage this year, Nielsen has issued a report concluding the drop most likely is due to real changes in TV viewing behavior and is not due to TV ratings methods, or new technologies like DVD players, video game systems or digital video recorders (DVRs). But while concluding that "no single factor played a predominant role" in the declines, the Nielsen report found that the biggest impact was felt among TV's heaviest viewing households.
The report does not offer any explicit explanations as to why TV usage has declined, and Nielsen said it did not analyze the impact of changes in programming or in weather patterns that may have been a contributing factor. However, the report includes an ominous finding suggesting that the biggest impact may be among TV's biggest users.
After drilling into data for the 12 TV markets hat have had the biggest losses in TV tuning over the past year, Nielsen found that, "that the biggest losses in tuning appear to be coming from the homes that tuned the most last year."
While the presence of DVRs in and of themselves was not deemed a contributing factor, Nielsen said that the addition of a DVR into a TV household appears to reduce overall usage levels in those households.
"The biggest losses in tuning appear to be coming from the homes that tuned the most last year," Nielsen reported. "Some homes are tuning relatively more this year, these are generally the lowest tuning homes in the panel; the heavy tuners who acquire DVRs tend to tune less, more than offsetting these increases, resulting in overall [households using television] declines."
The report added that the changes in tuning cannot be attributed solely to the acquisition of DVRs, and that Nielsen plans to conduct additional research into how the addition of DVRs impacts TV usage in those households.
Nielsen said the penetration of DVRs in its sample has grew from about 7% a year ago, to 17% this year as a result of actual increases in DVR penetration, as well as in Nielsen's ability to recruit more DVR households. Nielsen's sample is still considered to be slightly lower in DVR penetration than the actual U.S. population.
"While the inclusion of DVR homes in the sample this year has been ruled out as the driving force behind the viewing level changes, it is clear that it has introduced a different viewing dynamic in these homes," the report concludes, adding, "A full discussion of how viewing changes when a home acquires a DVR will be presented in a separate communication that will look at homes in our Local and National People Meter samples."
Joe Mandese is Editor of MediaPost.
Nielsen Finds Drop In TV Usage Is Real, Not Methodological, Impact Greatest Among Heavy Viewers
by Joe Mandese, Monday, Aug 27, 2007 9:00 AM ET
IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS client concerns over declines in TV usage this year, Nielsen has issued a report concluding the drop most likely is due to real changes in TV viewing behavior and is not due to TV ratings methods, or new technologies like DVD players, video game systems or digital video recorders (DVRs). But while concluding that "no single factor played a predominant role" in the declines, the Nielsen report found that the biggest impact was felt among TV's heaviest viewing households.
The report does not offer any explicit explanations as to why TV usage has declined, and Nielsen said it did not analyze the impact of changes in programming or in weather patterns that may have been a contributing factor. However, the report includes an ominous finding suggesting that the biggest impact may be among TV's biggest users.
After drilling into data for the 12 TV markets hat have had the biggest losses in TV tuning over the past year, Nielsen found that, "that the biggest losses in tuning appear to be coming from the homes that tuned the most last year."
While the presence of DVRs in and of themselves was not deemed a contributing factor, Nielsen said that the addition of a DVR into a TV household appears to reduce overall usage levels in those households.
"The biggest losses in tuning appear to be coming from the homes that tuned the most last year," Nielsen reported. "Some homes are tuning relatively more this year, these are generally the lowest tuning homes in the panel; the heavy tuners who acquire DVRs tend to tune less, more than offsetting these increases, resulting in overall [households using television] declines."
The report added that the changes in tuning cannot be attributed solely to the acquisition of DVRs, and that Nielsen plans to conduct additional research into how the addition of DVRs impacts TV usage in those households.
Nielsen said the penetration of DVRs in its sample has grew from about 7% a year ago, to 17% this year as a result of actual increases in DVR penetration, as well as in Nielsen's ability to recruit more DVR households. Nielsen's sample is still considered to be slightly lower in DVR penetration than the actual U.S. population.
"While the inclusion of DVR homes in the sample this year has been ruled out as the driving force behind the viewing level changes, it is clear that it has introduced a different viewing dynamic in these homes," the report concludes, adding, "A full discussion of how viewing changes when a home acquires a DVR will be presented in a separate communication that will look at homes in our Local and National People Meter samples."
Joe Mandese is Editor of MediaPost.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
MICHAEL VICK SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY - NFL STATEMENT - NFLMEDIA.COM
This is from the website of NFLMedia.com and was released today, August 24th, 2007
MICHAEL VICK SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY
Commissioner Roger Goodell notified Michael Vick today that he is suspended indefinitely without pay from the National Football League, effective immediately.
Following are excerpts from Commissioner Goodell’s letter to Vick:
· “Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions.”
· “Your plea agreement and the plea agreements of your co-defendants also demonstrate your significant involvement in illegal gambling. Even if you personally did not place bets, as you contend, your actions in funding the betting and your association with illegal gambling both violate the terms of your NFL Player Contract and expose you to corrupting influences in derogation of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of an NFL player.”
· “You have engaged in conduct detrimental to the welfare of the NFL and have violated the league’s Personal Conduct Policy.”
· “I will review the status of your suspension following the conclusion of the legal proceedings. As part of that review, I will take into account a number of factors, including the resolution of any other charges that may be brought against you, whether in Surry County, Virginia, or other jurisdictions, your conduct going forward, the specifics of the sentence imposed by Judge Hudson and any related findings he might make, and the extent to which you are truthful and cooperative with law enforcement and league staff who are investigating these matters.”
· “I have advised the Falcons that, with my decision today, they are no longer prohibited from acting and are now free to assert any claims or remedies available to them under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or your NFL Player Contract.”
# # #
MICHAEL VICK SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY
Commissioner Roger Goodell notified Michael Vick today that he is suspended indefinitely without pay from the National Football League, effective immediately.
Following are excerpts from Commissioner Goodell’s letter to Vick:
· “Your admitted conduct was not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible. Your team, the NFL, and NFL fans have all been hurt by your actions.”
· “Your plea agreement and the plea agreements of your co-defendants also demonstrate your significant involvement in illegal gambling. Even if you personally did not place bets, as you contend, your actions in funding the betting and your association with illegal gambling both violate the terms of your NFL Player Contract and expose you to corrupting influences in derogation of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of an NFL player.”
· “You have engaged in conduct detrimental to the welfare of the NFL and have violated the league’s Personal Conduct Policy.”
· “I will review the status of your suspension following the conclusion of the legal proceedings. As part of that review, I will take into account a number of factors, including the resolution of any other charges that may be brought against you, whether in Surry County, Virginia, or other jurisdictions, your conduct going forward, the specifics of the sentence imposed by Judge Hudson and any related findings he might make, and the extent to which you are truthful and cooperative with law enforcement and league staff who are investigating these matters.”
· “I have advised the Falcons that, with my decision today, they are no longer prohibited from acting and are now free to assert any claims or remedies available to them under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or your NFL Player Contract.”
# # #
Mark Cuban Says "Internet Is Boring" But Just Trying To Move The Speed Needle For His Content
In an interview with Lloyd Grove at Portfolio, Dallas Maverick's owner Mark Cuban said "The Internet is dead and boring" and suggested that an increase of Internet speeds to the home of up to 1 G per second would do the trick.
But the question to ask is would the cost to do this launch the creation of a two-tier Internet -- one for the rich and the other for the poor?
Stay tuned.
But the question to ask is would the cost to do this launch the creation of a two-tier Internet -- one for the rich and the other for the poor?
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)