WasWatching.com

Heh, the circus has definitely come to town. Between Clemens selling out his wife, the talk about his bloody butt, and McNamee's verbal acrobatics, I'm just going to have to say no to this story from now on.

McNamee is the least credible witness in the history of law. All this guy has done in his life is lie -- he lies whenever he needs to. So why not to stay out of jail?

By the way, this will probably be unpopular, but Andy is a rat. Listen, if Clemens did in fact use HGH, it was wrong, but how do you reveal a personal conversation that no one could ever confirm when your good friend could be facing perjury charges? Their relationship might be over, but for Pettitte to give this up is amazing, and I have to say it damages him in my eyes. Isn't it the moral thing to tell the truth when under oath? Well, of course. But I consider myself a loyal person, and you have to protect people at times even if it's morally wrong. One of the only things in this hearing negative for Clemens is that Pettite testimony. I'm truly shocked he would give him up -- especially considering that no one could ever know the conversation took place.

What ever the interpretation of this nonsense, McNamee admitted to the crime of lying to prosecutors, when he said he had no direct evidence of Rogers guilty. This should void his immunity deal and he should be prosecuted.

My only thoughts on Clemens guilt is that he would have to be insane to do what he is doing if he did take steroids. Especially when you consider that some of the Committee members were doing everything they could to set up a case for perjury charges.

But maybe that is what Clemens wants. He gets charged with perjury, he wins his case, as the prosecution has a high standard of proof and he can say, "see, I didn't do steriods"

Bailey...if Clemens was the type of friend who would inspire that type of loyalty, he wouldn't have put Pettitte in that position in the first place.

If Clemens did in fact use PEDs, then what he's doing now is the ultimate exercise in Hubris. He's basically saying that he's so important that he can flat out lie to Congress, when lying has very clear and very serious consequences. If he's crazy enough to do that...fine. He's hurting no one but himself. But to then expect a friend to lie to back you up, that goes a bit beyond loyalty to me. Especially when the consequences of actually admitting to using PEDs were slim to none. There would almost certainly be no legal repercussions of admitting use, so it's all about how he's perceived by the public and his status as a HOFer. You really think Pettitte should risk federal perjury charges for that?

McNamee is a joke.

Clemens should be off the hook here with this skell accusing him.

Congress should really ask what was going on in that hotel room in Florida in 2001. if it wants to solve a real crime.

Clemens should become a comedian. His testimony is laughable.

My point is: no one would ever know that conversation took place UNLESS Pettitte brought it up. So Pettitte should have been honest, but why would he introduce evidence that damaged Clemens? No one knew about that conversation except Pettitte, Clemens and his Andy's wife. Why in the world would you say you had that conversation when you know it will damage your friend? There is no way for that conversation to come out unless Andy mentions it. He should have kept it to himself knowing how damaging it was.

Incidentally, Waxman hates Roger's lawyers and is so anti-Clemens it's amazing. He's gone out of his way to help McNamee and continually belittles Clemens. Roger's lawyer was a total fool to tangle with him.

Because Pettitte was asked opened ended questions in the deposition about any possible conversation he had with Clemens on the subject, and he decided not to risk perjurying himself.

He did the right thing.

I think Clemens has been preparing for this case for a long time. I would be surprised if he and Pettitte hadn't agreed to this story long in advance. So, no, I don't think Pettitte is a rat. Especially key is Pettitte planting the seed that Clemens had already let him know he "misremembered" the conversation. Yes, Clemens looks bad in the short run, as his testimony today was ugly, but no jury in the world would convict for perjury based on Pettitte's affidavit and McNamee's nonsense. I think Clemens used PED, but was prepared to fight tooth and nail for his legacy. And I don't totally blame him, nobody in this comes out looking good, least of all MLB for standing by and not admitting its own real, concrete culpability while this Congressional inquiry shenanigans grand-standing idiocy is just put on purely for show. An effing circus.

Yeah, I guess he did the "right" thing, but who is he benefiting? McNamee, a liar and a rapist who's clearly not a good human being. Pettitte faced zero risk of getting into serious trouble here. Even if Congress employed a psychic who could travel back in time to hear their conversation -- the only way they would have possibly known -- he wasn't facing that big of a risk.

When they asked him if Pettitte ever had a conversation about PEDs with Clemens, Pettitte, knowing that no one could possibly know, should have just said no. Pettitte completely sank Clemens. I couldn't imagine doing that to a friend. Anything verifiable, yeah, you own up, but this -- something they couldn't know? I don't see the reason. Whatever has happened since the Mitchell Report, Clemens and Pettitte were close.

If I was in Pettitte's shoes, I would never have brought up that conversation.

And Waxman is a biased ass. What a disservice he did to this proceeding.

I don't think the issue should be criminal liability. I think Clemens lacks even a scintilla of credibility, which should effect the way his legacy is perceived, but that's where the matter should end.

Well...didn't McNamee and Pettitte originally have their first HGH conversation after the Pettitte/Clemens conversation? If that's the case, then logic would suggest that McNamee also new, at least second hand, that Pettitte and Clemens talked about it. Something like "Hey Bri...Roger and I were talking about this HGH stuff. Tell me about it." If McNamee mentions it in his affidavit and Pettitte doesn't, to protect Clemens, then Pettitte is caught up in Roger's lie. Andy has already stated McNamee was telling the truth regarding his HGH use. He's given him credibility.

Also, we don't know if Pettitte brought it up himself. It's just as likely that McNamee's prior testimony gave congress enough info or suggestion to ask Pettitte about it. If that's the case, Andy has to admit to it.

Bottom line. Anything anyone says to hurt Clemens at this point is all on Roger. Asking people to commit perjury to protect your reputation is ridiculous.

I think Clemens has been preparing for this case for a long time. I would be surprised if he and Pettitte hadn't agreed to this story long in advance.
-----

That makes no sense. The most damaging evidence against Clemens is Pettitte's statement. If they got together beforehand, Clemens would have told him to keep it quiet.

Pettitte twice used HGH away from Clemens (in Tampa and on his own). So there was no real Clemens-McNamee-Pettitte HGH connection. I don't think McNamee's truthfulness about Knobby and Pettitte directly reflects a truthfulness about Clemens.

Whether or not Pettitte's testimony benefits testimony benefits McNamee is irrelevant. His duty was to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Seriously? Was anyone more biased then Burton, the clown who shot into a melon to find out if Clinton killed Vince Foster.

I thought Waxman did a very good job.

Bottom line. Anything anyone says to hurt Clemens at this point is all on Roger. Asking people to commit perjury to protect your reputation is ridiculous.
-----

It's not ridiculous if you're close friends. And again -- no one could ever know what conversations Pettitte and Clemens had. If Andy and Clemens both deny it, then that's it. You can't bring evidence -- outside of some secret recording -- to prove a conversation took place. No matter what was in McNamee's statement, Pettitte had to give them this evidence, and his statement brutally damages Clemens. And all I'm saying is that if I was Pettitte, *I* wouldn't have done it. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have; *I* wouldn't have done that to someone I knew or cared about.

It's my personal opinion is that Andy is a rat. Clemens put him in this position and it's unfair, but giving up this conversation was so damaging, and since there would never be a way to prove if it happened or not, revealing it is pointless -- and its only purpose is to hurt Clemens and make McNamee seem more credible.

I thought Waxman did a very good job.
-----

C'mon, Rich, you didn't feel he was biased against Clemens? He had already bashed his head lawyer. And did you think it was appropriate to apologize to McNamee? He was clearly anti-Clemens all day long and he went out of his way to kill everything Clemens and the "pro-Clemens congresspeople" had to say. This whole thing was pretty ridiculous -- like a bunch of teenagers who split up to defend two friends.

Isn't lying and perjury two different things?

Tom Davis looks like Harrison Ford.

The Clemens Report, rather the Mitchell Report has become a little tainted.

No jury would convict Clemens based on this evidence and having McNamee as the lead witness to the case. Pettitte could be damaging, but that's about it.

Republicans like Clemens. Democrats like McNamee. That couldn't be more obvious.

There could be another hearing, this time for the owners. One of the Representatives recommended that to the Chairman.

Also, these people need Jesus in their lives.

Finally, this crap will drag on through the first half of the season. The media will blow on that ember as much as possible.

Oh yeah, thanx for wasting move, gov't. It's greatly appreciated.

Finally, this crap will drag on through the first half of the season. The media will blow on that ember as much as possible.
------

That's the worst news of all -- Andy is going to be hounded by this. I wouldm't be shocked if it affected his performance; as Jeter said, he's human.

Baily, it makes total sense. I didn't say they conspired to lie, I'm saying that Pettitte prepared what he was going to say I'm sure with discussions or negotiations through Roger or his attorney so that he would not run afoul of the truth but not be as damaging to Clemens as I think he could have been. It's elementary damage control.

C'mon, Rich, you didn't feel he was biased against Clemens? He had already bashed his head lawyer. And did you think it was appropriate to apologize to McNamee? He was clearly anti-Clemens all day long and he went out of his way to kill everything Clemens and the "pro-Clemens congresspeople" had to say. This whole thing was pretty ridiculous -- like a bunch of teenagers who split up to defend two friends.
___

I thought the facts demonstrated that Clemens and his attorney were not being truthful, that they may have tampered with a witness (the former nanny), and that they were slow to surrender incriminating evidence (the MRI), and Waxman was justifiably offended by that affront to his committee.

Isn't lying and perjury two different things?
__

Yes, iirc, perjury must be material, under oath, and proven by two witnesses.

Baily, it makes total sense.
----

If they were getting their stories straight, Roger wouldn't have Pettitte say something that damaged him so much. What Pettitte says makes McNamee credible and Roger look like a liar. It's the one piece of evidence Clemens cannot truly explain away. Why would Andy lie? He wouldn't. It's incredibly damning evidence. If Roger knew this was coming and somehow told Andy to go ahead and say it, then Roger is a bigger idiot than he looks.

And the real sports news of the day is that Kidd got traded to the Mavs. Trust me when I say I'm much more interested in this than what Roger Clemens had on his butt.

I never said Roger "had" Pettitte say anything, especially anything false. You keep putting words in that weren't in what I said. I said that faced with the reality that Pettitte would testify it was in their best interest, and I suspect they probably did, try and agree to a situation where Pettitte could tell as much of the truth to placate his conscience and create an out for Roger (the misunderstanding /misremembering). I was addressing your comment that Pettitte is a rat, and I'm sure Clemens would not see it that way (as I don't) and think Clemens knew in advance what Pettitte would say. On top of all that, I never said anything about this being an EFFECTIVE strategy by Clemens to make himself look innocent. I'm sure he's thinking he's damned anyway, and this is all damage control. He's thinking about the long run, though he may have screwed that up anyway today.

You're suggesting that they colluded, which is probably illegal (preparing testimony with a fellow witness). It's all complete speculation on your part because we don't even know the last time these two spoke.

But seriously... I just don't care about this anymore. Clemens probably did do PEDs, but I don't think that has been proved, though I still remain disgusted by Brian McNamee, and it makes me ill that he's getting over in this...

Discussing in advance what potential co-defendants will testify to (and preparing accordingly) is not "collusion," it's a routine feature of our legal system. Anyway, I agree, I really don't want to keep Clemens in the headlines. Never was a true (TM) Yankee anyway. Scotty Brosius spits on him!