Nan, Clemens himself said that his "mate" Pettitte, whom he shares a "close relationship" with, is a credible witness and an honest man. If even Clemens vouches for Pettitte's general truthfulness, then how can you imply that Pettitte is less credible than Clemens?
And what about the chicanery involving the nanny? You're not the least bit suspicious about Clemens meeting with her in his house before providing her name to the House Committee? This is a woman he had not seen in seven years, yet suddenly he invites her to his house so that his lawyers can "prepare" her in advance of her deposition? I'm sorry, I agree with Representative Waxman. This reeks of impropriety, especially when you consider how damaging the nanny's testimony is to Clemens' credibility re the Canseco party.
When trying to flesh out the truth, ask yourself the cui bono question. How does each party benefit by lying? Clemens benefits the most by protecting his legacy and reputation. McNamee arguably benefits by becoming a household name and perhaps striking a plea bargain with prosecutors. But how does Pettitte benefit by lying about his "close friend" and "mate" Roger Clemens? Pettitte would seemingly have every reason to side with his friend over the conniving, snitch trainer McNamee. Alternatively, Pettitte could have eschewed this entire mess by simply saying he doesn't remember anything. But he didn't take that route. He unambiguously implicated Clemens as a steroid and HGH user, even though he had nothing to lose by being dishonest.
So as someone who watched the entire hearing, I'd agree with Congressman Cummings' take: Pettitte is the most credible, Clemens and McNamee are both liars.
|