Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen653
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?
|
How can you imply that I implied that? Clemens stated, not fewer tan six times, that all he could suggest was that Petitte "mis-remerbered" the conversation. On two other occasions, Clemens said that Pettitte misquoted the conversation, fully implying that Pettitte believed what he was saying at the time he spoke, wrote or deposed. I did not ompugn Pettitte; neither did Clemens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen653
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.
|
Oh, yes, the lawyers noted the improprieties of a "principal" getting involved; but let me put myself in Clemens' place, from a purely human standpoint:
1. Nannies do not, as a rule, put summonses from Congress [or law firms for that matter], on their daily calendars, nor do they budget their monthly expenditures around unexpected trips to the homes of wealthy former employers on short notice;
2. If the nanny was worth her salt, I [in the role of a Clemens] would appreciate an innocent being tossed to the sharks and had some empathy for her position, since I [a wealthy celebrity] saw myself in a similar position;
3. Being human, in a puerly CYA sense, I would be most anxious to hear her recollections of the time in question;
4. Since the party happened about 9 years ago, and with a MLB superstar's calendar, I doubt I'd have much recollection about that party .... [especially since it occurred over 3 days; on a weekend I was scheduled to pitch, that my wife and kids might well attend a BBQ in my absence, since we had a nanny, etc. That would make me, and my attorneys eager to hear her side of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen653
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.
|
Since you have raised the "cui bono" reference, let me ask right back:
a. How much faith might Clemens have had in his agents/lawyers, if, in their bureaucratic and protective functions, they filtered and screened information and correspondence from him, that might better have beenpresented to him so that he might have cooperated sooner?
b. Clemens would not have had to testify [according to Waxman and therefore not 100% "bankable] had Clemens' own attorney not requested it?
c. I have had similar dealings with elite-rated attorneys, whom I find, consistently attempt to book maximum hours with minimum effort, attention to detail or follow therough communication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen653
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.
|
I, on the other hand, would not AGREE with any Congressperson who expounded out-of-place conclusions to a hearing which the Chair himself avowed [before he breached that himself, repeatedly, would leave the question unanswered and open to individual conclusion].
The ripple effect is out in the media already. Maria Bariromo, CNBC Wall Street "cutie" just did a tease 20 minutes ago [@ 4:33PM] that Roger Clemens was "Sweating bullets instead of throwing them."
Had Maria been tending to her Wall Street knitting, she was probably far too busy to be watching the hearings; and it might be expected that she was mouthing words crafted by a too-cute producer. I expect many more of these contrived "teases" in the media' but having watched the hearing in its entirety, I know better.
A final word on Pettitte: He may very well be honest; but no one so far has credited him with an eidetic memory.