[Zen653]

How can you imply that I implied that?

In response to kflo's interpretation of Pettitte's credibility, you said, "This is a laugher." I took that to mean that you did not consider Pettitte's testimony credible. In my opinion, for the reasons stated in my previous post, I consider Pettitte to be the most credible because he had the least to lose by being dishonest. He could have sided with his friend. He could have demurred with the "I don't remember" defense. He did neither. While the motivations for Clemens and McNamee to lie are self-evident, what possible motivation does Pettitte have to defame his best friend and commit perjury?

While I agree with you that Pettitte does not come off as particularly literate individual in the quoted portion of the deposition, I'm willing to give him (and any witness) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to clarity of legal presentation. Lawyers tend to be aggressive in their interrogations. It's perfectly normal for witnesses to succumb to the stresses of a probing investigation. In my limited experiences as an attorney (just a handful of months at this point), I've already seen many people reduced to the verbal skills of a child. I would also remind you, as I'm sure you already know, that depositions are oral, and people tend to speak less formally than they write. To dismiss someone's testimony on the basis of his choppy circumlocution strikes me as arrogant and unfair.

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.

Exactly, Clemens did not at any time impugn Pettitte's credibility. He merely suggested that Pettitte honestly "misremembered" the nature of the conversations and the contexts in which they arose. As Congressman Cummings noted, we essentially had Clemens calling McNamee a liar, McNamee calling Clemens a liar, McNamee calling himself a liar (with respect to prior inconsistent statements), and everyone (Clemens, McNamee, Knoblach, Stanton, etc.) vouching for Pettitte's integrity. When there's only one person who everyone considers trustworthy, why wouldn't you trust him above the others?

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:

I appreciate and concur with your analysis of the human side of the situation regarding the nanny. But let's examine the impropriety of Clemens' attorneys here. They knew that the House Committee wanted the identity of the nanny. They failed to disclose that identity until after they had an opportunity to interview (coerce?) her. This is a flagrant violation of standard protocol. You always cooperate with the legitimate investigatory requests of the fact-finder and opposing counsel. Had Clemens' attorneys met with the nanny before Congress requested that she be identified and independently deposed, then that would be fine, because it's accepted procedure for attorneys to privately meet with their own witnesses and even non-defendant witnesses of the opposition. However, that's not what transpired here. The Clemens team made no effort to find the nanny prior to the House Committee's request to speak with her, and when notified of this request, the Clemens team did not immediately cooperate. This is borderline obstruction of justice, and possibly a handful of other things such as witness tampering, duress, coercion, and whatever else may have occurred in the meeting with Clemens.

And this is not the only example of Clemens' attorneys violating at least the spirit of the code of legal ethics. Let's not forget the secretly recorded conversations between Clemens and McNamee, the shameful public revelations about McNamee's son, the apparent stonewalling of Senator Mitchell and his investigators after repeated warnings, and other less than professional conduct. While Clemens should not be squarely blamed for his lawyers' deficiencies, he similarly should not be completely absolved of culpability. It does not take a lawyer to realize that some of these actions might be tainted by impropriety. If you really want to be viewed as credible, you don't stoop to these levels. Clemens' answers did little to assuage the valid concerns raised by his attorneys' actions.

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].

I agree with you about the circus-nature of the proceedings, designed more to produce fodder for the tabloids than to address the purported objective of the Mitchell Report. The Report was intended to illustrate the prevalence of drug abuse in professional baseball and propose solutions as to how best combat it for the good of young aspiring athletes. While most of the Congressmen paid lip service to this mission, about 95% of the hearing was wasted on the he said/she said nature of the allegations levied against Clemens. If we're honest with ourselves, though, the vast majority of us are far more interested in the gossip side of this story than in the substantive policy one.