In Defense of Clemens and Bonds

[nanwynnfan]

It is now 11:53 AM, 2-13-08, and I have dutifully watched the Clemens-McNamee hearings, with the following initial observations:

1. The Waxman introductory speech alleging personal regret that the hearings had to be held and only at the insistence og Clemens' legal representative;

2. The plea from the Chair for propriety, decorum ad fairness, liberally sprinkled with personal and observations on the credibility of the witnesses;

3. The tilting of the HGH use away from Clemens anto onto Clemens' wife as a sticking point in who remembered what about which conversation;

4. The long and lie-littered paper trail left by McNamee in the past;

5. The inspection of an MRI report of a "glute" abcess and the micturating contest among committee members as to: providing same to committee, bringing in of doctors and PhD's NOT immediately involved with the MRI and offering conflicting testimony;

6. The stumbling & fumbling of questioners, as magnified by the Chair's very clear and concise ahderence to rules of order, time constraints, lawyer-client consultation, and keeping the "turns" moving - even if critical information might be revealed by letting a bit of testimony continue;

7. Thus far a circle jerk of magnificent disproportion, a wart on the @$$ of progress, more painful to view [I'm sure] than the welt on Clemens' buttock.

.... Back to watch some more.

[nanwynnfan]

12:54 PM now and the hearing has taken a 15 minute break.

Just a few added. admittedly subjective, and personal observations:

1. Age may not have too many advanages, aside from being on the green side of the sod for an extended period [a pretty good thing, that]; but it does lend perspective, with room for recollections:

a. of the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950's; of impeachment prodeedings; of Supreme Court nominee vettings; of impeachment proceedings; of Hurricane Katrina fault-finding, and a multitude of like venues featuring chairpersons and interrogators hiding behind the gavel and the protective shields of elective office;

b. shutting up of two attorneys who finally had Chair editorializing "up to here," finally confronting the opinionated Waxman on his own verbalized improprieties;

c. dredging up and focusing upon everything from 1998 barbecues; 2000 vintage gauze pads and needles, stored for a "rainy day" for eight years;

d. a new allegation of ownership approaching the Players' Association for reasons to defer or avoid testing;

e. reaching out to a nanny, not so employed by Clemens since 2001 regarding the 1998 barbecue and the attendees that weekend;

......... at this point, I need a break myself. When I reach the point where those being grilled have more personal integrity than some of the interrogators, I've had enough.

[Zen653]

This has been riveting television. Just when I thought the House Committee had successfully nailed McNamee as a liar (by the trainer's own admission in a series of damaging questions), Waxman adroitly tore Clemens' credibility to shreds with the line of questioning about the nanny, and why the Clemens team refused to provide her name to Congress until after Clemens had an opportunity to talk to her. Waxman alleged an appearance of impropriety in such conduct (obstruction of justice?), especially since her deposition essentially validated McNamee's testimony about Clemens' attendance at the Canseco party. Clemens' lawyers defiantly objected to the innuendo, undoubtedly concerned about the likely legal implications of the Waxman exchange.

The Congresswoman who spoke last also did a nice job of poking holes into Clemens' credibility by asking him why he failed to fire McNamee even after learning of the trainer's many shady dealings. Clemens sidestepped the question, and failed to provide a believable answer.

Even if we're not to contemplate anything that McNamee says, I have trouble believing that Andy Pettitte - a man known for his honesty (according to Clemens himself) - would lie about the content and nature of their conversations. Pettitte had no reason to lie about his best friend. He easily could have played the "I don't remember" game, given the man on the other side (McNamee) has credibility issues of his own. Between Pettitte's testimony and the nanny's, as well as what the physical evidence may show, I think it's more likely than not that Clemens indeed used steroids and HGH.

I don't find it that hard to believe that McNamee would lie to the press before telling the truth to Mitchell and the government. As a lawyer, I see that all the time myself. People try to cover up the crimes of their friends, until such time that the legal system turns up the heat and forces out the truth. I'm surprised that McNamee did not explain his prior inconsistent statements as the product of being torn between defending one's reputation and loyalty to a friend, and one's ethical and legal obligation to reveal the truth - a truth that could harm everyone from McNamee himself to Clemens to Pettitte to Knoblach, to even David Cone and MLB ownership (as we interestingly learned today.) Such testimony would have depicted McNamee under a more sympathetic light.

[kflo]

is mcnamee a credible witness - certainly not

is clemens a credible witness - certainly not

are pettitte and his wife credible witnesses - certainly

can anyone watch this in its entirety and believe roger clemens didn't use steroids or hgh? seems unlikely.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

is mcnamee a credible witness - certainly not

Typical. No a scintilla of evidence to suggest you've even watched the hearings. We are to believe you because you say so.

Originally Posted by kflo

is clemens a credible witness - certainly not

Two posters here have documented that they have watched the hearings with some degree of attentiveness. You have not. Your statements are final and empty of evidential support.

Originally Posted by kflo

are pettitte and his wife credible witnesses - certainly

This is a laugher. It has typified your posts throughout the entire steroids debate, beginning with general opinion, progressing through Bonds [the felon] and now onto the relative credibility of witnesses.

Originally Posted by kflo

can anyone watch this in its entirety and believe roger clemens didn't use steroids or hgh? seems unlikely.

Yep. I for one. Clemens has more credibility than McNamee or Waxman.

Let's move on.

KUDOS to Rep. Virginia Foxx, for having better things to do with her time, for holding Waxman's feet to the fire, and once again betraying Waxman's clock-watching, making a credibility farce of the entire hearing.

KUDOS to Chris Shays as well.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Typical. No a scintilla of evidence to suggest you've even watched the hearings. We are to believe you because you say so.

i've watched the hearings and am providing my conclusions.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Two posters here have documented that they have watched the hearings with some degree of attentiveness. You have not. Your statements are final and empty of evidential support.

please don't tell me what i've seen or not.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

This is a laugher. It has typified your posts throughout the entire steroids debate, beginning with general opinion, progressing through Bonds [the felon] and now onto the relative credibility of witnesses.

laugher? has anyone even hinted that pettitte wasn't be a credible witness?

btw, did bonds use the clear or cream? this typifies your posts. you don't even entertain evidence against these "spartans".

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Yep. I for one. Clemens has more credibility than McNamee or Waxman.

and that doesn't mean he's not lying.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Let's move on.

KUDOS to Rep. Virginia Foxx, for having better things to do with her time, for holding Waxman's feet to the fire, and once again betraying Waxman's clock-watching, making a credibility farce of the entire hearing.

which has nothing to do with whether roger clemens took steroids or hgh or not.

[kflo]

nan - you're aware, having watched/watching the hearings, that clemens has made statements that we already know were not true, no?

[nanwynnfan]

Anyone having the slightest doubt as to whether we should move on, need only listen to the inane closing remarks of Rep. Waxman.

It having already been determined that committee members, those witnesses in attendance, the gallery, the media, the viewers here and abroad would NON DOUBT REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS, Waxman, ever the running mouth, could not resist making a final judgement call, then hiding behind his gavel when a justifiably irate Clemens reacted.

Waxman made the hearing a debacle, single-handedly; and he was actually called out on it throughout the hearing by several representatives. He made it a face time photo op for himself; and in the process, revealed himself to be ego-centric, not truth seeking.

Thank God, this may be the last of the hearings.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Anyone having the slightest doubt as to whether we should move on, need only listen to the inane closing remarks of Rep. Waxman.

It having already been determined that committee members, those witnesses in attendance, the gallery, the media, the viewers here and abroad would NON DOUBT REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS, Waxman, ever the running mouth, could not resist making a final judgement call, then hiding behind his gavel when a justifiably irate Clemens reacted.

Waxman made the hearing a debacle, single-handedly; and he was actually called out on it throughout the hearing by several representatives. He made it a face time photo op for himself; and in the process, revealed himself to be ego-centric, not truth seeking.

Thank God, this may be the last of the hearings.

and you continually, without fail, make these things about anything OTHER than whether the players used steroids or hgh.

are you even capable of discussing the actual testimony and evidence, or is that not really of importance here?

[Wiggen]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Anyone having the slightest doubt as to whether we should move on, need only listen to the inane closing remarks of Rep. Waxman.

It having already been determined that committee members, those witnesses in attendance, the gallery, the media, the viewers here and abroad would NON DOUBT REACH THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS, Waxman, ever the running mouth, could not resist making a final judgement call, then hiding behind his gavel when a justifiably irate Clemens reacted.

Waxman made the hearing a debacle, single-handedly; and he was actually called out on it throughout the hearing by several representatives. He made it a face time photo op for himself; and in the process, revealed himself to be ego-centric, not truth seeking.

Thank God, this may be the last of the hearings.

We get that you don't like Henry Waxman and that Roger Clemens can do no wrong in your eyes. Don't let the fact that almost everybody else who watched this hearing came away with an entirely different conclusion bother you. But then, we know you won't.

[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?

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.

[nanwynnfan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kflo]

pettitte's most damaging testimony:

Q No. Just do your best. Did you ever mention to
anyone else what Clemens had told you about his using HGH?
A Yeah. I mean I told -- I told McNamee. I asked McNamee about it.
Q And was that soon after you had that conversation with Clemens?
A Yeah. It would have had to have been.
Q And what was McNamee's response?
A He was upset. You know he was -- you know, I went to Mac and just had told him you know that Roger had told me that he had took it. And he was -- he was -- he was pretty upset. I remember him just kind of getting angry and said, you know, who told you that? And I -- I'm like, well, Roger did. And you know he was like, man, he shouldn't have done that. I don't remember a whole lot more than that. But I just remember that he was upset that I had told him that Roger had told me that.
Q Was he saying that he shouldn't have told you or he shouldn't have taken the HGH?
A He was saying he shouldn't have told me that, yeah, yeah.
Q Did you have the impression at that time that it was McNamee who had given the HGH to Clemens?
A Yes.

pettitte was misremembering, and mcnamee was setting clemens up, all before he was in trouble?

[nanwynnfan]

Thank you for quoting that bit. I very much wanted to avoid accusing Pettitte of honesty sprinkled liberally with incoherency or illiteracy. Now you have done that for me,

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Thank you for quoting that bit. I very much wanted to avoid accusing Pettitte of honesty sprinkled liberally with incoherency or illiteracy. Now you have done that for me,

thank you for dismissing sworn testimony where pettitte recalls even discussing clemens and hgh with mcnamee. he misremembered quite a bit it seems. implicating his friend roger. he not only misremembered his conversation with roger, but his conversation with mcnamee as well.

your view, nan? not at all credible?