I suppose Pettitte is a liar as well.. sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ag3Pl7bXdistfnYf74HDFIg5nYcB?slug=ap-steroids-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns
problem with all of this is that it's a public hearing that in effect tries a person without full due process this is not much different than the mess going on with Tour de France riders we live in an age where agencies and political bodies are indicting, trying and convicting -- via the media I'd like to see statutes that prevent anyone from being subjected to inquiries by non-judicial entities, including legislative bodies, and to prevent anyone publicly testifying about another person unless done within the structure of a bona-fide judicial action that carries with it full protection of constitutional rights same as if you are alleged to have robbed a bank Listen.. say you are accused of a crime. You plead no-guilty. You say you didn't do it. I'm curious... if you are convicted (even though it may be questionable you may not have done it... but the evidence says you did)... can you also be convicted for saying you didn't do it? Roger should just say he did nothing wrong and refuse to answer anymore questions and say, "If you think you have a case, arrest me and use your due process to make your case. I'll defend myself in a court of law. You people are out of line." Then get up and walk out.
That story doesn't make any sense. An affidavit is a separate document that you would sign making a specific statement. Andy was subject to a deposition. If they're trying to say that he said that in his deposition, that makes more sense. The difference is simple. If it is from a deposition transcript, there will be a lot of surrounding context from the previous question and the subsequent question. I imagine that would be helpful to Clemens. If it is truly an affidavit, then it is likely that the statement is listed on its own without any context.
Boil it down for the layman: I just heard the opening statement where Pettitte asserts that Roger told him about Debbie getting HGH injections and that Roger told Andy that he used HGH and it helped him to recover. SO... What happens now. Is it likely someone is going to jail for lying to Congress?
Pettite and his wife are complete snitches. If they were truly friends at all, you say "you don't recall"
I just don't understand why he's doing this. His name was in the initial report to congress. He was screwed from that point regardless whether or not he used HGH or not so why do this? It makes no sense to me. Unless you can get DNA evidence off of those needles this is a "he said, he said" waste of time.
If Clemens is found guilty of lying, what happens to that number 21 on the right field wall? What happens even if he isn't found guilty of lying?
Clemens is holding up remarkably well under all these incredibly incriminating accusations. He is an awesome liar!
Congress has got some serious integrity issues when they can't keep these things under wraps. There are only a handful of people that should have access to those things, and most of them are elected officials who should go to jail if they're leaking this ****.
He doesn't have a shot with this committee. From the opening statement you could tell they are in love with Mitchell. Even though there are some proven inaccuracies in the report, they won't bring those up.
McNamee just got burned. Admitted lying to federal investigators a month ago (January 5, I think) when he said that he had no direct evidence that Clemens used HGH. Burned again when he just admitted lying to federal investigators when he initially said he did not know anything about Clemens or Petitte using HGH. He has just admitted to at least 3 lies to federal investigators and 1 "partial lie" to federal investigators. Get em Clemens
It is Congress, not Clemens getting him. Clemens will get his, and it won't be from the former trainer. Perjury is a *****.
12:06 p.m. ET Rep. John Tierney had an experience many of us in the media have had while trying to interview Clemens: We ask one thing. He gives an answer that seems to be in response to some whole other question. And no matter how hard we try, he keeps answering the question he hears, not the question we asked. Tierney noted three specific times Clemens told investigators he'd never talked to McNamee about HGH -- but then cited two occasions when he confronted McNamee about his injection of his wife with HGH. Repeatedly, Tierney asked Clemens how he "reconciled" that inconsistency. Repeatedly, Clemens gave answers that indicated that "prior" to those conversations, he'd never had a "specific" discussion with McNamee about HGH. You wanted to scream out, "Roger, that's not what he's asking." But eventually, Tierney just gave up and moved on. Been there. Done that.
i think roger is doing a GREAT job! they havent touched him a bit. he has given plausible explanantions to every question asked. McNamee has come across as a complete liar. He is a joke.