Home > News, Politics > Clemens Hearing – Part Two

Clemens Hearing – Part Two

February 13th, 2008

You smell that??  Smells like Clemens is getting grilled…he’d better hope that this first congressman is the meat and not the appetizer. 


Whew…with a side of McNamee (sounds like fast food). 


Roger Clemens is barreling through, making clear his intentions for anyone in his way: GET UNDER MY BUS!


Well, it’s over and here’s how I see it.  Clemens was a good witness, but still couldn’t escape or explain some obvious inconsistencies and improbabilities in his testimony. McNamee looked bad and got caught in some lies of his own, but he has much less to lose and so he probably wasn’t as prepared to answer the hard questions. 

Andy (and Laura) Pettitte provided the most incriminating testimony, one which Roger could not explain away.  As a congressman pointed out early in the hearing, if Andy spoke with Roger about HGH in 2000 and Debbie Clemens didn’t take HGH until 2003, it would have been impossible for Andy to have mistaken Clemens for his wife in their first conversation in 2000 as Clemens suggests.  Were Ms. Vito there, she would have loudly pronounced that the defense’s case does not hold water.  (Incidentally, it seems unlikely that Debbie Clemens would have considered taking HGH without first talking to her husband.)

Secondly, prior to the hearing, the Clemens camp paraded the fact that Clemens was not at the Conseco party as remembered by McNamee.  McNamee was able to provide very specific detail about specific individuals at the party, including Clemens young child and nanny.  As the hearing proceeded, the possibility arose that Clemens did in fact stop by the Conseco house late after a morning golf game.  Furthermore, it hurt Clemens case that he tried to speak with his former nanny before turning over her contact information to Congress.

In the end, there may or may not be a perjury case brought by DoJ. I happen to believe that many people are so burned out on Barry Bonds and Marion Jones and such that these cases and getting old and uninteresting.

As for my personal opinion, if this were a court of law and I were a juror, I say Clemens is convicted under the balance of probabilities standard, but not beyond a shadow or a doubt.  That basically means Clemens is O.J. 2.0. 

Tyson News, Politics

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.