Roger Clemens Mistrial: Felony Stupid or a Fast Ball?

Reading news reports of the mistrial declared in the Roger Clemens perjury trial, one is left wondering how did the Government not know what was in its own exhibit? As if some paralegal or tech person on the Government team failed to properly edit a videotape shown to the jury.

This was a case the Government not only knew was being closely watched by millions, but a case on which it had a team of prosecutors, backed by investigators, paralegals and technology experts to assist with exhibits. There was even an FBI agent, their lead agent, sitting at counsel table.

It strains credulity to suggest that prosecutors didn't review Clemons entire hearing testimony and carefully select the portions they thought would bring them the most bang for the buck, and then have a video prepared of those segments to introduce as an exhibit for the jury. [More...]

Prosecutors don't just get to play videos for the jury. Videos are not witnesses. They are introduced as exhibits during the testimony of a witness. The prosecutor, with a witness on the stand, will play the video, which has been marked as an exhibit, to the witness (with the jury also able to view it on their monitors), and then ask the witness a question about what was on the video.

Prosecutors, like all lawyers, prepare their questions, or an outline of questions or points they intend to elicit from each witness, in advance. The video would have been watched by the prosecutor when preparing his questions for the witness. And when portions are played in clips (with questions in between) they are marked by the place on the video the clip begins and ends.

In its pretrial memo filed with the Court, the Government stated that one of the obstructive statements Clemens made is:

(12) CLEMENS’s sworn Hearing testimony on February 13, 2008, that a New York Yankees teammate “misheard” or “misremember[ed]” when CLEMENS told this teammate in or about 1999 or 2000 that he (defendant CLEMENS) had taken HGH (Hearing at 86-87);

The Government filed its exhibit list with the Court on June 30. One exhibit is the transcript of the entire hearing testimony. Another is a video of the entire hearing. Then it lists sub-exhibits, consisting of a series of video clips (and transcripts of each clip) showing the various alleged false or misleading statements. For example:

  • 3a. Transcript of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008
  • 3b. Video of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008
  • 3a-1. Transcript of Video Clip (p. 21)
  • 3b-1. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 00:34:17:8
  • 3a-2. Transcript of Video Clip (pp. 86-90)
  • 3b-2. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 00:41:30

The transcript and clip about Clemons' answers regarding Andrew Pettitte are Exhibits 3 a-2 and 3b-2, at pages 86-90 of the hearing testimony. The Government knew exactly where the clip began, at 00:41:30. It intended to play this clip for the witness on the stand and then ask the witness questions about it.

In June, Clemens moved to prevent the Government from introducing evidence of a sworn affidavit from Laura Pettitte, stating that her husband had told her about his conversation with Clemons the day it happened. The Government fought to have her statements admitted, stating in its response of June 29, 2011 (just 2 weeks ago):

At the Hearing on February 13, 2008, defendant acknowledged that Mr. Pettitte was “a very honest fellow” and “would have no reason” to fabricate a story about defendant. Hearing at 86, 88.

Not wishing to call Mr. Pettitte out as a liar as he has with Mr. McNamee, defendant nevertheless attempted to discredit Mr. Pettitte at the Hearing by assailing both his memory and his hearing ability. fn4 Indeed, defendant’s statement to the Committee concerning Mr. Pettitte’s alleged impaired memory serves as the basis for Obstructive Act 12 in Count One of the grand jury indictment.

fn4 See, e.g., Hearing Testimony of William Roger Clemens, February 13, 2008 at page 87:

Mr. CLEMENS. I believe Andy has misheard. Mr. Congressman, on his comments about myself using HGH, which never happened. . . . My problem with what Andy says, and why I think he misremembers, is that if Andy Pettitte knew that I had used HGH, or I had told Andy Pettitte that I had used HGH, before he would use the HGH, what have you, he would have come to me and asked me about it. That is how close our relationship was. And then when he did use it, I am sure he would have told me that he used it. (Emphasis added.)

The Government attached Mrs. Pettitte's affidavit and went on for several pages as to why it was not inadmissible hearsay.

On July 7, 2011, just one week ago, the Court ruled Laura Pettitte's statements inadmissible as hearsay, except possibly in rebuttal should the defense during cross-examination provide a sufficient predicate for its admission. In other words, it was ruled a no-no during the Government's direct examination.

Again, the Government doesn't just get to play videos for the jury. A video clip is an exhibit to be used during a question to a witness. Who was the witness on the stand for this clip? From what I can determine, it was Phil Barnet.

Who is Phil Barnet? According to a pleading filed by his lawyer in the case (who wanted to be present in case the questions impinged on his privilege under the Speech and Debate Clause):

At the time of the events alleged in the Indictment, which encompass the period 2005-08, Mr. Barnett served first as Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the House Committee on Government Reform (2005-06), and then as Staff Director to that same committee (2007-08), the name of which changed in January 2007 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

...We do anticipate that Mr. Barnett will be questioned by the prosecution about matters that are Speech or Debate protected that are relevant to its case in chief. Mr. Barnett, in keeping with the position taken by the Committee itself, intends in general not to assert the privilege with respect to (i) matters relating to formal, public Committee investigatory activities concerning steroid use in Major League Baseball that are relevant to the prosecution’s case in chief, and (ii) questioning by the defense on cross-examination that is within the subject matter of the direct examination. See also Fed. R. Evid. 611(b). If Mr. Barnett is questioned about other matters that are Speech or Debate protected or otherwise privileged (including cross-examination questioning that goes beyond the subject matter of the direct examination), counsel for Mr. Barnett should be permitted to object and present argument as appropriate.

In its trial memorandum, the Government stated:

5The government intends to call a former senior staff member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This witness will provide testimony on, among other things, the materiality of defendant’s sworn statements to the Committee.

In connection with the hearing on April 21, 2011, the Court has addressed the limitations imposed by the Speech or Debate Clause. We also expect that House Counsel will be present for the staff member’s examination to address any Speech or Debate issues that may arise at trial.

So the Government prepared the clip, intending to play it for witness Barnet, and then ask him questions, including whether a particular statement by Clemons was material to the Committee's investigation, an essential element of some of the charges.

The Government went to great pains to make separate clips of each statement it intended to ask the witness about. Each one is designated by a start time and accompanied by the transcript pages for that clip.

After the clip at issue that caused the mistrial, the Government planned to show video clips (accompanied by transcripts to aid the jury) of:

  • 3a-3. Transcript of Video Clip (pp 95-96)
  • 3b-3. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 01:12:26
  • 3a-4. Transcript of Video Clip (p. 96)
  • 3b-4. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 01:13:11
  • 3a-5. Transcript of Video Clip (p. 98)
  • 3b-5. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 01:20:18
  • 3a-6. Transcript of Video Clip (pp. 122-23)
  • 3b-6. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 (Disk 2) at 00:03:20
  • 3a-7. Transcript of Video Clip (p. 20)
  • 3b-7. Video Clip of Hearing - The Mitchell Report - Day 2; Feb. 13, 2008 at 00:29:33

The exhibit list, the trial memorandum, and the objection to Clemens Motion in Limine regarding Laura Pettitte were all signed by AUSA's Steven Durham and Daniel Butler. Steven Durham appears to be the prosecutor questioning witness Phil Barnet and showing the videos.

Durham and Butler stated in their filing of exhibits that the exhibits had been turned over to the defense. It's inconceivable that a prosecutor would not have reviewed the exhibits he was turning over to the defense, and realized then the Laura Pettitte statements were still in it. Or that he wouldn't have planned his direct examination around the starting and stopping points of the transcripts and videos. He would watch the clip and then prepare the questions he intended to ask about it.

When the Judge said a first year law student would not have made this kind of mistake, I wonder whether his next thought (unstated) wasn't "And you are no first year law student." Meaning, given the lengths to which the Government fought to have Laura Pettitte's statements admitted, once the Judge ruled it wouldn't be coming in, any prosecutor would have redesigned his direct examination for the witness and deleted it. And then planned his new direct around the correct video, without the inadmissible parts.

No one leaves that task to a tech person or paralegal without making specific instructions, like "start the clip at 00:41:30 but end it at XXXXXX.." Or forgets to watch it the night before when reviewing his planned testimony. These aren't first year law students, these are seasoned professionals in DOJ's Fraud & Public Corruption Section.

The Prosecution told the Judge yesterday it was an inadvertent mistake. Given the litigation over the issue, and the court's adverse ruling only a week ago stating Laura Pettitte's statements were inadmissible, clearly they hadn't overlooked or forgot about it. When a Judge rules something in one of your planned exhibits inadmissible, you don't just shuttle it to a paralegal or tech person to delete, without checking their work afterward. And as a lawyer, you don't play a tape to a witness you haven't watched yourself to make sure it's the right clip, especially in a high-profile case like this.

The only question I have is why the defense didn't catch it immediately if they were provided exhibits in advance, as the Government claimed. When the tape played at court, Rusty Hardin didn't object at first. It was the Judge who ordered the stopping of the video and called counsel to bench. In other words, the Judge objected on his own motion. Only when they got up to the bench and started discussing it, did Rusty Hardin ask for a mistrial. So did they not review the Government exhibits (video and transcript) when preparing their cross-examination of the witness, or was the exhibit they were given different than the one played in court by the Government? I doubt they just "missed" it. They had fought hard to keep it out.

So this is a bit of a head-scratcher. I'm ruling out an inadvertent mistake by paralegals, clerical and technical staff. It was either felony stupid on the part of seasoned prosecutors or a fast ball to get Laura Pettitte's statements before the jury despite the court's order.

If the Government doesn't come up with a satisfactory answer, I doubt they will get the chance to retry Clemens.

< Thursday Evening Open Thread | Printing Money Is Not Enough >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What Congfress Should Do (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    At the start of every new session, make each Congressman/woman take the oath and swear that they haven't ____.  Not Wiener non-sense or cheating BS, but drugs, DUI's, bankruptcies, speculation, stuff they could benefit in regard to the legislation they pass.

    So when they get busted, they will feel the heat they are so flippantly handing out.

    The other note, if Florida can go after Anthony for expenses, Clemens should should have that right.  This has to be costing him a pretty damn shiny penny.  

    I'm no Clemens fan, I hate cheaters in sports, but how many kids are going to go hungry so Congress can pursue something that effects at the very most, 750 people (25/roster @ 30 teams).  

    What's next, movers, after all a juiced up mover is going to an unfair advantage over the other movers.  Silly, I know, but so is Congress worrying about a famous athlete lying about drug use.

    (a) When plaintiffs' counsel in a civil case (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 02:36:11 AM EST
    blatantly told the jury in opening statement a theory the court previously ruled could not be mentioned, the court denied the defense motion for mistrial, stating, if the court thought plaintiffs' counsel did this on purpose, the court would grant the motion.

    (b)Still wondering why use by an MLB player of steroids, HGH, etc., is the concern of the U.S. Congress.  

    Wondering why it is the concern of Congress (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:41:59 AM EST
    1. Gives them another opportunity to grandstand in front of peers and TV cameras.

    2. Gives them the opportunity to create the illusion that they actually do some work. :-(

    3) Gives DOJ the opportunity... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:43:32 AM EST
    to avoid dealing with the ceo of every major investment bank lying through their teeth in front of Congress.

    More hypocracy (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:22:46 AM EST
    If thery're busy investigating MLB they won't have time to investigate each other.

    Why is it OK for politicians to lie to Congress (as the Iraq debacle showed) and wrong for everyone else?

    A total waste of money at a time when we're supposed to be broke.


    Another dumb, wasteful use of DOJ (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    The Justice Department will seek a short-term emergency stay to the bar on the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a puzzling twist to a court case that appeared to end the policy outright.

    In the brief, DoJ seeks reinstatement of the policy by close of business today, July 15. It says that DoJ continues to defend the constitutionality of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which the President opposes and which was repealed by Congress late last year.
    But the Justice Department says that the injunction banning the policy, coming just weeks before the Pentagon's own certification process, will cause "real and immediate harm." If that's the case, why did the Pentagon meekly implement the injunction worldwide, allowing for the acceptance of gay and lesbian recruits, along with an end to all discharges? Maybe DoJ and DoD aren't speaking to one another, but ending the policy only to fight to start it up again will cause a supreme amount of confusion and could lead to actual harm to the lives of soldiers. link

    p.lease keep this thread to Clemons (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:04:28 PM EST

    regards (b), (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:12:06 AM EST
    i've wondering that myself, since this whole thing blew up. the only reason i can think of is the unique exemption the MLB enjoys from the restrictions imposed under the anti-trust laws, which kind of make it congress' business. i guess, maybe.

    If the prosecution error... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:51:28 AM EST
    is so inexplicable, is intentional sabatoge a possibility?

    I'm out of element as usual but if I went to work for the DOJ to combat fraud and corruption and was assigned to this joke of a case, I'd be mighty pissed off and insulted.  It's akin to a soldier signing up to defend the nation and then being sent to Iraq...cases of "I didn't sign up for this sh*t!". I wonder...and would be mighty impressed with the prosecution if they sh*t the bed on purpose.

    um ... and when will BOA Chase AIG (none / 0) (#7)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    criminals get this kind of attention and effort ??

    to me, this diary is insane ;)

    so the rocket took magic pills to keep the fastballs coming, the fat paychecks coming, the sponsorships coming,

    and lied about it!   yawn.



    On the White Collar Crime Prof Blog (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    an experienced white collar criminal defense attorney (Larry Goldman of NYC, a former president of the Nat'l Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), a "contributing editor," speculated that the Clemens defense didn't initially perceived the passage that the prosecutor played as objectionable or as harmful to the defense, and only joined the protest when it became apparent where the judge was going.  (The host of the blog, Prof. Ellen Podgor, disagreed with Goldman's analysis, which unfortunately appears to have been taken down from the site.)  Then, for reasons that are not yet clear to me, the defense allowed itself to be pushed into moving for a mistrial, thus probably blowing a double jeopardy violation (which would arise if the judge declared a mistrial without "manifest necessity" and over defense objection).

    From reading J's diary, it does appear (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    defense counsel was asleep at the wheel until the court called the sidebar.  Pretty difficult not to say, yes, your honor, of course we move for a mistrial, in these circumstances.  

    They may not have been asleep (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    They may have not wanted the mistrial despite the error. First, they really liked this jury which apparently had very little knowledge of baseball and was not very familiar with Andy Pettitte. Second, most lawyers' fee agreements say that second trials after a mistrial are not included. So another trial is going to cost Clemons big bucks, and if the defense didn't perceive the error as all that prejudicial, it may have decided not to make a big storm over it. But once the Judge indicated he was thinking along the lines of a mistrial, if the defense didn't request it, and Clemons was convicted, Clemons surely would have later argued in a habeas petition that his lawyer was ineffective in not moving for a mistrial. So I don't think the defense had much choice after the judge made his comments.

    On the other hand, it doesn't explain why the defense didn't object before the admission if they had the exhibit beforehand. Unless they did tell the Govt to take it out, and the Govt. said they would, so they were expecting the revamped version to be played, . but the Government then  forgot or there was a miscommunication among the Govt. team as to whose job it was to remove it. Even if that was the case, the prosecutor should have caught it as the tape was playing  for the witness and jury, and not waited for the Court to notice it.


    On NPR, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    their legal correspondent (Nina Totenberg) said something to the effect that normally, if a defense lawyer asks for a mistrial and it is granted, there can be a new trial without double jeopardy.  But the Supreme Court has found an exception to that:  if the conduct of the government is such that it "goads" the defense into asking for a mistrial.  Found a couple of links in FindLaw here and here.  I'm certainly not a lawyer, but couldn't the defense have been been deliberately playing a waiting game to try and reach this standard of "provocation," and therefore be more likely to get a favorable double jeopardy ruling?  If so, maybe the defense was being pretty smart.  

    I'm willing to speculate that (none / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    Hardin was playing asleep at the switch so as to let the judge do the objecting on his own motion, so as to avoid beginning the events which led to asking for a mistrial.

    I know that if I was the lawyer who'd fought against a particular exhibit as hard as he did, won on motion, and the adversary counsel started introducing it, I'd hold my fire for a second to see whether the judge was going to do my objecting for me.

    That, or they were so gobsmacked by the government's arrogance in blatantly violating a hard-fought court order that it left them speechless.


    Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    judge To your point about the extra cost to Clemons if a second trial is ordered:

    It doesn't seem fair to me that a defendant, or a plaintiff in a civil trial, should have to bare the cost of another trial if the error that necessitated that action had nothing to do with him/her.

    I won a civil case with unanimous jury vote, but an appellate court remanded for a new trial. The judge had made (in the appellate court's opinion) an error that they felt required a new trial.

    I never quite could get my head around my having to spend an additional 150k for an error the judge made.

    I know that that's just the way it is, regardless, it just isn't fair.

    p.s. For the record: My attorneys vehemently disagreed (and I concurred with them) that the judge had erred.


    That Makes No Sense (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    Maybe it varies by state, but to me, if Florida can go after Anthony, Clemens should be able to go after them for the funds their error caused.

    I'm not lawyer, but seems like one could argue that a prosecutor could purposely cause a mistrial if it's not going their way to the point in which the the defendant would clearly have a financial disadvantage the second time around.  

    Perfect example would be OJ, had a mistrial been declared near the end, he would have had a far inferior legal representation.  All they would have had to say is some intern screwed up, and that is that.

    Off topic a bit, but isn't Florida trying to get another bite of the apple by going after Anthony ?  It would be one thing if they went after every person that lied to the police for the cost of following that lie, but with Anthony it seems so obviously transparent, but who's gonna stop it, the elected, the appointed ?

    If I tell a cop I wasn't drinking, should I expect a bill for the ride to the shop, the officers times, and the tests if it turns out I had a couple, but not enough to give me a DUI ?


    Correction. I misread the WCCPB. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    Professor Podgor's comments are here and here, while Larry Goldman's is here, with an addendum that takes account of new information.  Nothing was taken down. It's all very well-informed and worth reading.

    Larry's was not well-informed (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    His addendum to his post shows he was going off news reports and wrote his analysis without knowing the facts. He didn't even know that the Judge had specifically ordered the Government to delete any references to Mrs. Pettitte in the videotape.

    Addendum - A later press report here indicates that Judge Walton specifically instructed the prosecutors to eliminate mention of Mrs. Pettite's statements in the videotape. If so, the prosecutor's misconduct , however inadvertent, is more egregious and the judge's mistrial declaration more justifiable than I had believed based on early press reports, although I still think that the error could have been cured, and the prosecutor adequately "punished," by a strong curative instruction. Nonetheless, perhaps I, and not Judge Walton, jumped the gun.  (lsg)

    Lawyers should not comment on trials without doing some research on the case they are commenting about. News reports rarely tell the whole story. Ideally, they should have the trial transcript. When that's not possible, at least examine the pleadings and court orders which are available on PACER (in federal cases.)


    Thanks for clarifying my comment, TL (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    When I said that Larry Goldman was "well-informed" I didn't mean to say that he hadn't jumped the gun yesterday based on press reports.  Clearly one's comments are more insightful if provided only on the basis of primary documentation, like yours.  I only meant to point out that Larry is not some "talking head," but rather a highly experienced participant in the system, that is, an informed observer/commenter.  My poor choice of words.

    My Guess (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    They pull this C all the time figuring the odds of an actual mistrial to be slim to none.  And even if they get busted, blame it it on an intern.

    Mistrials to me are something usually afforded to people with the means to take prosecutorial missteps through the appeals system.  Which of course is something I would think most judges would rather not partake in.

    Even a shoplifting jury I sat on heard some testimony that later, when deliberating, we couldn't get the transcripts for.  

    The problem with that denial is it actually put more weight on evidence we were probably never suppose to hear in the first place.  When a judge says you can't use that evidence it's only human nature, conscious or subconsciously, to focus on that more then than anything.

    And IMO, that evidence was far more damning that the he said/she said, someone's wife this and friend's that, of yesterday.

    Speaking of baseball... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    Brand D played Brand R in the annual congressional baseball game last night...Brand D gets the W 8-2 behind strong pitching from Cedric Redmond.

    But the results I'm most interested in are the drug tests...surely they must have all volunteered for drug-screening with all their steroid grandstanding over recent years...for the kids of course.

    That's All We Need (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    Spending another zillion dollars replacing half of Congress because they failed drugs tests.

    It would be really interesting to see who wins that competition...  And the proceeding press conferences, OMG, that would be better than a week long episode of SNL with all the greats, from Belushi to Sandburg.


    Sh*t man... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    even if they were all clean as a whistle, I'd be happy just to make them suffer the indignity of it.

    Make 'em blow and give blood while we're at it.


    I'd Prefer (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    The indignity of the hypocrisy they will be forced to face in the public eye.  They have made their careers on vilifying the very substances I think many of them use frequently.

    While they are at it, how about making the Wall Street Crew answer the drug question, then give the failed testers the Clemons treatment.

    It's not that I care if they are doing drugs, but they are setting policies that ruin lives & create a lot of violence.  I want to know who is serious about it, and who is using it to scare the public for votes.

    Even if it was anonymous, I think the numbers would be so alarming, that we start getting serious about effective drug policy. Then start going down the line, Justice, judges, prosecutors, FBI, DEA, CIA, TSA, cops; anyone in the chain on the War on Drugs.  Test them anonymously to get the discussion beyond 'zero tolerance' and 'lock them all up'.


    Speaking of baseball--rather not today. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    The kids don't even know (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    who Roger Clemens is.

    And don't care.

    This is all make work.


    What ? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    I agree about the make work, but I know a whole lot about a whole bunch of sports guys that predate me.  

    I think you would be hard pressed to find a kid who doesn't know who the Rocket it.  The guy retired, what 3 years ago, and he played with what is arguably the two most popular teams, the Yanks and the Red Socks.  Even did a little stint here in Houston.


    I coach a Little League Team (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    so I think I like the game. Might even know a bit about the game. Been to quite a few major league games, some triple and some double AA games.

    But do I know about all the major league players? Nope. Don't care to. You can enjoy the game without fainting over Jeter's 3000 hits, etc., etc.

    And in my experience the kids who want to play, want to play and really aren't all that interested in such things as Clemens' problems.

    Now, if you want to say that there are kid fans who know Clemens, fine.

    Difference between doers and watchers.


    The only things missing (none / 0) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:30:03 AM EST

    are the bright red bulbous noses, orange hair, big floppy shoes, and the clown car.  

    These federal employees as Jeralyn pointed out knew their stuff would be closely watched by both the defense and the public.  Perhaps this is why regulatory rule making needs to be behind closed doors, just to avoid embarrassment.

    More power to the regulators!  /sarc


    Great headline (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:39:26 AM EST

    Duh, I just got it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    A little slow on the uptake.

    Did you ever see the t.v. commercial on ESPN with Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann.  They are in a conference room and Patrick says to Olbermann Clemons is slowing down.  

    Clemons walks by, Olberman tells him Patrick says Clemons can't bring it anymore.  Clemons picks up Patrick and hurls him through the window.  Olbermann has a radar gun and deadpans as he shows and reads the speed: 98mph.

    Patrick/Olbermann on ESPN--those were the days....


    Right (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    It's Clintonesque.  There are about 5 questions almost everyone in the world will lie about, under oath or not.  Drugs, cheating, sexual fetishes/orientation, personal finances, and others depending on who you are.  

    I get that he lied, but expecting people to answer humiliating questions in public is wrong. But that's the point of Congressional hearings as of late, humiliating people.  Doesn't seem like they are really concerned about the truth, just grandstanding with their sanctimonious BS for the cameras.

    Huge Correction (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    Suffice to say that the most effective answer to Congress and the federal investigators would've been....

    I agree with everything you said except the above, let me rephrase.

    Suffice to say, Clemens could have:

    • Done what the other players Canseco named as users did, nothing.  
    • He could have blew off the Mitchell report like all the other steroid takers did.  
    • He could have stayed off 60 mins.
    • He could have decided filling a defamation suite against someone telling the truth was really dumb.
    • He could have taken the 5th
    • He could have not had his wife blantenly lie for him.
    • He could have kept his friend Andy Petit off the stand to refute his testimony.
    • And of course, as you mentioned Donald, he could have told the truth.

    Roger Clemens is a Jack A to the highest degree.  It was well known before any of this, his ego so large, that he wasn't going to let anyone think for a minute that his abilities were anything but god given.  He tossed so many people under the bus, even his wife, and for that I am glad that he is in deep S.

    Just wish the US Congress wasn't the ones doing it.


    Slight change (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    I mean, nearly every true baseball fan knows that both Clemens and Barry Bonds used steroids.

    Change that to read...nearly every true baseball fan "thinks" that both Clemens and Barry Bonds used steroids and I think you have a valid statement.