Lawyer guys who don't actually work:

Can Clemens' attorney insist that the hearings go forward in some legally binding way? IOW, if Waxman didn't really want the hearings, couldn't he have said, "Sorry, I understand, but tough #### for you," or does the law make such "insistence" binding?

No. Clemens' attorneys can't make Congress do a damn thing, and neither can anyone else. They do what they choose.

Waxman only regrets the hearing because he came off looking like an ass.

"I am sorry we called you a drug dealer, Mr. Admitted Drug Dealer."

Translation: My constituents have been flooding the phonelines, wondering why the hell we wasted the nation's time and money with this crap. I regret obtaining the attention of likely voters in a negative way.

I guess Clemens isn't the only one playing the blame game.

So, everyone comes across terribly (except perhaps Tom Davis, I thought) and we're left pretty much back where we thought we were. It appears the public believes and exonerates Pettitte (for telling what I believe is a partial truth), doesn't find McNamee credible, but also doesn't believe Clemens didn't cheat. Good stuff.

All this makes Dennis Rasmussen's HoF chances surge.

In other news, seems that Fainaru-Wada may have uncovered some McNamee perjury, even if he doesn't know or care that he has uncovered it:

In the conversation with [Clemens agent Jim Murray], McNamee does most of the talking, explaining how he had provided illegal drugs to both players. McNamee tells Murray that he ultimately had to cooperate with baseball's steroids probe because of pressure from the government, which was working with Mitchell. McNamee claims that Parrella -- whom he misidentified as "Adam Peralta" -- "looked me in the eye and he said, 'If you don't speak to Senator Mitchell, you're going to get locked up.'"

However, in testimony Wednesday before Congress, McNamee said he never had a deal with the government nor was he coerced to cooperate.

If McNamee lied back in Decemeber when he said he was being pressured, then we can just add it to the pile of other McNamee lies. If he was lying on Wednesday when he said there was no pressure and no deal, he has committed perjury. And to preempt the kevins of the world, no, it is not trivial, because whether McNamee was pressured or not when he gave up Clemens goes directly to the credibility of his claims. Saying he wasn't pressured in front of Congress when he may actualy have been misleads Congress about his credibility.

So that's fun.

Wax On - Wax Off

Hey Roger, make him do some real work. Anything substantial will do, I'm not picky. *Insist* on it.

I thought it was against the law in Washington for politicians to admit they made a mistake?

I found this exchange interesting as well:

MCNAMEE: ... hey, other than telling them after almost going to jail about injecting them, I was "forgazey" on everything, which means vague. I just told them as little as possible without it coming back to get me locked up. Um- they threatened me to do- if I did something like this, I would get locked up. If I talked to anybody, I would get locked up...

... I'm not allowed to tell the media that the government put a gun to my head. I'm not allowed to do that.

CLEMENS AND PETTITTE'S INVESTIGATOR: Let me ask you this: Are you comfortable with us saying- and I'm saying that "collectively"- saying, "Look. The government put a gun to his head, and you know, putting all kinds of stuff and-"

MCNAMEE: I don't- I don't know, man. I- I- you know how I feel comfortable with that, is if I had something written guaranteeing that my family would be taken care of?

Craig, the 'pressure from the government' from the Murray tape made its way into Clemens' defamation suit. Right after that was filed, McNamee's attorney then publicly called his own client a liar, saying that McNamee lied to Murray to make Clemens feel better.

Ah. Missed that, David. Thanks.

I respect the fact that Waxman admitted he made a mistake (all too rare these days), but he should have quit while he was ahead. Clemens didn't force Congress to have the hearing, so blaming him is really stupid.

By the way, if anybody cares, the Oversight committee site now has a preliminary transcript of the hearing itself posted, in addition to all the other relevant documents (depos, affidavits, opening statements, a few medical records).

However, in testimony Wednesday before Congress, McNamee said he never had a deal with the government nor was he coerced to cooperate.

Haven't checked the transcript but my recollection was that was about testifying before Congress that day, not overall. If so, the testimony is not in conflict.

It's paragraph 27 of the defamation complaint which you guys are talking about, fwiw.

None of this would have been necessary if Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA hadn't been willfully blind about the PED problem that was enveloping the game.

As a result, it's hardly unsurprising that a Pandora's box of unintended consequences would ensue, including Congressional hearings.

Waxman came off the best of any of the congressman there. Easily.

None of this would have been necessary if Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA hadn't been willfully blind about the PED problem that was enveloping the game.

Yes, and none of this would have been necessary if Columbus had just sailed to India as intended.

Waxman came off the best of any of the congressman there. Easily.

You missed Elijah Cummings, perhaps?

Waxman came off the best of any of the congressman there. Easily.

What did he do that impressed you?

Yes, and none of this would have been necessary if Columbus had just sailed to India as intended.

Columbus's failure, unlike the powers that be in MLB, was not caused by a lack of will.

You missed Elijah Cummings, perhaps?

Please. He was a joke. "You were my hero." Really? A 57 year old congressmen from Baltimore absolutely loved a pitcher from 45 year old Texas/Boston/New York?

He was obviously trying to be the 20 second clip on every evening news.

And he misrepresented what Pettitte said in the dictionary. Calling him the most trustworthy person, even though he admitted lying about the Mitchell report.

Yes, and none of this would have been necessary if Columbus had just sailed to India as intended.

I'm guessing that they would have found North America at some point!

Waxman came off the best of any of the congressman there. Easily.

Actually, Tom Lantos came off the best of any of the congressmen there.


Waxman was pretty far towards the bottom. Waxman announced that he knew the truth before the hearing began. Cummings distorted the existing testimony. Souder argued that McNamee's lies showed that he was really telling the truth, and compared innocent drug users to people who firebomb houses. Hard to say which was worst.

I'm guessing that they would have found North America at some point!

Maybe, but can you prove that? And if so, are you willing to stand up to a congressional investigation of such claims?

Please. He was a joke. "You were my hero." Really? A 57 year old congressmen from Baltimore absolutely loved a pitcher from 45 year old Texas/Boston/New York?

Maybe not the hero thing (I've always been too much of a cynical bastard to go that far), but I'm a 29-year-old from Baltimore who loved watching a 45-year-old from Texas/Boston/New York.

Maybe, but can you prove that? And if so, are you willing to stand up to a congressional investigation of such claims?

I demand a congressional investigation, one which Henry Waxman has no power to not hold! In fact, I demand a weekly investigation into various grudges and dislikes I have with society in general!

#28 -- heh!

Dan Burton tested the limits of hitting bottom...and passed with flying colors.

Burton looked preachy, but no preachier than Cummings.

Foxx was bad as well. "WE ARE WASTING MONEY! But since we are wasting money is a 40'x60' glossy poster of Roger in action!

Tell me how you look so good, Roger?"

Please. He was a joke. "You were my hero." Really? A 57 year old congressmen from Baltimore absolutely loved a pitcher from 45 year old Texas/Boston/New York?

He was obviously trying to be the 20 second clip on every evening news.

And he misrepresented what Pettitte said in the dictionary. Calling him the most trustworthy person, even though he admitted lying about the Mitchell report.

If you watched the first 10 minutes Cummings had, though, it was the best questioning of the entire day...thoughtful, incisive, and actually understood the record. Just about no one else did any of those things, let alone all of them.

I don't think your characterization as to what he said about Pettitte is accurate at all. Even if it were, being the most honest of the cast of dishonest characters does not require anything close to complete accuracy anyway. Perhaps you just don't like Cummings' conclusion?

Maybe not the hero thing (I've always been too much of a cynical bastard to go that far), but I'm a 29-year-old from Baltimore who loved watching a 45-year-old from Texas/Boston/New York.

Well, you were 6 when Clemens came up. He *would* be someone a 29-yo would have as a hero/love watching.

Cummings was 25, and his hero MOST CERTAINLY would have been Jim Palmer (or Cuellar or Frank Robinson). It's a garbage line.

Are you, in 30 years, going to claim Johan Santana "was your hero"?

If you watched the first 10 minutes Cummings had, though, it was the best questioning of the entire day...thoughtful, incisive, and actually understood the record.

His line of questions dismisses the possibility of Pettitte misremembering the conversation, when, in fact, when Pettitte testified that him misremembering or misunderstanding was a very real possibility.

I was not impressed at all.

Perhaps you just don't like Cummings' conclusion?

His conclusion that Clemens is lying? I think there is a good chance Cummings is correct, but I don't like the sand the foundation is being built upon.

If you think the substance of Cummings' day was that line then I can only conclude you didn't really watch the hearings. Which is fine, obviously, but not necessarily the best situation from which to evaluate his day, either.

I watched the hearings.

His line of questions dismisses the possibility of Pettitte misremembering the conversation, when, in fact, when Pettitte testified that him misremembering or misunderstanding was a very real possibility.

Again, I think what's going on is you don't like the conclusion he had and aren't separating that from the approach he took and the preparedness. Which is ok, but it is not really a critique of him to say that you wish he had your personal opinion of the facts and had acted on it rather than on his own.

If you watched the hearings and concluded Cummings was a joke I think you have a deeply different understanding of what constitutes questioning a witness than I do. He was one of the very few people on the committee who clearly had an appreciation of the timline and the factual record...Waxman did, but was a hack in how he dealt with it I believe. Davis appeared to somewhat. Souder definitely did. Lynch did as to one issue but not otherwise. Those guys, whether you agree with their politics or not, at least took the time to be prepared, imo

Again, I think what's going on is you don't like the conclusion he had and aren't separating that from the rest of it. Which is ok, but it is not really a critique of him to say that you wish he had your personal opinion of the facts and had acted on it rather than on his own.

Seperate what? His tone? the projection of his voice? the manner in which he used his eyebrows when speaking? If you leave aside the grandstanding with his second set of questions, you have the "distortion of existing testimony" with his first 15 minutes.

I am not impressed.

What did he do that impressed you?

I think it took some guts for him at the end of the hearings to apologize to McNamee for the behavior of his colleagues. An apology which was owed to McNamee. The fact that Congress expects unimpeachable records of public service from its informants or "snitches" is laughable. Most guys in McNamee's position have shady backgrounds and "priors". That's why they are there to begin with. The fact that the republicans in Congress tried to make it a referendum on the character of McNamee was the true shame.

I think Waxman also did a good job of not allowing Clemens to woo the court with his "service to his country" and all that crap. He made a honest effort to bring Clemens back to the questions he was asked, even if he tried to respond in some nebulous, wish-washy manner.

Those guys, whether you agree with their politics or not, at least took the time to be prepared, imo

Sure, he was prepared. I will give him the preparation merit badge.

You use 'distortion' and 'I disagree with his opinion' interchangeably. I think that's not a productive approach, but that's up to you. The substance of your critique is that since he didn't focus primarily on the possible uncertainty Pettitte expressed (and you happen to think was critical), which was clearly secondary to his actual recollection and that of his wife, that Cummings was 'distorting' the record. That is a rather slanted description of the record and of how someone is supposed to go about their questioning, imo.

To each their own, I guess.

There's a mistake in the transcript...

"I just did what the players asked" is NOT what he said

SAID
"I just did a wide player's ass"

anybody catch that?

If you watched the first 10 minutes Cummings had, though, it was the best questioning of the entire day...thoughtful, incisive, and actually understood the record.

What are you talking about? Cummings distorted the record, claiming over and over again that Pettitte was sure about the 1999/2000 conversation throughout his deposition. At one point Cummings said this about Pettitte, which was a flat lie:

"But suddenly -- and the committee gave him time after time to clear up his testimony and he consistently said the same thing under oath." (Page 178.)

Lie, lie, lie, lie.

If you watched the hearings and concluded Cummings was a joke I think you have a deeply different understanding of what constitutes questioning a witness than I do.

Cummings misrepresented Pettitte's testimony. I don't see how that can be disputed.

He was one of the very few people on the committee who clearly had an appreciation of the timline and the factual record...

He did seem to be more prepared than the others, but if he misrepresented the record anyway, why is that a point in his favor?

More likely, he didn't actually read Pettitte's deposition, and instead just relied on a summary from his staff, and read the quotes that his staff pulled out for him.

I think it took some guts for him at the end of the hearings to apologize to McNamee for the behavior of his colleagues. An apology which was owed to McNamee.

It does take guts to apologize to an admitted drug-dealing, admitted-justice-obstructing, suspected-rapist for being accused of being a drug dealer.

The fact that Congress expects unimpeachable records of public service from its informants or "snitches" is laughable. Most guys in McNamee's position have shady backgrounds and "priors".

Well, perhaps that's the case -- but that hardly means that the snitches deserve to be apologized to because people note that they in fact have shady backgrounds.

If you watched the hearings and concluded Cummings was a joke I think you have a deeply different understanding of what constitutes questioning a witness than I do. He was one of the very few people on the committee who clearly had an appreciation of the timline and the factual record...

He was one of the few who delved into the specific evidence, rather than asking questions at a high level of generality or the like. Only one problem: his statements about the factual record were false. He may have "appreciated" the factual record, but if so, he appreciated it so much that he didn't want to sully it by bringing it into the hearings; he preferred his own 'facts' instead.

I respect the fact that Waxman admitted he made a mistake (all too rare these days), but he should have quit while he was ahead. Clemens didn't force Congress to have the hearing, so blaming him is really stupid.

This isn't some ex post facto excuse. Waxman said he didn't want to have the hearing even before they had it.

My favorite Cummings bit was when, after Clemens told him that he thought Pettitte misunderstood him, he used the recollections of Pettitte's wife as if they were some smoking gun.

Dude, if Pettitte was mistaken, how is is wife's memory -- which relied on Pettitte's -- supposed to constitute corroboration?

Roger obviously wasn't up to the task of parrying that line of questioning, but I was screaming at my monitor.

None of this would have been necessary if Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA hadn't been willfully blind about the PED problem that was enveloping the game.

Or if anybody in congress had actually read the document they were sworn to uphold...

As to the overall subject of whether these hearings were productive:

1. I dislike that Congress has been involved in the entire issue of steroids in baseball.

2. I dislike that the Mitchell Report -- which Congress has treated as a government document -- named specific players despite the lack of procedural safeguards; I think that was flat unfair and, frankly, rather disgusting.

3. I think that conducting depositions on the Clemens-McNamee issue was utterly unnecessary.

4. I think this particular hearing was a joke, from the fact of it, to the way many of the Congress members behaved in connection with it, to the way Congress and the media have distorted the facts that were gathered during it.

And again, I point out the intellectual dishonesty of the people who concluded McGwire was guilty because of the way he handled the hearing, and Bonds was guilty for not filing a defamation suit, etc. Clemens has done all of those things, and yet many of those same people (Lupica) haven't given him an ounce of credibility because of it. (On this point I give Andy credit for not falling into that same group.)

This isn't some ex post facto excuse. Waxman said he didn't want to have the hearing even before they had it.

Then don't bloody have it. Isn't he the guy who controls that?

Then don't bloody have it. Isn't he the guy who controls that?

Amen. Congress didn't have any problem saying no to hearings on the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. But, hey, when Roger Clemens demands something...you ####### jump, brother.

Waxman is an odious little lawn gnome.

More likely, [Cummings] didn't actually read Pettitte's deposition, and instead just relied on a summary from his staff, and read the quotes that his staff pulled out for him.

Following up on my own post... that's the charitable interpretation of Cummings's behavior.

The not-so-charitable interpretation is that he did actually read Pettitte's deposition -- which he gave the impression of doing at the hearing -- but purposely distorted it anyway, because he had already made up his mind that Clemens was guilty.

Another possibility is that Cummings read the deposition, but wasn't smart enough to comprehend it.

And Clemens lawyers also denied requesting the hearing, correct?

I don't know nothin' about that.. Oh -- I was in the Olive Oil business with Clemens' father but that was a long time ago that's all.

Look the FBI guys promised me a deal. So I made up a lot of stuff about Roger Clemens 'cause that's what they wanted -- but it was all lies -- uh -- everything. And I kept saying -- Roger Clemens did this and Roger Clemens did that -- uh -- so I said yeah sure, why not.

And Clemens may have perjured himself when he said he had no idea he was going to be on the report.

And Clemens lawyers also denied requesting the hearing, correct?

I think what they claim is that initially they didn't want them, Congress wanted them, Congress got its depositions, etc, and the air became filled with "Clemens did it" stuff, and by that late point when these bozos began to feel the hearings unnecessary, Clemens' attorneys felt they had to move forward with the hearings, that it wouldn't be fair so late in the game to deny him the chance to give his story. Is that right?

I think what they claim is that initially they didn't want them, Congress wanted them, Congress got its depositions, etc, and the air became filled with "Clemens did it" stuff, and by that late point when these bozos began to feel the hearings unnecessary, Clemens' attorneys felt they had to move forward with the hearings, that it wouldn't be fair so late in the game to deny him the chance to give his story. Is that right?

I think that's pretty much what Clemens's attorneys say, yes. And keep in mind that by this point, Clemens had already made statements under oath in his deposition anyway.

I don't know nothin' about that.. Oh -- I was in the Olive Oil business with Clemens' father but that was a long time ago that's all.

Look the FBI guys promised me a deal. So I made up a lot of stuff about Roger Clemens 'cause that's what they wanted -- but it was all lies -- uh -- everything. And I kept saying -- Roger Clemens did this and Roger Clemens did that -- uh -- so I said yeah sure, why not

I love it - Frankie 5 Angels!

I don't get the business of Clemens insisting on the hearing.....since when do baseball players dictate to Congress? But if he was making an annoyance of himself demanding a hearing, that would go a long way towards explaining the obvious hostility from Waxman and many of the others.

Was it Cummings that asked what uniform Clemens was going to wear into the Hall of Fame? If so, what an incredible idiot.

Polish, no, it wasn't cummings.

That was Clay.

OK, well then Clay was an incredible idiot. Thanks for the correction.

Question:Have you ever once told a lie? You have? Then everything you say is suspected to be a lie.

Who voted for Burton?

OK, well then Clay was an incredible idiot. Thanks for the correction.

Hey, it wasn't Clay. It was Clay asking on behalf of a Congressman from Massachusetts who wasn't on the committee.

The fact that Congress expects unimpeachable records of public service from its informants or "snitches" is laughable. Most guys in McNamee's position have shady backgrounds and "priors". That's why they are there to begin with.

The better question is why does Congress need snitches to fulfill its duty of writing laws?

I don't mean to be naive and think Congress will stop having hearings like this -- it's the apparent acceptance that Congress should be spending time talking to drug dealers, drug takers, professional baseball players, MLB hacks, etc.

New on NBC -- Law & Order: Congressional Investigation

Henry Waxman, after cancellation of Law & Order: CI -- We never wanted to do that TV series anyway but we were forced to by Roger Clemens and his lawyers.

Yes, I know, there are whistleblowers and Congress has a legit authority to investigate government malfeasance -- if only there was some around for them to be looking at. :-)

One of the few good things about those hearings was the new Larry Craig jokes Letterman got from them.

And I gotta wonder: do the people that vote for Issa, Burton and Foxx know what ######## they are?

Congress didn't have any problem saying no to hearings on the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.

They can only focus on the destruction of one type of tape at a time. The Patroits spying tapes are just more important.