Yeah, but you can trust him on the Clemens thing because reasons.

Estrange wife

Bellatrix?

When you think about all of the crap that McNamee has been involved with or accused of, including sexual assault, dealing drugs, lying to the cops and tampering with evidence as a cop, and how he has apparently skated every time, don't you feel so much safer that the government has no qualms about him running loose while they focus all of their attention on Bonds and Clemens?

#3 - Interesting take. I hadn't heard that before.

Clearly the author speaks Spanish as a first language and thinks Ms. McNamee looks strange.

Estrange wife

Bellatrix?

NOT MY ROGER, YOU BITCH!

Of all the '90s dotcom startups, "e-Strange Wife" may have had the worst business model.

When you think about all of the crap that McNamee has been involved with or accused of, including sexual assault, dealing drugs, lying to the cops and tampering with evidence as a cop, and how he has apparently skated every time, don't you feel so much safer that the government has no qualms about him running loose while they focus all of their attention on Bonds and Clemens?

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

Apparently on cross-examination today, she called McNamee even more of a liar:

Perhaps the most riveting part of Mrs. McNamee's cross-examination involved an audio recording Clemens played that involved her husband.

After the Mitchell Report came out in December 2007, the McNamee's eldest son (who is diabetic) was sick. Brian Jr. went to the doctor to get bloodwork done, Mrs. McNamee said, and the results were not good. She said she called her husband and left him a voicemail with the news.

According to Mrs. McNamee, her husband never called back and instead called Clemens. Clemens aired an audio recording of that conversation during a press conference. The conversation included Mr. McNamee mentioning his son's illness and saying his son was "dying."

"I heard it and my son heard it," Mrs. McNamee said. She said she was furious.

"Brian didn't bother to call me back. He called Roger and told him my son is dying, which he wasn't. … Now, my son thinks he's dying."

Mrs. McNamee left a message for her husband that she wanted him to "go after" Clemens for playing the recording. She said her husband came back to her home the next night to collect the FedEx box.

Emphasis added.


The question I have is, did the government bother to do any investigation before they decided to persecute Clemens? Well, that's one of my questions. The other one is, is Brian McNamee biologically capable of telling the truth?

Why isn't the jury being told about the date rape drug incident?

I can't believe this thing is still dragging on. And, given that this thing is still dragging on, I can't believe they haven't had to declare a mistrial because the entire damn jury has fallen asleep. My wife and I have sat on a combined 3 juries (1 criminal, 2 civil, all state/county level) and none of the trials lasted more than four days (from opening through closing arguments).

The question I have is, did the government bother to do any investigation before they decided to persecute Clemens?

Hell I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Judge gives Clemens a directed verdict without sending it to the jury, holding that to find Clemens guilty beyond reasonable doubt you have to believe McNamee, and that a reasonable jury could not find McNamee credible.

Is there anyone who now thinks that Clemens would've been better off not confronting McNamee in the beginning, and not openly denying the charges when McNamee first came out with his accusations? Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation, I don't see how Clemens loses by his strategy of confrontation.** I know it goes against every lawyer's instinct, and usually it's for understandable reasons, but sometimes in cases like this the best defense is a hard-charging offense.

**Well, he's losing his lawyer's fees and many wasted months, but consider the alternative.

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict. If I'm a juror, having to sit through months and months of this crap (or however long it's been; admittedly, part of why it seems like it's dragging is because it took so damn long just to get to the jury phase), I'd be tempted to try to find him guilty of something just to feel like it wasn't all such a waste of time. I'm not saying I'd actually do that (based on what I know, I can't imagine getting to "beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything that Brian McNamee has ever said in his life), but it wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe this whole trial is just a ruse to keep an eye on McNamee -- kind of like when they send out those fake announcements to fugitives that the fugitives have won a prize in order to trick the fugitives into coming to pick it up.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

I'm still laughing from the time that the DC police filled up half of Washington's National Guard Armory back in 1985 with that "pre-game brunch + tickets" trick. What probably made it irresistible to the fugitives was the fact that the Armory is right next door to RFK Stadium.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict. If I'm a juror, having to sit through months and months of this crap (or however long it's been; admittedly, part of why it seems like it's dragging is because it took so damn long just to get to the jury phase), I'd be tempted to try to find him guilty of something just to feel like it wasn't all such a waste of time. I'm not saying I'd actually do that (based on what I know, I can't imagine getting to "beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything that Brian McNamee has ever said in his life), but it wouldn't surprise me.

This is strictly a layman's POV, but these two cases have one obvious difference. Bonds shut up and so did his trainer / pusher. Clemens angrily and openly denied and confronted, setting himself up for a prosecution. Just from a non-legalistic POV, that's got to be a point in Clemens' favor in the eyes of a lot of people. Of course how many people will react like this is unknown for the time being.

Hell I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Judge gives Clemens a directed verdict without sending it to the jury, holding that to find Clemens guilty beyond reasonable doubt you have to believe McNamee, and that a reasonable jury could not find McNamee credible.

It's not going to happen. A reasonable jury could believe McNamee on the central claim.

Is there anyone who now thinks that Clemens would've been better off not confronting McNamee in the beginning, and not openly denying the charges when McNamee first came out with his accusations? Unless you think that the gradual disintegration of McNamee's story is going to have no effect on the judge and jury and no long term effect on Clemens' reputation, I don't see how Clemens loses by his strategy of confrontation.**

Andy, the climate at the time was such that, once accused, not going on the complete offensive accomplished nothing. Clemens's reputation would have been destroyed had he not responded. Just as it's destroyed now, having responded. Short of a taped confessions from McNamee, or a video showing that he accepted money in exchange for fingering Clemens, the Lupicas and Heymans won't give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. And even then they probably still would not.

Of course, the people claiming that the accused should answer the media/sue/tell Congress were lying when they said this could help earn the accused the benefit of the doubt, but at the time doing nothing didn't help anything.

It's not going to happen. A reasonable jury could believe McNamee on the central claim.

McNamee very well may be telling the truth on the central claim, Clemens juicing and McNamee being his supplier is very plausible, the trouble is how can you not have a reasonable doubt with respect to ANYTHING McNamee says?

If the standard was preponderance, I can see a reasonable fact finder holding their nose and "believing" McNamee, but that's not the standard.

But then again people believe mob turncoats- but you usually need at least some corroborating evidence to make that go down- here the main "corroborating" evidence comes from McNamee as well.

I don't think there's a lick of difference between the potential for personal vindication, or lack thereof, for Bonds and Clemens. And it will always remain the same, regardless of result: Bonds ultimately gets his half-assed felony overturned, or doesn't; Clemens is cleared of all charges, or gets a token conviction, or loses on every count and does serious prison time, or marries McNamee in the judge's chambers, or gets cloned from the soda can DNA and testifies against himself. You could run 10,000 computer simulations on either one of these guys and the end result would always come out the same.

I also expect that this storyline will be revised down the line. But in 2012 it's not merely a case of "it is what it is," it's "it is what it was always foreordained to is."

I wouldn't be surprised to see Clemens found guilty of SOMETHING, sort of like the Bonds verdict.

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.


(*) Okay, technically Bonds jury was deadlocked on those counts, but for all intents and purposes it was an acquittal.

Andy, the climate at the time was such that, once accused, not going on the complete offensive accomplished nothing. Clemens's reputation would have been destroyed had he not responded. Just as it's destroyed now, having responded. Short of a taped confessions from McNamee, or a video showing that he accepted money in exchange for fingering Clemens, the Lupicas and Heymans won't give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. And even then they probably still would not.

Of course, the people claiming that the accused should answer the media/sue/tell Congress were lying when they said this could help earn the accused the benefit of the doubt, but at the time doing nothing didn't help anything.

---------------------------------------------------------

I don't think there's a lick of difference between the potential for personal vindication, or lack thereof, for Bonds and Clemens. And it will always remain the same, regardless of result: Bonds ultimately gets his half-assed felony overturned, or doesn't; Clemens is cleared of all charges, or gets a token conviction, or loses on every count and does serious prison time, or marries McNamee in the judge's chambers, or gets cloned from the soda can DNA and testifies against himself. You could run 10,000 computer simulations on either one of these guys and the end result would always come out the same.

I also expect that this storyline will be revised down the line. But in 2012 it's not merely a case of "it is what it is," it's "it is what it was always foreordained to is."

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals? I could be wrong, and I'd be foolish to bet on anything at this point, but if this trial continues as it has, with the main witness against Clemens having his credibility peeled off in pieces one after the other, I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent in some writers' ballots.

It's about as good a test as you can find, since both Bonds and Clemens are absolute slam dunk HoFers on the basis of their performance, they're first appearing on the ballot in the same year, and both of them have the reputation of being absolute creeps or worse. There's absolutely nothing beyond the way the way their post-accusation narratives have diverged that separates them. If after all this, they wind up virtually tied in percentage, I'll be the first to admit I've read the whole thing wrong. What will you two say if Clemens winds up with (say) 10% more than Bonds?

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.

(*) Okay, technically Bonds jury was deadlocked on those counts, but for all intents and purposes it was an acquittal.

Really? Does this have nothing to do with PED's?

On one charge - that Bonds lied by denying that his trainer, Greg Anderson, or anyone other than a doctor had ever injected him with drugs - the vote was 11-1 to convict, jurors said.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals?

I don't have a clue how Clemens' vote total will stack up in comparison to Bonds' and vice versa. But I'd be shocked if there were five hands out there, ballpoint pens at the ready and poised over the Hall of Fame ballots, quavery and uncertain because they're waiting to see what happens next in court.

As far as sifting tea leaves goes, the ballot is going to be fucked for years. Thus, trying to divine absolute meaning from the coming difference between Bonds' and Clemens' percentages is likely to be a descent into madness. If spitting on an umpire can severely warp a result, the next ballot is going to be a Moebius strip.

Past votes aren't much help in a judgment hunt, either. Jim Palmer was a full 10% ahead of his co-debuting candidate Joe Morgan, but Paul Molitor was deemed just 2% "better" than Dennis Eckersley. I don't need Greg Anderson to take the stand to tell me that's a lie.

Exactly like the Bonds verdict, he may well be acquitted (*) on all PEDs-related counts and convicted of lying about being at Canseco's party, or the practices of the Yankees in giving out B-12 shots.

Yeah. And there was also the count that involved Clemens saying to Congress that he had "no idea" Mitchell's people were trying to contact him, but the judge tossed that out as being covered by the a/c privilege.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals? I could be wrong, and I'd be foolish to bet on anything at this point, but if this trial continues as it has, with the main witness against Clemens having his credibility peeled off in pieces one after the other, I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent in some writers' ballots.

I don't think there will be a bit of difference in their HOF votes. They're both lying liars who lied when they lied about not lying about using steroids. And Clemens "stonewalled."

I don't think the Lupicas and Heymans see them a damned bit of difference between them.

----

Side note: I happened to see Bob Costas at Sambuca's last night, here on the upper west side. He wasn't drinking with Mike Lupica, but he was sitting on a life sized replica of a high horse.

I don't know that Clemens and Bonds would have had identical votes in the absence of the steroids issue, but I see no reason to think that they'll be treated differently by the voters. Everyone "knows" that they Did Steroids, and nobody cares whether the jury says otherwise. Andy is the only one who maintains that these questions are still open.

Serious question directed to both of you that directly relates to this: Do you think there'll be only traces of difference between Bonds and Clemens in their HoF vote totals?

25. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 07, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4151128)

I don't have a clue how Clemens' vote total will stack up in comparison to Bonds' and vice versa. But I'd be shocked if there were five hands out there, ballpoint pens at the ready and poised over the Hall of Fame ballots, quavery and uncertain because they're waiting to see what happens next in court.

27. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 07, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4151140)

I don't think there will be a bit of difference in their HOF votes. They're both lying liars who lied when they lied about not lying about using steroids. And Clemens "stonewalled."

I don't think the Lupicas and Heymans see them a damned bit of difference between them.

28. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 07, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4151231)

I don't know that Clemens and Bonds would have had identical votes in the absence of the steroids issue, but I see no reason to think that they'll be treated differently by the voters. Everyone "knows" that they Did Steroids, and nobody cares whether the jury says otherwise. Andy is the only one who maintains that these questions are still open.

Okay, now we're all on record, and in seven months we'll see who's right. I'll only add that my question doesn't concern the Lupicas and the Heymans, but the unknown number of writers who don't want to vote for juicers, but who also want to be certain about who actually juiced before withholding their votes. Those are the writers whose numbers I'm not so sure of.

Okay, now we're all on record, and in seven months we'll see who's right. I'll only add that my question doesn't concern the Lupicas and the Heymans, but the unknown number of writers who don't want to vote for juicers, but who also want to be certain about who actually juiced before withholding their votes. Those are the writers whose numbers I'm not so sure of.

I don't think any such writers exist. If you (by which I don't mean you personally; I mean a voter) care about steroids so much that you want to see users out, how could you possibly vote for Bonds or Clemens? You've seen more than enough evidence to convince you already that you can't take the chance on them. Clemens's trainer says that he used. What could you possibly be waiting for at trial, short of a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee that will never come, and indeed didn't come?

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

If Alger Hiss had won his perjury case, would he have not been a Soviet agent?

#OT:Controversy

Andy--
I'm delighted to be on record, but for what? My bold prediction was that I don't even have an unintelligent guess what the numbers will be. 44%, 31%, 26%, 12%, who knows? One of them will end up ahead of the other, obviously, but which one and by how much is a mystery. Unless Roger Clemens is found 100% not guilty and then racks up a third more votes that Bonds, I'm not sure what you're going for. What's the magic percentage gap where we could say with confidence, "Oho! I see what they've done there!"? It's not 10% behind; they did 10% to Joe Morgan, and they liked him. And Joe didn't have 6 or 7 legitimate HoFers debuting along with him.

The coverage of Andy Pettitte's testimony -- "He changed his story!!" (when he didn't) -- tells you much of you need to know about the electorate's willingness to keep an open mind. They got pissed because Pettitte's 2012 testimony wasn't what "happened," and could lead to the "wrong" verdict. The story's been written.

I guess my bag of nothing is as bold a prediction as yours -- "I'd be very surprised if that doesn't show up at least to some extent ...[among an]... unknown number of writers" -- but what does that mean? How will we determine "who's right" in seven months? Right about what?

This is what I am saying: regardless of the trial's outcome, Clemens is only going to get what he was always going to get, but I don't know what he's going to get. An absolutely worthless syllogism, but it's all I have.

I don't think any such writers exist.

Gee, I never would have guessed that. Maybe if you repeat it another ten times you'll qualify for a free Big Gulp.

If you (by which I don't mean you personally; I mean a voter) care about steroids so much that you want to see users out, how could you possibly vote for Bonds or Clemens? You've seen more than enough evidence to convince you already that you can't take the chance on them. Clemens's trainer says that he used. What could you possibly be waiting for at trial, short of a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee that will never come, and indeed didn't come?

Oh, I don't know, maybe little things like McNamee's ex openly disputing his testimony about the syringes. (What was that line about "an assertion is only an assertion"?) Unlike you, I didn't spend much time poring over the prior statements with a fine tooth comb, because I figured that the cross-examination would begin to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

I thought Clemens did the right thing, but I guess McNamee's cross-examination hasn't exactly convinced me of his trustworthiness. Isn't this what trials are supposed to demonstrate one way or the other?

And the trial's not over. I'm still waiting to see more. You can just cast your final vote now if you so wish. My skepticism is getting more and more directed at McNamee, but it ain't over till it's over.

If things keep rolling Clemens' way this splendidly, the Rocket could end up with the same general presumption of innocence as the vindicated non-boy toucher Michael Jackson, out-of-town golfer O.J. Simpson, Twinkie victim Dan White, or the LAPD officers who played pattycake with Rodney King.

Andy--
I'm delighted to be on record, but for what? My bold prediction was that I don't even have an unintelligent guess what the numbers will be. 44%, 31%, 26%, 12%, who knows? One of them will end up ahead of the other, obviously, but which one and by how much is a mystery. Unless Roger Clemens is found 100% not guilty and then racks up a third more votes that Bonds, I'm not sure what you're going for. What's the magic percentage gap where we could say with confidence, "Oho! I see what they've done there!"? It's not 10% behind; they did 10% to Joe Morgan, and they liked him. And Joe didn't have 6 or 7 legitimate HoFers debuting along with him.

Gonfalon,

If steroid use weren't an issue---if steroids had never even been hinted at for either of these two---Bonds and Clemens would both be pushing close to 100% on the merits, with only a handful of the usual cranks and "no first ballot HoFers for me" holding out, regardless of who else was on the ballot. There'd be at very most a 1% or 2% difference, and please don't try to pretend otherwise by citing Joe Morgan. Again, this would be if steroids had never entered the picture.

With that premise in mind, then yes, a 10% difference or more in Clemens' favor certainly would mean a reflection of the final outcome of the trial. It sure as hell wouldn't be a reflection of some thoughts that Clemens had an unfair home park advantage, or that he'd pitched in a stronger league. It'd mean that those Clemens yes, Bonds no voters had had their beliefs in Clemens' guilt altered by the trial.

Again, I'm not saying that this will happen, although I can't believe the spectacle of the McNamee story being punctured by his ex won't have any effect, since at the very least it's undermined his claim of verifiable recall.

How many voters will react this way? I don't know. And if only a tiny percentage (fewer than, say, 4%) do, then I'll concede I overestimated the trial's effect.

But if you claim that a 10% edge or more for Clemens would have nothing to do with the way this trial has proceeded up to now**, then I respectfully say you're a pre-emptive spin artist.

**which of course may well change

If things keep rolling Clemens' way this splendidly, the Rocket could end up with the same general presumption of innocence as the vindicated non-boy toucher Michael Jackson, out-of-town golfer O.J. Simpson, Twinkie victim Dan White, or the LAPD officers who played pattycake with Rodney King.

So I guess it's in for a dime, in for a dollar, eh? I guess you're a lot more convinced of Clemens' guilt than I am. Not too much irony there.

It's also funny how Ray and David have spent countless hours arguing how worthless McNamee's testimony and evidence is, and yet the more that their argument looks as if it's about to gain credibility in the courtroom, the more they seem to think that nobody outside the courtroom will listen to their argument!

----------------------------------------------------------

If Alger Hiss had won his perjury case, would he have not been a Soviet agent?

Sure he would, but if Chambers hadn't been able to produce evidence a lot stronger than Brian McNamee has up to now, we wouldn't have known of Hiss's guilt for certain until many years later. In both cases we can only know about evidence that's available to see in the here and now, not evidence that's languishing in some secret Soviet archive that won't be opened for nearly half a century, or in a pumpkin patch in Brian McNamee's farm that McNamee's lost the map to.

Andy, as far as the steroids crusaders are concerned, this trial is simply to see whether the jury realizes that Clemens lied about not using steroids and convicts accordingly. An acquittal will do absolutely nothing for Clemens's Hall of Fame chances.

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing? As this trial progresses, it's becoming clear to many layman that there is very little on Clemens. Because Anderson refused to testify, Bonds lucked out, and that's apparent. But, with Clemens--if this is the best you got, where's the there there? And that's apparent, too.

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing?

I didn't say nothing. I said absolutely nothing. And that's what it will do.

As this trial progresses, it's becoming clear to many layman

I think this assumes a level of attention that "many laymen" simply aren't giving this trial. This saga has dragged on for years; the trial has dragged on for weeks. I suspect that the reaction of many, if not most, when the verdict finally comes down will be "Really? I thought that was over weeks (years?) ago." That said, I think the VERDICT might actually affect some voters. A "not guilty" verdict might sway some voters. But a "guilty" on anything - even not directly PED-related - will be reported and interpreted as "proof" that Clemens did PEDs. Recall that's pretty much exactly how the Bonds verdict was reported.

There'd be at very most a 1% or 2% difference, and please don't try to pretend otherwise by citing Joe Morgan.

Eh. I agree with Gonfalon Bubble. You can't be sure enough about these things to ever settle this bet. Unless there's an overwhelming difference.

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

As I said, they're paying attention (not really, but loosely) simply to see whether the jury realizes that Clemens lied about not using steroids and convicts accordingly.

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

Oh, come on. It may not do enough, but nothing?

I didn't say nothing. I said absolutely nothing. And that's what it will do.

Don't be bashful, Ray. Cut out the euphemisms. You know what you really want to say......

IT'S OVER. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OVER.

43:

Because it is dealing, if obliquely, with the issue that is the basis for his advocated exclusion. Isn't that obvious.

Read your first paragraph again. If the jury finds him not guilty, what's the larger conclusion from the trial to be drawn by informed lay people? There's nothing there, that's what. You don't think that will have an effect on the vote? What would then?

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

I hope you're paying more attention to what the writers might be saying in the coming months than you are to your own proofreading.

Read your first paragraph again. If the jury finds him not guilty, what's the larger conclusion from the trial to be drawn by informed lay people? There's nothing there, that's what. You don't think that will have an effect on the vote? What would then?

Morty, Ray's already answered that in # 30 above. He's nothing if not openminded:

a Perry Mason style witness-stand confession from McNamee

Baseball writers aren't paying attention to the trial?

Most Hall-of-Fame voters aren't active baseball writers. And no, I don't think most of them are paying attention to the trial.

Why do people the outcome of the trial is going to influence Clemens's Hall of Fame voting one way or the other?

I think most people have an implicit belief in the American justice system and/or don't like to have to make their own decisions, so, in most cases, many people will treat a jury verdict as defining the truth. There are obvious counter-examples (O.J., that lady down in Florida whose name I've thankfully forgotten), and I think Clemens, if he's exonerated, will be a counter-example for a LOT of HOF voters, but not all of them. If Clemens is found not guilty on all charges, I would expect him to get more HOF votes than Bonds; probably not a LOT more, maybe 30 or so more if I had to pull a number out of my ass?

Most Hall-of-Fame voters aren't active baseball writers. And no, I don't think most of them are paying attention to the trial.

I'd agree with that---for now. But I think we can expect that the outcome of the trial will get considerably more coverage than the day-by-day proceedings, which may well drag on for quite some time in the absence of a declared mistrial. At that point it's all going to be presented in one E-Z narrative which will say to many people that "He did" or "He didn't"-----and I think that which way that narrative points is going to influence a certain amount of previously undecided voters, regardless of how much or how little attention they'd been paying to the trial before the verdict was announced.

If you (again, a voter) were going to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt, you would have already done so when he did all of the things that the Lupicas of the world demanded that he do. (Talk to the media, sue, testify under oath, put your liberty at stake.) Nothing has come out at trial that has moved the needle much one way or the other.

All right, for you this is an exercise in poetic flights of cynicism. Nothing there that you mention has to do with the basis for why they think Clemens needed to do all that--McNamee. Now, McNamee has been exploded. If the jury recognizes him for the spent force that he is, surely some writers can connect two dots. But, if it all rests on an assessment of the character of those writers, and you see them as having a witch hunt mentality, okay. Have it your way. We'll see. But, it's still hard to believe no one's views, no one at all, would be affected. But, again, we'll see. Like for other candidates whose eligibility was seen as compromised in some way, we can just keep plugging away. It's been shown that has an effect. People like you, Ray, have had an effect when it comes to changing opinion. Keep it up.

EDITed for clarity.