Rep. Davis: "Mr. Clemens, do you recall bleeding through your pants in 2001?"

Clemens: "I do not."

Admittedly, it's unlikely that this ends with Clemens getting frog-marched out of Congress in handcuffs, but I can always hope.

I can't see how any actual baseball fan would want these allegations to be true.

Wait, didn't you support Bush?

--I can't see how any actual baseball fan would want these allegations to be true.

But in my opinion, loving the game should never be taken to the level where we worship the athletes to a degree that is disproportional and unhealthy. Because it should be obvious to anyone who has followed sports seriously over the last 10-20 years that not only are most of these guys emphatically not heroes, a lot of them are just outright bad guys. And I'm sorry, but I just don't like guys who think they're better than the rest of us, lie to our faces, insult our intelligence, and break the law

I don't get that, Jeff Nelson is probably the most unlikable of those late 90s Yanks

And from what's in the blog, it sure looks like Clemens has screwed himself over, big time.

And from what's in the blog, it sure looks like Clemens has screwed himself over, big time. He's going to need more lawyers, and I'd recommend better ones than this guy Hardin, because he sucks.

Clemens isn't going to win his civil suit, barring some new revelations, but that doesn't put him any worse off than he was before.

Why didn't Clemens refuse to testify in the first place?

Even if he's telling the truth, if there's enough evidence from others against him that the hearing members don't believe him, they can still get him for perjury, right?

"My mother in 1988 suggested I take B-12," Clemens said. "I always assumed it was a good thing, not a bad thing."

In what way? He decried trial by media, yet in 1993, he alerted the media to his bizarre stunt of shooting into a melon in his backyard to prove that Clinton killed Vince Foster.

[Clemens] hasn't heard the last of this, obviously. Far from it. How can there NOT be an investigation now into whether he perjured himself? How can a grand jury NOT consider whether to indict him? How can his pal Andy Pettitte NOT be called back to somebody's witness stand to expound upon all this further?

But he had a better day than most of us probably suspected he would. And in a case in which there still doesn't appear to be a whole lot of physical evidence -- other than an old syringe, stuffed in a Lite Beer can -- he just might be able to sell his story in a court of law.

Whether he can sell it in the court of public opinion, though, is a whole 'nother story.

How can there NOT be an investigation now into whether he perjured himself? How can a grand jury NOT consider whether to indict him?

It goes to credibility

Let me ask a question from a baseball nut, but non-American....

Why is congress even involved with this stuff? Don't they have more pressing issues to deal with? I'm not belitting the importance of baseball, but geez you'd reckon the government of the most influential democracy on the planet would have its hands full with some other stuff?

The hearing was intended, at least theoretically, to be a fact finding process.

Burton's questions did nothing to shed any new light on the topic.

Instead, he appeared to have an agenda to act as Clemens's defense attorney. That impacts the credibility of everything he said.

It's their job.

Actually he did. he kept saying that nothing Mcnamee said had any credibility. That's saying something.

The comments by Cummings after the hearing sure sounded like it was going to be referred to the DoJ.

Cummings doesn't get to unilaterally decide. The committee does.

Rich Rifkin:"Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage."

That is quite clear: Pettitte's testimony is hurtful to Clemens.

David Nieporent: That is quite clear: Pettitte's testimony is hurtful to Clemens.
This is the same insane troll logic (tm) that people use to try to excuse McNamee. He already testified. If he was worried about hurting Clemens, it's too late for that. That simply can't be the reason.

you'd reckon the government of the most influential democracy on the planet would have its hands full with some other stuff?

I don't know what it was intended to be, theoretically. I don't see how this format is conducive to fact-finding.

The questions aren't supposed to. The answers are.

Again, he didn't "say" anything. Only a person asserting a fact can have credibility or not. If he were acting as Clemens' defense attorney -- and he certainly was no more doing that than Waxman/Cummings were acting as prosecutors -- then that just makes my point. First thing they tell a jury is that questions or statements by the lawyers aren't evidence. Only what the witness says is evidence.

Did they burn the constitution and bill of rights in one go? Isn't this similar to the patriot act, which was also unconstitutional

It all boils down to judicial interpretation of the constitution.

They asked questions based on depositions, affidavits, and extrinsic evidence to adduce facts, i.e., fact finding.

So why didn't Pettitte testify today? Clarification please.

Waxman/Cummings introduced actual facts, e.g., the statement from the nanny who remembered Clemens being at Canseco's party,

A flat out lie. In fact, she didn't remember any party at all.

If they had wanted to engage in fact finding, they would have had actual lawyers experienced in questioning witnesses handling the questioning. They wouldn't have rotated around the room with each Congresscritter getting 5 minutes to speechify. (Or, at least, they would have had the committee members stay awake so they didn't keep rehashing the same questions over again.) And they wouldn't have had Henry Waxman state at the beginning that he had already made up his mind that the MR was accurate

They don't need to meet some artificial standards set by you.

That's not an artificial standard. It's common practice for congressional committees to let informed staffers conduct questioning, especially because most committee members themselves are rarely present for an entire hearing. They have other hearings on committees they belong to, they have votes, they have meetings with constituents, meetings with lobbyists, etc. All happening at the same time.

I have witnessed congressional committees in which Congressmen, who have had experience in, for example, criminal prosecutions, ask questions of witnesses. It is just not accurate to argue that the questioning must be done by staff in order to constitute fact finding.

She believed that Clemens was there. If I am mistaken about the fact of a party, bfd.

(Quick glance seems to show that a few of these guys are former trial lawyers, but I don't see any with a criminal background.*)

I think it's fair to argue that perhaps these particular Congress(wo)men, or at least many of them, are not skilled at fact finding couldn't find their own ass with both hands and a road map.

I have witnessed congressional committees in which Congressmen, who have had experience in, for example, criminal prosecutions, ask questions of witnesses.

How often? How many? What percentage of the questioners appeared competent?

Please provide dates, times, names of questioners and subjects, and subject matter of the hearing.

And don't let me hear you say you can't recall. Everybody knows that people who say that aren't being honest.

It is a bfd, because that's the whole essence of McNamee's story. She did not believe that Clemens "was there," because "there" means "a party at Canseco's house," not "Canseco's house." McNamee described it in great detail.

Her story doesn't come close to matching McNamee's. McNamee claims Clemens, Canseco, and some person unknown to McNamee met in Canseco's house in the afternoon during a party. She says that the only time Clemens was there was when Clemens and his family -- in other words, all people McNamee knows -- got a tour of the house from Canseco at night. And she doesn't remember McNamee being there.

Not sure if he's a lawyer or not but you won't find many people any better than Elijah Cummings at doing cross-examination did it today.

To chime in from the peanut gallery, if I recall correctly, I believe that basically all of the Iran-Contra questioning was conducted by staff counsel.

To chime in from the peanut gallery, if I recall correctly, I believe that basically all of the Iran-Contra questioning was conducted by staff counsel.