So it certainly doesn't match Clemens's.

And the topic wasn't whether fact finding took place, but whether fact finding was the purpose of the hearings. And we know that if that were the purpose, they would have structured it differently, with actually competent people asking questions.

adduce previously disclosed facts.

Uh, sure it does. Clemens doesn't deny having been to Canseco's house; he only disputes having been to that party.

You do understand that this is the exact opposite of "fact finding," right?

Nanny disputes Clemens' account
Pitcher's former employee said Clemens was at party

Why the #### would you quote a newspaper article when we have access to the actual original sources? Not only does she not say that Clemens was at the party but (to reiterate for the chronically slow something I've posted several times before)she says there was no party at all. (To be fair, the story itself is a little better, though still inaccurate; the headline you're quoting is completely wrong.)

You do understand typos, right? It should read undisclosed.

Okay. In that case, it's pretty frivolous as an argument. The only reason the facts were "undisclosed" is because the committee kept the depositions and affidavits hidden from the public until after the hearing.

The hearing itself revealed no facts that were not either already a matter of public record or about to be as soon as the documents were released.

(And of course the documents represented actual fact finding -- so, not surprisingly, they were done by staff counsel rather than the politicians.)

Who gives a #### why they were undisclosed? The point is that UNDISCLOSED facts were disclosed. The reason doesn't matter.

Did you link the actual original source? If so, I haven't seen it.

The nanny said she told Clemens that she didn't remember a party at Canseco's house, and Clemens told her, "You know, the reason you don't remember that party is because I wasn't there."

But the nanny remembered being at Canseco's house. She told the committee that Clemens' wife, Debbie, and their four children, plus Mrs. Clemens' brother, Greg, had stayed overnight, and that Clemens had been taken on a tour of the home by Canseco. McNamee's contention is that he watched Roger and Debbie Clemens go inside the house with Canseco, but while the nanny says she believes Clemens was on the premises during that trip, he did not attend the pool party.

We've only discussed several times that the main depositions are available on ESPN and all of the documents -- depositions, affidavits, etc. -- are available on the Oversight Committee's website. Pardon me for thinking that if you were going to run your mouth all this time, you might actually take the effort to look at the evidence.

they weren't disclosed by the committee, which is what the topic of this discussion is.

Who disclosed them?

The committee staff.

They were introduced to the general public in the hearing through the questioning of the members of Congress.

The headline contradicts the article, which I was wrong not to read.

Well, not accurately. For instance, some people think that the nanny contradicted Clemens' story. Others think Pettitte said that Clemens used hGH.

Perhaps the general public should learn not to listen to members of Congress.

So much for taking you seriously anymore in this thread.

Yup, people who never admit they made a mistake should be taken far more seriously.

But there's no reason at all to take seriously someone who offers up repeated posts in which he fakes knowledge about facts that it turns out he doesn't possess, since he hasn't bothered to read either the article summarizing those facts OR the underlying facts themselves (in this case, the depositions).

I mentioned the issue of a party in two posts.

So the idea that I made repeated posts with fake knowledge is demonstrably false

Thanks for confirming my point.

The request was apparently made last week, and Mr. Waxman said the information was given to the committee on Monday. The nanny, in her interview with the committee, put Clemems at that party, according to Mr. Waxman.

WTF is the point of the repeated references to your "busy workday"? Plenty of other people here had busy workdays; you're the only one who LONG AFTER THE WORKDAY WAS OVER insisted on relying on nothing more than inaccurate headlines to debunk what other posters were writing about the day's events. At 10:25 p.m. EST (well beyond the workday for anyone in the continental U.S.) you took the barest minimum of time to go out and dig up a link to an MLB.com story because you were so desperate to refute what was being posted at that hour about the nanny's deposition. Despite the fact that the deposition had been online for hours at that point, and people were referring to it. And then you admitted you hadn't even bothered to read the ####### story you linked.

And your response to being nailed for your own laziness is to label someone who points this out "anal."

Get a grip yourself, dude.

“In no way, shape or form did I say anything like that to anyone, much less Brian McNamee,” Cone said. “I don’t recall a conversation like that.”

I could give a #### about what you think about the length my workday (which continues as I type)

Whereas the rest of us could give a #### about your seemingly endless workday, which might be shorter if you weren't spending so much time away from it being so ####### defensive when someone makes fun of your "trivial" habit of citing articles you don't bother to read.

10:25 p.m. EST (well beyond the workday for anyone in the continental U.S.)

Since the nanny and the boys left Canseco's house after the boys swam, isn't it possible that she left before the party started and thus didn't remember the party because she had already left the house?

Isn't it possible that they didn't want kids there during a players' party?

She said they all had a tour of the house. They (Debbie, boys, nanny and Debbie's brother) stayed overnight. She said she didn't know if Clemens stayed overnight. Then the next morning Clemens and Canseco went to play golf. She stayed while the boys swam, then left to check in at a lodge.