Can you repeat that? I "misremembered" that last comment?

It was blatantly obvious last Wednesday’s congressional hearing was about partisan politics rather than discovering the truth. It brought about more questions than it answered. It is tough to believe either Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee. It is awfully tough to trust a guy who obtained his Ph.D from an online University of Phoenix-type school but Roger Clemens is not a bed of roses either.

Although, McNamee’s past history record makes him a questionable witness, the man is correct about Clemens. Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch coming out and admitting their use of performance enhancing drugs was an arrow pointing the direction of McNamee. Pettitte’s deposition, under oath, to Congress stating a conversation he and Clemens had about the use of Human Growth Hormone was another arrow towards the former New York City cop.

The most credible witness during last week’s hearing was not even in the court room. It took a deposition from Pettitte to swing the fringe fans over to McNamee’s side. Clemens did not help himself by saying Pettitte is an “honest man” and his “best friend,” it just made people believe Clemens less. If Pettitte is such an “honest man” then how come both he and his wife (Laura) testified, via deposition, about Clemens’s use of HGH?

And Pettitte did not mishear or misremember an HGH conversation he had with Pettitte. Granted it was years ago, HGH is not a topic of conversation one usually forgets and Clemens was not referring to his wife, Debby. Sure McNamee injected Debby with steroids/HGH at some point in the last seven years but Debby did not, out of the blue, call up McNamee and say “Hey Brian can you come over and inject me with some HGH in our bedroom.” No, no, no that did not happen. If you believe it did then do you want a Roger Clemens rookie card?

On a side note, as trivial as it seemed at the time about Clemens being at Jose Canseco’s party in 1998, it turned out to be a very important piece in the case between trainer and former employer. McNamee insists he saw Clemens at the party but Clemens denies he was there with a green receipt he had from a round of golf he played that day. Sorry Clemens wrong again, a typical golf round for the average person takes four hours. You stated that your tee-time was at roughly 9:30am, which would give you plenty of time to stop by Canseco’s house for the party after the round since his house was on the course.

Even though the hearing brought about more questions than answers it did peel away many layers of the case. Currently if Congress turned the case over to the judiciary they would not have enough evidence to find Clemens guilty of perjury. (McNamee’s swabs of gauze he used on Clemens and old needles would be inadmissible evidence due to the possibility of tampering.) But the more investigating federal agents can do the more they are apt to peel away more pieces of the puzzle especially if they question the former nanny.

If the federal government does deem they have enough evidence to be able to indict Clemens on perjury charges they can add witness tampering and intimidation to the list as well. Clemens essential intimidated a crucial witness in the case when he invited his former nanny over to his house when he heard Congress called to question her.

So far in the case between McNamee-Clemens it is McNamee Three, Clemens Zero

No comments: