Monday, February 11, 2008

Good question

OK, so I can't keep my eyes (and hands) off this trainwreck. Oh well.

So much for letting the Clemens Affair go persona non grata for 2 days. Barely a few hours and I finally got to Buster Olney's blog and he posted this and it really made me wonder (emphasis mine):

A lawyer for Brian McNamee says Roger Clemens may face a perjury probe, and Rusty Hardin wonders how he would know this, Ron Blum writes.

But Hardin told the Daily News late Sunday night that he fears Clemens will face a probe.

Within the same piece, one member of the committee drew a comparison between what is happening now and the era of McCarthyism. And there is this from the Michael O'Keeffe and Teri Thompson story:

Hardin pointed out a peculiarity of the Mitchell report that many legal experts have
noticed: That a document created by a private citizen commissioned for a private corporation was turning the wheels of the justice system.

"Right now nobody is suggesting that there is any prosecutable crime that has occurred so far," Hardin said. "The way to create one is to take the position that a person is committing perjury if he publicly defends himself contrary to the Mitchell report. That's a helluva note -- that you're going to use a privately commissioned report, to say that it has such talismanic qualities, to say that anybody who disagrees with it is committing perjury."

Made me wonder if this is the "out" that will save Clemens from perjury, if he's otherwise not cleared from the accusations. I'll keep sticking to my guess (2/4/08) that Clemens escapes perjury (if not otherwise cleared) this way:

  • I still think Clemens has the "unknowingly" phrase packed away, but ready to use when testifying. "I THOUGHT McNamee was giving me only B-12 and Lidocaine; if he gave me anything else, he did it without my knowledge or permission." Yes, that's how I see Clemens playing this out [on February 13, 2008].

If any lawyerly types are out there who care to weigh in, please do. More questions...

  • Is there any precedent here (regarding a private document serving as the basis for a perjury charge)?
  • Can Clemens still face perjury charges in a he-said/he-said affair?
  • Does it come down to whatever our elected officials think happened?
  • Does Clemens' touring of Capital Hill effectively corrupt the "voters"?
  • How outrageous is that, that Clemens is actively campaigning those who might determine his fate?
  • Does the Mitchell Report have any bearing?
  • Will Debbie Clemens get called to testify and might she face perjury charges, too?
  • If Clemens can prove that he wasn't at this Canseco party that McNamee claims, does that torpedo McNamee's other claims?
  • Can Carl Pavano make it on the field for more than 15 TOTAL appearances in 2008? Does anyone care?

'Splain us, please!

No comments: