« Pettitte Admits HGH Use Beyond Previous Admission | Home | Body Language Expert Says Clemens Was Not Forthright With Congress »
Clemens Honesty On Trial: Pettitte’s Affadavit Could Ensure Criminal Investigation; Other Questions Arise About Truthfulness
By Administrator | February 13, 2008
Ten days ago, I suggested that it appeared Roger Clemens might be walking down the same precarious path of Barry Bonds… a path that would lead him, like Bonds, into a federal criminal investigation and (potentially) a trial for perjury. I stated that the force driving both athletes down the path of self-destruction was arrogance.
I said it appeared to me that Bonds’ arrogance had led him to believe that he was covered in teflon… that neither baseball nor the federal government would be able to touch him. Bonds, obviously, was wrong.
Likewise, I suggested that Clemens’ arrogance may have led him to a similar conclusion (that he couldn’t be touched). After all, this dispute was a ‘he said, he said’ case, and Brian McNamee had previously admitted to lying about his involvement with PEDs. So, in Clemens’ mind, who was the American public going to believe — an admitted liar who was a steroids distributor or an American baseball icon?
Not so fast, Roger.
Clemens apparently did not plan on former teammates Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch (among others) corroborating testimony provided to federal and congressional investigators by McNamee. And he certainly didn’t plan on Pettitte VOLUNTEERING additional information that would indict Clemens’ credibility. And make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, THAT is exactly what Pettitte’s affadavit has done… and, in my opinion, it is a foregone conclusion that the federal government will launch a criminal investigation into whether Clemens has committed perjury.
——————————————–
It was a scene straight out of “The Godfather, Part 2″ when Michael Corleone was being investigated by Congress… US Reps and their committee attorneys serving as interrogators / prosecutors before a packed hearing room, witnesses being sworn in and grilled incessantly (5 hours), and photographers buzzing around the room taking snapshots and grabbing a piece of the floor. It was fascinating drama.
And amid the surreal scene, while sycophants like Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) came off looking like Clemens’ lap dogs, two winners emerged — Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA, the committee’s chairman) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD). [I wonder, did Burton and Clay get autographed jerseys from Clemens during the Rocket's tour of Capitol Hill late last week?]
Cummings, in particular, came out of the proceedings looking heroic.
While Waxman did a fabulous job of framing the issues and summarizing the developments of a fascinating day, it was Cummings who was most forceful in challenging Clemens inconsistent and contradictory testimony.
Truthfully, at the start of the day I was skeptical about the need for today’s proceedings, moreso when I learned that the Committee had suggested canceling the hearing, and even moreso when I learned that it was proceeding only at the insistence of Team Clemens. But for once, in spite of the embarrassing conduct of people like Burton and Clay (among a few others), Congress covered itself in glory. The hearing was illuminating, informative and invaluable.
———————————
It was Cummings who provided the most strident attacks on Clemens’ credibility this afternoon.
Cummings started by having Clemens testify that he believes friend / teammate Andy Pettitte is an extremely honorable person. Then, after getting Clemens to reiterate that he has never taken steroids or HGH, Cummings read from the portion of Pettitte’s affadavit in which the southpaw attested to having a conversation with Clemens in which he (Clemens) said he used HGH. Clemens responded by telling Congress that Pettitte must have ‘mis-heard’ (read: misunderstood) what he had said.
Undaunted, Cummings then attacked Clemens honesty. He read from another section of Pettitte’s affadavit — one not previously made public:
“Shortly after my conversation with Roger, I spoke with Brian McNamee. Only he and I were parties to the conversation. I asked Brian about HGH and told him that Roger said he had used it. Brian McNamee became angry. He told me that Roger should not have told me about his use of HGH because it was supposed to be confidential”.
Cummings turned to McNamee and asked him whether the conversation with Pettitte had occurred… McNamee confirmed the details of the conversation with Pettitte.
The Maryland democrat then revealed that Pettitte had volunteered additional information to the Committee. He read details of another conversation Pettitte alleges he had with Clemens in 2005, in Kissimmee FL. Pettitte testified that he asked Clemens what he (Clemens) would say when / if asked about “it”. Clemens asked Pettitte what he meant, and he (Pettitte) replied that Clemens had told him that he (Clemens) had used HGH. Clemens denied ever making the admission to Pettitte and said that he was talking about his wife (Debbie), not himself. Pettitte told the congressional investigators that he said “Oh, okay” and let the matter drop, “not because I agreed (that he had never said it), but because I wasn’t going to argue with him”.
Clemens said he had no recollection of the conversation.
Undeterred, Cummings pressed on and pointed out that Clemens could not have been talking about Debbie Clemens’ use of HGH in a conversation with Pettitte back in 1999 because, according to Roger Clemens’ own testimony, his wife had not started using HGH until 2003.
Clemens had no response to the obvious inconsistency in his accounts.
Cummings then summarized his feelings, and the feelings of many people who were watching the hearing:
“If I walked in here and it was even Steven, you and Mr. McNamee, I must admit that the person I believe most is Mr. Pettitte. When Mr. McNamee gave his testimony about Knoblauch and Pettitte the allegations turned out to be true; but for some reason… when it comes to you, it’s a whole ‘nother thing… (Suddenly, McNamee is a liar) How do you explain this?”.
After Clemens failed to respond to the question that was asked for the umpteenth time on the afternoon, Cummings said:
“I’ve listened to you very carefully, and I take you at your word. And you’re telling me that Andy Pettitte is an honest man, and his credibility is pretty much impeccable… and you say you were misunderstood; but, all I’m saying is it’s hard to believe. It’s hard to believe your story. I hate to say that (because) you’re one of my heroes. But it’s hard to believe you”.
Amen, Mr Cummings. Amen.
——————————————-
Today we learned that Clemens’ best friend, Andy Pettitte — a guy who had so many reasons to defend and corroborate his longtime friend — not only didn’t defend or corroborate him, but essentially impeached his testimony.
But we also learned that Clemens may have played foot loose and fancy free with another aspect of the truth… and this part of the story left me wondering whether Clemens may face witness tampering charges, as well as perjury.
As we know, McNamee said Clemens discussed PEDs with Jose Canseco at a birthday bash at Canseco’s Florida home. Both Clemens and Canseco have recently asserted that Clemens was not at the party. Now, we know Clemens has an obvious reason for claiming he wasn’t at Canseco’s house — cuz if he wasn’t there he couldn’t have talked to ‘Juice Boy’ about ‘roids or HGH. And we have ample reason to question Canseco’s honesty about the party — after all, we know that he offered to keep (Detroit Tigers OF) Magglio Ordonez’ name out of his “Juiced” sequel if Ordonez provided financial backing for a movie project.
Today we learned that Clemens’ old nanny has provided testimony to the committee that she brought Clemens’ kids to the Canseco bash in Florida. Furthermore, we learned that Clemens invited her to his house for a chit-chat last week. LAST WEEK! Just before she was interviewed by committee investigators. THAT conduct raises questions that will be difficult to dismiss.
[Rep. Henry Waxman claimed Clemens' lawyers delayed giving the committee the ex-nanny's name and telephone number until after they'd had a chance to meet with her first. Waxman said: "There will always be a question now about whether you tried to influence her testimony"]
Topics: Around Baseball |
