Dan Gould

The answer finally dawned on me today: The Democratic chairman and Rusty Hardin have been going at it since last week. That gave all the clues necessary to the minority members of whose side they should be on. If the Chairman is attacking Clemens, then the Republicans have to defend him. Too bad that in order to do that, they had to check their brains at the door (if they had any).

The newest version of Nanny-Gate! I thought the entire line of questioning was ridiculous and the tendency by the GOP side to cast aspersions on McNamee was ridiculous, for the simple fact that it was never material to the Mitchell Report and McNamee's allegations. He only said that Clemens attended (its now clear from the Nanny and Clemens own testimony that he was at Canseco's house, at the minimum) and that he saw Clemens, Canseco and another man leave the room together. The implication was that this was the moment that Clemens spoke to Canseco about starting a steroid regimen, or that he got the drugs at that moment, because it was a few days later he asked McNamee for help in injecting himself. But McNamee didn't claim to be privy to the conversation and its really a minor, trivial part of the Report. Its all implications and suppositions that aren't material to the important claims. But there were some very telling moments in that exchange, and it starts with Clemens protest - "I was just tryin' to do y'all a favor" and find this lady. A favor? A favor??? Can there be any clearer demonstration of Clemens sense of entitlement, of being a coddled, overpaid celebrity with no obligations other than those he deems worthy of his "favor"? When Congress tells you, what is her name? How can we contact her? it ain't a request and its not a favor when you comply. Clemens character was laid bare for all to see in that moment. And wasn't it interesting that Hardin claimed that Clemens only said, "these folks are going to ask you some questions, just tell the truth" when the woman herself describes Clemens asking these questions, and actually telling her why she doesn't remember the party by giving her his self-serving side of events? It may not fall into witness tampering that is actionable but it surely teeters on the edge.

I'd like to point out that the Jackie Mac album I incorrectly identified does in fact feature the same Sonny Clark that Nate identified, so I am giving myself credit on that one.

Just looked over the nanny's interview transcript, and I'd say there is one statement that suggest witness tampering, just as Waxman wondered: Oops.

Well, the answer about Jim Murray is that he gave some variation of "I don't remember" almost as often as Ronald Reagan did in the Iran-Contra interview. Of course, that is the safe play if you don't want to do anything to hurt your client. I tend to believe Murray is lying through his teeth but we'll never know. One thing is for sure he does know which side of his bread is buttered.

I actually disagree because no one had the devastating information from Pettitte and Clemens nonsensical defense. A lot of people should be swayed, or reinforced, that Clemens used based on his independent testimony that corraborates McNamee and destroys Clemens credibility. I'd also be very interested to see what else is in all of the committee material when it is released and the press starts going through it. I'll bet dollars to donuts there is more damning testimony from Pettitte, for one. I love how Clemens' attorneys act so calm and cool and convinced when they had to know this was a very bad day, filled with bad moments for their side: Everything Pettitte and his wife testified to and especially Elijah Cummings declaration that Pettitte is the tie-breaker. The information about the abcess, and how an independent expert, with no information about the patient, came to the conclusion that it wasn't a reaction to a B-12 shot but a reaction to Winstrol being injected poorly. The information about the nanny and how Clemens interrogated her - and the fact that she said that the family stayed at Canseco's that night. Plus the fact that the golf course Clemens played at was adjacent to Canseco's home. Even Clemens ultimately budged and said he might have been there! I'd say the bottom line is that the very best outcome for Clemens is a decision not to pursue a perjury charge, or managing to establish reasonable doubt at trial; and that if McNamee doesn't get the Libel case thrown out, he'll spend a lot of money for a not guilty verdict. I have to wonder how much this is going to affect the Yankees and Pettitte especially.

Now its time to see what material is released by the committee, specifically Pettitte's entire testimony. Obviously Elijah was getting into Clemens and steroids via Pettitte's deposition but he didn't get enough out before he ran out of time. I'm really surprised no one made reference to Jim Murray's testimony - I would think that McNamee talked about his contact and particularly the meeting in 2003, yet we still don't know if Murray confirmed it or not. I could be wrong in my assumptions that he had things to say, yet neither side used it. The anti-Clemens people could have pointed it out as corraborative of McNamee's statement or else the idiot Republicans might have taken it to attack McNamee's credibility.

Hey, Chris as already mentioned one of those soaps, so you're not alone!

+ 1, as they say.

Tom is watching the Young and the Restless? Well, I think Chris is addicted to his "stories" too ... I think its interesting that they would bring something in about jazz on a show like that. Is it something they want known about the characters ... must be a writer who just wanted to slip that in - though I guess calling them "The" Weather Report makes it possible they just went to AMG or something to find a group or two to name-drop.

Well Elijah is still a star, but I wish he would have come out and simply told him its not credible, its not plausible whatsoever. And Roger's response about what happened when the LA Times report came out, Elijah should have said, "Or, Pettitte came to the realization that if asked, you are going to lie about it. Andy is an honest man and he won't lie when put into a position of testifying under oath." But he's absolutely correct that Pettitte is the tie-breaker and he destroys Clemens defense. Bottom line -

I don't really understand it at all, but I do think that Clemens has connections to Bush Sr (I think he referred to him there a little while ago) so maybe it is protecting their own? I do know that if Jim Bunning were involved he'd be hanging Clemens up by his jock.

I was amazed that Roger Cossack wasn't giving any attention to the significance of Pettitte and his wife's affidavits, and thinks there's no case here against Clemens from a pure legal perspective. Forget McNamee's credibility issues. Just on the basis of their respective testimonies, there is clear evidence that Clemens has committed perjury about HGH. And the woman who said he should get into heaven was absolutely pathetic and embarrassing.

What do you think?

Excellent calls, Dave! I never watched the successor programs, to me it wasn't Star Trek without Kirk and the rest. But there were a lot of both intentional and unintentional comic moments in those 70-odd shows.

Just realized no one has brought out information about Jim Murray and what he may have said about discussions with McNamee about Clemens steroid use and risk of a positive test. Good to see that a New York representative gave him some props and now is attacking his credibility on the issue of whether he knew about what Mitchell was investigating regarding his juicing.

No one's gotten back to the question of the conversation between Clemens and Mike Stanton - did the committee interview Stanton? Did Stanton confirm that he spoke about HGH with Clemens and Clemens said "any edge I can get"? That's the biggest open question, along with Clemens trying to weasel out of the fact that Pettitte and his wife support the fact that Clemens used HGH.

So apparently one physician looked at the evidence, looked at the MRI and concluded the abssess on the butt was more likely resulted from a Winstrol injection rather than B-12. And now they are submitting their own report? Yeah, a rent-a-Doc saying it wasn't Winstrol, being paid by Clemens. New definition of lynching? It looks like the GOP side is on Roger's side, and that's sad.

I've had the LP a long time, but I have taken care of it! Good ears! Because I clean up all my LPs before burning them and so I am more attuned to tiny clicks, sometimes more than I am to the music! That was my first instinct but as I listened I started thinking is that an alto? But I didn't want to start searching out the track because as we all know, when you've got 50 or more BN discs you can go around and around and never find it. Since you didn't reply I guess I was wrong on Hank in track 1.

Oh shit he just ran out of time. Someone has to get back into that line of questioning. and I'm sure they will.

I feel like I'm blogging here ... but Clemens completely ignored the question about Andy's wife, and Cummings (still loving him though) missed the chance to nail his ass by pointing out directly that its not a matter of Andy "misremembering" because its a contemporaneous statement to his wife about the conversation. How could he get it wrong when he just had the conversation? Contemporaneous statements support the credibility of the witness, if its confirmed by the second person. Ah, but now he's nailing him on the timeline.

Let me just say that at this moment, I love Elijah Cummings. Is he a trained lawyer? Was he a prosecutor? Anyway ...

UP, since Clemens is roasting on a spit right now. Get your shirts today.

Wow, Clemens has no clue at all. He just can't see how Pettitte himself (with his wife) has proven him a user, and I suspect a serial perjurer by the time this hearing is over. But its so typical for him. I am sure that he really believes he didn't do it - but the evidence on HGH is overwhelming and devastating. There's no possible way to get around Pettitte. Plus, it will only get worse now because Pettitte is going to get plenty of questions. He has to keep confirming the info, because he did it under oath. The NY press will ask: are you sure? You have no doubts? And you know Pettitte will confirm it. Its really kind of sad because you're clearly seeing the end of a friendship (whether it was as close as portrayed or not).

On the basis of what the chair just said about Clemens, Pettitte and Pettitte's wife, it is completely over for Clemens. There is no way to get around it: He told Pettitte in 1999-2000, and Pettitte told his wife at the same time. That's corrobarative, and devastating. Beyond the fact that Andy's wife offers contemporaneous statements about Clemens use, if Clemens and McNamee agree that the injections of Debbie took place in 2003, it is impossible for Clemens to have told Andy in the earlier time period that he was referring to his wife. This is completely devastating to Clemens' claim of never using. Period. It doesn't prove that McNamee has told the truth as far as steroids go, but I am pretty sure he told Mitchell about HGH injections in the same period that Pettitte says Clemens told him he used, so that is corraborative as well. The last disposative bit of evidence will be the lab results of the evidence McNamee qualified - that is, disposative as to McNamee's honesty and Clemens lawsuit against him. But I would say that right now, the FBI agent could slap the cuffs on Roger if he wanted to. Based on nothing that McNamee has said, Clemens has already committed perjury.