Lawyers: McNamee has physical evidence linking Clemens to steroids

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

Our system of government? Jones and Stewart lied to federal investigators. Clinton was charged with perjury for testimony given in a deposition as part of a trial. So far, the only statements we have a record of are those he's given to the media. Did he talk to federal investigators? Has he lied in a deposition? Do we even know what he has said to Congress yet? No.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, if he lies to Congress, I think he's charged with contempt of Congress, in which case it's referred to a US Attorney who takes it to a grand jury and the grand jury then charges him with perjury. But in the end, yes he can be charged with perjury, but I don't think the charges come directly from Congress itself. I could be wrong though, if it makes you feel any better.

In any case, that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was that Federal Rules of Evidence to not apply to a Congressional Hearing because it's not a trial, it's an investigatory proceeding.

You obviously don't understand the situation. Let me explain it to you. First of all he has already given a deposition which was under oath. When he speaks to Congress he will raise his right hand and be sworn in under oath. So yes if you lie to them it is a federal offense called perjury. If you lie under oath it's perjury, as simple as that.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

Where did I (or anyone else) say they were a Roger defender? Way to draw your on false conclusions.

I'm merely questioning the amount of evidence that the McNamee camp has and the validity of the evidence. I just question whether this evidence could've been or was tampered with. If you read the article that's on page 2 of this thread I believe, medical and legal experts feel similarly.

I didn't name you as a Roger defender but you do seem a little defensive about it and that is telling. My statement was a general one. I'll let you decide if the shoe fits...

[Ltlabner]

McNamee likely held onto the syringes for some old fashion CYA. If the excrement hit the ventilation who is the public at large or a legal body going to believe...the big time ballplayer or the no-name trainer? He knew he was in murky waters and potentially wanted something tangiable to save his butt later on because he knows his word will not hold the same weight as the Rockets (right or wrong).

Regardless of his proclivities to keeping items, or if his intent was to extort green from Roger, if (and it's a freaking huge if) those syringes have Rogers DNA and HGH on them people will quickly forget any slimeness of McNamee and Clemmons will be in the headlines for weeks to come.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

You obviously don't understand the situation. Let me explain it to you. First of all he has already given a deposition which was under oath. When he speaks to Congress he will raise his right hand and be sworn in under oath. So yes if you lie to them it is a federal offense called perjury. If you lie under oath it's perjury, as simple as that.

You're going off on a tangent that really wasn't the point of my original post. My original post to Team Clark was that Congress was not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence because this is not a trial, but rather a congressional investigation.

But just to clarify, I understand the situation exactly, it's just a little more nuanced than you are describing it. Clemens stated publicly he has not taken steriods or PEDs. Yes, he has been deposed by Congress and will stand before them under oath in a committee hearing. At this point, we don't know exactly what he has said, so we don't even know if he's lied to them. If he does lie to them, they can hold him in contempt and pass it on to the US Attorney, who can then take the case before a grand jury. The grand jury may then indict him for perjury. However, I do no think Congress itself does not charge anyone with anything other than contempt of Congress because Congress has very limited powers when it comes to charging someone with a crime.

Generally, Congress has very limited powers to conduct "judicial" proceedings. The separation of powers limits Congress' power to charge someone with a crime to its impeachment powers. It can only exercise impeachment powers against the President, Vice President and other civil officers of the United States. The House of Representatives makes the impeachment charges and the Senate tries the case.

In any case, we're just really splitting hairs over something that wasn't really the main point of my post to begin with.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

You're going off on a tangent that really wasn't the point of my original post. My original post to Team Clark was that Congress was not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence because this is not a trial, but rather a congressional investigation.

But just to clarify, I understand the situation exactly, it's just a little more nuanced than you are describing it. Clemens stated publicly he has not taken steriods or PEDs. Yes, he has been deposed by Congress and will stand before them under oath in a committee hearing. At this point, we don't know exactly what he has said, so we don't even know if he's lied to them. If he does lie to them, they can hold him in contempt and pass it on to the US Attorney, who can then take the case before a grand jury. The grand jury may then indict him for perjury. However, I do no think Congress itself does not charge anyone with anything other than contempt of Congress because Congress has very limited powers when it comes to charging someone with a crime.

Generally, Congress has very limited powers to conduct "judicial" proceedings. The separation of powers limits Congress' power to charge someone with a crime to its impeachment powers. It can only exercise impeachment powers against the President, Vice President and other civil officers of the United States. The House of Representatives makes the impeachment charges and the Senate tries the case.

In any case, we're just really splitting hairs over something that wasn't really the main point of my post to begin with.

I still don't think you understand the term Contempt of Congress. Here's Wiki's definition:

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "contempt of Congress," in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."

That really doesn't define what he did if he lied. If he lies to Congress federal prosecutors can indict him for perjury and that is his biggest risk here. I don't see where Contempt figures into this at all.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I still don't think you understand the term Contempt of Congress. Here's Wiki's definition:



That really doesn't define what he did if he lied. If he lies to Congress federal prosecutors can indict him for perjury and that is his biggest risk here. I don't see where Contempt figures into this at all.

What is lying to Congress if it is not obstructing the business of Congress? It's a bit more of a general term than that wikipedia definition states. If Clemens lies to Congress, federal prosecutors (part of the executive branch) can present the evidence to a grand jury and the grand jury may indict him, but Congress cannot. Congress does not have the power to indict anyone except under the provisions for impeachment. I was making a distinction between the investigatory nature of Congress' proceedings, in which the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply, as opposed to a judicial proceeding in the form of a civil or criminal trial, in which Federal Rules of Evidence do apply. It doesn't mean that Clemens can't be charged with a crime for lying to Congress. It just means that Congress isn't the branch of the government that is going to be charging him with a crime.

Apparently you took my statement that Congress couldn't charge him with a crime to mean that he couldn't be charged with a crime at all. That is not what I said. But again I wasn't trying to make a point that Clemens doesn't commit a crime by lying to Congress. I was trying to make a point about the Federal Rules of Evidence. And now I think I'm done with the Civics discussion for the day.

[jojo]

How many people in the history of this great nation have been convicted by a federal court of lying to congress?

[Col_ IN Reds fan]

McNamee is a worm. Having said that my gut feeling is Clemens is the one lying. I am sure Clemen's lawyers will say the evidence was tainted.

Baseball could have taken care of this years ago instead it is going to be yet another black eye under Bud Selig's watch.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

But in the end, yes he can be charged with perjury, but I don't think the charges come directly from Congress itself. I could be wrong though, if it makes you feel any better.

Who ever said that the charges come directly from Congress? You're making it much more complicated than it needs to be. At the risk of being redundant I will say this again: If he lies to Congress, he is guilty of perjury because he's under oath. There is no difference here than if he was testifying to a Grand Jury or other federal court. Lying is perjury, not contempt. It's as simple as that.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by jojo

How many people in the history of this great nation have been convicted by a federal court of lying to congress?

I don't know but I can name a few right off the top of my head,

Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, John Poindexter

Enough so that Roger better not take his testimony lightly.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

What is lying to Congress if it is not obstructing the business of Congress?

As near as I can tell there is a difference. This was a ruling from the Iran Contra affair that involved Ollie North and John Poindexter:

The appeals panel ruled that a defendant's lying to Congress does not constitute obstruction unless the defendant corruptly influences someone else to do so.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Col_ IN Reds fan

McNamee is a worm. Having said that my gut feeling is Clemens is the one lying. I am sure Clemen's lawyers will say the evidence was tainted.

Baseball could have taken care of this years ago instead it is going to be yet another black eye under Bud Selig's watch.

That remains to be seen. McNamee is risking more jail time if he didn't tell the truth so if Clemens did get injected by McNamee then he had to come clean or risk going back to jail. I wouldn't call a guy in that situation a worm.

That's why I tend to believe him. He has so much to lose if he's lying at this point.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

That remains to be seen. McNamee is risking more jail time if he didn't tell the truth so if Clemens did get injected by McNamee then he had to come clean or risk going back to jail. I wouldn't call a guy in that situation a worm.

That's why I tend to believe him. He has so much to lose if he's lying at this point.

A guy isn't a worm because he's in that situation. McNamee is in that situation because he is a worm.

IMHO, it's never a good position to be in when you are trusting an unethical individual who is looking out for his own self interests. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest McNamee lied about some players because, really, without naming names, he's got nothing to offer.

I'm not even addressing whether Clemens is innocent or not (I frankly don't even care). I'm just suggesting that in many cases the uncorroborated testimony of a worm has been profited as the smoking gun. It's a bit of a sham(e) isn't it?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

As near as I can tell there is a difference. This was a ruling from the Iran Contra affair that involved Ollie North and John Poindexter:

Hmmmmm...Iran-Contra affair vs. needles and baseballs...

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I didn't name you as a Roger defender but you do seem a little defensive about it and that is telling. My statement was a general one. I'll let you decide if the shoe fits...

Well, you did quote my post and then stated "these Roger defenders." So...

I'm not defending Roger or being defensive. I'm merely stating some, what appear to be, obvious flaws with McNamee's team. Big difference.