Clemens' defense

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Clemens' defense

    I was reading on ESPN that the attorney for Roger Clemens is going to argue that it wasn't perjury because congress shouldn't have asked him if he took steroids.  He's not arguing that he didn't lie and never actually took steroids.  He's arguing that he should never have been asked the question.

    See, Clemens is so smart.  He knew it was ok to lie to Congress because he knew that Congress was wrong to ask him if he took steroids in the first place. 

    The next thing he'll argue is that it wasn't perjury because Clemens had his fingers crossed when he swore to tell the truth.

    Nice going Roger.

    Earth to Roger - no one cares. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

       In the court of public opinion Roger is guilty,guilty ,guilty and no matter what he say's or does nothing is going to change that.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    His lawyer's premise probably won't work because the court is likely to determine that Congress determines with a great deal of latitude what is and isn't their legal right to investigate.

    But the premise is valid. If the proceeding is illegal, then anything that happened there is no longer relevant. I am not positive how that applies in a criminal case but in a California civil case that sort of premise worked for my company.

    We had an employee suing us. In deposition we found out that the employee had lied on her application for employment and that if she had told the truth she would not have been eligible for hire. We asked for a summary judgment and it was granted because she should have never been there in the first place and therefore anything that happened thereafter was irrelevant. While we would have prevailed on the merits of our defense, we did not have to because of this clause.

    Clemens lawyers no doubt are trying a similar tact by stating that Congress did not have the jurisdiction in the matter. If the hearing should not have been conducted, the perjury becomes irrelevant. Again I don't see it working but it is a nice try for a quick dismissal.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]I was reading on ESPN that the attorney for Roger Clemens is going to argue that it wasn't perjury because congress shouldn't have asked him if he took steroids.  He's not arguing that he didn't lie and never actually took steroids.  He's arguing that he should never have been asked the question. See, Clemens is so smart.  He knew it was ok to lie to Congress because he knew that Congress was wrong to ask him if he took steroids in the first place.  The next thing he'll argue is that it wasn't perjury because Clemens had his fingers crossed when he swore to tell the truth. Nice going Roger. Earth to Roger - no one cares. 
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    and Roger was before Congress for....his stance on the economy, price of oil or global warming? His attorney was sitting right next to him during the hearing.   Clemens didn't take the 5th, shake his finger or forget how to speak english. The questions were asked and answered.
     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    I hear what you are saying, but doesn't that deceive the entire reason for Clemens going to trial?  The reason he has pursued this is to clear his name regarding PEDs, not as a perjurer.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Clemens' defense : and Roger was before Congress for....his stance on the economy, price of oil or global warming? His attorney was sitting right next to him during the hearing.   Clemens didn't take the 5th, shake his finger or forget how to speak english. The questions were asked and answered.  
    Posted by J-BAY[/QUOTE]

    Details, details .....

    "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

    To a lawyer, ala W.J. Clinton, nothing is what one might have thought it was, no matter how simple .....


    Cool

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]I hear what you are saying, but doesn't that deceive the entire reason for Clemens going to trial?  The reason he has pursued this is to clear his name regarding PEDs, not as a perjurer.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    The reason Clemens went to Congress was in an attempt to clear his name regarding PEDS, which in turn, has lead to the trial as a purgerer. Clemens ego lead him to believe he could walk through the halls of Congress, shake a few hands, take a few pictures, sign a few autographs and he'd be on his way to the Hall of Fame. instead, he may be walking the halls of the big house, right back in pinstripes.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    I have no doubt that Clemens used P.E.D.s.   I think his ego will not allow him to admit it.  That said, just a few points.  Steroids were and still are being used by athletes in nearly all sports, as well as by police, firemen and many show business performers, among countless others.  We have many serious issues in this country that Congress should be devoting their time and energy to. I think it is ridiculous that they take the time to put a baseball player under oath and grill him on steroid use.  For a politician to charge an athlete with perjury is absurd and hypocritical. Let them clean up their own house. Thousands of people lie under oath in courtrooms about more serious matters every day ,without being indicted for it.  In my opinion, this whole thing is a huge waste of time and taxpayer's money.  If Clemens goes to prison over this, while so many criminals roam free , it is a travesty of justice. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    just another low-life, yankee cheater

    1978 and counting..............

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]I was reading on ESPN that the attorney for Roger Clemens is going to argue that it wasn't perjury because congress shouldn't have asked him if he took steroids.  He's not arguing that he didn't lie and never actually took steroids.  He's arguing that he should never have been asked the question. See, Clemens is so smart.  He knew it was ok to lie to Congress because he knew that Congress was wrong to ask him if he took steroids in the first place.  The next thing he'll argue is that it wasn't perjury because Clemens had his fingers crossed when he swore to tell the truth. Nice going Roger. Earth to Roger - no one cares. 
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]
    Except, apparently, the poster who started this thread.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from therimrattler. Show therimrattler's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    if teh chick in florida who killed her kid and OJ are innocent, who cares if roger clemens is guilty of steroids or not?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Clemens' defense :   Never "cheated" with the Sox or jays????  I believe Macnamee refutes your statement.
    Posted by prknsdnld[/QUOTE]

    Actually, McNamee says he started injecting Clemens with Winstrol in July of 98.  That's only 3 months with the Jays before moving on to the Bronx, where McNamee picked up other 'clients', Pettitte & Knoblauch.  

    That's not to say Clemens couldn't have been juicing prior to July of 98, but the numbers support McNamee's claim.

    Clemens in 98
    April to June - 9 - 6, 3.71 ERA, 116 Ks
    July - Sept - 11 - 0, 1.68 ERA, 158 Ks



     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Clemens' defense :   I recall the "Possessed Rebel" start in the 1990 Playoffs in Oakland. Remember the eye black and him freaking on ump Terry Cooney, telling him he knew where he lived after being ejected for screaming at the ump over balls and strikes. Similar to the "aggressive" behavior he displayed after throwing Mike Piazza's shattered back at him in the 2000 W.S. ?
    Posted by prknsdnld[/QUOTE]

    At age 27?  It's possible, but I think 1) If Clemens had been juicing his entire career, we would see a more natural statistical arc.  In other words, if he was a great pitcher at age 42, he should have been a phenomenal pitcher at age 27.  2) I think if he had been juicing with the Sox, somebody would have come forward by now with information, probably to try to make a buck.  It's instant corroboration for McNamee's statements.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    While Clemens got into the mess trying avoid fessing up to PED use at this point it is about not potentially going to jail. The train left the station on PED use long ago.


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Clemens' defense :   Clemens was pretty damn good at 27, guy. Roids don't necessarily give you 40 wins a year, it keeps you healthy. And also gives one an aggressive attitude. And a pi##ed off one.
    Posted by prknsdnld[/QUOTE]

    You're in denial.  Simply look for spikes in performance.  In his last four years with the RS, he had a very nice 3.77.  His production went thru the roof after he left.  These players aren't suddenly blossoming at age 34.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]Clemens had the 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer any question that might incriminate him for violating federal CSA or any criminal laws. By testifying, he waived that right. Congress has full federal jurisdiction to investigate matters that involve valid federal laws such as the CSA. They can compel appearance before Congress. A claim that Congress had no right to ask the questions is frivolous and has no basis in law. Clemens knew that taking the 5th would be perceived as an admission and damage his brand and/or character as a baseball business celebrity. What he didn't expect was that the fallout from his testimony would lead to a perjury indictment. Perjury is one of the more difficult crimes to prove, as it requires more than just making untrue statement under oath. But Clemens and his incompetent legal team have made a lot of mistakes that make the case against him less difficult to obtain a conviction of violating a federal criminal law. 5K, do you sell insurance?
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]BTW I agreed with you that the argument that Congress did not have jurisdiction was a non-starter, just saying why I think the defense team is trying that tact. Some posters seem to think that is his defense, I don't, I think it is a ploy for dismisal which I agree with you will fail.

    But you just blew your cover that you and whatever else you are calling yourself aren't the same person.

    Thanks for that, it tipped me off to add your second identity to the other as an ignore.

    How weird is it that you keep coming back where the hosts don't want you and create two identities to agree with each other? I can't figure out why somebody would do that and just what makes some one do it. It does explain your posts because who else would talk to themselves in different identities?

    BTW you do know I ignore the insurance crack at this point but knock yourself out if it makes you feel better because anybody who would do the things you do on this board needs to be feel better more than maybe any other living being.

    Cheers Softlaw until you are banished and I have to read more of your angry drivel because I haven't ignored you yet.


     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]just another low-life, yankee cheater 1978 and counting..............
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    You have issues  ... try anger management classes.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    In Response to Re: Clemens' defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Clemens' defense : You have issues  ... try anger management classes.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]

    He was going to go.  Matter of fact, he was at the door until he saw I was there....
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    I think the problem most Red Sox fans have with Clemens is that his performance greatly improved when he left, but more importantly, it's how he fawned over the Yankees in general and Steinbrenner. 

    He acted like playing for the Yankees was some great honor, as if playing in Boston was a chore.  The Fans in Boston loved him and not only did he go to the rival, he acted like it was the height of his career. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from chuchos. Show chuchos's posts

    Re: Clemens' defense

    I must, painfully, agree with Softbilly.  Congress has every right to ask the question.  Clemens had every right to not answer.  

    I think this goes beyond the circus that was created, or the sideshow it's become.  Should an egotistical, maniacal, perjurer before Congress and the fans not be tried because there are more important issues our courts need to deal with to mend a broken system.  No.

    If only to show our children, who worship their baseball heroes, that there are consequences to your actions and that integrity goes a long way.
     

Share