February 22, 2008

More Bad News For Roger?

Federal investigators may have photographic evidence undermining Roger Clemens's sworn testimony that he did not attend a 1998 party at Jose Canseco's house.

NYDN:
The photo is owned by a young man who attended the party when he was 11 years old and took photos of his baseball heroes, including Clemens. Richard Emery, one of the lawyers for Clemens accuser Brian McNamee, was aware that such evidence had been circulating this week.

"We have reason to believe it's reliable evidence," Emery told the Daily News on Thursday. "We believe there's photographic evidence that shows Clemens was at a party he says he wasn't at."
Whether McNamee was correct when he testified that Clemens was at this party has almost nothing to do with his claims of shooting Clemens full of HGH and steroids on multiple occasions.

It was simply a red herring seized upon by the Republicans during Fat Billy's Congressional Lie-a-thon to push the idea that McNamee might be fibbing. Still, I find it amusing that Clemens may have lied about every single topic at the hearing.

No word on whether the 11-year-old boy was Nelson Muntz.

5 comments:

redsock said...

Canseco stated in a sworn affidavit that Billy was not there. Perjury?

Jack Marshall said...

I can't believe anybody will try to get Canseco or Clemens for perjury on a matter that is tangential at best. As you say, it mostly just goes to his credibility, which is nil at this point. Now that almost every other major figure implicated in the Mitchell Report is caving, Pettite's deposition and the wife- injecting episode have Roger looking worse the Mark McGwire. McGwire just looked pathetic, sad and cowardly. Fat Billy (See? I'm studying the Glossary!!!) looks like an arrogant, unapologetic idiot, a dumb, white version of Barry Bonds. The photo is just icing on the cake.

But as long as this makes Dan Duquette happy, I'm happy.

9casey said...

I can't see how this is a story of legitmate journalism....without the photo ,someone please just show the photo.......

Jack I don't much about the law , but wouldn't most perjury cases be made of many tangetial matters, it's hard to say a guy is lying about one thing but having many stories with small holes would be more damning...

And the party sounds as though it was pretty large someone else had to see him...And whats the big deal anyway he was playing with Canseco at the time right , he can go to his party..and they both had great years in 1998.......

imagine no one sponors Fat Billy's BBref page.......

Mainecatwoman said...

Sounds more like Eddie Haskell.

Jack Marshall said...

Perjury is lying under oath about "material" facts...I haven't looked up the exact Federal definition recently, but as you might imagine, there's never any prosecution over lies about tangential details. You may recall this was the defense of that other Fat Billy, Clinton, when he argued that lying about Monica in the Paula Jones hearing wasn't "material" to the sexual harassment case at hand, and thus not technically perjury. Most (not all) legal analysts disagree, as did the judge and the Arkansas Bar.

The flap over Canseco's party is a lot less material than that. But I do think, especially with Hardin's correction(something ethics Rule 3.3 obligates a lawyer to do when he finds out that his client testified falsely), that it strongly supports the position that Roger's pants are on fire and that his tongue is longer than a telephone wire...