Clemens on trial because he "lied" to Congress? Talk about calling the kettle black!

Congress is the one organization that should keep their noses in politics and try to do the right thing, although they have failed at that for so many years it's hard to keep up with them.

Suggestion for these bozos -- try to get the debt in order before worrying about whether or not someone took steroids.

Hear! Hear! Cap.

The next they'll waste money/time on, is the Paqman Bradley decision.

Hopefully the new law on insider trading will weed out some of these greedy worthless bastards.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Yea man, I'd like to see them line up congress for how many times they may have lied. Morons.

Just goes to show, if Congress asks when was the last time you took a dump, you better not lie

You know how to tell if a politician is lying to you? Just look and see if his mouth is open.

Odenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know how to tell if a politician is lying to
> you? Just look and see if his mouth is open.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I thought that was Lawyers!?

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Clemens was under oath when he lied to Congress about his use of steroids to cheat when playing baseball.

Do you believe that Clinton should have gotten a pass for lying under oath about cheating in his marriage?

And, of course, the testimony that he lied was proven on the basis of the guy who allegedly supplied him the steroids? And, who, I believe, was dealing steroids to other athletes? And who got a deal against prosecution in all cases for testifying against Clemens?

I'm not sure of the facts but that's my memory.

xynz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clemens was under oath when he lied to Congress
> about his use of steroids to cheat when playing
> baseball.
>
> Do you believe that Clinton should have gotten a
> pass for lying under oath about cheating in his
> marriage?


If you think those two things are exactly alike then I don't know where to begin...

If you're not sure of all the facts, then how do you know Clemens isn't guilty of perjury?


ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, of course, the testimony that he lied was
> proven on the basis of the guy who allegedly
> supplied him the steroids? And, who, I believe,
> was dealing steroids to other athletes? And who
> got a deal against prosecution in all cases for
> testifying against Clemens?
>
> I'm not sure of the facts but that's my memory.

Because I don't make my mind up EITHER WAY when I'm not sure.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xynz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clemens was under oath when he lied to Congress
> > about his use of steroids to cheat when playing
> > baseball.
> >
> > Do you believe that Clinton should have gotten
> a
> > pass for lying under oath about cheating in his
> > marriage?
>
>
> If you think those two things are exactly alike
> then I don't know where to begin...


Nice Strawman. I didn't say they were "exactly alike". I even explicitly stated their differences.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about cheating on his marriage. Clemens is under investigation for lying under oath about cheating in Major League baseball.

I agree they are different. So what? Perjury comes in all shapes and sizes; but perjury is still perjury. Why should the allegations against Clemens be treated differently than the allegations against Clinton?

xynz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > xynz Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Clemens was under oath when he lied to
> Congress
> > > about his use of steroids to cheat when
> playing
> > > baseball.
> > >
> > > Do you believe that Clinton should have
> gotten
> > a
> > > pass for lying under oath about cheating in
> his
> > > marriage?
> >
> >
> > If you think those two things are exactly alike
> > then I don't know where to begin...
>
>
> Nice Strawman. I didn't say they were "exactly
> alike". I even explicitly stated their
> differences.
>
> Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about
> cheating on his marriage. Clemens is under
> investigation for lying under oath about cheating
> in Major League baseball.
>
> I agree they are different. So what? Perjury comes
> in all shapes and sizes; but perjury is still
> perjury. Why should the allegations against
> Clemens be treated differently than the
> allegations against Clinton?


Not a strawman or I'd have argued against what I presumed to be your point and I really didn't want to get into a debate over this, its ancient history and few people are able to remove the politics from the discussion.

As you said, perjury comes in all shapes and sizes. Clinton's "perjury" should have been a traffic ticket compared to Clemens, not a purely political federal prosecution.

Nobody likes congress. The vast majority of them are a bunch of lying, self serving thieves. The original steroid hearing was a political maneuver and a waste of tax payer time and money. But once that was done, they have to see it through. They have to prosecute Clemens. If they don't prosecute Clemens for lying to them about an illegal activity (he could have plead the 5th) when they have his trainer and his best friend (pettitte) saying he lied, then how do you expect them to investigate something important like the BP Gulf Disaster and get truthful responses?

They didn't let Miguel Tejada walk after he lied to them during that Steroid investigation, they accepted his apology for lying and went easy on him. (probation and community service).

Its not about the people in DC, its about the institution.

I'm a Yankee fan. I rooted for Clemens.

They should throw the book at him.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Its not about the people in DC, its about the
> institution.


I agree with nearly everything that you wrote, except for that.

DC is ALL about people: the insiders. After Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff (Lewis "Scooter" Libby) was found guilty of lying to the FBI about his role in outing a covert CIA operative, Democratic strategist James Carville was one of the insiders who wrote to the presiding judge, pleading for clemency on Libby's behalf.

I can think of no better metaphor, for the incestuous corruption of the US political process, than Democratic strategist James Carville's marriage to Republican strategist Mary Matalin.

Most of the Republican versus Democrat battles in DC are political theater on par with professional wrestling. In public they are at each other's throats; but in private, they are literally in bed with each other.

With modern communications technology, the members of Congress should only be going to DC for the ceremonies of state, such at the State of the Union Address. For everything else, they should remain in their home districts/States and convene their sessions through teleconferencing. Then the people who elected them would have better access to Congress, than any lobbyist on K-street. Registered lobbyists should still be permitted access, but only through teleconferences which are recorded and available for review by the voters.

When it comes to "executive sessions" for matters of "national security", then the US military can provide secure communications links.

There is nothing in Section 4 of the US Constitution to prevent such a modern dispersal of Congress. There isn't any reason why the legal priviledges of Attendence in Section 6 can't be extended to Attendence via teleconference.

Of course, most members of Congress will not voluntarily disperse themselves from the many material benefits of meeting with lobbyists; they will also not voluntary diminish their own chances of becoming rich lobbyists in the future. The voters will have to force such reforms upon Congress. But as I said, the Constitution doesn't have to be amended, to enact such reforms.

xynz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Its not about the people in DC, its about the
> > institution.
>
>
> I agree with nearly everything that you wrote,
> except for that.
>
> DC is ALL about people: the insiders. After Dick
> Cheney's Chief of Staff (Lewis "Scooter" Libby)
> was found guilty of lying to the FBI about his
> role in outing a covert CIA operative, Democratic
> strategist James Carville was one of the insiders
> who wrote to the presiding judge, pleading for
> clemency on Libby's behalf.
>
> I can think of no better metaphor, for the
> incestuous corruption of the US political process,
> than Democratic strategist James Carville's
> marriage to Republican strategist Mary Matalin.
>
> Most of the Republican versus Democrat battles in
> DC are political theater on par with professional
> wrestling. In public they are at each other's
> throats; but in private, they are literally in bed
> with each other.
>
> With modern communications technology, the members
> of Congress should only be going to DC for the
> ceremonies of state, such at the State of the
> Union Address. For everything else, they should
> remain in their home districts/States and convene
> their sessions through teleconferencing. Then the
> people who elected them would have better access
> to Congress, than any lobbyist on K-street.
> Registered lobbyists should still be permitted
> access, but only through teleconferences which are
> recorded and available for review by the voters.
>
> When it comes to "executive sessions" for matters
> of "national security", then the US military can
> provide secure communications links.
>
> There is nothing in Section 4 of the US
> Constitution to prevent such a modern dispersal of
> Congress. There isn't any reason why the legal
> priviledges of Attendence in Section 6 can't be
> extended to Attendence via teleconference.
>
> Of course, most members of Congress will not
> voluntarily disperse themselves from the many
> material benefits of meeting with lobbyists; they
> will also not voluntary diminish their own chances
> of becoming rich lobbyists in the future. The
> voters will have to force such reforms upon
> Congress. But as I said, the Constitution doesn't
> have to be amended, to enact such reforms.


I agree with what you said but I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

Just to clarify, when I said: "Its not about the people in DC, its about the institution" I was attempting to point out that the reason they need to prosecute Clemens to the fullest is to protect the power of the institution that is the US Congress, not the scumbags that presently "work" there.

Damn xynz talk about an issue all Americans can push for. Kick the bastards out of DC back to their home districts

Not guilty on all six counts.

Just to clarify, when I said: "Its not about the people in DC, its about the institution" I was attempting to point out that the reason they need to prosecute Clemens to the fullest is to protect the power of the institution that is the US Congress, not the scumbags that presently "work" there.


Hmmm ... For the life of me I can see no reason to worry over protecting the institution or the scumbags currently in it if there isn't some way to dial it back to times when representatives had a bit more intellect and accountibility for what representing someone other than themselves.

Alls I know is I'm a Mets Fan and hate Clemens and the Yankees almost as bad as the Jets. I still remember when that fat ^&**k threw a broken bat a mike Piazza in the World Series. F'em.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not guilty on all six counts.


When a prosecutor like me thinks that the case is shaky, what should have anyone expected?

Like I said above to XYNZ, from the facts I could not say he was guilty or not.

I guess the jury also felt they could not trust his trainer.

Clemens was good long before PEDs were an item.

If he did anything IMHO, he probably tried to extend his career, and heal faster.

His trainer was a scumbag, and has a history of erradic and crazy behavior. From interviews of those in the courtroom they say there was absolutely no one that had any credibility with the trainer.

They say the type of DNA found was consistent with that you find with infection, not injections. What kind of person keeps crap like that in a can for 8 years anyway. Ughh

I kind of wish they'd file charges against the trainer for false testimony, but they have probably already wasted enough money on this thing.

I'd be mnore interested in spending such money to put about 1/2 the congress and the executive branch on trial for lying.

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They say the type of DNA found was consistent with
> that you find with infection, not injections.
> What kind of person keeps crap like that in a can
> for 8 years anyway. Ughh
>
Probably someone planning blackmail.

I'm a Yankee fan and even I think Clemens is guilty as sin.

But this case fell apart when Andy Pettitte changed his story to "I'm only 50% sure my testimony is accurate."

Pettitte is a down to earth, very religious, family man from Texas. As a Yankee he was always an excellent pitcher but wasn't a fitness freak like Clemens. Then Clemens came to the Yankees and pettitte started working out with him. Totally transformed his body from soft/flabby/embarrassed to walk around the locker room with his shirt off to confident/lean/strutting around the locker room shirtless.

Pettitte is one of the few guys to test positive for PED's and admit it. His story, which I believe to be truthfull, was that he strained an elbow one spring after he and Clemens became friends and workout buddies. He went on the DL for the first time and was dying to get back and help his team. He asked his friend if there was anything he could do workout-wise to speed up the healing process. Pettitte said Clemens told him to try HGH, that he used it. Clemens even sent him to his personnal trainer to get hooked up.

But pettitte failed a subsequent drug test and ended up on the mitchell report and had to tell his story to clear his reputation: that it was a one time thing to get healthy faster.

If you have followed pettitte's career then you are most likely to accept his explanation that it was a one time occurance. But that doesn't change the fact that he's an admitted cheat which is more than enough reason to dismiss his version of events.

But pettitte is a very, very religious guy. He agonized over having to give that testimony about his friend while swearing on a bible it was true. Not cause he was lying, but because he knew once he put his hand on that bible he was telling the truth no matter what the impact on his friendship was.

So when he first told that story under oath several years ago it was damning evidence that supported the claims of Clemens trainer. When Andy testified last month he qualified that testimony by saying it happened so long ago he was only about 50% sure he remembered it correctly.

That left the trainer out there on his own, and he was hardly a witness of character.

So Clemens is "not guilty". Based on this trial and pettitte's suddenly faulty memory, it's probably the correct verdict.

But there's a huge difference between "not guilty" and "innocent"...and Clemens is FAR from innocent when it comes to PED's.

If I were a sports writer I'd never vote for Clemens, bonds, mcGwire, palmiero, Ramirez, Ortiz, Braun, etc for the Hall of Fame. Using loopholes in the legal system to feign innocence isn't the same thing as being innocent.

I'll give pettitte and Arod credit. They are the only two guys to admitt they used PED's without the pressure of facing a trial. Whether you choose to accept their version of events is up to you, but I'll give credit to anyone who stood up and told the truth and I'll never forgive those who clearly cheated yet hid behind lawyers and loopholes protesting their "innocence".

"Clemens, bonds, mcGwire, palmiero, Ramirez, Ortiz, Braun, etc " all of these guys should be barred from the HoF and have an asterix besides all of their records w/ a footnote refering to the PED's. MLB should just do that and close the books on this crap. Its lasted for years.

and don't forget that sob Sammy Sosa

Maybe Im the only one who is different here, but I could care less about the "steroid era".

Baseball has been around 100+ years, and for 100+ years....baseball players have been cheating.

They outlawed it, now are testing for it, and the corrective actions have been put in to place to correct this.

But, if it wasnt for the McGuire/Sosa season, baseball would be no more.

JMO.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I could care less, this will never stop. Athlete will always look for a way to gain an edge... Why do you think the NFLPA has fought testing for Growth hormone for so long? Just for no reason... As soon as one substance is able to be tested for the chemist will figure out a new performing enhancement drug or a drug to mask the drugs they are taking... Cat and mouse game...
In the case of baseball, when you have illegally jacked up pitchers, throwing at illegally jacked up batters, it gets a bit odd. The pitchers dont want to be at a disadvantage and the batters dont want to be at a disadvantage.... Welcome to the world of profesional sports and doping.... Dont see it ending anytime soon... Still not as bad as the world of profesional politicians as exemplified in this case...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche