RogerClemensReport.com

[taylor34]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

Taken from a news story on espn.com:

"When the committee told him it was inappropriate for him to contact the nanny before committee members could speak with her, Clemens said he was doing the committee "a favor." "

Bergie56 is correct according to espn.com

[MikeRo72]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

LOL complete BS. They were asked to contact her on Friday. Seriously, you dont know what you are talking about.

btw, here is her deposition
http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/.../mlb_nanny.pdf

You are right in that I got the days mixed up

However my post goes to Clemens (and his attorneys) continuing to act in a matter that is very shady, and at the very least questionable which does not bode well for him.

Here's the testimony:

WAXMAN:

Mr. McNamee told us that one key witness who would know whether you were at Canseco's house for that party was your former nanny. And the committee staff asked your attorneys for her name last Friday so we could contact her. We made additional requests for her name and contact information over the weekend.

Around 5 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, committee staff made another request and asked your attorneys to refrain from contacting the nanny before the committee staff could speak with her.

It wasn't until Monday afternoon that your attorneys provided the nanny's name and phone number to the committee. And it wasn't until yesterday (Tuesday) that the committee staff actually spoke with the nanny.

Are you aware of all this time frame, time line about the nanny?

CLEMENS: I'm not sure of all the time frame. I know that...

WAXMAN: OK. Well, what the nanny said to us when we finally contacted her yesterday was important in several respects.

First, she said that she was at Mr. Canseco's home during the relevant time period. In fact, she said that she and Mrs. Clemens and the children stayed overnight at the Canseco's.

Secondly, she told us she did not remember any team party as described in the Mitchell report.

And third, she said that she did not -- she did remember that you were at that home during the relevant time period, although she didn't know how long you stayed or whether you spent the night with your family.

WAXMAN: The third point directly contradicted your deposition testimony, where you said you were not at Mr. Canseco's home at any point June 8 to June 10, 1998. But it's entirely understandable to me. It was 10 years ago.

Here's what puzzles me about your actions. We have a transcript of the interview with the nanny whose name I'm not going to release to protect her privacy. But in this transcript, she says that on Sunday, this last Sunday, you called her and asked her to come to your Houston home. She had not seen you in person since 2001. But after you called, she went to your home on Sunday afternoon.

And I'd like to read a portion of the transcript of the committee interview.

"Question: When you said you didn't remember a party, what did he say?"

"Answer: He says, 'You know, the reason you don't remember that party is because I wasn't there.' He said, 'Because I know that he was playing with Jose.'"

"Question: So did he ask you, 'Do you remember a party?' and then you said you did not remember a party?"

"Answer: That's right."

She also told the committee staff that you told her that she should tell the committee the truth, and after your meeting, an investigator working for you called her and asked her a series of additional questions.

Your meeting took place two days after the committee staff made a simple request for your former nanny's name, and then it took 24 hours after your meeting for your attorneys to provide her name to the Republican and Democratic staffs.

And that's why I'm puzzled about this. Why was it your idea -- was it your idea to meet with her before forwarding her name to us or did someone suggest that to you?

CLEMENS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that, just like through this whole hearings, I was doing y'all a favor by finding a nanny that was supposedly came in question.

WAXMAN: You might have been trying to do us a favor, but who told you, you should invite her to your house -- that you haven't seen her in all those years?

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, this is unfair. What his lawyers tell him is unfair for you to ask. And I well tell you...

WAXMAN: OK, well I accept that. I accept that. I accept that. Gentleman, please be seated.

Was it your idea -- that's the appropriate -- was it your idea...

(UNKNOWN): It was my idea. It was my idea to investigate what witnesses know.

WAXMAN: OK.

(UNKNOWN): Just like any other lawyer in the free world does.

WAXMAN: Did you think, Mr. Clemens, it was a good idea to invite her to your home on Sunday after not seeing her for seven years?

CLEMENS: I'm sorry?

WAXMAN: Did you think it was a good idea to invite her to your home after you hadn't seen her for seven years?

CLEMENS: I was told on Friday night to see if you -- you know, we could locate the nanny. Obviously, that's very nice of you. I don't think that she needs any publicity.

But I was told on Friday night that you guys may want to talk to her, and so...

WAXMAN: And you felt you should talk to her first? Well, I don't know if there's anything improper in this.

CLEMENS: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't talked to her in years. And I did everything I could to locate her to -- if you guys had any questions for her, and I did tell her to answer truthfully. I don't -- again, I'm not sure...

WAXMAN: OK. Well, I don't know if there's anything improper in this, but I do know it sure raises an appearance of impropriety. The impression it leaves is terrible. The right way to handle this would have been to give the committee information immediately, to not have your people interview the nanny before we did, and certainly for you not to personally talk to her about the interview, as you did.

One option for you was to have given the committee the nanny's contact information and had no contact with her. Another option could have been to give her a head's up that the committee would be calling her.

WAXMAN: But you chose I think the worst approach. That's my opinion. You invited her to your home; had a specific conversation about whether you were at Mr. Canseco's house. And you did this before you gave the committee her contact information.

----------------------
Now Z,
Is this a smoking gun? Of course not, but I'm just saying, this is just another example of questionable actions by Roger.

[Stu]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I think the most important thing that came out of yesterday's hearings was the fact that Clemens has absolutely no answer for Pettite's claim that Clemens talked to him about his HGH use. It might not be enough to convict him on a perjury charge, but common sense tells us that McNamee and Pettite aren't both lying.

[mgoblue]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I think the most important thing that came out of yesterday's hearings was the fact that Clemens has absolutely no answer for Pettite's claim that Clemens talked to him about his HGH use. It might not be enough to convict him on a perjury charge, but common sense tells us that McNamee and Pettite aren't both lying.

Exactly...if Clemens was innocent he wouldn't have been so wishy-washy and just flat out ignoring the question. He came off like a kid who was guilty but trying to talk his way out of it, IMO. When you're innocent you have nothing to hide.

[poster]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I think the most important thing that came out of yesterday's hearings was the fact that Clemens has absolutely no answer for Pettite's claim that Clemens talked to him about his HGH use. It might not be enough to convict him on a perjury charge, but common sense tells us that McNamee and Pettite aren't both lying.

Spot on. Clemens is a liar, cut and dry. McNamee is shady, Pettitte is not. Why would Pettitte lie to Congress to get his friend in trouble if it wasn't true? Common sense people.

Over the past five years countless numbers of players have played stupid and maintained innocence only to be proven a liar and a fraud. Clemens falls right in line whether he gets charged with perjury or not. Anyone who defends him is just embarrassing themselves just like Roger did yesterday.

The biggest punishment to Clemens is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. That is why he is fighting so hard. Hopefully he doesn't get in, that will hurt him more than jail time.

[supremeslang]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

Ain't Clemens the same guy who threw a broken piece of a baseball bat at Mike Piazza and said he thought it was the ball? The guy is a frickin liar.

[Heelfan71]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

Ain't Clemens the same guy who threw a broken piece of a baseball bat at Mike Piazza and said he thought it was the ball? The guy is a frickin liar.

yep. I think he was having a Roid Rage when he did it.

[Heelfan71]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

I think the most important thing that came out of yesterday's hearings was the fact that Clemens has absolutely no answer for Pettite's claim that Clemens talked to him about his HGH use. It might not be enough to convict him on a perjury charge, but common sense tells us that McNamee and Pettite aren't both lying.

Clemens is telling the truth and everyone else is just misremembering stuff.

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

You are right in that I got the days mixed up

However my post goes to Clemens (and his attorneys) continuing to act in a matter that is very shady, and at the very least questionable which does not bode well for him.

Here's the testimony:

WAXMAN:

Mr. McNamee told us that one key witness who would know whether you were at Canseco's house for that party was your former nanny. And the committee staff asked your attorneys for her name last Friday so we could contact her. We made additional requests for her name and contact information over the weekend.

Around 5 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, committee staff made another request and asked your attorneys to refrain from contacting the nanny before the committee staff could speak with her.

It wasn't until Monday afternoon that your attorneys provided the nanny's name and phone number to the committee. And it wasn't until yesterday (Tuesday) that the committee staff actually spoke with the nanny.

Are you aware of all this time frame, time line about the nanny?

CLEMENS: I'm not sure of all the time frame. I know that...

WAXMAN: OK. Well, what the nanny said to us when we finally contacted her yesterday was important in several respects.

First, she said that she was at Mr. Canseco's home during the relevant time period. In fact, she said that she and Mrs. Clemens and the children stayed overnight at the Canseco's.

Secondly, she told us she did not remember any team party as described in the Mitchell report.

And third, she said that she did not -- she did remember that you were at that home during the relevant time period, although she didn't know how long you stayed or whether you spent the night with your family.

WAXMAN: The third point directly contradicted your deposition testimony, where you said you were not at Mr. Canseco's home at any point June 8 to June 10, 1998. But it's entirely understandable to me. It was 10 years ago.

Here's what puzzles me about your actions. We have a transcript of the interview with the nanny whose name I'm not going to release to protect her privacy. But in this transcript, she says that on Sunday, this last Sunday, you called her and asked her to come to your Houston home. She had not seen you in person since 2001. But after you called, she went to your home on Sunday afternoon.

And I'd like to read a portion of the transcript of the committee interview.

"Question: When you said you didn't remember a party, what did he say?"

"Answer: He says, 'You know, the reason you don't remember that party is because I wasn't there.' He said, 'Because I know that he was playing with Jose.'"

"Question: So did he ask you, 'Do you remember a party?' and then you said you did not remember a party?"

"Answer: That's right."

She also told the committee staff that you told her that she should tell the committee the truth, and after your meeting, an investigator working for you called her and asked her a series of additional questions.

Your meeting took place two days after the committee staff made a simple request for your former nanny's name, and then it took 24 hours after your meeting for your attorneys to provide her name to the Republican and Democratic staffs.

And that's why I'm puzzled about this. Why was it your idea -- was it your idea to meet with her before forwarding her name to us or did someone suggest that to you?

CLEMENS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that, just like through this whole hearings, I was doing y'all a favor by finding a nanny that was supposedly came in question.

WAXMAN: You might have been trying to do us a favor, but who told you, you should invite her to your house -- that you haven't seen her in all those years?

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, this is unfair. What his lawyers tell him is unfair for you to ask. And I well tell you...

WAXMAN: OK, well I accept that. I accept that. I accept that. Gentleman, please be seated.

Was it your idea -- that's the appropriate -- was it your idea...

(UNKNOWN): It was my idea. It was my idea to investigate what witnesses know.

WAXMAN: OK.

(UNKNOWN): Just like any other lawyer in the free world does.

WAXMAN: Did you think, Mr. Clemens, it was a good idea to invite her to your home on Sunday after not seeing her for seven years?

CLEMENS: I'm sorry?

WAXMAN: Did you think it was a good idea to invite her to your home after you hadn't seen her for seven years?

CLEMENS: I was told on Friday night to see if you -- you know, we could locate the nanny. Obviously, that's very nice of you. I don't think that she needs any publicity.

But I was told on Friday night that you guys may want to talk to her, and so...

WAXMAN: And you felt you should talk to her first? Well, I don't know if there's anything improper in this.

CLEMENS: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't talked to her in years. And I did everything I could to locate her to -- if you guys had any questions for her, and I did tell her to answer truthfully. I don't -- again, I'm not sure...

WAXMAN: OK. Well, I don't know if there's anything improper in this, but I do know it sure raises an appearance of impropriety. The impression it leaves is terrible. The right way to handle this would have been to give the committee information immediately, to not have your people interview the nanny before we did, and certainly for you not to personally talk to her about the interview, as you did.

One option for you was to have given the committee the nanny's contact information and had no contact with her. Another option could have been to give her a head's up that the committee would be calling her.

WAXMAN: But you chose I think the worst approach. That's my opinion. You invited her to your home; had a specific conversation about whether you were at Mr. Canseco's house. And you did this before you gave the committee her contact information.

----------------------
Now Z,
Is this a smoking gun? Of course not, but I'm just saying, this is just another example of questionable actions by Roger.

Again, Clemens found the Nanny for them in the first place.

Waxman is a joke. He was probably upset because part of his buddies report was completely discredited with that party. He was upset because the nanny didnt say what he wanted her to say. He was upset because she is exactly the kind of witness that they can usually manipulate.

btw, she didnt even have any attorneys with her when she gave her deposition to congress

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

what is interesting about that "party" is that it is a major piece of "evidence" that the Mitchell report uses in its section against Clemens. They were really lacking evidence to have to use this party as such a big deal in their report. Talk about a reach

that should show you what a joke the Mitchell "report" is. They use innuendo and hearsay as "evidence" against one of the greatest baseball players of all time, who has done good things for the league for 25 years. The Mitchell report is not getting nearly enough attention in this whole thing.

[Stu]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

Again, Clemens found the Nanny for them in the first place.

I think the point is that they didn't ask Clemens to find the Nanny. They asked him for her name so they could find her. He didn't provide that information until after he had a chance to talk to her. I have no clue what the law is on witness tampering, but that seems pretty shady to me.

[JayBee74]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

what is interesting about that "party" is that it is a major piece of "evidence" that the Mitchell report uses in its section against Clemens. They were really lacking evidence to have to use this party as such a big deal in their report. Talk about a reach

that should show you what a joke the Mitchell "report" is. They use innuendo and hearsay as "evidence" against one of the greatest baseball players of all time, who has done good things for the league for 25 years. The Mitchell report is not getting nearly enough attention in this whole thing.

roger clemens is:

[ZB9]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

that seems pretty shady to me.

you wanna get into that

the way that basically this entire hearing was handled was borderline unconstitutional.

[JayBee74]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

what is interesting about that "party" is that it is a major piece of "evidence" that the Mitchell report uses in its section against Clemens. They were really lacking evidence to have to use this party as such a big deal in their report. Talk about a reach

that should show you what a joke the Mitchell "report" is. They use innuendo and hearsay as "evidence" against one of the greatest baseball players of all time, who has done good things for the league for 25 years. The Mitchell report is not getting nearly enough attention in this whole thing.

To me the Mitchell Report is irrelevant. "Roger The Dodger" (presently dodging the law) is the story here. However it got to this point Roger has screwed himself. He could have simply denied the allegations, but he had to push a trip to Washington so the entire nation could see him lying. I could care less if he's an all time great. I will love seeing this arrogant egomaniac go down.

[allBthere]

Re: RogerClemensReport.com

To me the Mitchell Report is irrelevant. "Roger The Dodger" (presently dodging the law) is the story here. However it got to this point Roger has screwed himself. He could have simply denied the allegations, but he had to push a trip to Washington so the entire nation could see him lying. I could care less if he's an all time great. I will love seeing this arrogant egomaniac go down.

he only goes down in the 'court of public opinion'...absolutely nothing will come out of this, other than baseball trying to police itslef in a better way to give the illusion that nothing will ever get out of control.