I'm curious about this too. Pettitte can't plead the 5th on this. I guess he could essentially say "I don't want to answer that" - but that's going to make Clemens look horribly guilty. I wonder how aggressive the questioners will be too. Jan 16th will be an interesting day!
clemens simply doesn't come off as an innocent man trying to defend himself against horrible accusations. he comes off as a guilty man trying to find the right words to get himself out of a mess. that phone call was just brutal and couldn't possibly have helped him.
I've noticed something here, everyone is thinking about every little detail with the taped phone call except the obvious. If you knew a person for 10 years, wouldn't you be cautious if you had linked them to a serious crime and their: voice, sentence structure, vocabulary, and even tone changed over the phone? I mean come on people think about it, McNamee has known Clemens for over 10 years and they were best buddies. The questions that were asked by Clemens sounded very generic like and not normal everyday conversation that you would have with someone who you have known for a while. There are people that I have not talked to for years but as soon as I hear their voice and some catch phrases then I know exactly who I am talking too. My point is that McNamee had to have known something was fishy when he was talking to Clemens over the phone. If McNamee did not know he was being recorded then he is dumber than I thought. There is no way that McNamee did not know what was going on. Hearing this tape and all the loosely premeditated questions just confirmed how dumb Roger Clemens and his staff of r****ded lawyers really are.
You didn't answer my question. Why are they out to "get" Clemens, more so than "getting" Pettite, when there is nothing to get them for? In my experience, federal prosecuters are interested in convicitions. If there is nothing they can convict Clemens (or any of the 100's of other MLB players who are alleged to have used steroids) for....why do they want Clemens? You drew up a scenario where Pettie wasn't a big enough name for them to "get"....but they're not getting anything. If your a US attorney - no conviction = nothing. Clemens, Pettite, and the dozens of other players arent' even going to be indicted, much less convicted. With regard to your question, I imiagine the reason why they wanted testimony from Mcnamee was to gather as much info as they can, as any prosecuter (or lawyer) would, so they could pursue other possible leads to let them up or down the chain. As to why they let Mitchell sit in, I don't know, but I can't really think of any reason not to let him sit in.
That's not the way a logical prosecuter would operate. A logical prosecuter would figure out who the buyers were, then ask who else was involved in procurement. Chances are, somebody, be it the buyer, a middleman, etc, woudl be connected with some OTHER supplier. If i was a federal prosecuter, and my job was to identify dealers - this is a strategy I would pursue. YOu are saying that it's illogical to pursue this strategy?
If you're right then why aren't they squeezing Pettite and Clemens for more names? Why stop once they got those names? That scenario of going down the food chain hasn't happened. OTOH prosecutors do look for big fish to involve, whether to prosecute or not, there is no bad publicity for their careers. Max has already pointed out personal experience in this arena, and really Sam I doubt you would contend this happening would be hard to document. Except to generate more publicity for themselves I can't think of a reason to involve Mitchell. They didn't 'let Mitchell sit in,' they told McNamee to go and cooperate with Mitchell. That's a proactive move - why? Mitchell isn't a federal or state investigator but a private citizen. That's crazy stuff.
