You don't hire Rusty Hardin unless that's exactly what you plan on doing. His ego drove his response. Like codell mentioned earlier, it was a very peculiar choice for representation in this situation.
Yeah - where Clemens went wrong was in not being totally upfront. For example, his people mocking the allegations on his wife - then it turning out to be true. His initial interview acting like he was shocked to be in the Mitchell Report, when he in fact had some advance warning that it was a possibility. Using the receipt from the golf course to suggest he was nowhere near the Canseco party, but then (at least according to someone here - never saw it anywhere else), the golf course is across the the street from Canseco's house? The sketchy recorded phone conversation. Things like that just seem to keep piling up - and the question, from a non-legal standpoint, then becomes "what else is he misleading people about". That's where he loses his credibility and why the vast majority of people don't believe him. I'd venture to guess that polls asking "do you believe Clemens did roids" immediately after the Mitchell Report were more favorable to him than one taken now would be.
According to the Mitchell people, they contacted all the players' reps, both verbally and in writing, to give them the opportunity to speak to Mitchell. Clemens says he never heard about it, and some random Congressperson then asked "well, do you feel your representation sucked" and he basically said yeah. So I assume his reps at least heard about it. But it's interesting that no one has apparently ever asked the agent.
I don't know Roger personally. I know people who know him, though. They talk of him being like a big kid. I think we've seen a lot of that.
ROFLMAO... I am SO SURE....Clemens had NO idea he was going to be named in the Mitchell report. I mean, his agent was told by the Mitchell committee that he was in it, and wanted to know if Roger would like to come talk to them. Let's see what his agent says....if it goes to trial, they will be asked if Roger was INDEED told....I mean do you guys honestly think that Randy Hendricks never told him.....PUUUUUHHHHHHLLLLLEEEEEAAAASE His trainer alerted Roger and his staff that he was about to be named and to be ready. And since Roger didn't know...he hired Hardin.....uh, for what again? DD
They have asked him...he said it would be inappropriate for him to comment at all, since he's an attorney as well.
Did Clemens say under oath he had NO idea he was going to be named?? That's the part that's escaping me. Again, I don't have a transcript...but my understanding is only that he was asked did he KNOW he was going to be named in the report...and his answer was no.
This is all very reasonable. From the outside looking in, he's not conducting himself like an innocent man defending his name. The more sordid details come out, the worse his case looks.
Max, the Mitchell committee contacted Roger's agent IN WRITING and on the phone. Do you honestly believe as an attorney yourself that they then witheld that contact from their client? DD
I must clarify--"he doesn't look like an innocent man defending... The last conversation to be released held a lot of sway on my lack of opinion. It looks awfully snakish.
What he told his client in anticipation of all this is privileged. You seriously want MORE congressional testimony??
If he is deposed about this matter as part of a perjury investigation about Clemens, would he have to tell the truth? Or can he hide behind attorney/client privelidge? DD
Depends on what specific questions he's asked. What questions would you like to see asked? And I realize all this due process and procedure and privileges seem trivial to you because you've already reached your full conclusion....but there's reason for them. I know the Constitution keeps getting in the way, but we might wanna think about keeping it around.
Interesting. I'd imagine Mitchell has copies of any correspondence. Hard to believe he didn't know, but like you said: my understanding is only that he was asked did he KNOW he was going to be named in the report...and his answer was no. Don't see any way to prove perjury.
We are in firm agreement that Congress has no business in this mess in the first place. I'm also with you about being slow to arrive at judgment because I just haven't had enough real information (hearsay, even under oath, just doesn't do it for me). But, I can't fault others if they have an opinion. I *do* understand the point that's been made by others that while there's not enough for a criminal prosecution, they think he did it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Premature, perhaps, but it's only an opinion.
Did you as a representative of Mr. Clemens inform him that the Mitchell committee would like to talk to him, prior to December 13th, 2007? for starters. DD
