McNamee's smoking gun?

Not that there's anything wrong with that ... of course ...

 

There'd be no statute of limitations involved in a perjury charge. If he perjured himself, he did it yesterday when he talked to Congress. It doesn't matter when the steroid use occurred.

 

Coming after the infamous stained blue dress in Monica's closet, this ain't nothin'.

And if Clemens used stuff then, does the average fan think he's more likely, or less likely, to have used stuff since then, as he got older?

 

Statute of limitations refers to the length of time during which you can file charges; if he just perjured himself, they can bring the case. I don't think there's a limitation on evidence.

 

It'd be tough to prosecute the perjury charge without a very clear chain of custody of the evidence. I somehow doubt McNamee was that good.



EDIT: Whoops ... chain of custody ... thanks, qtlaw.

 

Is it perjury if Clemens lied to Congressional investigators yesterday? Was he under oath or was he there voluntarily to discuss his future appearance before the sub-committee?
Now, they nailed Maron Jones first for lying to Congressinal investigators, so they probably could get Clemens on that.
But is that perjury?

 

He was under oath yesterday, it was a sworn deposition.

 

He denied using steroids or HGH yesterday.

The DNA stuff is not a lock. If I'm Clemens I claim a sample of my blood was used to cross contaminate.

Roger's on his way to the signing table with Pete Rose in Vegas.

 

The statute of limitations began yesterday when Clemens gave his sworn testimony under penalty of perjury.

The chain of custody is an issue, but it will come down to McNamee's word again, which I would guess is pretty good. McNamee comes across as a guy who was just trying to do the right thing, witness his voice on that secret recording. I bet that Clemens' lawyers will be able to make more doubt on the DNA in the "court of public opinion" with their grandstanding news conferences than in a court of law with everyday jurors (federal, who are usually more educated and less emotional than state court jurors, different jury pool).

If I'm defending Clemens, I'm very worried right now, or else simply realizing that the worst case scenario I envisioned before is coming to fruition.

 

I realize this has probably been asked/answered in previous Clemens threads, but why in the name of Christ would Roger get under oath, say (according to what he told reporters afterwards) that he never took steroids or HGH, if there was a chance he could get nailed on it?

There's no crime until he lies under oath. I just don't see how his high-priced attorneys let him get under oath.

Of course, maybe he's telling the truth. I don't think he is, but that's the only -- the only -- explanation that makes sense. Otherwise he's lying to his lawyers, too. Which would make him more of an ego-blinded idiot than you'd think possible.

 

The evidence has been sent to a lab for testing, and prosecutors might seek a court order for a DNA sample from Clemens if the evidence contains traces of drugs and blood, the Daily News reported.

McNamee kept the vials, gauze pads and syringes from the 2000 and 2001 seasons because he feared Clemens would deny using performance-enhancing drugs, the source told the Daily News.

Can someone explain how a bloody gauze pad or a vile with traces of a drug can prove Clemens did or didn't do anything? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

I hear that Suzyn Waldman has a blue dress with Clemens DNA