Since we're reading tea leaves to figure out if Roger Clemens is honest, it's probably worth noting that Brian McNamee has a few tells of his own. For example, check out the picture on the right, taken during Wednesday's hearing.ShysterBall reader Bryan Patrick, M.D. writes in with the observation that there doesn't appear to be any refraction in the lenses of McNamee's glasses, indicating that his lawyers have pulled the old put-the-scumbag-in-glasses-to-make-him-look-respectable trick. No judgments here, though. It's a good trick! I've used it myself!
In more substantive news, we've learned of yet another McNamee lie, this one possibly under oath:
In the conversation with [Clemens agent Jim Murray], McNamee does most of the talking, explaining how he had provided illegal drugs to both players. McNamee tells Murray that he ultimately had to cooperate with baseball's steroids probe because of pressure from the government, which was working with Mitchell. McNamee claims that Parrella -- whom he misidentified as "Adam Peralta" -- "looked me in the eye and he said, 'If you don't speak to Senator Mitchell, you're going to get locked up.'"
However, in testimony Wednesday before Congress, McNamee said he never had a deal with the government nor was he coerced to cooperate.
That passage, taken from Mark Fainaru-Wada's story on ESPN.com today, is sort of ignored in the rush to make the point that Clemens' people knew that he would be named in the Mitchell Report beforehand. Why the point that it stands as some of the clearest evidence of perjury coming out of Wednesday's hearing is ignored is beyond me.
UPDATE: David Nieporent at BTF points out to me that the pressure-from-the-government thing was mentioned in Clemens' defamation complaint, and that McNamee's lawyers have said that McNamee was lying when he said that to make Clemens feel better.
So, probably not perjury. Just a garden variety McNamee lie.
UPDATE: David Nieporent at BTF points out to me that the pressure-from-the-government thing was mentioned in Clemens' defamation complaint, and that McNamee's lawyers have said that McNamee was lying when he said that to make Clemens feel better.
So, probably not perjury. Just a garden variety McNamee lie.
8 comments:
So is there like a small cottage industry to support attorneys who use the glasses-on-scumbags technique? Specialized services that can produce stylish-but-conservative frames with transparent lenses at a moment's notice?
I keep a box of em in my desk drawer . . .;-)
They have to support more than just the attorneys who use the glasses-on-scumbags technique. They also have to support the much larger market of advertisers who like putting glasses on their models to make them look sophisticated and intelligent. I always find it amazing that the ads for eyeglass frames use this trick, since it's especially obvious to eyeglass wearers.
I had my eyes lasered so my appearance will match my less than sophisticated and intelligent truth.
Now I can wear glasses in court just for effect.
Isn't there such a thing as anti-reflective lenses?
It's not the reflection. It's the reFRACTion. Note the lack of any distortion through the lenses. Particularly the right one (his left), but the same goes for both sides.
Obviously not important, but then again, neither is Clemens' body language.
I don't see how this is a lie. Perhaps I am parsing the words a little (but that's what lawyers do)McNamee says he was told that if he did not speak he would be locked up...ok, that means Door A is definitely jail, door B is unknown, but not necessarily jail...that's not a deal. So, later when he says, he never had a deal - he was not lying.
He didn't just say he never had a deal, he said he was never pressured or coerced, either. While I agree that whatever he said happened in December may not have amounted to a deal, it certainly amounted to pressure.
Post a Comment