A smoking gun?
Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Jan 07, 2008 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Clemens just asked McNamee (on the tape) “Why would you say I did steroids?”
McNamee didn’t say, “Well, because you did.” Instead he keeps saying, “What do you want me to do, Roger?” It’s not much but it’s something.
This is pretty ugly. McNamee doesn’t sound like a well man whatsoever. He’s on the verge of tears. This will play well for Clemens.
UPDATE, 5:37 p.m.: I’m no lawyer but can you tape record a conversation like that? This is wild stuff.
UPDATE, 5:41 p.m.: Hardin says Clemens will go to Congress next week.
UPDATE, 5:42 p.m.: I’ve been around Clemens at various times since 1996 or so. I’ve never seen him this furious.
UPDATE, 5:43 p.m.: Hardin says taping the call was legal. Seems like Clemens set him up. His lawyers were in the room.
UPDATE, 5:45 p.m.: Going on 60 Minutes, doing this press conference and the McNamee tape will gain Roger a lot of support in the public, I suspect. If he does well in Washington, he could swing this thing his way.
UPDATE, 5:56 p.m.: The press conference is over. Clemens started cursing, said he didn’t care about the Hall of Fame and walked off the stage. Pretty ugly scene.
Very weird stuff
can anyone with legal experience explain why its “witness tampering” for Roger to be more direct in his questions to McNamee?
Stranger than fiction.
Pete — as a private citizen, you are always allowed to tape a conversation that you are a participant in — even if the other guy doesn’t know (or give consent).
OK some news finally he will testify
Pete: It’s a good thing there are so many lawyers on the blog!
McNamee sounds like he’s really ill…I know a bunch of people with Celiac disease and have digestive issues myself, and it certainly is a life killer.
however, McNamee sounds like one of those tragic antiheroes…
murphydog (lawyer) said in some states you CAN tape the conversation if you are one part of it.
Pete,
What would you ask him if you were there?
Right on Roger! You call out those guys who dumped on you.
If Clemens says, “Just tell them I didn’t use steroids,” that could be considered tampering.
I’m no lawyer Peter but I believe it varies state by state as to whether or not you can tape record a conversation. I believe in NY you need the consent of both parties, but other states can be different. If they were in two different states then it might fall under federal law, or the state in which the call originated from?
Clemens looks a lot more natural–and thence believable–today than he did last night.
Pete this .hit was hilarious you got to admit that
Well that answers that question about taping
Roger didn’t have to miss his coach’s son’s funeral. He could have changed the time/date of the press conference.
Regarding the legality of recording a phone conversation, it depends on what state you are in. I’m not certain, but I think you need consent in 12 states. Otherwise, it is totally legal, albeit somewhat unethical. I agree, this should play well for Roger.
Pete,
Its a state by state deal, re: taping phone conversation.
In Florida, you aren’t allowed to record phone conversations unless both parties are aware the conversation is being taped.
IIRC, Texas law states only one party has to be notified of a taped phone call.
Sean Hardin said both Texas and New Yoprk only 1 party needs to consent to the taping ie Clemens
Big question answered.
Of course my mother picks now to bother me about dinner questions…
“I’ve been around Clemens at various times since 1996 or so. I’ve never seen him this furious.”
– So he got all ‘roided up for this interview.
Strange how indirect the conversation was…
SJ44 is correct — I was thinking New York law — which is only one party — apparently Texas is the same.
Here are the recording rules for the state of Texas:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/texas.html
But how do we know Clemens and company didn’t edit the tape?
Before anyone outright believes this, remember how much money Roger has and how that can translate into believable lies by lawyers, etc.
Cross question:
How did you know what McNamee said he was injecting you with was actually what he was injecting you with?
The conversation was fragmented and unnatural because Roger knew he was being taped. Lawyers were present, too. He couldn’t tell Brian what to do because that would be tampering. I still think he should’ve told him to do the right thing.
ugh Roger – bad comment about steroids not helping or making you better
I hope Knoblauch rats him out in congress!!
That would come out of nowhere
Good question Rebecca – I was thinking the same thing.
Laura, they didn’t edit the tape because, at the very least, that would be spoliation of the evidence, which would lead to the judge instructing the jury to make all inferences based on that evidence against Roger. It would also be a breach of attorney ethics, and could even lead to Hardin being disbarred.
being wishy-washy about labeling steriod/hgh users has really been his only weak spot in all of this.
Here is where the media screws up. They are trying to define levels of anger.
You can’t do that.
If Clemens goes nuts, they say, “see, his anger shows he is guilty”.
If he is calm, they say, “see, he is too calm. He is guilty”.
Can’t have it both ways.
McNamee had ample opportunity in the phone conversation to say, “Rocket, you know you did steroids”. Yet, he did not. That’s very interesting to me.
All in all, you can see how a guy like Jeff Novisky (IRS Agent) can corner a guy like McNamee, scare the crap out of him, and have him say anything he needs to say to stay out of trouble.
For the younger bloggers, that type of tactic is used and has been abused in the past.
The more this case moves along, its going to be fascinating to see how this all plays out.
He appears to be very test and terse.
Texas law is that only one party notification is needed to record a phone call.
http://www.callcorder.com/phon.....%20(Table)
After listening to that whole recorded phone call, McNamee sounds like someone who was willing to say whatever he had to say to stay out of jail. If that meant throwing Clemens under the bus then so be it.
being wishy-washy about labeling steriod/hgh users as cheaters has really been his only weak spot in all of this.
Rebecca- Great point, I thought about that earlier today.
“and I can swallow”
wow, Roger
It’s very simple. When McNamee asks “What do you want me to do ? ” …My answer would be.. ” Tell everybody the truth !!! ”
Why didn’t Clemens say that ?
edit … testy
SJ: Sounds like something out of an old gangster movie or Law and Order episode!
Phil,
You’d be testy, too, if you had to be civilized to people who wrote all kinds of crap about you.
Brandon,
He did say he wanted the truth to come out.
BTW, he does have a right to be “testy”.
If he didn’t do what is alleged, then he shouldn’t be just “testy”, he should be acting EXACTLY the way he is acting right now.
Brandon – he basically did.
I guess he couldnt be more direct because it would be witness tampering.
But he did elude to getting the truth out.
That is great: Note from his attorney, Clemens reads aloud: “You want me to lighten up.”
The hall of fame comments are very enlightening.
lol. rusty wants roger to spend millions defending himself.
Rebecca,
You asked the most important and pertinent question in this entire episode re: whether or not McNamee told Clemens the truth about what he injected him with over the years.
That is going to be a VERY interesting question when depositions are taken in this case.
Frankly, you asked the question people who REALLY want to know the truth should have asked at the beginning of this entire ordeal.
Good stuff!
Mel / SJ: I didn’t say he didn’t have a right to be testy…just that he appears that way.
I agree with his lawyer…he should lighten up and come off a bit more sympathetic.
now…. lets get Steve Phillips analysis…. gag
SJ44 –
McNamee said Roger supplied the drugs. Unless he lied about that, there cant be a “i didnt know what he put in my body” argument.
just weird
Ugh. Remember when the worst thing that could possibly happen in baseball was Roberto Alomar spitting on an ump?
can anyone with legal experience explain why Roger might not have been able to tell McNamee, in response to “Roger what do you want me to do, tell me what you want me to do?”
“Brian, I want you to tell the truth that I did not do steroids”
Is asking that considered witness tampering?
Boston Dave,
That could be considered witness tampering. Basically, you would have a guy asking someone who gave sworn testimony against him to change his testimony.
That’s Witness Tampering 101, IMO.
I find it more telling that McNamee never said Clemens did steroids on the tape.
Boston Dave -
In the 60 minutes interview Clemens said McNamee injected him with lidocaine and B12.
—
I wasn’t able to hear/watch the conference. ESPN is now having their “analysis,” which I won’t watch. Is there a way to get access to the phone call and conference now? Thanks.
Steve Phillips makes me gag. He immediately starts complaining about the tape, but ignores what Hardin said, that they were concerned they were being set up on witness tampering/obstruction of justice.
Dave,
No, he can’t say “I want you to tell the truth that I did not do steroids” because he’s stating what he wants the truth to be. He can, and did, say he wants him to tell the truth.
Like someone said before, very plausible that the tape could be edited…Clemens would have to be crazy to do that, but its entirely possible.
Thanks SJ.
I only ask because that was the immediate question of the ESPN analysts (Phillips, Kurkjian) following the conference.
“Why didnt Roger just ask him to tell the truth?”
I guess its too much to expect the analysts to understand the legal implications but it definitely allows them to paint Clemens as guilty for not asking it.
Seems like Roger more pissed about whats this thing has done to his family them whats been said about him.Guess this makes him much differant then Bonds.At least Roger out there to clear his name.
Boston Dave, I’m not sure if that’s witness tampering per se. But, it seems like Hardin thinks that it might look like Roger’s giving McNamee instructions on what to say. That probably wouldn’t end up looking so good in front of a jury – any lawyer worth her salt could twist that around on Roger pretty quickly. Hardin must think that it’s a safer bet to stay vague for now, and see what McNamee would say on his own.
SJ: I did mock trial in high school, and I’ve been watching a ton of law and order reruns…
Boston Dave: Right now, I’m more inclined to trust Roger than McNamee, and given that I’m by disposition a very cynical person, that says a lot.
Doreen –
I believe the Mitchell Report states that McNamee said Clemens always provided the drugs. He didnt know where he got them, but Clemens provided everything.
“Is asking that considered witness tampering?”
I’d say so. There’s someone who’s going to testify against you, and he CLEARLY wants very badly to do whatever you want him to do in order to “fix it” or whatever….and you tell him “I want you to say X”
Even if it’s “I want you to tell the truth”, we all know (and mcnamee knows) what that means. It’d still be tampering, I think.
I can totally empathize with Clemens’ reaction. Maybe being more calm would lead to more sympathy. Maybe it wouldn’t if it were a disingenuous rather than a natural response.
Not only that, but I appreciate the way he held the writers accountable for the real impact they can have on the lives of others. Reporters have a job to do, hopefully with class, intelligence and dignity. Though in the rush to be first or even just relevant, others, potentially innocent others, can be greatly affected.
The phone conversation paints McNamee as a scared rabbit that’s painted in a corner like a rat.
Only a fly-on-the-wall knows how much pressure was applied on McNamee by the federal investigators. Evidently enough to make him sound on the tape like he’s about to go off on the deep end out of desperation. Roger certainly applied no pressure during the phone call. He knows McNamee well enough to know that he’s in a low state at this point.
rb15 -
I understand it now but wanted to make sure. The likely claim of the anti-Clemens public will be “if he was innocent he would have told McNamee that he wanted him to say he didnt do the steroids and tell the truth”.
just want to make sure I understand why that wasnt possible.
very clever phone conversation from roger’s side. he was obviously coached (the excuse is they were concerned about tampering). they say that the mcnamee camp leaked the tape and not them. roger says just enough to look like he wants mcnamee to tell the truth, but he doesn’t come out and say it in those words. very strange.
his answers to the reporters questions were not all that direct at times. it felt like he was dodging… either that or his intellect doesn’t function like mine to pursue the exact line of thought of the questioner.
it felt like he was still being a bit evasive, but inwardly happy that he seemed to be winning public opinion. his lawyer btw is one clever well-spoken dude.
mcnamee sounded really broken. he’s been thru a lot. not the sharpest knife in the drawer. he admires roger no end. looks up to him as his hero. it doesn’t make much sense him offering to help after what he told the mitchell commission.
“what do you want me to do, roger?” he repeated over and over again.
what could that really mean?
the only logical answer to that is “tell the truth that i didn’t use steroids”. but roger never says that.
Boston Dave -
But I think the Mitchell Report was referring strictly to steroids/HGH. I could be wrong but I don’t recall reading about anything other than steroids and HGH. (Because B12 and lidocaine would be legal, I suppose, and not of much interest to Mitchell.)
“I guess its too much to expect the analysts to understand the legal implications but it definitely allows them to paint Clemens as guilty for not asking it.”
Sadly, you’re right. And, of course, many people will base their opinion on that of these “experts”, despite the fact that it may very well have been illegal (or, at least, legally murky) for Roger to say that.
I don’t know how relevant, but in game interviews, Roger never directly answers questions, either.
“his answers to the reporters questions were not all that direct at times. it felt like he was dodging… either that or his intellect doesn’t function like mine to pursue the exact line of thought of the questioner.”
That happens all the time in Q&A stuff, though. And it’s not always calculated. You think you know what they’re asking, but you don’t, so you answer kind of a different question than they were asking…or you’re distracted (like Roger clearly was sometimes) and you only answer half of it.
whozat -
true media analysts will be asking the same questions we are now. they will find out about witness tampering. we will see how these analysts at ESPN and elsewhere report the Clemens conference and it may become clear if they are trying to lynch the guy or really uncover the truth. Sadly, I suspect many of them will play off the anti-Clemens and/or anti-Yankees theme and try to bury Roger… conveniently avoiding some of the facts like why Roger couldnt be more direct in the call.
McNamee basically said he can’t be completetly open because he doesn’t know who’s listening to the conversation. He talked about how his calls were recorded in the past and even asked Roger to meet with him face to face to talk.
You could tell he wanted to say something but was afraid someone else was listening in.
Did one of the reporters seriously tell Roger to “lighten up”?? Wow, it’s aaaall about the story, huh?
Roger is tainted now and no matter what happens he always will be.
Baseball (players, owners, union, commissioner, media) let this (PED use in general, not just Roger’s situation) happen and all of them should be ashamed.
It was his lawyer that told him to lighten up.
A reporter doing thus would have probably lost his or her job.
Doreen -
I understand that. My thinking was that McNamee claims Roger supplied the HGH/Steroids. So either he did or McNamee is lying. In order for Roger to even have to play the “I thought it was B12 defense”, it would mean that McNamee would have to retract his statement that Roger supplied everything. If Roger supplied the stuff, he knew what it was. If he didnt supply it, McNamee is lying… case closed.
Just bizarre, I wrote a little something about it. But I am just not sure how to feel. This call was just uncomfortable.
Say,
I think his lawyer told him to lighten up. But his response was totally appropriate for someone who’s been betrayed by a “friend” and wrongly accused.
Roger will find a way to get Brian Jr’s medical bills taken care of.
Boston Dave: That’s it!
Everything else, phone conversation, hall of fame, press conference…it’s just embellishment.
Who supplied the drugs, and were the drugs what they said they were?
tsk tsk watch that temper Rog…..those steroids do it every time.
Thank you for clarifying, Rebecca. I was shocked over that one, I couldn’t believe a reporter had the cajones to tell him to lighten up, haha. Makes more sense that his lawyer said it.
haha ESPNEWS just slipped, and didn’t bleep out his “BS” about the LA Times story
I mentioned in an earlier thread that it sounded to my trained ear that both sides knew they were being taped and that each side was tying to get the other to say something damaging. That’s why neither side sounded natural and didn’t come out and directly confront the other.
McNamee was desperate to get Roger to say something along the lines of some kind of gift, money or a plane ticket, something. he kept playing the poverty card and saying “Tell me what you want me to do.” Translation: “please tamper with me, offer me something or direct me to do something that helps you in some way.”
Roger was throwing in the lines from his script about “I don’t understand why you did it. And somebody has to tell the truth,” hoping McNamee would slip up.
Before I end however, here’s the $24,000 question: between Roger and McNamee, who used to earn his living making recording phone calls and face to face conversations with drug dealers and buyers? Uh, McNamee, the former NYPD NARC. Don’t fall for his teary “sad dad with a sick kid” act. He’s got ice water in his veins, people. He was trying to set Roger up like he used to set up drug dealers and buyers all day long.
I’ll bet anymuch money that the feds knew what was going on in McNamee’s life.
Anyone have speakers for my computer i can borrow for a day. Here i am trying to keep my desk clean and i pay for it today with a mute computer.
Buster Olney talks about potential witness tampering as the reason Clemens didn’t tell McNamee to “just tell the truth.”
No problem.
My brother and I use to get our a–es handed to us for telling our mother to lighten up….never mind someone like Roger Clemens!
mel:
“Roger will find a way to get Brian Jr’s medical bills taken care of.”
He’d better not. It won’t look good. It will look like tampering, trying to buy favorable testimony (or a sudden lack of memory) from McNamee on the issue of Rogers’s alleged steroid use.
I hope Clemens can somehow prove his innocence, if only to see Mitchell squirm around and answering questions about his BS report.
I’ll be honest. I couldn’t tell if McNamee was feeling guilt for ratting on Roger or he was feeling guilt for lying about Roger to save his own ass.
If Roger goes to Congress and testifies and neither Pettitte or Knoblauch can corroborate McNamee’s story… I think Roger should get the benefit of the doubt.
If one thing is clear, its that McNamee is not an ideal witness. So if he’s the entire case….
claybeez – nice
I have always like Buster.. but I’m really glad someone brought that up…. not that the people who hate Roger will consider it anyway.
murphydog -
just wanted to say thanks for your posts today… theyve been extremely informative and interesting.
“true media analysts will be asking the same questions we are now. they will find out about witness tampering.”
The problem is that people won’t be watching or reading all these followup articles that may or may not show. They’ll watch the coverage today, the highlights of it on the news tonight, and all they’ll remember is “why didn’t he just tell mcnamee to tell the truth about his steroid use?”
The public doesn’t have the attention span for legal technicalities, even though they may be EXTREMELY pertinent.
looks like new Pete post
mel:
“I’ll bet anymuch money that the feds knew what was going on in McNamee’s life.”
Yup. In addition to whatever Radmoski gave them on McNamee, the Feds had everything on his credit cards going back 5 years, his cable bill, what was in his bank and phone records, right down to his girlfriend’s favorite perfume.
It’s a very unsettling day when they tell you what they have on you and then tell you to fess up or else.
“I’ll be honest. I couldn’t tell if McNamee was feeling guilt for ratting on Roger or he was feeling guilt for lying about Roger to save his own ass.”
Neither.
“I have always like Buster.. but I’m really glad someone brought that up…. not that the people who hate Roger will consider it anyway.”
That IS good that it got brought up early enough that people may actually still be watching. I, of course, turned it off already:-)
i’ve said on here several time that i think rocket took ped’s, but the more the light shines on McNamee, the less and less i believe him. he sees like a real loser.
if 5 years go by and nothing else comes out, i dont think you can make a fair case for keeping roger out of the hall based solely on McNamee’s testimony to the Mitchell inquiry. As far as I know, roger’s never been directly accused by anyone else or had any other major brushes with the law, etc. while McNamee is pretty shady and was trying to keep himself out of jail. If thats all they got, you gotta let Rocket in the hall.
ESPN legal analyst on now.
I think there is something that has been missed (both here and what ESPN is talking about). McNamee is clearly running scared and has been put into a corner. I interpret that McNamee probably had an idea that he was being recorded and believing so would not say that he didn’t tell the truth. He did however say a couple of things that made me suspect even more. He did say a couple of times that none of this is right.(what did her really mean?) How about the comment on not wanting to go to jail. He apologized several times and asked what he can do. How would you have answered those questions if you were in McNamee’s shoes and you were telling the truth? I know what I would have said; look I told the truth. I was put into a corner and I’m sorry how all of this is effecting you and your family, but I had no choice but to tell the truth about what happened. Never once had he said anything remotely like this. I really believe that he was coerced into his statements to Mitchell and did everything he could in this taped conversation to not say that he lied. He never did say he told the truth!
claybeez – i only caught the end of it but i like what im hearing. legal analyst seems to think mcnamee might have lied.
Boston Dave, they are already doing just that type of “anti-Clemens” stuff on the radio and TV outlets. Even though here you keep reading about the difficulties that a public figure has with libel and slander suits, yet you never hear a word of that from the talking heads.
What kills me is first they were saying well, he needs to come out and talk directly, needs to interview and state it himself instead of through his lawyer and agent. Now they are saying, well, if he is truly innocent why didn’t he say anything sooner.
No matter what Clemens does, his actions or non-actions are going to be twisted. This is exactly why Mitchell was a complete and utter slime for publishing the names in his piss poor report.
Any of us could have come up with his recommendations. Heck, I would have had it done within 3 weeks, complete with PowerPoint and asked for only 1 million.
Mitchell did a poor job, he knew the laws full well and knew full well that his methodology was removing from the players their right of due process. Yet, its rare when any one of the reports attack Mitchell for his craptacular job. Mitchell and Selig should be ashamed of themselves for what they have brought on baseball.
Mitchell’s name should be equal to that of McCarthy. McCarthy was a witch hunter and while there were many who he named who were communists, there were some innocents who were forever tainted. Mitchell did exactly that as well.
Who the heck does that turd think he is to feel he had the right to play investigator, judge and jury over the reputations and lives of these players.
Congress should make such a statement against his actions and his report. It deminished any value the report had, and I see no good coming from it.
No wonder Mitchell made his pronouncement that everyone should just shut up and take it, and move forward. I am glad Clemens is doing this.
Murph, as usual, nailing it!
Maybe I am just too cynical in my old age but, I felt that McNamee knew what he was doing and was looking to set up Clemens. Hence, the “tell me what you want me to do” stuff.
we just saw history on tv. no one who saw it will forget it. this is about more than baseball. it’s about justice and fairness and how these things are decided. if this can happen to clemens ,it can happen to anyone.
this is no longer just a baseball issue. the whole country is going to be watching. the system itself is going to be on trial. mitchell opened up a can of worms that goes way beyond baseball.
george mitchell’s and selig’s worst nightmare is roger clemens fighting back. they never expected this.
SJ44 – agreed. I never thought of that but murphydog has been on target today – IMO.
This is some crazy stuff! And Pete thought it would be a slow news month…
Clemens is really entering the point of no return, kind of remind me of the Talented Mr. Ripley. I really hope to god he is telling the truth, for his and his children’s sake. Otherwise he’ll be forever remembered as one of baseball’s biggest sociopaths, the HOF would be the least of his worries.
Dee – the sad thing is, even if Clemens is telling the truth…. he may never be able to regain his reputation. I guess I cant say I’m surprised, but so many people were ready willing and able to attack Clemens and believe any negative news about him with no evidence.
Can you imagine if Canseco claims Arod did steroids? Even with zero evidence?
Mitchell = McCarthy. Plain and simple the two names are interchangable.
There’s been numerous tapes showing Roger’s personal gym / workout facility he had built at his home in Texas costing him some serious $$$. Why would somebody do this and also ‘roid up in the process ? It makes no sense if he could have taken the easy way out.
I offer to all of you to read this:
http://assets.espn.go.com/medi.....lemens.pdf
Go to page 4 and read the last full sentence and what do you think? I have a thought I will share later
grrr
McCarthy was an alcoholic who just made stuff up. Mitchell has sworn testimony behind him. I agree that the Mitchell report was nowhere near exhaustive but c’mon, there is no comparison to McCarthy.
Im not sure if i understood your post. But you still have to work out to get bigger. Why not have the best fascilities to get the best results. To me that isnt a pass at all that he didnt do it.
wow, clemens name is really william? the only new fact that came out today!
Clemens looked extremely guilty. Worst peformance since he quit on the team in the third inning of Game 3 in the ALDS.
Boston Dave – Agree, if he is in fact innocent, I really hope his defamation suit and the Congress hearing can shed new light on the credibility of the whole Mitchell Report. I mean it’ll take something pretty drastic for Clemens to repair the damage that’s been done, like if the whole Mitchell thing is shown to be a scam and Bud Selig is forced to resign or something, which I can’t see happening realistically even after watching today’s crazy development.
Question/point re: attorney ethics. Clemens is represented by counsel. McNamee is as well. Both Clemens and McNamee, and their respective lawyers, all know the other is represented by counsel. Both sides are on the verge of a lawsuit at the time the call took place. Isn’t Hardin ethically obligated to direct all communications – either originating from him, his legal team, or his client – to McNamee’s counsel and not to McNamee himself?
thanks for that insight Eddie… I wouldnt expect anything more from a troll
JoeC –
McNamee reached out to Roger to speak to him. Though McNamee was likely also under instruction when he spoke to Roger, he probably wanted Roger to think he was by himself so Roger would mess up. Read some of murphydogs earlier posts… very informative.
JoeC – No. Attorneys cannot ethically speak with an opposing party when that party is represented, but the parties can speak individually with each other.
There’s a few other things that need to be clarified, as well.
All things being equal, it is not witness tampering to implore someone to tell the truth. Think about it. Imagine charging someone because he influenced someone to tell the truth.
layton
much more comparable to the playoff game he got thrown out of for mouthing a profanity to the umpire, OH THATS RIGHT HE WAS A RED SOX THEN! i keep forgetting, he never did anything wrong as a red sox!
Boston Dave
Thanks – those are helpful. Although, I recall reading quotes from McNamee’s lawyers that they were unnaware of the call. If that is true, I think Hardin may be in some ethical hot water.
Drew41 wrote: “No. Attorneys cannot ethically speak with an opposing party when that party is represented, but the parties can speak individually with each other.”
Understood. But it sounds like the situation here is one where Clemens made the call at the direction of his attorney. So it’s not like these guys bumped into eachother at the grocery store (or pharmacy . . . sorry, couldn’t resist).
There’s another reason the lawyers wouldn’t be in hot water. There was no lawsuit at the time that phone call occurred. Attorneys can speak with citizens, just not opposing party. If there’s no lawsuit, there’s no opposing party.
The police do these sorts of phone calls all the time. They are called controlled phone calls.
boston dave, quotes aside (who would ever believe a lawyer would lie to a reporter) it sounded to me like clemens and his lawyers were calling Mcnamee and his lawyers.
My 1st question obviously is: did Roger Clemens take steroids/PEDs? My nest question is when is all this craziness gonna be made into a movie and who’s gonna play Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, Andy Pettitte, Joe Torre etc.
“next” question
i read the defamation suit filed by clemens lawyer today. it’s filed against mcnamee, but it mentions the mitchell report every other sentence. the mitchell report is going to be on trial too. expect mlb and mitchell to launch a counter attack.
in the suit, it gives a detailed reporting of mcnamee talking about being intimidated into saying he injected clemens with steroids. #27 for those who want to read it:
http://assets.espn.go.com/medi.....lemens.pdf
murphydog earlier this week brought up the possibility that irs agents and us attorneys were overstepping their job descriptions and may be in trouble themselves. this interrogation implies they did.
because their butts are also going to be on the line, they are likely to launch a counter attack on clemens too,
so it’s roger clemens against mlb , george mitchell, the irs, and the us attorney office.
that’s all.
Ethical problems? Nope. Just Rog’ calling his old friend and taping it, which apparently meets the Texas standards. There *could* be consequences for the admissibility of the resulting “evidence” but so far you have no proceeding, just a PR offensive. And if reporters want to believe everything they heard on the tape, that’s their problem.
Not sure how they plan to attack the Mitchell report… doesn’t the report simply say “we obtained the following statement from McNamee”? Does the report draw its own conclusions about Clemens above and beyond just regurgitating McNamee’s testimony? If not, I don’t see how they could be in trouble, unless they had reason to know McNamee was lying.
GIVE EM HELL ROCKET!!!!
I love this! Look how pissed Roger is getting. This man is determined to clear his name.
The more this plays out, the more stupid the Mitchell Report will look.
How would that not be admissible? You’ve got about 10 people who can authenticate the phone call.
Oftentimes in litigation, ethical and other legal obligations attach even before the formal commencement of the lawsuit. For example, potential litigants are obligated to preserve potentially relavent evidence even before suit is filed, i.e., when a suit is reasonably foreseeable. I can see an annalogous rule here re: atty/client/opposing party communications. Here, you have Clemens’ attorney directing his client to communicate with a potential adverse party regarding the merits of a threatened and foreseeable lawsuit knowing that party is represented by counsel. Unless Texas’ ethical rules are way out of wack with those of most other states, I don’t see how McNamee’s lawyers don’t raise this and Hardin isn’t bench slapped.
Looks like ol’ Roger had a little ‘roid rage at the press conference.
This website will explain taping laws in all 50 states.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
Has anyone read this yet?
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn.....ortCat=mlb
What a freakin’ hatchet job.
Yeah, Clemens “started cursing.” He said “ass,” you hack, a word so fiendish you can say it on TV.
I got the impression McNamee needed money, said he had to pay for security now, was living in a 1 bedroom apartment, and has a car that doesn’t work. Sounded like a desperate man overall. If George Mitchell was a director of the Yankees, received income in that connection, Chairman of ESPN, the NY Times was part owner of the Yankees, (sorry, George J. Mitchell–middle initial for the big fella), and had been a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, how much of any of this would be happening?
Rocket……… If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…its a duck….can this guy just go away? He is no victim or martyr.
I would like to start this by saying I am not a Roger Clemens fan. However, this story has become the newest in a series of events where there was a rush to judgment by the media and especially ESPN. In the information now society, the media and the public expect the answer before it happens. The legal system is a slow moving process. To destroy the reputation of those athletes in the Mitchell Report only on the testimony of persons that exchanged their testimony for shorter jail sentences was morally wrong. I still am undecided on Roger Clemens, I will wait till everything comes out.
However I think the media, especially ESPN, and the public should considered the events that followed the DUKE rape case and realize that the breaking story is not always the truth.