At the same time, if he truly had anything with old Clemens blood on it (pretty disgusting) it would be fairly for him to fabricate this old evidence.

How does giving damning testimony that filled more of the report than on any other figure named give Clemens wiggle room? Giving the evidence up front shows more for his complete disclosure, him keeping it back, if that is what he truly did, points to nefarious motives behind holding this stuff.

There could be two ways to take his comments during the taped phone call. One could have been where he was looking for money but couldn’t come out and say it. He kept asking what do you want me to do, and frankly he used the pretext of his son’s illness to get Clemens to contact him, yet he didn’t ask Clemens to talk to his son.

The man is a con job. This evidence he provided might just show that he tampered with it, and if he did, then his whole testimony comes into question. There has been plenty of time for this evidence he gave to have been tested by now. The Feds could possibly be setting McNamee up for a fall if they have evidence that it was tampered with. Remember, he was already being threatened with jail.

Clemens is coming across too much like the man wronged here. McNamee keeps acting like my kids do when I catch them in a lie. They keep compounding it, giving “new” information to bolster their case.

It will be interesting to see what gets said in the public portion of these hearings. The questions they ask will be giving you a good idea of what these people believe.

Telling the Feds that he injected Clemens at least gives Clemens some wiggle room, and the opportunity for Clemens to admit it and move on. Giving the Feds that evidence upfront complete screws Roger.

“I believe that McNamee and his lawyer are trying to do what they can to sway the court of public opinion. These efforts make me wonder how truthful McNamee is being with all this.”

Exactly.

Did McNamee tell Mitchell about this? He had to be completely truthful in order to get his deal and Mitchell has said clearly several times since that he believed him. So, if McNamee had this evidence, why didn’t he bring it forward and ask the Feds to examine it then? Will the Feds say they knew about it but felt it wasn’t necessary to do a costly analysis because they already had McNamee’s “credible” testimony? Or was it because the Feds had doubts then and didn’t want to know whether McNamee was really lying?

Or did McNamee simply fail to bring it up to the Feds? Isn’t holding back a little insurance policy for oneself a form of incomplete disclosure that should cost McNamee his deal?

And I thought this wasn’t a criminal investigation. So why are the Feds still using expensive taxpayer criminal investigative resources to help this scummer McNamee with his civil legal troubles? Makes the Feds look even less objective than they did months ago.

Seems we are of like minds on the suspicious nature of this “evidence”.

I believe that McNamee and his lawyer are trying to do what they can to sway the court of public opinion. These efforts make me wonder how truthful McNamee is being with all this.

I think Marcy might have a point as well. Wouldn’t it be hysterical if they do find “blood” to have DNA and it belongs to a fish?

If this was the evidentiary bombshell they claim it is, and nothing has been the bombshell they claim it is so far, why leak to the media the fact that this “evidence” was turned over to the Feds? Look at this quote from Emery:

[Richard Emery, another of McNamee's lawyers, said the committee will be given a description of the evidence that was turned over to prosecutors.

"It does change the nature of the case from a he-said, she-said to something about physical evidence," Emery said.]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP.....eId=381889

If the physical evidence was so unambiguous, there is no need for Emery to parse his words so precisely and awkwardly. If DNA, serology and toxicology analysis shows that McNamee is telling the truth, why would he need his lawyer to tell us what the evidence shows? It would speak for itself, loud and clear.

Given the flawed chain of custody (allowing for tampering by an interested witness who is defending a defamation suit), plus the dubious timing of McNamee’s decision to turn over the “evidence,” and the highly unlikely possibility that perishable DNA evidence was properly preserved for 6 or 7 years outside of a lab, rest assured that McNamee’s lawyers are spinning as hard as they can. But why? Looks like Emery and McNamee are feeling the heat.

Move over to a political blog and take your agenda with you.