1. Correct, but since Clemens currently faces no loss of life, liberty, or property, the presumption of innocence is not really operational for the reasons you stated. Also, he did not have to attend that hearing.

2. Yet members of Congress who received an autograph from Clemens may have broken the law, at least according to a recent story in the NYT. In any event, there are legal standards, and there are ethical standards, and meeting in with a prospective witness who is attempting to lobby members of Congress immediately prior to a hearing raises ethical concerns.

3. See point 2.

4. Pettitte, for all his faults, is far more credible than Clemens based on the facts that have been adduced, especially when you consider that Pettitte’s testimony buttresses McNamee’s credibility on the specific issue of who he shot up. When you then take those facts in tandem with Knoblach’s testimony, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that Pettitte is telling the truth and that Clemens is lying.

5. IMO, Clemens’s is convicting himself (not in the literal sense, but in the court of public opinion) with his ridiculous excuses (his wife did HGH not, him), as well as the contradictions in his statements.

Let’s take a step back and look at this clearly.

1. Clemens is not just presumed innocent, he is not in fact charged with anything.

2. A Congressional Hearing is not a trial. It is not a judicial proceeding. Every forum has different rules. It would have been improper in the extreme to meet with prospective jurors or judges before hand, but this was not a trial. The hearing was to gather facts regarding the Mitchell Report’s accuracy because Clemens so stridently challenged the sections pertaining to him. Congress was ostensibly trying to determine whether they could rely on the report or whether it was too flawed. It was only some of us in the public that wished this was a trial and a final determination of the truth, but in fact it was not.

3. No rule or restriction prevents or makes improper the meetings Clemens had with the members before hand. See point 1 above about not being charged with anything and point 2, this was not a trial. As far as anyone knows Clemens was there to not just make his position known, but to hear what the members had to say too. Some weren’t very kind to Roger. The members also had the right to decline the meeting and at least one did I believe.

4. Much as it pains me to say, Pettitte has shown that he can be as petty and self-interested as anyone. He held back on his initial acknowledgment of guilt in the Mitchell Report judging by his most recent admission of his 2004 HGH use. This latest admission opens the door to an investigation of that HGH-dealing high school buddy of his. I hope for Andy’s sake this is the end of the revelations, but I have no idea anymore. But his recollections and credibility no longer meet the gold standard.

5. No I’m not blind. I don’t think Roger is clean. But he does not have to convict himself.

I understand, and I have answered more fully in my reply to murphdog.

It is a legitimate - - if not dispositive - - issue. The fact that Mitchell’s firm made a substantial contribution to Waxman’s campaign ($5K) and a less sizable gift to Cummings ($750) two years ago is a legit gripe when they were the two most aggressive Clemens detractors, and especially since Waxman is the committee chair. It could reasonably be argued that Waxman’s and Cummings’ hostility to Clemens was the result of loyalty to Mitchell as much as the facts. I know they didn’t create the need for money in campaigns, but taking the check from DLA Piper fairly raises the question.
___

Yet the available facts, particularly paragraph 6. of Pettitte’s affidavit;

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080213150024.pdf

the contradictions in Clemens’s testimony, his incredible denial of having prior notice by Mitchell or his agents or the MLBPA of having been informed that he would be mentioned in the Mitchell Report; his meeting with the nanny who was at Canseco’s which at the very least raised an appearance of impropriety issue, if not witness tampering; and the medical expert’s report that at least made it possible that he had an abscess in 1998; provided Waxman and Cummings a reasonable basis for taking the position they did toward Clemens in the hearing.

I’ll grant you this point: They should have disclosed those contributions in the hearings, but similarly, I think it would also be incumbent on Clemens, Hardin, and any Republican Congress(wo)men who had any dealings with any Republican Party officials who may have made entreaties on Clemens’s behalf to any member of the committee before the hearing.

One more thing: Could anything have been more improper than Clemens meeting with committee members before the hearings?

In sum, the entire system is tainted and I’m not sure that the contributions to Waxman and Cummings are the most egregious example

“Big deal. Waxman and Cummings had the facts on their side.”

It is a legitimate - - if not dispositive - - issue. The fact that Mitchell’s firm made a substantial contribution to Waxman’s campaign ($5K) and a less sizable gift to Cummings ($750) two years ago is a legit gripe when they were the two most aggressive Clemens detractors, and especially since Waxman is the committee chair. It could reasonably be argued that Waxman’s and Cummings’ hostility to Clemens was the result of loyalty to Mitchell as much as the facts. I know they didn’t create the need for money in campaigns, but taking the check from DLA Piper fairly raises the question.

http://aroundthemajors.blogspot.com/

Big deal. Waxman and Cummings had the facts on their side.