Feds to Indict Roger Clemens

23 replies [Last post]
Henry Clay
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/01/2004

The New York Times reported on its website today that federal authorities have decided to indict Roger Clemens on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Lolink

Reaganite
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 43 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/21/2008

How about we start to indict members of Congress for making false statements to the American public?

Aren't there more important priorities rather than charging a washed up ballplayer who screwed up his own chances at the Hall of Fame?

IAC
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 15 min ago. Offline
Joined: 06/03/2008

Nothing is more important than shielding Congress from the scrutiny of the American electorate. Bread and circuses. This is part of the circus.

Gaffer
User offline. Last seen 5 hours 22 min ago. Offline
Joined: 12/11/1999

That's what has got us into the fix we are in. More people are interested in sports than how the government is run. That is not what our founding fathers had in mind. Most people cannot begin to tell you the three branches of government because they are so involved in TV, sports and other needless things. Most are greedy as well and will opt to accept a fat retirement program from government than work for it themselves. We are our own worst enemies. We have met the enemy and it is us. That is what Pogo sad and I believe it!

Michelle Anderson
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/03/2003

What on earth business does the Congressional Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform have investigating baseball and/or steroids in the first place?

Is this not an abuse of power?

Islander
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 37 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009

Or the college football playoffs?

Dan Billings
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10/02/2005

We clearly have too many federal prosecutors if they have time to worry about cases like this one.

It is ironic that it is illegal to lie TO Congress but not to lie FROM Congress.

Michelle Anderson
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/03/2003

Dan, if Congress had no business questioning him in the first place, can he still be convicted? (Fruit of the poison tree, etc.)

Dan Billings
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10/02/2005

Yes. Also, given the broad reading the courts give to the commerce clause, Congress can investigate anything. But even if they didn't have the legal right to question him that doesn't give him the right to lie. I also don't think he objected to testifying, so he would have waived any such argument.

He should have just taken the 5th. That's what I'm doing if the FBI comes to visit or Congress wants me to testify. There is no other way to protect yourself.

How can people spend their days prosecuting garbage like this and look themselves in the mirror at the end of the day? We need to fire every other employee of the Justice Department as long as they have time for these kind of cases.

By the way, I am not excusing perjury. But was anyone hurt because Clemons lied? Telling the truth during a court cases matters because courts and jurors make decisions based on what people say. Lying under those circumstances matters and should have consequences (but rarely does). But Congress' investigation of baseball was a political show trial and nothing more. He shouldn't have lied, but making a criminal case out of it is a joke.

Michelle Anderson
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/03/2003

Quote:
But even if they didn't have the legal right to question him that doesn't give him the right to lie.

I am most certainly not advocating that he -- or anyone -- has a "right to lie." The action comes not from the fact that he lied, but that he lied to Congress.

My question is based on the fact that if the police kick in my door because they have it confused with the guy down the street for whom they have a warrant, and they find marijuana plants in my attic, it gets kicked out of court because it's a bad search. They had no right to kick in my door, right?

So if Congress is holding hearings that it is not within their purview to hold, it seems to me that it would be thrown out.

Notes:

A. I don't grow -- or buy, or use -- marijuana. It was just an example.

B. I get your point about Congress misusing the Commerce Clause, and I understand that my point is moot.

Dan Billings
User offline. Last seen 40 weeks 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 10/02/2005

Your analogy is off. A better one would be if you were issue a subpoena to testify and you filed a motion to quash the subpoena that was denied and you then lied under oath. Even if a higher court decided that your motion to quash should have been granted that would not be a defense to a perjury charge.

Also, as far as I know, Clemens did not object to being made to testify before Congress. If he was going to make the argument that you make, he had to make it before testifying.

Michelle Anderson
User offline. Last seen 1 week 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/03/2003

Thanks, Dan. I guess we can all see now why I am not a lawyer. :)

Perhaps we should just be grateful that while Congress is chasing iconic professional athletes, they're not making laws to ensure more poverty.

@Matt_McDonald_
User offline. Last seen 1 year 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 04/03/2007

This is a prime example of why our Nation is messed up.

Congressional Thinking (outside of Ron Paul of course):

Let's focus our witch hunt on a guy who may have taken some drugs to help him play a game better.

Let's NOT focus our attention on our out of control spending, our near dictator level president, a war that we are losing, unemployment or anything else that really matters.

I am looking forward to the day when the Federal government gets what it deserves.

Somewhere Nero is playing his violin and laughing.

Bruce Libby
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 3 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/17/2006

Two things:
1. Congress is involved because they are the ones who have exempted baseball from certain legal things like anti trust laws etc.. Ever notice that baseball sells people sort like slaves but with bigger prices and better conditions but still selling people.

2. Lets' not forget our beloved hero worsship of these over paid sports celebrities that we shower with all sorts of things.

Islander
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 37 min ago. Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009

Clemens must be a cinservative otherwise lying to Congress would be a reason to run for public office.

Henry Clay
User offline. Last seen 5 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 11/01/2004

Clemens Pleads Not Guilty.

angler.k
User offline. Last seen 1 year 11 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/11/2006

You'd have to be stupid to testify before congress and say anything.

We're not safe while this is going on. The congress critters have staffers working behind them while they're getting their "face time" on TV.

Question; has anyone in congress refused to be in this sham?

Jonathan Read
User offline. Last seen 1 year 1 week ago. Offline
Joined: 06/20/2005

I will tell you why MLB gets regulated by the government. There is a reason and it is why it is valid and the fruit of the tree analogy is wrong.

MLB gets a federal anti-trust exemption from the government, by accepting this exemption they have opened themselves up to full regulation.

Paul Barrieau
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 10/02/2006

Jonathan,

Thank you so much for making the distinction that is absolutlety required here. It is MLB (Major League Babseball) not baseball. MLB is a business who conducts its activities through the game of baseball. The game of baseball is an intrinsic part of our american culture. Baseball doesn't need MLB or Clemens or the edicts of congress to exist. And though there will always be money changers at the temple doors and hypocrites at the altar, for me, there will always exist a holy ground within the diamond.

That said, to a certain extent, I am glad that congress takes an interest in the goings on with MLB. I take it as good sign. It feels like we are just trying to protect something that is sooooooo American. Dang, we will always have unemployment, war, poverty a bad economy and politicians that disagree. Always have and always will. No thanks to the media and politicians who just can't get enough publicity.

taxfoe
User offline. Last seen 7 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 03/22/2000

CLEMENS WALKS!

Still more good (in)Justice Department news:

"The National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 of the agency’s nonsupervisory agents, called Monday for the resignation of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for his role in the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent."

Roger Ek
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 1 min ago. Offline
Joined: 11/18/2002

The Clemons indictment was based on a rumor. I'm amazed that it went on for so long.

Bruce Libby
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 3 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/17/2006

I will believe he was guilty when Congress relieves MLB of its' protected status facilitating the last vestige of slavery left in our country!
The only thing new about it is it allows both whites and blacks to be sold , to other teams.

Tom C
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 40 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/03/2006

I don't understand why Congress was getting involved in baseball. Baseball is a game.

Bruce Libby
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 3 min ago. Offline
Joined: 01/17/2006

Tom they exempted MLB from certain laws years ago! That is why.
Of course that was done to protect the "national pass time"which let's face it has become a very big business and created many millionaires et all !
Just how many of the players are heroes now a days ?