If I were his lawyer, I would be beating him with a fungo bat. Then I would quit and give him my bill.
Essentially what he's done is totally throw any case he's got straight into the crapper and cut off his attorney's hands in the process. As for his defamation case, it seems like little more than posturing as he is a public figure and, under
The NY Times vs. Sullivan, his chances of winning that are minor anyway. Also, him bitching that to file a lawsuit would be a waste of money is laughable coming from a big leaguer, particularly one paid not as a benchwarmer but as a star, and for several years. Roger can well afford a lawyer and complaining about the cost just makes him look chintzy.
The third ear/tendons turn to dust statements are absurd and make him look like an idiot at best and a liar at worst and, most likely, like a bit of both. What he does not get is that Mitchell did not gather information in a vacuum. Mitchell was looking for as good a stack of evidence as he could get.
Whenever you're dealing with unsubstantiated statements, consider the following; what is the purpose if a person is lying? And what's in it for them if they tell the truth?
For McNamee (do I have the name right?), it is in his best interests to tell the truth (or at least the facts to the best of his knowledge) as he was under a plea agreement already, with the condition that he name names. He had named plenty of names by the time Clemens came up. Adding Clemens, if there was a mistake of fact or no way to substantiate, was not in McNamee's best interests as he would have gone to jail if his naming names turned out to be perjury. Tossing Clemens onto the pile, unless there was ample reason to do so, would have been the acme of foolishness for McNamee. The man (M.) is not going to act against his own personal best interests. His statements are self-serving by definition, but there are cancelled checks, receipts and phone records (albeit not specifically in the Clemens matter) and those really add to the reliability of his statements.
For Pettitte, it is also in his best interests to tell the truth, to come clean about the two specified incidents and move on. Pettitte, I suspect, would like to play again, and so this is the best and easiest way to accomplish that. It's also not in Pettitte's best interest, if he is innocent, to lie and claim he was guilty. Who would he be protecting? McNamee? He has neither cause nor history to do so. I see Pettitte's statements as being a bit self-serving but essentially reliable.
For Clemens, though, it is in his best interests to deny everything, and it is in his best interests even to perjure himself (assuming it got that far, and assuming he really was not telling the truth) in order to save his reputation and future Hall induction. It would not be in his best interests to come clean as that would potentially put him right into a Pete Rose situation, e. g. Hall-worthy but left out. Since Clemens should deny whether that's the truth or not (and, as we saw, every single one of his statements was self-serving), the question is about picking through the tangle and try to get at some truth.
1) He claims he knew nothing about what was going on with Pettitte. Pettitte, his buddy in both Texas and NY. I doubt that Clemens was totally in the dark. Score one for possible lying, although this isn't a big one.
2) Other McNamee statements have been corroborated, including Pettitte's admission. Pettitte would not have wanted to hurt his buddy by backing him into a corner. Of course Pettitte will do what is best for Pettitte (which includes confessing) but he does shore up McNamee, who is saying things in polar opposite to what Clemens is saying. Score another for possible lying, and this one is a lot bigger.
3) While there has been some speculation about Mitchell being biased, the report actually reads as very even-handed. It also points out the shortcomings of the investigation, e. g. no subpoena power (which will be rectified in the Congressional hearings). Hence if Mitchell had had subpoena power and if he could have threatened players with perjury and/or obstruction of justice, the report would be at least twice as long and Clemens would be in even more of a corner. Possible score for lying.
4) If Clemens is innocent as he says, he has made himself extremely unlikable with that interview. It was not in his best interests to go out there and act like such a jerk and look so shifty. Does that mean that it's really the truth and he's just inept? Then he should fire his legal team, too, as no one told him anything about damage control. Don't know how to score this one.
