After a nineteen month investigation, a federal grand jury has indicted Roger Clemens for lying under oath to Congress when he denied
taking performance-enhancing drugs. The charges Clemens faces are: one count of obstruction of Congress; three counts of making false statements, and two
counts of perjury. The indictment — which can be read here — cites 15 distinct instances of
Clemens obstructing Congress.
The charges arise out of Clemens’ February 13, 2008 hearing before a
Congressional committee during which he swore under oath that he did not
take performance-enhancing drugs and did not discuss
performance-enhancing drugs with his former trainer Brian McNamee, Andy
Pettitte and others.
Following Clemens’ testimony, Congress asked the Department of Justice to investigate Clemens’ statements, saying in a letter to the Attorney General
“that significant questions have been raised about Mr. Clemens’s
truthfulness.” Among those questions were, according to the Committee,
“seven sets of assertions made by Mr. Clemens in
his testimony that appear to be contradicted by other evidence before
the committee or implausible.” Specifically:
- Clemens’
testimony that he had never taken performance-enhancing drugs;
- His statement that McNamee
injected him with the painkiller lidocaine;
- His statement that team trainers gave him
pain injections;
- His statement that he received many vitamin B-12 injections;
- His statement that he
never discussed HGH with Brian McNamee;
- His statement that he was not at then-teammate Jose Canseco’s home during a party which took place in early June 1998; and
- His statement that he was never told about George Mitchell’s
request to speak to him prior to the release of the Mitchell Report.
In its referral to the DOJ, Congress also made reference to “additional
evidence on these matters,” which presumably meant needles,
blood-stained gauze and other items McNamee turned over to
federal prosecutors in January 2008, and which he claims were evidence
of his injecting Clemens with PEDs.
All of these assertions, as well as the needle and gauze evidence, has
been subject to scrutiny by the grand jury which convened in early
2009. DNA testing has been performed. Multiple witnesses including
McNamee, Andy Pettitte and Jose Canseco have testified. It is suspected
that many others have as well, including former major league pitcher
Jason Grimsley, former gym owner Kelly Blair and former New York Mets
clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski. And now, after months of collecting evidence, the grand jury has issued
an indictment.
As I have written previously and will continue to note as the
case proceeds towards trial, an accusation does not necessarily make a
conviction likely, especially in a perjury case, especially in this
perjury case. Many of Clemens’ statements are exceedingly difficult to
square with known facts and common sense. At the same time, many of the
witnesses against Clemens already face credibility issues, Brian
McNamee chief among them. Even if you believe, as I am inclined to,
that Clemens was not truthful during his Congressional testimony,
convicting him of perjury will be no easy feat.
But that is what trials are for and a trial in this case, if one ever
occurs, will not take place for a very, very long time. In the meantime,
Roger Clemens has a date with federal agents, a finger print ink
pad and a mug shot photographer. Because he is about to be criminally
charged
-
- walk - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM
-
The crappy part of our justice system is that the prosecutor can indict to his hearts content. If a grand jury fails to indict a person he wishes to see indicted he dismisses them and repeats the process until he gets the desired result. Bonds got railroaded on a number of grand juries, i would honestly like to know the number that failed to indict in that case. It only takes once to indict, failure to indict means nothing.
-
- keabu - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM
-
Guilty or not (I could care less) considering the many players that have taken steroids and lied about it, this seems like a witch hunt to me.
-
- Patrian - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM
-
How about a few more wall street indictments first… maybe Bernake… or… heck I think a few memebers of Congress are in line.
-
- Patrian - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:54 PM
-
How about a few more Wall Street Indictments first… maybe Bernake or Hank Paulson.
As ususal the FEDS have their prioorites mixed up.
-
- David - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:59 PM
-
Couldn’t these resources be spent better elsewhere? An retired athlete did or did not take drugs that helped him perform better 10 years ago. Is there a threat to the American people going forward?
-
- Teedoff - Aug 19, 2010 at 1:59 PM
-
Just wandering, if the feds can indict regular people for lying under oath, then can ordinary people indict our representatives of both parties for lying to the citizens of this country. With the problems we are having in this country today you would think congress would have more important things to do ( like securing our borders to keep all the lawbreakers out of our country).
-
- frank pepe - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM
-
craig, be proud you waited for confirmation
-
- RichardInBigD - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:05 PM
-
Craig, being a lawyer, albeit currently dormant, you probably know the answer to this question: What percentage of Federal inctments result in a conviction? I seem to recall from discussion during the Michael Vick phase of athlete’s comeuppance that the number was upwards of 90. Could that be correct? I recall comments being made about the Feds not wasting time beyond the Grand Jury. If a conviction is not a near certainty, they don’t want a hollow indictment that will tarnish their near-perfect record…
-
- Craig Calcaterra - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 PM
-
Roughly 90% of federal indictments result in convictions. Lower in perjury cases. Much lower in cases where the defendant is rich and has high powered lawyers.
That’s not social commentary, that’s just the way our system operates (but it sucks all the same).
Fact is, most of that prosecution rate is gained against poor defendants with public defenders or pro bono counsel on pissant drug cases.
-
- David - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:16 PM
-
I disagree with the writer in one KEY respect: I believe that this case – both legally and morally – is probably the easiest, most cut-and-dry perjury trial in the history of U.S. jurisprudence.
I believe that, in our popular culture, there is far too little appreciation for the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” (and in the courts, too). So, that makes it incredibly bizarre that when there finally IS a case, like the one against Clemens, that’s a no-brainer and doesn’t sincerely warrant a deference to the accused….people make comments like the one that Mr. Calcaterra wrote: “Many of Clemens’ statements are exceedingly difficult to square with known facts and common sense.”
No they’re not. Not at all!
The evidence that Clemens lied – circumstantial, forensic, and eyewitness – is so overwhelming and all of it is so solid that it’s flabbergasting that this case took two and a half years to get an indictment. (I have a few theories about why it took so long, but, of course, that would be absolute speculation.)
In absolute and direct contrast to the fact that Roger Clemens committed a federal felony on national TV, there is the “case” against Barry Bonds. Now, if there was ever an instance where a perjury case was a “witchhunt” (again, both morally and legally) it’s the RIDICULOUS case against Bonds, not this airtight case against Clemens.
Whereas Bonds’s statements (to a grand jury about a matter irrelevant to the proceedings) could NOT be interpreted as perjury for about a dozen reasons (by the way, this is not including the truly awesome sacrifice and defense of dignity by Greg Anderson), he was indicted, publicly humiliated, and (based upon what I’ve read) rapidly vilified by “fans” (who were completely ignorant of the facts, anyway).
So here’s the bottom line: If ANYBODY dares to stand up for flagrant perjurer Clemens, they absolutely MUST stand up for the innocent and persecuted Barry Bonds or else they’re abject hypocrites and forfeit any intellectual regard. For somebody to stand up for Clemens legal defense (yes, I know that he’s white, speaks with a Southern drawl, and “supports the troops”) but to impugn Bonds’s (yes, I know he’s black and has an attitude) is essentially the equivalent of somebody saying that they’re never going to drive an SUV because it’s bad for the environment but they will fly a Gulfstream jet everyday.
Bonds is very possibly innocent of his meaningless offense and it’s impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Clemens is guilty as hell of his very serious offense and it’s easy as hell to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
- Holiday Cheer - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM
-
That’s where more people would like to see these resources used. The Banksters need the scrutiny.
-
- GrumpyG8r - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:20 PM
-
Most of the “convictions” they get are plea bargains from poorer defendants… If prosecutors actually had to go to court with these cases, their conviction rate would be no where near 90%.
But regardless of that, how can the Congress of the United States even consider charging someone for lying to them? They must have balls the size of Jupiter. Too bad we can’t indict Congress of lying to the citizens of the United States.
-
- dumb old vietnam vet - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:22 PM
-
this is a new low for the feds with all the problems going on right now ,I would like to challenge 95% of all congress & senate members on this witch hunt,like they never have lied along with 1/4 the players that say they never used any kind either
-
- BobbyMc - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM
-
He held it for confirmation? How long? He needs an editor…since this is included
“As I have wrote previously…..
I have wrote?
-
- alwidgets - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM
-
How about a couple more indictments. George Bush and Dick Chaney for war crimes and crimes against humainty.
-
- rocketman - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:30 PM
-
While I do not agree with using steroids to make you better, I have a hard time understanding why Roger Clemens cannot lie like the rest and get away with it. How ’bout our former President Clinton? “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”! Let’s indict him while we’re at it! In fact, there are many congressmen and women that have lied under oath which is a far worse crime than steroid use and cheating in baseball. God help us!
It’s quite obvious that our laws are only for some folks to follow and the chosen ones get to go free! Jail ‘em all or jail for none!
-
- alwidgets - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM
-
How about a couple more indictments. George Bush and Dick Chaney for WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINSt HUMANITY>
-
- saftgek1149 - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM
-
Excellent News! I am thrilled there will be an indictment for Roger Clemens. Now, if the corruption of the Commissioner’s office would disappear and a new Commissioner would be placed (one who wouldn’t allow team owners and the players’ union to buy him), some real progress could be made.
It’s simple, really – any player failing a drug test (which should be random and very frequent) is automatically expelled from the game, and any trace of their existence erased. That’s right – no residual records, as though they’d never been born!
Athletes who use any banned substances are beyond low-life. They are the pus on the festering boils of the lowest bottom-feeder.
-
- rocketman - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM
-
Just remember when you talk about the war in Iraq, there is a big ole list of democrats that agreed to attack too. It wasn’t just Bush/Cheney so get the facts straight!
-
- Chris Fiorentino - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM
-
Let’s dig up FDR and Harry Truman and indict them while we are at it…err, oh wait, they were Democrats. Forget that.
-
- Florida727 - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM
-
How about an indictment against you for moronic stupidity?
-
- mattjg - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM
-
Craig, let’s say instead of Roger Clemens, this was Joe Minor Leaguer or even someone unconnected to baseball testifying about a subject no one cared much about. What are the chances that person would be indicted? Putting the merits of the case aside, is Clemens being singled out so prosecutors can send a message, or would anyone suspected of lying to Congress under oath be facing perjury charges?
-
- Craig Calcaterra - Aug 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM
-
Hard to say, Matt. A Joe Minor Leaguer never would have been called before a Congressional committee. This was a big spectacle on national television, on the heels of Clemens’ own media/PR assault. It’s rather unique.
My guess is that, in a normal deposition or a trial or something, Joe Minor leaguer would not be indicted. But that’s just not what we had here.
-
- fthomascain - Aug 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM
-
Yea lets spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting Clemens and Bonds while Nancy Pelosi sells Treasure Island in SF BAY worth at leat a billion dollars to her developer freinds for 105 million facillitated by her son and nephew and husbands deveoper cronies. No unethical or conflict of interest there. The corrupt ruling elite of 545 break and bend our laws everyday and nothing happens , yet we must presecute and prosecute sports stars that gave the fans exactly what they wanted!
-
- mattjg - Aug 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM
-
I too am shocked and appalled that professional athletes would use substances that may or may not cause long term harm in order to extend/improve their careers or help their teams win. My only problem is that your proposal doesn’t go far enough. Tests can be evaded. I say if we suspect a player of using performance enhancing drugs (including caffeine, of course) we form a lynch mob and string that player up. I’m sick of guys like Mark McGwire tainting the purity of baseball established by the players of yore like St. Mickey Mantle and the always gracious Ty Cobb.
