Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > February > 20 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USClemens spectacle offers many pointers
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The House of Representatives left town last week for its Presidents Day recess without having addressed the matter of amending the law defining how much power the federal government should have to electronically spy on American citizens.
President Bush wants the government to have ever greater powers to surveil citizens. Telecommunications companies want the government to immunize them for disclosing private communications information on their customers to the government even if those requests are unlawful. Hence the president’s public pique at the Congress for failing last week to definitively address this matter.
However, the Congress, or at least the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, apparently concluded there were far more important matters to deal with last week than defining the power of the federal government to surreptitiously surveil the citizenry without limit.
The House, you see, was investigating whether an aging but still outstanding major-league baseball pitcher, Roger Clemens, or one of his former trainers, Brian McNamee, was more believable in determining whether the pitcher had used performance-enhancing substances during the course of his now short-circuited career. The mavens of Capitol Hill had decided that subjecting Clemens to a day of grilling on the issue of steroid use among big-league ballplayers was the most important issue on the national agenda last week. While I and many others disagree with this prioritization, the proceedings actually were rather instructive.
The Clemens-McNamee steroid hearing provided a textbook example for future congressional witnesses of how not to be a congressional witness. Clemens’ appearance, and the lead-up to it, should be required reading for every future potential witness before a congressional oversight committee —- and for every lawyer representing such an individual.
First of all, you rarely, if ever, voluntarily subject yourself to be the punching bag for a congressional oversight committee; especially one headed by one of Washington’s most clever, intelligent and toughest interrogators —- Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Yet Clemens, one of baseball’s greatest pitchers ever (nicknamed “The Rocket” for good reason), volunteered to sit there, under the glare of virtually every major media outlet in the country, and try vainly to trade verbal body blows with one of America’s top inquisitors and his large staff of investigators. Clemens never had a chance; and one wonders why his lawyers ever agreed to let him volunteer for such a mismatch.
If clearing your reputation truly is important to you, then choose a forum where you have at least some degree of control. Testifying before a public committee headed by hostile elected officials who control virtually every aspect of the proceeding is most definitely not such a forum.
Another rule of this course in Congressional Testimony 101: Do not volunteer to be a witness in your own prosecution on a slow news day. For heaven’s sake, don’t go around the Hill hyping your own appearance to guarantee it becomes even more of a spectacle than it might otherwise have been.
Clemens made other mistakes as well, which guaranteed he would emerge from the ordeal in worse shape than before he entered. For one thing, McNamee, Clemens’ accuser and co-witness, was far better trained as a witness than Clemens was. He was, no doubt, prepped by federal agents and congressional investigators, including perhaps those who were among Clemens’ tormentors that day. Whatever problems Clemens might have faced prior to his congressional escapade, his potential problems afterward are more, not less, serious.
His reputation is now not only unsalvaged, but further undermined. And because his volunteered testimony was under oath, he now faces the possibility of a perjury prosecution, depending on how federal investigators —- some of whom were present in the audience listening to and no doubt recording his every word —- interpret his testimony. Finally, since volunteered evidence can be used just as effectively (if not more so) as other evidence in prosecuting a person for criminal offenses, including alleged drug violations, which were the basis for this whole mess in the first place, Clemens may have given prosecutors fresh evidence for substantive charges.
While Clemens might still be able to control masterfully the speed and rotation of a baseball as it traverses the 60 1/2 feet between the pitcher’s mound and home plate, his ability to control a panel of congressional inquisitors interested in hitting a public relations home run of their own at his expense clearly is far more limited.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Dusty
February 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Bob Barr, for showing us how petty and useless is a Congress led by Democrats. Rep. Henry Waxman (D) is nothing but a trophy hunter trying for the spotlight. If he can’t get anything on a Republican, then a professional ball player will do.
As mentioned, there were more important projects to be studied such as parts of homeland defense. But that would not make good photo-ops. The grinning Waxman and the embattled ball player made better publicity than stale legal matters.
Then Barr gives us instructions on how to stay out of the lions’ den. But Democrats have shown us only too well why we should stay out of the Congressional jungle. The hunted victims are Republicans, particularly George W. Bush. Ball players are a sideline. The goal of the hunt is to get the big Republican.
The time has come to elect statesmen, not feed the futile Democrats.
By Bosch
February 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Yes, Dusty, Bob Barr knows all to well about hunting the big prize. He was ruthless in his attempt to bring down Clinton. Funny how tables turn. In my opinion, it’s what cost him his job as Congressman - his district got tired of his constant badgering of the President and not doing anything for the district.
I’m glad Barr is bringing this issue of illegal wire-tapping to light. No one can say that Democrats or anyone else doesn’t care about homeland security - they still have the power to collect surveillance on suspected terrorists, now Bush & Co. are just going to have to do it legally - shocking, yes, I know.
By Dusty
February 20, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Bosch, I believe we are talking about the uselessness of Congress as led by Democrats. That’s today’s topic. But, since you mentioned Clinton, I see that you show approval of his perjury and dislike for his impeachment. But then he is a liberal and so are you.
Oh sure, the Democrats care about homeland security. We are now back with PRE 9/11 security measures. So eventually and after approval, we check on calls from overseas terrorists to the USA. Great! That’s like calling 911 and they come 24 hours later after they check things out.
Go ahead and sell out the country and the President for a phone call. That’s your priority, not mine.
By Bosch
February 20, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
So full of p** and vinegar this morning I see.
I think the topic is about how Congress decided to continue on with the steroid allegations in baseball and recessed before the issue of “amending the law defining how much power the federal government should have to electronically spy on American citizens.”
Why can’t you be consistent about breaking the law? No one is above the law, Nixon showed us that. An American citizen, regardless of who they are can not break the law for their own convenience. Bill Clinton broke the law and so did Bush.
If the law needs to be updated, that’s another issue, but there is a little thing in our Constitution called checks and balances, which is pretty important to insure democracy stays intact. Do you not like the Constitution Dusty? It’s not like the Bible, you can’t pick and choose whichever verses you like and discount the ones you don’t to shape and form your opinion.
Spin it how you want and be afraid all you want Dusty, but throwing out democracy for convenience, is a bigger threat to our society than a terrorist attack.
By Dusty
February 20, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Bosch,@9:49
I won’t say what I think you are filled with. That’s your type of greeting.
I am all for the Constitution and so is Bush. Please tell me what laws he has broken and what indictments have been placed against him? Oh, none? Only those by Bosch? How about that.
I am not cringing about checking terrorist phone calls like you anti-war zealots. It is fine to act noble when you won’t even fight. I don’t wait until someone is knocking down my door and then get security. Even the Constitution wouldn’t protect me then.
By Copyleft
February 20, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Dusty shares Bush’s belief that the Constitution is ‘just a d*-ed piece of paper.”
A President can ignore the law as he sees fit, as long as he promises it’s for National Security. (And as long as he’s a Republican, of course.) That’s the Safe America that Dusty dreams of.
Too bad our founding fathers, and the REAL Americans among us, had something a little different in mind.
By Bosch
February 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Sorry Dusty, where are my manners? Are you tired of being harrassed at Wooten’s blog? I should give you some solitude from the constant badgering over there shouldn’t I?
How sad it must be to be scared all the time. Do you wait at the door every night with a shotgun just waiting for someone to knock it down?
What laws Bush has broken? He approved to have American citizens illegally wire-tapped. A simple matter of whether or not he’s been indicted doesn’t mean he didn’t break the law. Don’t you know that?
Scooter Libby broke the law, he’s not in jail either is he? Hmmmm….being the President and abusing his power, very similar to what Clinton did, shameful, very shameful.
By Dusty
February 20, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Dear Bosch,10:19
I post where I want to post. That’s why I am here. Did you want a bully blog for yourself?
Liberals love to express themselves with insults. Anyone who doesn’t think like them is verboten (good German word you should like, Bosch.). Therefore I ignore the frailities and mental instability expressed as insults. Liberals can’t help it.
The President has done nothing illegal. Sorry,Bosch. You are wrong as usual. And repeating it does not make it true.
Anything else you want to tell us besides the usual Bush conspiracy, the anti-war schisms, the legalities as presented by a non-legal? Go for it. I have to leave but keep it up. Get it out of your system. All those negatives are not good for your health.
By Bosch
February 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
How would our world be today if Israel or England retaliated to terrorist attacks on the same scale as we have?
9/11 was tragic, but Bush acted before thinking, as usual, creating a much bigger mess on a global scale, and an even bigger mess here in our own country.
Did I say you COULDN’T post on other blogs? Please, spread your opinions around Dusty to as many avenues as you want, please keep it up. Your “I hate all things liberal and anyone who disagrees with our president is enabling the terrorist” speech is only helping to ensure your kind’s extinction on a much quicker pace.
Oh, that was just one law Bush has broken. What about illegally detaining people? Writ of habeas corpus mean anything to ya’ Dusty? The president has done many wrong things, illegal and not, and your constant denial just won’t change any of that.
Sad Dusty, you think if anyone challenges your comments or thoughts, they are bullying you. Poor Dusty.
By Myers
February 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Dusty:It’s called the fourth amendment. I’ll ask you again: if the lapse of PAA puts us in peril, why did Bush say he would veto a 21 day extension? Why hasn’t Homeland Security raised the threat level? Just for the record, the Republicans were well represented in the made for TV sanctimonious (self inflicted)grilling of Clemens.
As for Barr’s post. Just some more shiny object B.S. I thought a “libertarian” Republican would defend Clemens right to parade his stupidity for the benefit of the drooling masses. Bob is right, that this is far from important in the scheme of things but then he spends the rest of his space, talking about Clemens and is thus engaging the very practice he is criticizing. No mention on how the “rule of law” Republican walk out on the PAA was really about them avoiding voting on the resolution holding White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress. There is the real lesson Bob. Why volunteer to testify if you don’t have to when subpoenaed.
How Long Did Republican Outrage Last? “Moments before the scheduled contempt vote on Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers, House Minority Leader John Boehner stood and angrily declared that:
We will not stand for this and we will not stay for this. I would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we should be here protecting the American people to not vote on this bill. Let’s just get up and leave.
And with that, House Republicans walked out and protected the American people by holding a press conference.
So, how long did their outrage last? Long enough to miss the vote to uphold the Constitution, but not so long that they missed the next vote that recognized the achievements of African American scientists, engineers and mathematicians. Certainly a worthwhile vote, but it’s unclear how it helped protect America. ” http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/14/144133/691/835/456809
By GodHatesTrash
February 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Link to this
Roger is one dumbass Texas redneck.
It didn’t take Waxman to prove that.
By Myers
February 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Hate to pick nits but the rocket is from Dayton, Ohio. He, like our Blue Blooded Prez. just enjoy playing ,tough Texans, on TV. All hat no cattle. Don’t disagree with the dumb red neck thing, though. No shortage of dumb red necks outside the south: just saying.