Roger Clemens trial kicking off tomorrow

[Moose Milligan]

Listening to Buster Olney filling in for Mike Greenberg this morning...he was talking about how this trial is starting tomorrow and it has the possibility to be really, really nasty.

Here's hoping. Fry, Roger. Fry.

[waroriole]

I think it's pathetic the way our Justice Department is going after guys who might have used steroids and lied about it. Who gives a crap.

[Moose Milligan]

I think it's pathetic the way our Justice Department is going after guys who might have used steroids and lied about it. Who gives a crap.

That whole pesky perjury thing? You know, lying under oath and everything.

[waroriole]

That whole pesky perjury thing? You know, lying under oath and everything.

I understand that, but how much money is being spent in this case? Is Clemens going to go to jail? Very doubtful. It's nothing but people trying to make a name for themselves.

[Moose Milligan]

I understand that, but how much money is being spent in this case? Is Clemens going to go to jail? Very doubtful. It's nothing but people trying to make a name for themselves.

To answer the first question, I'm not sure. But our government is so prodigious at wasting money, I'd like to at least get a little entertainment value and get to see something that's semi-interesting.

Is he going to jail? Here's hoping.

[Frobby]

I understand that, but how much money is being spent in this case? Is Clemens going to go to jail? Very doubtful. It's nothing but people trying to make a name for themselves.

What makes you think Clemens won't go to jail if he's convicted?

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Clemens faces 15 to 21 months in prison if convicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904125.html

I fully expect Clemens to go to jail if he is convicted.

[waroriole]

What makes you think Clemens won't go to jail if he's convicted?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904125.html

I fully expect Clemens to go to jail if he is convicted.

I think it's very doubtful that he's convicted. That article also say this:

The indictment was returned to U.S. Magistrate Deborah A. Robinson of the District at a brief hearing shortly after 1:30 p.m. It does not offer any proof that Clemens used steroids and has little new information about Clemens and the use of performance-enhancing drugs

I know they're not going to throw out all of their evidence at a preliminary hearing or indictment, but I would be surprised if the prosecution has anything other than McNamee's testimony. Do you think this case would be brought up if it involved someone who wasn't famous?

[Moose Milligan]

Do you think this case would be brought up if it involved someone who wasn't famous?

No. But he's famous. So what's the point?

[Frobby]

I think it's very doubtful that he's convicted. That article also say this:

I know they're not going to throw out all of their evidence at a preliminary hearing or indictment, but I would be surprised if the prosecution has anything other than McNamee's testimony. Do you think this case would be brought up if it involved someone who wasn't famous?

He wouldn't have been testifying before Congress if he weren't famous.

As to whether he will be convicted, the Government gets a conviction in about 95% of the cases it brings. So, without knowing anything about what their evidence will be, I like their chances of getting a conviction here. I have heard commentators say that this is a much easier case than the Bonds case.

[Moose Milligan]

He wouldn't have been testifying before Congress if he weren't famous.

As to whether he will be convicted, the Government gets a conviction in about 95% of the cases it brings. So, without knowing anything about what their evidence will be, I like their chances of getting a conviction here. I have heard commentators say that this is a much easier case than the Bonds case.

This is true. The Government very rarely loses.

[waroriole]

He wouldn't have been testifying before Congress if he weren't famous.

As to whether he will be convicted, the Government gets a conviction in about 95% of the cases it brings. So, without knowing anything about what their evidence will be, I like their chances of getting a conviction here. I have heard commentators say that this is a much easier case than the Bonds case.

I will say that this doesn't appear to be as big of a waste of money as the Bonds case. They are getting to trial quicker.

Also, you don't have to be famous to testify before Congress. I'm sure that non-famous people have lied to Congress before without being prosecuted.

[waroriole]

No. But he's famous. So what's the point?

Seems pretty obvious.

[SammyBirdland]

This country is spending money it doesn't have at a rate of $4.1 billion per DAY! Yet we're still wasting money on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

[Frobby]

Also, you don't have to be famous to testify before Congress. I'm sure that non-famous people have lied to Congress before without being prosecuted.

I have made this point before -- the Government takes very seriously the crime of lying under oath in a federal proceeding. They prosecute these cases so that future witnesses will understand that if they lie under oath, there are going to be serious consequences that will be worse for them than if they tell the truth. Whether or not you get prosecuted has to do with whether the Government feels it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were lying. Rafael Palmeiro is a good example of where the Government did not prosecute a guy because they couldn't prove he wasn't telling the truth, even though there appeared to be a very good chance he was lying when he told Congress that he had never, ever used steroids, just a couple of months before he tested positive for steroids. So if they are going after Clemens, they obviously think they have a very strong case against him.

[waroriole]

I have made this point before -- the Government takes very seriously the crime of lying under oath in a federal proceeding. They prosecute these cases so that future witnesses will understand that if they lie under oath, there are going to be serious consequences that will be worse for them than if they tell the truth. Whether or not you get prosecuted has to do with whether the Government feels it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were lying. Rafael Palmeiro is a good example of where the Government did not prosecute a guy because they couldn't prove he wasn't telling the truth, even though there appeared to be a very good chance he was lying when he told Congress that he had never, ever used steroids, just a couple of months before he tested positive for steroids. So if they are going after Clemens, they obviously think they have a very strong case against him.

I understand the importance of prosecuting a perjury case, I really do. However, what kind of example is the gov't going to set if the two biggest profile perjury cases they pursue (Bonds & Clemens) result in acquittals. Not much of a deterrence to those who are thinking of lying under oath. In fact, it could have the opposite effect, and cause more people to try to get away with it.