Guilty until proven Innocent
 

The problem here is that this man has had his name included in a report that is based solely on hearsay. The people who are giving the information on who was involved in this activity are either granted immunity for their testimony, or also have an axe to grind against their former employers.One point RC made at his News Conference was that it will take years to clear his name with the public. Once labeled, whether you are cleared and exonerated, your reputation is damaged for good. When deciding on who is more credible in this matter, it is a no brainer for me.

If you listened to the phone conversation, at no time does McNamee say he lied, misled or did anyting but tell the truth....and he was not aware that Roger was taping.

Why apologize? He has caused a friend distress. Even when telling the truth, when one see the result has hurt someone close, they often apololgize. They are apologizing for the pain, not for saying what they said.

You are right, he was apologizing and asking Roger what he wanted him to do. He even talked about how grateful he was and how he was treated. And all Roger kept asking him was to tell the truth. In no way did McNamee say you took steroids or implied that he took any steroids. That does not sound like a person that is telling the truth in a conversation about the situation both men are in.

I guess we all can look at it any way we like. But when someone is telling the truth, I tend to not believe people that are apologizing for it. Or at the very least say you told the truth the entire time. He even asked Roger, "Do you want me to go to jail for me?" Why would you ask that if you are telling the truth. That sound like his word is up for sale to me.

Peace

Because they were friends and he regretted hurting his friend (with the thruth). Well, it is as plausible an explanation as the spin Clemens was putting on it. Besides, he (Clemens) broke Texas law by making the recording without someone on McNamee's end knowing the call was being recorded.

And, of course, Clemens knew he was acting for the recording. McNamee thought he was talking to a friend in distress. Clemens knew he was laying a trap. Of course Clemens would say what he said, but McNamee didn't respond in any way that would indicate he was lying, even though he had every reason to believe the conversation was private.

He said he would go to jail for his friend, which to me means he was saying he would be willing to NOW lie, refuting his earlier testimony and giving up his immunity. At least that is an equally plausible way to interpret the conversation.

You are half right.

Saying you are sorry is sometimes just that, not an admission of responsibility. ("I am sorry your dog died." That doesn't mean I killed your dog and I am sorry I did it.)

In the state of Texas, only one of the parties in the conversation need to know about the recording.

OK.

Where was McNamee during the conversation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it when the conversation is between two private citizens, as in this example, that you need just one of the parties' consent; but when the government is involved, (unless acting under a warrant) both parties must consent?

Let me start by saying I don't blame Clemens if he did use steriods, nor do I blame anybody else that used pre-testing or pre-ban. I think we should just move on and forget about it, big names, small names, everybody. It is just as disappointing to me that Clemens may have used as it is Julio Lugo.

This Clemens story gets sketchier everyday. Listening to the phone conversation McNamee seems underconfident. Roger says "I'm trying to figure out why you would say this" and McNamee responds "I understand that".

Why wouldn't he reply "because you did"?

I'm not saying I'm 100% that Clemens is guilty, nor am I 100% that he is innocent. I am sure 100% that it doesn't mean that much to me.

Let's just move on...

Not anymore!

Same rules apply to recordings without a warrant. Police record conversations all the time without the consent of the subject. Only one side needs to consent. If there is a warrant, neither side needs consent or knowlege of the recording.

Doesn't the "beep" you hear when calling the police (for example) constitute a "notice" that the conversation is being recorded?

Usually, but it is not required.

I would love to believe Clemens didn't ever use steroids. But....?

Clemens sure waited a long time to become outraged about the accusations. If it were an innocent person, they would more likely have began vehement protestations immediately upon being accused. It's all way too orchestrated.

When I saw the 60 Minutes story, His eye movement and evasive answers screamed, "liar, liar, pants on fire."

And when given the chance by Wallace to say something to McNamee, he chose to go with something like, "why did you do this after all I did for you," which is like saying "after all I did for you, why did you rat me out." Why didn't Clemens ask McNamee why he was lying about the steroid use? He never challenged McNamee on that, and it seems rather odd to me.

I had heard reports that in order to agree to the 60 Minutes interview, Clemens had to approve in advance all of the questions Mike Wallace was intending to ask. Wallace, BTW, apparently has been a longtime fan of Clemens.