This morning, I received an email from LinkedIn. It began with the question, "HAVE YOU GOOGLED YOURSELF?"
This passed the junk mail test, so it's legit. I figured: before the tabloids get ahold (truly sorry) of this sensational item, it would behoove me to come clean (don't say a word) in an attempt to nip this in the bud. (I'm a recidivist, what do you want from me?)
The answer could be "not for many years", but that would be a copout. (Shoot me, kill me!) I don't want to pull a Weiner on you (Easy, now. A legitimate news reference), so here is the naked (I'm takin' the Fifth) truth.
"Not so far, today. But, it's early yet."
The more important question is "How did they know?" Camcorders in the can? Clark Kent on my case? Who are their sources? Am I surrounded by rats? It was, certainly, a slow investigation, because I began googling when my voice dropped an octave. I outed myself only with the advent of Google.com. And, let's face it, this would never be a litmus test for politicians.
This has been a stressful episode in my life. I've got to get ahold of myself. Perhaps a vacation in Palm Beach?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
THE TEA PARTY SWITCHES TO KOOL-AID AND NOMINATES THELMA AND LOUISE
The "Jonestown Massacre" took place in 1978, when 909 members of the People's Temple committed suicide by drinking a Kool-Aid-like-drink laced with cyanide. Their reasoning was to prevent intelligence organizations from parachuting in, shooting babies and torturing seniors. Of course it sounds crazy. It was crazy.
In the movie "Thelma and Louise" the two smiling heroines drove their car over a cliff, while being pursued by police, in order to escape doomed lives. Bizarre, to say the least? Damned straight.
Which serves as a perfect segue to the Tea Party, which, if believed, and there's no reason not to, is willing to plunge the national, and world economy into a cesspool of quicksand. They are proud of being unreasonable and their monosyllabic language is "no". President Obama has indicated his willingness to just about give away the store by agreeing to spending cuts which would affect Medicare and Social Security, as a means of compromise in order to avoid financial catastrophe.
I do not pretend to be an economics expert, but I do have experience in mediation, wherein the goal is to bring together differing parties. But this requires both parties to compromise, not just one. Thus far, the Tea Party will have none if that. They say absolutely no to closing tax loopholes for the very wealthy and to rescind their one-sided tax breaks ordained by President Bush. Nada, zilch. It's their way or the highway. Hey, what the hell. Most of them are in the highest income brackets, anyway. They're not risking their own life style. They need, however, to be administered an information enema.
They have become unquestioning believers in an ideology. They have accepted a philosophy blindly, without critical examination. Are they really capable of understanding the fallout from a failure to reach a debt ceiling agreement on or before August 2? Do they understand the disastrous effect on Social Security and unemployment? They either don't get it, or they do but don't give a damn. Which is worse?
Interest rates will rise. On credit cards, home mortgages, auto loans, and student loans. New credit will not be available, at all. This mindset is suicidal and completely inconsistent with common sense. Yet the Tea Party is playing no-bluff poker using the middle and lower classes as chips. And the nation watches as if at a golf match with its screwball restrictions on crowd reaction. This is insanity.
For the immediate and most urgent task at hand, it doesn't matter how you'd like to resolve the future budget deficits of America, you just need to raise the debt ceiling, now.
But, of course, this requires the common sense to compromise for the common good, and on one side of the fence, there just ain't none of that. I'm gettin' a wee bit scared. True believers don't want to think of the consequences of discard. They just want to win, and table the ramification discussion for some other time, providing that time will be too late.
The President should stand tall and tough. He's made his fair share of painful compromise. If the Tea Party doesn't reciprocate. he should act unilaterally, utilizing all constitutional powers at his command to raise the debt ceiling in the national interest and spotlight those who didn't even want to throw the dice.
As he, himself, has so aptly said,"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."
In the movie "Thelma and Louise" the two smiling heroines drove their car over a cliff, while being pursued by police, in order to escape doomed lives. Bizarre, to say the least? Damned straight.
Which serves as a perfect segue to the Tea Party, which, if believed, and there's no reason not to, is willing to plunge the national, and world economy into a cesspool of quicksand. They are proud of being unreasonable and their monosyllabic language is "no". President Obama has indicated his willingness to just about give away the store by agreeing to spending cuts which would affect Medicare and Social Security, as a means of compromise in order to avoid financial catastrophe.
I do not pretend to be an economics expert, but I do have experience in mediation, wherein the goal is to bring together differing parties. But this requires both parties to compromise, not just one. Thus far, the Tea Party will have none if that. They say absolutely no to closing tax loopholes for the very wealthy and to rescind their one-sided tax breaks ordained by President Bush. Nada, zilch. It's their way or the highway. Hey, what the hell. Most of them are in the highest income brackets, anyway. They're not risking their own life style. They need, however, to be administered an information enema.
They have become unquestioning believers in an ideology. They have accepted a philosophy blindly, without critical examination. Are they really capable of understanding the fallout from a failure to reach a debt ceiling agreement on or before August 2? Do they understand the disastrous effect on Social Security and unemployment? They either don't get it, or they do but don't give a damn. Which is worse?
Interest rates will rise. On credit cards, home mortgages, auto loans, and student loans. New credit will not be available, at all. This mindset is suicidal and completely inconsistent with common sense. Yet the Tea Party is playing no-bluff poker using the middle and lower classes as chips. And the nation watches as if at a golf match with its screwball restrictions on crowd reaction. This is insanity.
For the immediate and most urgent task at hand, it doesn't matter how you'd like to resolve the future budget deficits of America, you just need to raise the debt ceiling, now.
But, of course, this requires the common sense to compromise for the common good, and on one side of the fence, there just ain't none of that. I'm gettin' a wee bit scared. True believers don't want to think of the consequences of discard. They just want to win, and table the ramification discussion for some other time, providing that time will be too late.
The President should stand tall and tough. He's made his fair share of painful compromise. If the Tea Party doesn't reciprocate. he should act unilaterally, utilizing all constitutional powers at his command to raise the debt ceiling in the national interest and spotlight those who didn't even want to throw the dice.
As he, himself, has so aptly said,"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."
Saturday, July 16, 2011
COURT LITE
The atmosphere in a courtroom is generally regarded as one of solemn decorum, with a strict adherence to rules and custom. When the judge enters, everyone--- lawyers, court personnel and spectators--- take heed not to piss him (or her ) off. If the judge has a mean face, usually indicating the same type of disposition, the tiptoe posture of everyone is extraordinarily high. Whispering with bowed head and lowered eyes is the code of conduct. I didn't dig it.
But, every once in a while, the culture of common life supplants that of common law. I confess that I, deliberately, encouraged a relaxed and judge-friendly environment wherein attorneys could bask in the comfort zone of being treated with respect by the Court. Brings out the best in them and everybody wins.
Once upon a time (heh, heh), I was presiding over a hearing to determine whether there existed probable cause for the issuance of a criminal complaint for assault and battery. The combatants were two gentlemen who worked as cooks at the same restaurant. They had both been born and raised in eastern Europe and, accordingly, spoke with extremely thick accents. The first witness was the alleged victim. I asked him to explain, in detail, what had happened. He related the fight in the restaurant kitchen and his attempt to flee through the double doors, while being chased by his attacker. I set forth his testimony at this juncture of the narrative.
'He wass runnink at me and wass yellink and yellink."
I said,"It is important that I know the exact words used. Now, for the record, sir, what did he say?"
The man hesitated, took a deep breath, and declared, "He yellt "you modderfo----. You koks-----."
The courtroom acoustics were designed to amplify sound, and besides, he was screaming into a microphone.
As a result of my thirteen years on the bench, I can authoritatively tell you that the Court Officers are the bellwethers of courtroom phenomena. If they think something is funny, then, man, it is funny. Their reactions were uniform. Jaws hung open, followed by a rising tide of red, engulfing their faces, as they valiantly struggled to not lose complete control of their bladders. On my part, I was pinching the flesh at my waist in order to draw blood and cause such pain as to gain my full attention.
Fifteen seconds elapsed. Squirts of laughter were erupting all over. Then, my inner core of mischief awoke, and I went with it.
"Sir, to make sure my notes are accurate, would you please repeat what your attacker said?"
My Chief Court Officer (one of my closest friends, to this day) shot me a glance that said, "Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous."
"You modderfo----. You koks------."
An echo ricochetting off the courtroom walls, ultimately engulfed by cascading waves of laughter, as everybody, taking cue from me, really lost it. That legend lives on, perpetuated by those who eyewitnessed it, as a testament to the compatibility of respect and enjoyment in a courtroom.
I wouldn't have it any other way. And I didn't. Because, don't look now, judges are human beings and real life is not checked at the courthouse door.
But, every once in a while, the culture of common life supplants that of common law. I confess that I, deliberately, encouraged a relaxed and judge-friendly environment wherein attorneys could bask in the comfort zone of being treated with respect by the Court. Brings out the best in them and everybody wins.
Once upon a time (heh, heh), I was presiding over a hearing to determine whether there existed probable cause for the issuance of a criminal complaint for assault and battery. The combatants were two gentlemen who worked as cooks at the same restaurant. They had both been born and raised in eastern Europe and, accordingly, spoke with extremely thick accents. The first witness was the alleged victim. I asked him to explain, in detail, what had happened. He related the fight in the restaurant kitchen and his attempt to flee through the double doors, while being chased by his attacker. I set forth his testimony at this juncture of the narrative.
'He wass runnink at me and wass yellink and yellink."
I said,"It is important that I know the exact words used. Now, for the record, sir, what did he say?"
The man hesitated, took a deep breath, and declared, "He yellt "you modderfo----. You koks-----."
The courtroom acoustics were designed to amplify sound, and besides, he was screaming into a microphone.
As a result of my thirteen years on the bench, I can authoritatively tell you that the Court Officers are the bellwethers of courtroom phenomena. If they think something is funny, then, man, it is funny. Their reactions were uniform. Jaws hung open, followed by a rising tide of red, engulfing their faces, as they valiantly struggled to not lose complete control of their bladders. On my part, I was pinching the flesh at my waist in order to draw blood and cause such pain as to gain my full attention.
Fifteen seconds elapsed. Squirts of laughter were erupting all over. Then, my inner core of mischief awoke, and I went with it.
"Sir, to make sure my notes are accurate, would you please repeat what your attacker said?"
My Chief Court Officer (one of my closest friends, to this day) shot me a glance that said, "Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous."
"You modderfo----. You koks------."
An echo ricochetting off the courtroom walls, ultimately engulfed by cascading waves of laughter, as everybody, taking cue from me, really lost it. That legend lives on, perpetuated by those who eyewitnessed it, as a testament to the compatibility of respect and enjoyment in a courtroom.
I wouldn't have it any other way. And I didn't. Because, don't look now, judges are human beings and real life is not checked at the courthouse door.
WHERE DO WE GET SUCH MEN?
I was at the hospital, today, for a routine checkup. No bigee. No digital probe, Hallelujah. Went down to the lobby to get my garage ticket validated and noticed something special. Amidst the people was a serviceman, in combat fatigues, talking to, I presumed, his parents. My immediate reaction was one of awe, respect and pride. Trying to avoid staring, I stopped in my tracks and studied the soldier.
He was in his early twenties, and was standing tall, both in height and stature. Technically off duty but bearing an aura of officialdom. He was "at ease"in posture, but just a little bit. He reflected the business he was in. Speaking in socially correct quiet tones, he, nevertheless, exuded complete confidence. He seemed impervious to fear. If, at that very moment, something calamitous were to happen, you'd want to handcuff your hand to his, thereby maximizing the chance of survival. In truth, he was never "off duty." Self sustaining perpetuity of devotion and allegiance. This flower of our youth "had" me at first sight.
My path to the elevators led me right by him. I noted the perfect fit and crispness of his uniform. As I passed him, I acted instinctively which insured sincerity. Without breaking my gait, I gently touched his shoulder and said,"God bless you." Looking at me ever so briefly, he immediately replied,"Thank you. sir." And my moment was over. I heard a man, directly behind me, utter "Thank you for your service." Another,"Thank you." and the man and I were in the elevator together. The glances we exchanged were smiling acknowledgements of having done something good, the right thing. No conversation was needed.
The soldier is not alone. I dare say that all of his peers are testaments to those committed to fight for our country against radical Islamism. They leave their families to risk death in the cause of protecting our republic. Where do we get such men?
Well, we've got them, and should express our pride whenever an opportunity for us so to do, arises.
The goal is to have as many as possible come home. Not all of them can. Enough must stay to insure the ultimate military goal :
TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT LAND BASE, STRATEGICALLY LOCATED, WITH SUFFICIENT WEAPONRY, TO CLOSELY MONITOR AND, IF NECESSARY. TO OBLITERATE THE TRUE CANCER IN ALL OF THIS: THE MILITARY THREAT OF IRAN.
He was in his early twenties, and was standing tall, both in height and stature. Technically off duty but bearing an aura of officialdom. He was "at ease"in posture, but just a little bit. He reflected the business he was in. Speaking in socially correct quiet tones, he, nevertheless, exuded complete confidence. He seemed impervious to fear. If, at that very moment, something calamitous were to happen, you'd want to handcuff your hand to his, thereby maximizing the chance of survival. In truth, he was never "off duty." Self sustaining perpetuity of devotion and allegiance. This flower of our youth "had" me at first sight.
My path to the elevators led me right by him. I noted the perfect fit and crispness of his uniform. As I passed him, I acted instinctively which insured sincerity. Without breaking my gait, I gently touched his shoulder and said,"God bless you." Looking at me ever so briefly, he immediately replied,"Thank you. sir." And my moment was over. I heard a man, directly behind me, utter "Thank you for your service." Another,"Thank you." and the man and I were in the elevator together. The glances we exchanged were smiling acknowledgements of having done something good, the right thing. No conversation was needed.
The soldier is not alone. I dare say that all of his peers are testaments to those committed to fight for our country against radical Islamism. They leave their families to risk death in the cause of protecting our republic. Where do we get such men?
Well, we've got them, and should express our pride whenever an opportunity for us so to do, arises.
The goal is to have as many as possible come home. Not all of them can. Enough must stay to insure the ultimate military goal :
TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT LAND BASE, STRATEGICALLY LOCATED, WITH SUFFICIENT WEAPONRY, TO CLOSELY MONITOR AND, IF NECESSARY. TO OBLITERATE THE TRUE CANCER IN ALL OF THIS: THE MILITARY THREAT OF IRAN.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
ROGER CLEMENS CASE: MISTRIAL BUT NO RETRIAL
A mistrial was declared today in the Roger Clemens case. The most crucial government witness, in my opinion, was to be former teammate and still friend, Andy Pettitte. He has stated that Clemens admitted to having taken performance enhancing drugs and that he (Pettitte) told his wife of this conversation that same day. The prosecution wanted to call Pettitte's wife to bolster his credibility on this important point. At a pretrial hearing, the judge had ruled Ms. Pettitte's alleged testimony to be inadmissible "because it didn't involve direct knowledge of what Clemens said." In beginning it's case, the government showed the jury a video of the congressional hearing at which Clemens swore that he never took PED. A portion of this video showed a Congressman making specific reference to Ms. Pettitte's allegations and reading her affidavit. The judge immediately halted the trial proceedings and summonsed the attorneys to sidebar. He was pissed. The prosecution had directly contravened his evidentiary ruling. Note: the defense had made no objection when the video was being played. It was the judge who rang the bell. The sidebar conference lasted several minutes during which time the video remained frozen on the screen, in front of the jurors, with a transcript of what was being said on the bottom. The judge opined that Clemens had been denied a fair trial.The defense moved for a mistrial and the judge so declared. He voiced his displeasure at how much time and money had been wasted because of the government's mistake and expressed his uncertainty as to whether a retrial was in order, adding that he would be consulting with a colleague on what to do. A hearing on his decision is scheduled for September 2.
A retrial would not violate the protection against double jeopardy, especially, since the defense requested it. The most influential factor is the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of a second trial. I'm talking, not just about wasted cost and court time, but about the aura surrounding Roger Clemens. He is an American icon. Even at the congressional hearing, the origin of the perjury question, committee members lavished praise on the all-star pitcher and expressed dismay at the waste of time and money occasioned by its own hearing. Jurors, during their selection process, also voiced this concern. The ruling of the judge, himself, acknowledged this factor.
I do not base my prediction on questions of law. Not to disparage them, but to focus on the practicality of the situation. There exists an abundance of pro-Clemens sentiment among citizens and congress. Political temperature should, legally, have no place in a court of law. Real life considerations, however, transcend such boundaries.
The judge shall rule against a retrial. His decision shall be based, in the main, on the impossibility of Clemons ever receiving a fair trial. Such a decision could be overturned on appeal only upon a finding that the judge acted arbitrarily. This would never happen. His ruling would, for practical purposes, be predicated on saying to the government: You had your chance. You blew it. You cost the taxpayers a helluva lot of dough. Enough.
This decision shall rankle some. This is their right. But, in this world, theory often takes a back seat to practicality. It's the way it is. And in some situations, that's the way it should be.
The defense didn't win this battle. The prosecution lost it.
A retrial would not violate the protection against double jeopardy, especially, since the defense requested it. The most influential factor is the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of a second trial. I'm talking, not just about wasted cost and court time, but about the aura surrounding Roger Clemens. He is an American icon. Even at the congressional hearing, the origin of the perjury question, committee members lavished praise on the all-star pitcher and expressed dismay at the waste of time and money occasioned by its own hearing. Jurors, during their selection process, also voiced this concern. The ruling of the judge, himself, acknowledged this factor.
I do not base my prediction on questions of law. Not to disparage them, but to focus on the practicality of the situation. There exists an abundance of pro-Clemens sentiment among citizens and congress. Political temperature should, legally, have no place in a court of law. Real life considerations, however, transcend such boundaries.
The judge shall rule against a retrial. His decision shall be based, in the main, on the impossibility of Clemons ever receiving a fair trial. Such a decision could be overturned on appeal only upon a finding that the judge acted arbitrarily. This would never happen. His ruling would, for practical purposes, be predicated on saying to the government: You had your chance. You blew it. You cost the taxpayers a helluva lot of dough. Enough.
This decision shall rankle some. This is their right. But, in this world, theory often takes a back seat to practicality. It's the way it is. And in some situations, that's the way it should be.
The defense didn't win this battle. The prosecution lost it.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
MOURNING THE LOSS OF COMMON SENSE
A financial Armageddon looms on August 1st. You think the economy is bad right now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Respected news analysts are of common mind. Both parties are playing the game of "chicken". Democrats say no spending cuts which will hurt the middle and lower classes. Republicans champion the cause of no new taxes. I offer my opinion as a non-expert. Just a man rounding the home stretch of life.
Democrats do not seek to raise taxes. Their aim is to negate the tax breaks and loopholes for the high income class, promulgated by President Obama's predecessor. This is not a play on words. This is a distinction not of form but of substance. Republicans demand cuts in spending. Spending on what? Entitlements. Who get entitlements? Middle and poor classes. The wealthier you are, the more opportunities to obviate tax liability. People earning more than $250,000 are still entitled to social security, which, if they lose, won't make a dent. If you are dependent on S.S. to support yourself and your family, a reduction in this "entitlement" could push you over the edge. And remember, you contribute to S.S. in every paycheck, for as long as you work. This is not a loan from the government. It is a well deserved payback.
I assume both parties to be, in the main, composed of honorable men. In the ongoing crucial meetings, their duty is to communicate and negotiate. Negotiation is a synonym for compromise. The Democrats are inclined to do just that re entitlements, but there is no compromise from the GOP. They won't give an inch re upper class entitlements. Why such blind obstinacy when the stakes are so high? Because of the Tea Party.
Granted, the Tea Party are true believers. But their belief has become a religion. No budging. Not an inch. No compromise whatsoever. Look at Speaker John Boehner. He's no rookie in the world of politics. Been around. Yet, he seems very uncomfortable. As if he knows what the situation requires (compromise), but a cop has put a boot on his car. He's locked in. He is politically afraid of bucking the Tea Party. Sure, they represent a GOP minority but next year is a Presidential election and it's risky to alienate even zealots. But at what price? The Tea Party and common sense is oxymoronic.
President Obama has repeatedly proclaimed his willingness to compromise. At the end of each failed meeting, Speaker Boehner sticks to the mantra of "no new taxes". Period. No hint of compromise. But he's torn. Not so, Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Somewhere, somehow, someway, something's gotta give. Inspect my brownies for I think something will.
We didn't elect revolutionaries. As the deadline approaches, common sense shall be resuscitated. Speaker Boehner will yield to the moral compass instilled in him by years of public service. He will not break ranks, he will join them. Extremists will not be happy. But the national interest is paramount.
It'll be a squeaker. But a realization of the consequences of failure will mandate a deal. It's just common sense. Isn't it???
Democrats do not seek to raise taxes. Their aim is to negate the tax breaks and loopholes for the high income class, promulgated by President Obama's predecessor. This is not a play on words. This is a distinction not of form but of substance. Republicans demand cuts in spending. Spending on what? Entitlements. Who get entitlements? Middle and poor classes. The wealthier you are, the more opportunities to obviate tax liability. People earning more than $250,000 are still entitled to social security, which, if they lose, won't make a dent. If you are dependent on S.S. to support yourself and your family, a reduction in this "entitlement" could push you over the edge. And remember, you contribute to S.S. in every paycheck, for as long as you work. This is not a loan from the government. It is a well deserved payback.
I assume both parties to be, in the main, composed of honorable men. In the ongoing crucial meetings, their duty is to communicate and negotiate. Negotiation is a synonym for compromise. The Democrats are inclined to do just that re entitlements, but there is no compromise from the GOP. They won't give an inch re upper class entitlements. Why such blind obstinacy when the stakes are so high? Because of the Tea Party.
Granted, the Tea Party are true believers. But their belief has become a religion. No budging. Not an inch. No compromise whatsoever. Look at Speaker John Boehner. He's no rookie in the world of politics. Been around. Yet, he seems very uncomfortable. As if he knows what the situation requires (compromise), but a cop has put a boot on his car. He's locked in. He is politically afraid of bucking the Tea Party. Sure, they represent a GOP minority but next year is a Presidential election and it's risky to alienate even zealots. But at what price? The Tea Party and common sense is oxymoronic.
President Obama has repeatedly proclaimed his willingness to compromise. At the end of each failed meeting, Speaker Boehner sticks to the mantra of "no new taxes". Period. No hint of compromise. But he's torn. Not so, Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Somewhere, somehow, someway, something's gotta give. Inspect my brownies for I think something will.
We didn't elect revolutionaries. As the deadline approaches, common sense shall be resuscitated. Speaker Boehner will yield to the moral compass instilled in him by years of public service. He will not break ranks, he will join them. Extremists will not be happy. But the national interest is paramount.
It'll be a squeaker. But a realization of the consequences of failure will mandate a deal. It's just common sense. Isn't it???
Monday, July 11, 2011
THE ROGER CLEMENS CASE. "NO MEANS KNOW"
A short, condensed recap:
Clemens is charged with perjury, swearing under oath that he never took performance enhancing drugs (PEF). His former trainer, Brian McNamee, says he personally administered PEF to Clemens. Former teammate, Andy Pettitte claims Clemens admitted taking them. Clemens says he only received B-12 shots from McNamee.
That, dear Readers, is the case summary in a cuckoo-shell. Now, hold on and come for the ride, for this is the skinny. And, remember, you first heard it here.
Perjury means means lying. To lie means to intentionally utter a falsehood. Intentionally means knowing you are uttering a falsehood. Therefore, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that Clemens said something untrue, but that he knew he was saying something false.
McNamee's credibility will be put into serious question. The defense will attempt to show a motive for blackmailing Clemens with fabricated evidence i,e, to recoup heavy financial losses as a result of a rape investigation. (Hard to believe? See the Casey Anthony case.) Witnesses will swear that McNamee's reputation for truth and veracity is so bad that when he was born, the doctor didn't know which end to slap.
The scale-tipper will be the testimony of Andy Pettitte. IF he is not 100% sure that Clemens flat-out admitted taking PED---IF he says that Clemens may have only said that he was given "shots" by McNamee (after all, with the passage of time, the line of demarcation between different versions becomes blurred) then, at the time of his alleged perjury, Clemens may have honestly believed he was telling the truth. He did not knowingly make a false statement and no crime was committed. He said "no PED", believing that he had been injected only with B-12. And, all there need be is a reasonable doubt, in this regard.
Clemens is an American sports legend. A hero to baseball fans everywhere. His autograph will be sought after whenever the judge isn't on the bench.
Not exactly the trappins' for a hangin'.
Clemens is charged with perjury, swearing under oath that he never took performance enhancing drugs (PEF). His former trainer, Brian McNamee, says he personally administered PEF to Clemens. Former teammate, Andy Pettitte claims Clemens admitted taking them. Clemens says he only received B-12 shots from McNamee.
That, dear Readers, is the case summary in a cuckoo-shell. Now, hold on and come for the ride, for this is the skinny. And, remember, you first heard it here.
Perjury means means lying. To lie means to intentionally utter a falsehood. Intentionally means knowing you are uttering a falsehood. Therefore, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that Clemens said something untrue, but that he knew he was saying something false.
McNamee's credibility will be put into serious question. The defense will attempt to show a motive for blackmailing Clemens with fabricated evidence i,e, to recoup heavy financial losses as a result of a rape investigation. (Hard to believe? See the Casey Anthony case.) Witnesses will swear that McNamee's reputation for truth and veracity is so bad that when he was born, the doctor didn't know which end to slap.
The scale-tipper will be the testimony of Andy Pettitte. IF he is not 100% sure that Clemens flat-out admitted taking PED---IF he says that Clemens may have only said that he was given "shots" by McNamee (after all, with the passage of time, the line of demarcation between different versions becomes blurred) then, at the time of his alleged perjury, Clemens may have honestly believed he was telling the truth. He did not knowingly make a false statement and no crime was committed. He said "no PED", believing that he had been injected only with B-12. And, all there need be is a reasonable doubt, in this regard.
Clemens is an American sports legend. A hero to baseball fans everywhere. His autograph will be sought after whenever the judge isn't on the bench.
Not exactly the trappins' for a hangin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)