Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today *UPDATE -- Found Not Guilty*

[gingerbread]

He's been on the stand for a few hours now. I'm following from afar so don't know the details, but apparently he was asked, under oath, if he was familiar with something called the disabled list. Seriously. (This is according to one of the tweets by the NY Times.)

Also have heard that the jury was told that the Red Sox do indeed play in Boston. Again, seriously.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Juliet Macur has been doing a great job updating on Twitter for those who don't have her on your follow list.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Juliet Macur has been doing a great job updating on Twitter for those who don't have her on your follow list.

any way to see these without a twitter account?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Juliet Macur has been doing a great job updating on Twitter for those who don't have her on your follow list.

any way to see these without a twitter account?

If I'm not mistaken, you can just look up Juliet Macur and Twitter on Google - or whoever you choose - and see their feed. At least it used to be that way.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Juliet Macur has been doing a great job updating on Twitter for those who don't have her on your follow list.

any way to see these without a twitter account?

If I'm not mistaken, you can just look up Juliet Macur and Twitter on Google - or whoever you choose - and see their feed. At least it used to be that way.

Thanks.

 

[Versatile]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

https://twitter.com/JulietMacur

 

[gingerbread]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Of the tweets I've read today, T.J. Quinn's are the most clever and thorough:
http://twitter.com/#!/tjquinnespn

And the NYDN's are equally in-depth:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/iteam/2012/04/roger-clemens-trial-live-coverage-from-washington-tuesday-may-1

 

[gingerbread]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

Too bad that wasn't televised, if only to watch the body language and everyone trying not to say what they've been ordered by the court not to say.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

I had previously thought taking the Barry Bonds case all the way to trial was the most misguided use of government resources in our legal system. I stand corrected.

 

[gingerbread]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

I had previously thought taking the Barry Bonds case all the way to trial was the most misguided use of government resources in our legal system. I stand corrected.

So how do you think the government should respond when it believes a citizen has lied under oath? Ignore it? Or like it has for all time, proceed through legal channels?

Whether the House should have held hearings on PEDs in baseball back in 2008 is debatable, but they happened, and Clemens insisted on testifying, and it's believed he perjured himself ... so what now? Give him a pass just because it costs a bucket full of money to prosecute and we're all sick of PEDs? I've yet to hear a reasonable legal response on what we should do with citizens charged with perjury that doesn't involve a trial.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

I can only assume you agree with the Clinton impeachment, gingerbread.

Regarding this case, there is plenty of discretion to conclude thy this isn't worth a hill of beans as a matter of the public good. Perjury cases aren't all that common.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Re: Andy Petitte testifying at Clemens trial today

I had previously thought taking the Barry Bonds case all the way to trial was the most misguided use of government resources in our legal system. I stand corrected.

So how do you think the government should respond when it believes a citizen has lied under oath? Ignore it? Or like it has for all time, proceed through legal channels?

Whether the House should have held hearings on PEDs in baseball back in 2008 is debatable, but they happened, and Clemens insisted on testifying, and it's believed he perjured himself ... so what now? Give him a pass just because it costs a bucket full of money to prosecute and we're all sick of PEDs? I've yet to hear a reasonable legal response on what we should do with citizens charged with perjury that doesn't involve a trial.

It's the Martha Stewart dilemma.

There are two rules when committing perjury. 1) Don't be famous enough that you can become the high-profile example that makes someone's career, and 2) when someone with the power to prosecute tells you to just tell the truth because they have a ton of evidence that you are lying, don't let hubris get in the way of coming clean.

It's not like they are going to save their reputation by going to trial and winning. If anything, the "lay low" approach guys like Pettitte and Jason Giambi (although they had less to lose in terms of reputation) have taken seems to be what works best.

Everyone would have known Martha Stewart was guilty of insider trading, either way. Everyone knows Clemens used PEDs. So basically he is risking possible jail time, the way she did, in order to avoid having to say what everyone knows anyhow. If his ego didn't trump all logic, he would realize he is not gaining anything and possibly losing a lot.