[smacintush]

This is your government. These are the people you want controlling you, your money, healthcare, the economy etc..

They drag baseball players before congress…CONGRESS…to talk about their involvement in something that has no business even being illegal. Even if it did, congress had NO BUSINESS getting directly involved. They ask questions they had no business asking.

Now, because of their incredible arrogance and stupidity one of these former players is being indicted for lying to congress potentially facing 30 years in prison. (yes, I know he won't get anything close to that)

Amazing.

[The Final Dakar]

Wait, I'm supposed to feel bad for Clemens? Please.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Wait, I'm supposed to feel bad for Clemens? Please.

No, you are supposed to be disgusted that your congress involved themselves with this at all.

[The Final Dakar]

I think my hatred of baseball my be affecting my judgement on this one (Though I do recall wondering at the time how exactly this ended up in front of congress).

Cynically, I feel like there are worse things they could have done. For the people who always pronounce that they're happiest when congress is sitting on their hands, this seems like an ideal situation. They can't be taking bribe's or drafting legislation while grandstanding for the public.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think my hatred of baseball my be affecting my judgement on this one (Though I do recall wondering at the time how exactly this ended up in front of congress).

Cynically, I feel like there are worse things they could have done. For the people who always pronounce that they're happiest when congress is sitting on their hands, this seems like an ideal situation. They can't be taking bribe's or drafting legislation while grandstanding for the public.

The problem is, to me everything about this is a violation of rights and the scope of congress. Not to mention that it cost millions by the time it was all over. Besides, I may not have wanted them "doing" things in congress, but there are plenty of things they could have been "undoing".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Not to mention that it cost millions by the time it was all over.

How is that calculated? I don't understand how trotting a bunch of people in front of a mic can cost "millions."

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Besides, I may not have wanted them "doing" things in congress, but there are plenty of things they could have been "undoing".

I knew it was all a lie.

[Dork.]

I agree with the notion that Congress should have better things to do than hold hearings about Steroids in baseball. But Major League Baseball is unique among the major US Sports in that it has an special exemption from certain anti-trust laws. The exemption was first defined in a 1922 Supreme Court decision, and then part of it was formally made into law in 1998. While singling out baseball for special treatment may be a questionable decision, Congress does have a legitimate excuse in investigating Baseball in the context of whether to revoke or change the exemption.

But no matter how we got to this point, Congress held hearings, and it looks like poor Roger may not have been entirely truthful when he gave testimony. Shouldn't we treat perjury as a serious crime, no matter what the circumstances are? Or are we only going to prosecute perjury for "important" things?

(My opinion is not at all shaped by the fact that I think Roger Clemens is a lying, roid-raging hothead who Piazza should have punched in the face back in 2000.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How is that calculated? I don't understand how trotting a bunch of people in front of a mic can cost "millions."

It was a part of a 20 month, $20 million investigation I believe.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

But no matter how we got to this point, Congress held hearings, and it looks like poor Roger may not have been entirely truthful when he gave testimony. Shouldn't we treat perjury as a serious crime, no matter what the circumstances are? Or are we only going to prosecute perjury for "important" things?

I wonder how many here think that Clemens deserves punishment, but Clinton lying to a grand jury during a sexual harassment investigation was OK.

To answer your question, I have a hard time divorcing the charge from the unjustness of the investigation.

[The Final Dakar]

Oh right, the Mitchell report. I wasn't thinking about that part.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I wonder how many here think that Clemens deserves punishment, but Clinton lying to a grand jury during a sexual harassment was OK.

That's a good question. Last time I checked, using steroids is illegal, getting blowjobs isn't.

And I have no issue with Clinton getting punished for lying about it anyway (And I do think the punishment was a slap on the wrist).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a good question. Last time I checked, using steroids is illegal, getting blowjobs isn't.

It's not just a blowjob, it's an inappropriate affair in an investigation about sexual harassment.

What if this affair turned out to have been coerced or forced by Mr. Clinton and they didn't ask?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

To answer your question, I have a hard time divorcing the charge from the unjustness of the investigation.

Unjust? I don't think I'd go that far. The hearings themselves had a justification, tenuous though it may be. Given that, it would only be unjust if Clemens didn't lie under oath, but he got convicted anyway. And since he's a lying liar, I doubt that's the case.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's not just a blowjob, it's an inappropriate affair in an investigation about sexual harassment.

Inappropriate ≠ illegal. Like I said, I don't condone his perjury.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Inappropriate ≠ illegal. Like I said, I don't condone his perjury.

<sigh>

Why…oh WHY…did I bring up Clinton.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't know, but I fail to see the problem when I'm saying both deserve to be punished for lying, regardless of the validity of the investigation.

[turtle777]

Yeah, this is absolute BS.

Congress should have better things to do.

But it shows that Congress will manage to declare someone guilty of things that weren't illegal by law, and him claiming innocence being constructed as lying under oath.

What happened to the Rule of Law in this country ?

-t

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is your government. These are the people you want controlling you, your money, healthcare, the economy etc..

They drag baseball players before congress…CONGRESS…to talk about their involvement in something that has no business even being illegal. Even if it did, congress had NO BUSINESS getting directly involved. They ask questions they had no business asking.

Now, because of their incredible arrogance and stupidity one of these former players is being indicted for lying to congress potentially facing 30 years in prison. (yes, I know he won't get anything close to that)

Amazing.

The Obama admin and congress has tampered with lots of industries that they shouldn't be screwing with. Ask General Motors etc , Banks, Mortgage industry and the list goes on and on. Baseball isn't gonna have any better luck.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Last time I checked, using steroids is illegal, getting blowjobs isn't.

Lying about it under oath is. Doesn't matter what the subjects or activities were.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Lying about it under oath is. Doesn't matter what the subjects or activities were.

That wasn't the question.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Obama admin and congress has tampered with lots of industries that they shouldn't be screwing with. Ask General Motors etc , Banks, Mortgage industry and the list goes on and on. Baseball isn't gonna have any better luck.

Huh? What does Obama have to do with this?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Obama admin and congress has tampered with lots of industries that they shouldn't be screwing with. Ask General Motors etc , Banks, Mortgage industry and the list goes on and on. Baseball isn't gonna have any better luck.

They haven't done anything much with baseball yet, but it's unlikely. See, trivialities such as professional sports are designed to distract the sheeple and make sure nobody is paying attention while the politicians fornicate everyone blind. Bread and circuses.

So far it seems to be working.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Definitely - can't wait for football season

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Huh? What does Obama have to do with this?

This just happened to be on my itunes now...

Thank god he’s cracking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There’s lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean

[besson3c]

It's a little bit weird how some of you don't want Congress to do anything except sit around and work on their golf game but somehow doing this thing is a bad thing, but aside from that I do agree that this case is pretty unimportant and not worth the attention it will surely garner.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's a little bit weird how some of you don't want Congress to do anything except sit around and work on their golf game but somehow doing this thing is a bad thing, but aside from that I do agree that this case is pretty unimportant and not worth the attention it will surely garner.

Well to be fair, I want them to repeal thousands of laws, abolish most departments, abolish most taxes (maybe all, I still struggle with that one), implement a plan that begins phasing out Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid completely, ban all foreign aid, implement a fair and just open border policy, repeal the Obamacare idiocy, ban all forms of welfare redistribution schemes, repeal all drug prohibitions, abolish eminent domain law completely, across the board massive deregulation, sell or give (as the case may be) the 650 million acres of public land they have been stealing over the years back to anyone who wants to buy…

THEN they can go work on their golf games.

[Shaddim]

WTF is congress doing getting involved in this shit? Just another waste of time and money. Don't they have some important things to do, like a country to **** up and secretaries to nail?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I wonder how many here think that Clemens deserves punishment, but Clinton lying to a grand jury during a sexual harassment investigation was OK.

To answer your question, I have a hard time divorcing the charge from the unjustness of the investigation.

I think Clinton should have been punished to the fullest extent for perjury.

But, let's turn it around ... should millions have been spent on Clinton being investigated for receiving a blow-job from an ugly assistant? Do *you* think Clinton should have been fully punished for lying about receiving a blow-job?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's not just a blowjob, it's an inappropriate affair ..

Is that illegal?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

<sigh>

Why…oh WHY…did I bring up Clinton.

Because it's an excellent related example.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think Clinton should have been punished to the fullest extent for perjury.

But, let's turn it around ... should millions have been spent on Clinton being investigated for receiving a blow-job from an ugly assistant? Do *you* think Clinton should have been fully punished for lying about receiving a blow-job?

No, the blowjob wasn't illegal. No the blowjob by itself wasn't anyone's business. No, Bill Clinton shouldn't be investigated over a blowjob.

Too bad Bill Clinton wasn't being investigated for getting a blowjob. He was being investigated for SEXUAL HARASSMENT, and was questioned about a SEXUAL AFFAIR with an INTERN. Why the HELL is this lost on people? They were discussing an inappropriate sexual affair with a SUBORDINATE during a SEXUAL HARASSMENT investigation. If your boss is accused of sexual harassment and they find out he is having affairs with other of his employees, you don't think that those other affairs are at least potentially criminal as well and relevant to credibility the initial charge?

No, he should not be investigated for having blowjobs or any other affairs. In the CONTEXT (something everyone seems to ignore) of a perfectly appropriate sexual harassment investigation, questions about his relationships with subordinates are perfectly appropriate.

As far as the cost of the investigation, the investigation into charges against a sitting president is a far more appropriate use of the money than the investigation into whether sports figures might have "cheated" by using steroids.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Because it's an excellent related example.

…that derails threads. Oh well, it's my can of worms I guess.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, the blowjob wasn't illegal. No the blowjob by itself wasn't anyone's business. No, Bill Clinton shouldn't be investigated over a blowjob.

Too bad Bill Clinton wasn't being investigated for getting a blowjob. He was being investigated for SEXUAL HARASSMENT, and was questioned about a SEXUAL AFFAIR with an INTERN. Why the HELL is this lost on people? They were discussing an inappropriate sexual affair with a SUBORDINATE during a SEXUAL HARASSMENT investigation. If your boss is accused of sexual harassment and they find out he is having affairs with other of his employees, you don't think that those other affairs are at least potentially criminal as well and relevant to credibility the initial charge?

No, he should not be investigated for having blowjobs or any other affairs. In the CONTEXT (something everyone seems to ignore) of a perfectly appropriate sexual harassment investigation, questions about his relationships with subordinates are perfectly appropriate.

As far as the cost of the investigation, the investigation into charges against a sitting president is a far more appropriate use of the money than the investigation into whether sports figures might have "cheated" by using steroids.

If you can prove harassment, fine, but why should I care about an affair with an intern?

In some work environments this is undesirable because of how it affects the image of the company and the morale of the workplace. If you want to make the argument that this affected the image of the US, fine, but I would say that getting an inappropriate BJ is a drop in the bucket as far as national image goes. I think people care more about our foreign policy and relations with other countries than they do keeping score of the sexual escapades of our politicians.

Why should I care about the fact that the affair took place? I was far more concerned with the lying thing than the affair thing.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you can prove harassment, fine, but why should I care about an affair with an intern?

Because that affair may establish a pattern of behavior in the context of the subject of investigation.

That affair may also have been illegal itself under sexual harassment laws. As it turns out it wasn't, but the potential in the context of what they were investigating absolutely justifies the asking of the question in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Because that affair may establish a pattern of behavior in the context of the subject of investigation.

That affair may also have been illegal itself under sexual harassment laws. As it turns out it wasn't, but the potential in the context of what they were investigating absolutely justifies the asking of the question in the first place.

Meh.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Meh.

So, if one is being investigated for assault, it isn't appropriate to ask him about those other fights that may or may not be consensual MMA matches? Or is that a "meh" analogy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So, if one is being investigated for assault, it isn't appropriate to ask him about those other fights that may or may not be consensual MMA matches? Or is that a "meh" analogy?

Maybe a very confused meh?

[Dork.]

Let's return to the point of the thread, shall we?

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Roger Clemens is an asshat. But is he a perjurer too?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

…that derails threads. Oh well, it's my can of worms I guess.

You're only saying that now that it's working against your argument. Otherwise, it's almost the perfect parallel of the dangers of perjuring ones self when under frivolous investigation.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

He was being investigated for SEXUAL HARASSMENT, and was questioned about a SEXUAL AFFAIR with an INTERN. Why the HELL is this lost on people? They were discussing an inappropriate sexual affair with a SUBORDINATE during a SEXUAL HARASSMENT investigation.

You're wasting your breath. Some people will never get the hypocrisy they're carrying on this. Ever.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You're wasting your breath. Some people will never get the hypocrisy they're carrying on this. Ever.

Hypocrisy? How so? Is there another similar case that is being treated differently?

[OAW]

I'm of the opinion that illegal steroid use in professional baseball wasn't an issue that should have been subject to a Congressional investigation. What's next ... an investigation of World Wrestling Entertainment? I would expect our elected officials to have more pressing issues to attend to.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm of the opinion that illegal steroid use in professional baseball wasn't an issue that should have been subject to a Congressional investigation. What's next ... an investigation of World Wrestling Entertainment? I would expect our elected officials to have more pressing issues to attend to.

OAW

Agreed!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hypocrisy? How so? Is there another similar case that is being treated differently?

Rafael Palmiero lied through his teeth to Congress, too, but was never charged with perjury. He also never played for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

This sounds like a clear case of anti-Yankees and anti-Red Sox bias to me, which I am 100% in favor of.


Wait, what were we talking about again?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Rafael Palmiero lied through his teeth to Congress, too, but was never charged with perjury. He also never played for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

This sounds like a clear case of anti-Yankees and anti-Red Sox bias to me, which I am 100% in favor of.


Wait, what were we talking about again?

How about switching the Mets with the Blue Jays so that the Mets are in the AL East? This way you can enjoy watching them beat the Yankees and Red Sox on a regular basis! Think about all of the exciting Orioles vs. Mets matchups too!

[olePigeon]

I think the Congress should investigate doping in body building competitions.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How about switching the Mets with the Blue Jays so that the Mets are in the AL East? This way you can enjoy watching them beat the Yankees and Red Sox on a regular basis! Think about all of the exciting Orioles vs. Mets matchups too!

If that happened, how could I get my fix of the Nationals?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm of the opinion that illegal steroid use in professional baseball wasn't an issue that should have been subject to a Congressional investigation. What's next ... an investigation of World Wrestling Entertainment? I would expect our elected officials to have more pressing issues to attend to.

OAW

Indeed. However, does that excuse the charge of perjury?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're only saying that now that it's working against your argument. Otherwise, it's almost the perfect parallel of the dangers of perjuring ones self when under frivolous investigation.

Wrong. I haven't seen an argument to refute me yet. All I see is "BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB!" while completely evading the context in which Clinton's questioning took place.

I never made the argument that Clemens or Clinton shouldn't be punished. I brought up Clinton because of the stark contrast with between the particulars of how they were being investigated and peoples opinions of them. I feel for Clemens not because he's being wrongly indicted, but because he should never have been in front of regress congress in the first place.

What a bunch of arrogant, self-important douches. But hey, gotta respect the rule of law.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Wrong. I haven't seen an argument to refute me yet. All I see is "BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB! BLOWJOB!" while completely evading the context in which Clinton's questioning took place.

I never made the argument that Clemens or Clinton shouldn't be punished. I brought up Clinton because of the stark contrast with between the particulars of how they were being investigated and peoples opinions of them. I feel for Clemens not because he's being wrongly indicted, but because he should never have been in front of regress congress in the first place.

What a bunch of arrogant, self-important douches. But hey, gotta respect the rule of law.

Oh, arrogant, self-important douches exist on both sides of the fence.

You brought up Clinton because conservatives always bring up Clinton, just as liberals will bring up Bush for years to come.

The funny thing is, most everybody in here is saying the same thing:
- Congress shouldn't be conducting this investigation.
- Clemens shouldn't have lied while under oath, and should be punished for that.
- Clinton should have been punished more severely when he lied under oath.

The only issues really up for debate are:
- whether Clinton's investigation was as frivolous as Clemens' is.
- are there some technical justifications for a Congressional investigation of steroid use in baseball.