[quote]BobParr wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]BobParr wrote:
[quote]overstand wrote:
I agree that the government never should have been involved in the first place, but he’s being tried for perjury. The integrity of our justice system overshadows the other stuff imo. [/quote]
The “justice system” implies the judicial branch. We’re talking about Congress here. They’re the legislative branch. I don’t see where why they would “try” Clemens in the first place. If Clemens broke the law, he should get a proper trial, not be tried by a bunch of politically-motivated professional windbags who have appointed themselves as judge AND jury.
Besides, I find it hilariously ironic that they would be condemning Clemens for lying to them. This would be like John Gotti condemning kids who shoplift.[/quote]
Clemens isn’t being tried by Congress. He’s being tried by 12 of his “peers”. He was accused of using steroids in a grand jury testimony by McNamee, who went on to levy the same accusations against him in front of Congress. Clemens VOLUNTARILY asked to testify in front of Congress to rebut McNamee and he (allegedly) lied. THAT is the issue here. Steroids have nothing to do with this.
The issue is: should someone be brought to trial for (allegedly) perjuring himself in front of Congress? Is trying that person further justified when the person in question (allegedly) VOLUNTARILY lied to Congress? If we start quibbling over whether steroids should be legal or not we stray from the REAL issue at hand and wander into a territory that we’re all too familiar with. And what happens is that we eventually begin to try to justify lying to Congress based on what those lies are, and this is wrong. It is NEVER okay to voluntarily haul yourself up in front of Congress and start spouting off lies.
What I want to know is why McGwire hasn’t been tried for providing misleading testimony to Congress (a charge that Bonds was found guilty of in his grand jury testimony) and why Rafael Palmeiro hasn’t been tried for perjuring himself in front of Congress.
And for the record, I think we should be drug testing Congress.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.
One of the reasons I’m disgusted by the whole spectacle is because it’s tied into the hysteria over evil 'roidz. If Clemens had been into crack or meth, none of this would have happened. Why, because those drugs are not as bad and dangerous as steroids? Please!
Anyway, I agree - let’s drug test Congress. While we’re at it, let’s give each member an IQ test too.
[/quote]
This most certainly would have happened if meth or crack were involved.
If the IRS had investigated into a “legit” company as part of a federal money laundering case, unwittingly discovered that this huge corporation, which is deeply and irreversibly tied to the fabric of America and is also exempt from anti-trust laws, had dozens of its most high-profile employees using and aiding in the trafficking of said drugs and then Congress subpoenaed several of the people connected to the highly illegal acts of money laundering and drug trafficking/production to testify in front of the very people who have given them the PRIVILEGE of operating without being beholden to the anti-trust laws that literally every other corporation or other such business entity in this country is held to, and then those people LIED during their nationally-televised testimony to Congress, you can bet your bottom dollar that those same people would be prosecuted to the fullest extent for perjuring themselves and obstructing a federal investigation.
THAT is what is happening here with Clemens. This isn’t about steroids at all so stop trying to turn the focus toward that. I understand that some of you on this forum operate best in situations where you feel victimized, but this isn’t one of those situations.