Michael McCann, SI

We all watched riveted yesterday or listened on the radio I hope by yesterday. For the testimony before the congressional hearing I've read well numerous accounts of what happened yesterday they -- live blogs while it was happening columns and articles written afterwards one of which is on SI dot com. It was written by Michael McCann Michael is Theo law professor at Mississippi College School of Law. And chair of the association of American law schools section on sports on the law. And he has said the legal expert for Sports Illustrated he joins us on the line Michael dale and Michael here how are. Area very well thank you thanks for taking a few minutes to join us. Sure and I I was curious when I read your piece yesterday if you were talking. From a position of if this were -- court of law or or if you were talking about what happened yesterday in terms of impressions while you watched it.

It would or at the legal matter of fact I think there's a distinction between whether we believe Clemens was telling truth. And there are certainly many reasons to have grave doubts about that. -- whether congress can actually establish that it was not -- pitcher that was more the -- more prone without looking at.

Okay what thanks to clear that up let me ask you that take the court of law out of it in let's. Caller for what it was it was a court of public opinion what were your impressions just as a watching it watched him as a fan.

I've -- and -- better than I expected him to do. I thought he would be more visibly anxious certainly at the stressful moment for anyone be testifying before congress and Clement in the past as we know at and I was excelled on the pressure at least -- baseball field. I thought he was fairly well reserve I thought he was poised. For the most part he was deferential he took note he did at announced that we eruption at the end of the hearing one congressman Waxman was in his closing comment. Well all right but his demeanor was. Pick I would like occasion but I thought it was better than what I expected output thought my other major -- was. How much the members of congress disbelief. Right act and whether or not that means that anything Mitchell report was untrue no -- about that it was notable that. Congressman Christopher Shays that. It hasn't got a document that's going to put someone to jail. That there are many questions about it. So anybody Circuit Court opinions will pray and believe -- I think all the holes in the suggests. Eighty to 90% of people don't believe Clement I would -- You know what percent of people going into that thought that I'm not a popular -- rebels who reasons and I and I suspect it may take me all the look at.

Well you know Michael I thought it was 6040 against Clemens going in just roughly that's just my guess and the reason. The polls are against them is because evidence is is overwhelming it would be a long shot it would almost be a miracle that. Chuck Knoblauch says the Mitchell report is accurate and Brian and Brian McNamee told the truth than Andy -- told the truth. And no player has stepped up instead of this is still wrong I don't belong in it including Brian Roberts. You Roger Clemens says it's all untrue and I think that's why the polls are against.

Yes -- mentioned that in the piece toward the end let's say at the end of the day I -- At the very -- time explaining the fact that of 89 player's name. He's the only one but are -- speaking out against it. And the fact that two players for operate factories -- those are terribly damning pieces of evidence compartment. And of themselves I'm not sure that the not to show that he committed perjury yesterday I think in the absence of physical evidence. It's going to be very difficult to establish. Whether or not one person's -- truth and and another isn't and ultimately at the crime of perjury rules require beyond reasonable doubt. And I think there would be enough reasonable doubt baseball we saw yesterday a -- Again it's not about feeling on balance its own interest alive its -- whether or not that very I legal threshold could ultimately be satisfied.

As a legal expert Michael in your opinion based on what you heard yesterday. Is that the is there the potential there for witness tampering charges.

Sure I I think the idea that. Clemens may have coached in Manny is certainly troubling at the very least it was an appropriate by his attorney to. Try to eight. Responding to members of congress. And have Clement meet individually with -- I've been -- an appropriate that -- frankly we look at it legal team I've had reservations about the before. Rusty Hardin facilitating the taping of the phone call back to me. Not illegal but there are rules of -- that -- that would -- and here facilitating the you know own all a party who -- your client that they're currently strike you as an appropriate perhaps more than.

You mentioned in your piece in our sports analogy is Tom davis' post halftime grilling of of -- club Mac -- about the party and all that stuff even if I think the parties totally overblown I thought that much of that was offset and you didn't write about this by Waxman's. Revelations about the nanny and what happened and and you didn't seem to think I guess that that carried as much weight.

I need to carry weight and I think that. At the end of the day like much of the evidence presented yesterday there's ambiguity as to who's telling truth. And in a way that equipment and the it would -- for the last certain neither is as to what being presented the war on clarity. The lack of remembering the fact that many of these events happened year's ago. Well make it even harder for the what impact like congress.

You know I play you also wrote your peace and you you have a list of observations and and number five is. -- a point that I agree with Clemens appears to have benefited. From his private congressional meetings last week a lot of those guys Tom Davis stands out Dan -- of course stands out Christopher Shays those guys seem to take it personally. That Roger Clemens is being attacked or even being challenged by Brian McNamee do you feel that that's appropriate that that. It could -- at a congressional hearing that supposed to be objective one guy was able to make the rounds before the actual hearings took place.

I don't think it's appropriate and I've written about that it had previously thought. The fact is that if they're going to opera. Offer him an opportunity to meet individually now that the courtesy that should be extended to everyone else is going to testify. And a lack of doing that suggests that there is the defects in the procedure. I agree I am I'm troubled by that I think it's clear that those meetings for the benefit. The fact is it that you noted Michael but the Republican members of the committee. Even very defensive requirements that could be because I'm -- that was found and yet really well maybe meeting lot better with them than it did with the numbers the Democratic Party and a committee or maybe it's that the Republican members of that committee -- Is he formally before -- and they came to the conclusion that they need to do to defect on the -- perhaps the democratic members but --

You know or if it's fun as thought it's what does it say for Clemens that he met with these guys before hand. Develop a somewhat of a relationship with a couple of the guys apparently. And the public still thinks he's he's a despicable figure it in the and 85% of the polls are against the.

Yeah I mean it it -- it if you appear to work with those members with the general public. It performance yesterday at an early -- in the fact that I think -- he thought it would. But at the end you know. He may walk away with -- without any legal trouble you will the Baseball Hall of Fame induct them separate question well people always considered him to be a cheater separate question. I think those matters where he is on much less certain ground. Well legally I don't think I've not yet didn't get in there to say. You know that the guy you have to be charged with perjury and whether the matter get referred it to the -- department. Remains to be seen but it didn't say that that there was no won't support -- doing just.

I I by all accounts both sides of the -- one thing they seem to be able to agree on yesterday it was that Andy -- was a credible witness. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on that. I stated I think Henry Waxman made a mistake by not having him there what do you think.

Yet again hindsight it was a mistake scale because if he had been there Clement account. That edit mystery call the -- remember what happened whatever beat present at the moment where -- it is that no way to pack Roger I did remember that. But we didn't help that instead we had Clement again adding insecurity the fact in the way that benefits and we believe he could that we'll look and it and it is good guy. I agree. Congressman -- But he simply a recollection problem on the matter the fact that he went on to say if if Pettitte and indeed indeed told -- about in the case that had the opposite and at some point later on. So you know you're right dale because it had hit it in the -- we could've at least had an exchange between those two not directly but request.

While Michael I think the question everybody wants answered is this one what happens next.

I think the members of the committee and their staff -- continue to investigate the matter I think they're going to take a close look. At whatever physical evidence they -- congressman range presented a very interesting study. By doctor Murphy looking at the MRI I think that need to be given more weight. And in particularly comparison to the -- that is. Roger Clemens provided and and that that congressman Davis sort of trade so much it -- interrupting art alliance. Out citing their -- continue to look at the physical evidence. I didn't think that they may interview other person I think they need to perhaps -- getting the Manny. Perhaps they need to begin with Jose Canseco because their other person now who at least by implication could have been -- You know the visit daily match in the party ten years ago that would that that they can take that well in their own -- about I don't it was a very curious. Curious to count having well that. The committee whether I would actually refer the matter the Justice Department to consider perjury and obstruction charges against either vote on -- activate I think we're a -- from that we did note. A number of the committee members. Say look let the Hernandez's. We shouldn't be spending tax dollars talking about baseball players in about prevailing sentiment -- look at it you know.

I'll tell you why disagree with Michael because in the aftermath of the of the other round of of these sorts of hearings the Justice Department was asked to begin an investigation into perjury charges against Miguel Tejada. Which was nowhere near as egregious as one of these two guys yesterday I don't know which one I think I do but I don't know one of the two was lying through his teeth. Not as egregiously is Miguel Tejada and congress wants can investigate it.

at the airport is being investigated by the Justice Department. For lying to government. An official that -- slightly different arm and perjury but nonetheless the third period and it felt so you're right if if they're willing to do it for -- ought to perhaps -- the precedent that they should do it here unless there's so much higher Diop and from the issues that. They're going to happen. But it's -- went about.

The other question I have is about the physical evidence which yet we've seen the photographs we've heard all the stuff. And and I have made the point in the past I don't think it's going to be as high tech is DNA which I think can be fooled around with the -- I think it could be as simple as -- Rogers fingerprints on the temples.

How do you explain back out. Yeah that would be very interesting if they could get a fingerprint now there's still -- due to tampering there -- become mop. Especially Japanese performer and IP officer perhaps he may have the training and the know how to. You know met perhaps the evidence and away that would lead want to have reasonable doubt as to whether it's out but sure you're right we're all focusing on the DNA. When there may be simpler and more reliable one of the evidence. I reliable -- the DNA EH DH the real problem with the DNA because Matt mediate met -- the -- the eight CH under the DNA will -- expert be very typical.

You know Michael has been pointed out that these hearings. Tended to go along party lines the Republicans Fort Worth for Clemens the Democrats were against them. One do you agree with that in two if you don't agree with that why do you think it happen.

it certainly seemed to be the case I agree with that I think I was I was surprised by like many people watching it doesn't appear that Clemens is politically active in any known way terms of contributing money is candidates for office we checked into that it on it. So the idea that you would somehow and exit is the Republican members. I suspect it may go back to the meeting that he -- last week. That he net well we need Republican members perhaps better now they met with the Democrats. And that ultimately swayed the Republicans to get copies the -- that the only explanation that I know there's really no philosophical war. Ideological reason what Republicans would be scanned the requirements were a Democrat to be much we --

In many respects the the the hearing yesterday is unfair to Roger Clemens from a legal perspective. Things were allowed that wouldn't be allowed in the court of law and things can be said that couldn't be -- in the court of law and I do understand that -- that with that basis. By the same token you questioned the legal advice that he spent receiving. I don't think rusty Hardin and Lanny brewer did him any favors with their performance yesterday.

Yeah I get it could be looked at in these two ways one at bat he kind of made it to -- It is dancers. And I know it believe at one point in the video that was shown that one of the two we're sort of melting the answer that Clement was giving. Suggesting that they really -- not a not a usual with with a client right by actually now that physically sort of undercut him lose credibility on the other hand you know that -- land the -- issue came up. And I thought that at least by comparison kind of look better than -- attorney -- that it is attorney it was very angry jumping up and down. It seemed like they were out of control whereas -- was sitting. More absolutely at the table you know whether that the big deal were not. I do think they'll that you -- more generally speaking that there are real questions about how that side and one. And yet on the mistaken it was story he's lying in the end today he would have been better off admitting it at the start like everyone else. But I get it is going to be consistent and it by telling the truth you know we we were killed -- that you.

Michael I disagree with almost everything you wrote and -- I've found it compelling reading -- says something about -- like guests. Thanks for the time we appreciate you taken a few minutes to join thanks Michael. Take care. That is -- Michael McCann analysts Sports Illustrated legal expert you read his column on SI dot com that the overall heading to spots on Wednesday's congressional hearing the sub -- is Clemens stands tall. On Capitol Hill