Okay, I've got a little advice for you out there, in case you're ever called before a Congressional committee. First, never engage Rusty Hardin to be your counsel. Second, if the committee asks you, on a Friday afternoon, to provide the name and a way to contact a nanny who used to be in your employ, and if this committee asks you again for this on Saturday, then asks again on Sunday, you should probably give them that info. You shouldn't wait until Monday afternoon to provide this information, especially if you met with this nanny on Sunday and went over the info the committee will be asking her. And you should then not claim that you were trying to assist the committee.
Here's the setting. At about 11:40 a.m. or so, Henry Waxman, the head of this little cage match, decided he would ask Rocket some questions about the infamous Jose Canseco party. It's at this party in 1998, which occurred at Canseco's home in Tampa, where McNamee claims that Rocket first asked him about steroids and HGH.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Clemens claims he wasn't at this party. He says he was playing golf. He produces a receipt for his green fees. He produces video and audio from the Blue Jay announcers saying that Rocket wasn't at the party. Canseco provides an affidavit saying that Rocket wasn't at the party. McNamee says he was at the party, even after all of this, and says he has a specific memory of a young kid running toward the pool, and of this woman in a bikini chasing the kid and grabbing him before he gets to the pool. McNamee asked one of the players who this was, and was told that this was Clemens's nanny. McNamee also remembers seeing Rocket and the family at the party.
So Waxman and the committee decide to talk to this nanny. And they ask Clemens multiple times how to contact the nanny, but before this information can get to the committee, Clemens talks to the nanny.
The implication here is that this is witness tampering.
And that's a no-no.-- John Royal