NEW YORK – It is not the least bit surprising that Roger Clemens may now be investigated by the Justice Department.

His sworn deposition testimony and his statement under oath to the House Oversight Committee always seemed to me to be a setup, a slow pitch, for this obvious end result: legal action against him. If they can’t get him for the steroids, they can try to get him for perjury.

Martha Stewart.

Scooter Libby.

Why on earth would Clemens, represented by competent counsel who surely advised against it, fall into this trap? Why do prominent people testify under oath when they don’t have to, knowing this will give hostile authorities new ammunition?

Must be a combination of ego and denial that scientists have not yet cracked.

– Lisa Bloom, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – I found myself bewildered by the Roger Clemens Congressional hearing on Wednesday, a proceeding which clearly devolved into some form of absurd theater rather than a valid legislative inquiry.

Roger Clemens told his story to a skeptical Congress.

And then I found myself equally bewildered by the reactions afterward of many observers. Although I expected there would be a distinct division between those who believe Clemens and those who don’t, I didn’t expect so many observers (some who should certainly know better) to be so quick to turn the Clemens drama into a racial issue.

They did so by concluding that a failure to subject Clemens to the same perjury prosecution facing Barry Bonds would be evidence of racial bias by the Justice Department.

The argument seems to be: If you’re going to prosecute the black baseball star you should also prosecute the white baseball star.

First of all, let’s not be so quick to indict the Justice Department until there has been a sufficient opportunity to conduct an investigation and determine if a prosecution is appropriate. Perhaps the answer to that question will be “yes” and Roger Clemens’ name will be penciled in, not to a line-up card, but to a criminal docket.

But if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, there are some very valid distinctions between Clemens and Bonds (and other high profile perjury defendants such as Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby) that could explain the decision.

For instance, the lying alleged in Bond’s case–as with Stewart and Libby–came during the course of an active criminal investigation. Clemens’ statements were offered during a voluntary informational session, apparently requested by Clemens, which the chairman of the Committee now agrees should not have taken place.

Given this situation, the Justice Department might conclude that there was no compelling justification to devote the resources to what many would argue is simply a purely personal matter between Clemens and former trainer Brian McNamee.

Additionally, prosecutors believe there is sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the charges against Bonds, as juries also found in convicting both Stewart and Libby. But we don’t yet know if prosecutors will conclude that there is sufficient valid evidence against Clemens, in addition to the testimony of his accuser, that would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And finally, any claim that a decision not to prosecute would somehow be based on race ignores the fairly obvious fact that prosecutors were not the least bit reluctant to go after Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, both of whom were rich, powerful and white. Maybe Roger Clemens will be prosecuted, maybe he won’t. The point is, if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, don’t be so quick to jump on the “It’s all about race” or “It’s all about rich white Republicans” bandwagon. Perhaps it’s just all about the law.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — It was Oscar Wilde who wrote that “the truth is rarely pure and never simple.” Those words certainly rang true Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

Roger Clemens (right) and Brian McNamee take the hot seat.

Roger “Rocket” Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award-winning pitcher and one of the best to play the game, raised his arm and swore to tell the truth before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Clemens told the panel he knew his name would not be restored but remained steadfast in his denials, saying he had never taken steroids or human growth hormone during his lengthy career.

But Clemens’ former trainer, Brian McNamee, sitting one seat away from Clemens, also stood by his story — that he injected Clemens at least 16 times with performance-enhancing drugs.

The main discrepancy in all this is the sworn testimony and affidavit from pitcher Andy Pettitte, who admits using HGH. Pettitte claims Clemens told him nearly 10 years ago that he used HGH. Pettitte also said Clemens backtracked when the subject came up in conversation in 2005.

Clemens told the panel Pettitte “misremembers” the conversation, was “shocked” to learn that Pettitte had taken HGH, and claims he was talking about his wife’s use of HGH.

No surprise that there was some display of partisan politics and many Republicans questioned the veracity of McNamee’s testimony. Chris Shays, from Connecticut, likened the hearing to a “Roman Circus” and Rep. Dan Burton shouted at McNamee: “You’re here under oath, and yet we have lie after lie after lie after lie.”  Video: ‘Somebody’s lying’

McNamee admitted lying to authorities seven years ago during a rape investigation. As to why McNamee kept needles he claims link Clemens to steroid use, he responded that despite his long relationship with Clemens, he hadn’t completely trusted the pitcher.

Rusty Hardin, Clemens’ lawyer, previously dismissed the purported evidence as “the desperate Hail Mary of a man who wants to ruin Roger.” So there you have it, two witnesses completely contradicting each other.

One of them had to be lying, but as committee chairman Henry Waxman said after the hearing, lying does not necessarily mean perjury — a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison. The ball is now in the Justice Department’s court.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

NEW YORK – I’ll bet that Roger Clemens never thought that when a reporter wrote that Clemens is scheduled to be “on the hill,” it would actually mean that he would be testifying on Capitol Hill rather than taking the mound to pitch.

Roger Clemens arrives for his session with House lawyers.

But that’s exactly what’s taking place right now as the once-certain (but now, who knows?) Hall of Fame pitcher is talking with Congressional investigators in preparation for his testimony on February 13.  Full story

Clemens has complained loudly and consistently about the allegations contained in the Mitchell Report that he used performance-enhancing substances during his career. And he hasn’t simply proclaimed his innocence—he has also gone on the offensive. He has offered to testify under oath, in the face of all the accompanying legal dangers, and filed a lawsuit against his accuser, all in an effort to preserve and protect his now damaged reputation.

I don’t know if Clemens is guilty as charged or not—and perhaps we’ll never know for sure. But after spending nearly two decades as a prosecutor and defense attorney, you get something of a sense about how an innocent man acts in the face of an accusation. Right now, Clemens seems to me to be acting exactly how I would if I found myself falsely charged.

Sometimes actions do speak louder than words.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

WASHINGTON – Lawyers call them “swearing contests.” Opposing witnesses take the oath–and tell absolutely contradictory stories.

It happens all the time (been in divorce court lately?),  and nobody suggests either witness should face perjury charges.

So the public should take with a grain of salt the claim that New York Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens will precipitate a “possible perjury showdown” (the New York Times’ words, not mine) when he comes to Capitol Hill on Saturday to be questioned by Congressional staff lawyers about allegations by a former trainer that he injected The Rocket with performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens and the trainer, Brian McNamee, have been issuing contradictory statements for weeks—Clemens saying the injections contained legal substances, McNamee insisting they were illegal steroids and human growth hormones. Now both men have said they will repeat their conflicting stories under oath to Congressional investigators.

On the face of it, this would make a perjury prosecution inevitable—one of them is lying, and should be prosecuted for perjury. Not so (remember all those divorce cases?).

Perjury cases are historically difficult for prosecutors to prove, and here, there seems to be little evidence other than the two men’ claims. Clemens can swear he thought the injections were benign. McNamee can point out that he has no motive to falsely accuse the formidable Clemens, and indeed, under a plea bargain he could go to prison if he is not telling the truth.

So the much-anticipated face-off between the two men under oath on Capitol Hill (currently set for Feb. 13) is not likely to produce a “perjury showdown.” The two men will repeat their now-familiar stories in a “swearing contest” under oath. Then, if reason prevails, the matter will end at that.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

NEW YORK — As I spent the better part of the morning doing radio interviews about Roger Clemens and his press conference, I was struck by how many people seem absolutely convinced that he did, in fact, use steroids.

Jack Ford

What’s puzzling to me is that so many have come to this conclusion already, based solely on the thus far unsubstantiated claim by one man, his former trainer.

Now, I don’t pretend to know if Clemens did “juice up” or not — the reality is that we may never know for sure, absent either a confession or a recantation. But if I’m a juror in that vast ether-world of the “Court of Public Opinion,” I’ve got to be awfully impressed by his willingness to go before Congress — with no immunity — and testify under oath that he never was a steroid user.

Remember, Martha Stewart went to jail — not for insider trading, but for lying to investigators. And Barry Bonds, the poster boy in the minds of many for steroid use, has been indicted — not for that alleged use, but rather for lying to a grand jury.

The message sent — loud and clear — by these cases is that if you lie you’ll be prosecuted, regardless of who you are. Clearly, Clemens’ lawyers know what kind of danger there would be if Clemens lies to Congress. As the Texas saying goes, “This is not their first rodeo!” So they must be fairly certain that he’s telling the truth, or, at the very least, that there’s nothing else out there to substantiate his trainer’s claims.

And that fact alone, that willingness to expose himself to criminal charges if he lies, just might mean something in that “Court of Public Opinion” as Clemens seeks a not guilty verdict from the public.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor