Clemens was being deceptive

[Rack Fu]

For someone with a fair amount of training in detecting when people are lying, he was lying.

When Wallace was initially reading parts of the Mitchell Report, Clemens was so tight that he could've shit out a diamond. Clinched jaw, gulping. etc. Fair amount of fidgeting as well

The two biggest tells for me were:

1) The question about what the penalty should be for someone who gets caught using performance enhancing drugs. An innocent person would say something unequivocal like "Lifetime ban" or "Suspended for X amount of time." A guilty person qualifies it and doesn't give a definite answer. "The effects on their body is punishment enough..." bullshit certainly fits that bill.

2) The question about the polygraph. Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.

[Flawed Logic]

Didn't happen.
Never happened.

I don't know why his inner circle thought this interview was a good idea. Clearly he believes he can not be caught in a lie. If it's him and McNamee in a room and Clemens never discussed it with a teammate, another trainer, or even a family member, he's in good shape with whatever spin he wants to put on his injections. He wasn't convincing in the least, any more than Barry Bonds' silly strategy to become overly annoyed about even having to answer such questions or Mark McGwire's insistence of not talking about the past.

I'm no expert but when someone is accused of something and answers probing questions with a question of their own ("Why didn't I keep doing it if it was good for me?") i chalk them up as a liar. Clemens used the question for a question defense at least three times during the interview.

I really wanted him to take the Pettitte approach. "I tried it but I realized, as the hardest working pitcher in baseball and the most naturally gifted, I didn't need it." We'd all move on a heck of a lot faster.

[Jack]

I find it hard to believe that Clemens knew nothing about his buddy Andy's HGH use.

It would be better for baseball if Clemens can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he never used steroids... but I don't think he can.

This will be forever known as the Steroid era and all records that involve power/ performance have to be viewed with skepticism.

[Rack Fu]

I'm no expert but when someone is accused of something and answers probing questions with a question of their own ("Why didn't I keep doing it if it was good for me?") i chalk them up as a liar. Clemens used the question for a question defense at least three times during the interview.

Answering a question with a question is another thing that deceptive people do. I picked up on that a lot more the second time I watched it.

You could tell that he was well coached and he still gave up those tell-tale signs of being deceptive.

[jiminphilly]

So how do you both feel after seeing the press conference and hearing the taped phone call?

[Rack Fu]

Despite repeated chances (in the conversation with Clemens) for McNamee to recant what he said to the Mitchell folks, he doesn't.

I don't think the taped phone conversation added or subtracted anything to/from Clemens' defense.

[BSmack]

The two biggest tells for me were:

1) The question about what the penalty should be for someone who gets caught using performance enhancing drugs. An innocent person would say something unequivocal like "Lifetime ban" or "Suspended for X amount of time." A guilty person qualifies it and doesn't give a definite answer. "The effects on their body is punishment enough..." bullshit certainly fits that bill.

Considering the fact that Clemens would like to pitch in the majors next year, I can certainly understand his unwillingness to say anything on the subject. Why open that can of worms for no good reason?

2) The question about the polygraph. Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.

Or maybe Clemens knows his legal rights and isn't going to play that game. If polygraph's were accurate, they would be admissible as evidence.

I've always had my doubts about Clemens. But it has to do with evidence I have seen based on his performance, not some cop's dime store psychology theories.

[jiminphilly]

Clemens is lying:

Clemens previously denied McNamee’s charges in a video posted on the Internet, saying: “I did not use steroids or human growth hormone, and I’ve never done so. I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormones into my body.”

(this is apparently on youtube but I don't have access at work to search and post it here).


Of course he then says:

In a “60 Minutes” interview that will be shown on CBS on Sunday night, the former Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens admits that he received injections from his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee. But he says that the injections were of the painkiller lidocaine and vitamin B12 — not steroids or human growth hormone, as McNamee alleged in the Mitchell report released last month.

It's funny what happens when you lawyer up- vague and open statements suddenly get "clarified" and the "real truth" comes out. He's smart in that he never said he provided McNamee with the drugs (though how does one get a prescription pain killer without a doctor? Probably because Clemens was getting the pain meds via McNamee who got them from the Mets trainer) but his initial statement was "any drugs" yet he now admits he was taking B12 and pain killers. So Clemens is twisting the truth.. Clemens never got the meds from his doctor or local pharmacy but I'm sure he gave McNamee some cash to buy what he needed. Mike Wallace missed a golden opportunity to ask Roger if his doctor prescribed the pain medication- but that would be too much of Wallace to ask a probing question.

This is the part of the conversation I am most intrigued about:

Clemens: The other thing is, I don't know how many months ago it was, I asked you, you know, I didn't know who this cat was in the New York Mets - this guy.

McNamee: I told your guys, man. I told (Jim) Murray, I told him his name. I told Murray.

Clemens: I asked you point blank, I said, do you know who this cat is when we were working. I said there's some rumblings about some guys with the Mets. Do you know who this guy is? You told me no.

McNamee: You know what, I would have told you yes. If you told me, if I remember that, if you told me that, I would have told you yes.

Clemens: I asked you point blank. Randy and them all called me to ask. Said who -

McNamee: I told Jim Murray, I told Jim Murray. I told him. I told him. I sat down with him in Starbucks on the corner where you used to live and I told him the guy's name. And I told him please don't tell Roger yet, but to be careful, but no. If you had asked me, I would have told you that. If you remember, if you remember, I was trying to get with you to talk with you. I was reaching out to you.

Clemens: Brother -

McNamee: I didn't want Kenny around -

Clemens: You were a foot in front of me doing ab work.

McNamee: All right, then, you know what, then I messed up. I should have done. But you know what, if I had remembered that, then I would have told you. I would have told. Like I told - I told Jim Murray his name. I told him to be careful.

Clemens: Again, Jimmy has never told me.

McNamee: He sat down writing on the stupid yellow pad. He took notes. And he said he spoke to Randy. And he said he's covered. And I said, all right, well, don't tell Roger because I don't want to mess up -

Clemens: Nobody said a word to me, just like everything else.

McNamee: Well, I'm telling you the truth. I met with Jimmy in '04, and I told him. I said Jimmy, I just wanted to give you guys a heads up because you better have some information. I'd rather you be prepared than unprepared. And he took all these notes and (unintelligible) -

If Clemens wasn't taking anything but B12 and a pain killer why the fuck would he care about a Mets trainer? Unless, of course, that was where the "B12" and "pain meds" were coming from which would mean he was receiving prescription drugs, without a doctors prescription. But considering the B12 shot is the same excuse other players have used (most notably Tejada), it's a bullshit statement.

Can't wait to see this blow hard testify under oath. Roger's got the ego the size of a semi and he's clearly pissed that people would actually question him- sounds a lot like Baroid.

[jiminphilly]

The two biggest tells for me were:

1) The question about what the penalty should be for someone who gets caught using performance enhancing drugs. An innocent person would say something unequivocal like "Lifetime ban" or "Suspended for X amount of time." A guilty person qualifies it and doesn't give a definite answer. "The effects on their body is punishment enough..." bullshit certainly fits that bill.

Considering the fact that Clemens would like to pitch in the majors next year, I can certainly understand his unwillingness to say anything on the subject. Why open that can of worms for no good reason?

Roger pulled the retirement card on 60 minutes on Sunday. I'm pretty sure he's done this time. He wasn't being evasive because he wants to pitch next year, he was being evasive because everything he's done in his career, pre/post steriods is about to be trashed. The more you have to lose the more likely you are to lie to protect it.

Petite is looking really good about now.

[BSmack]

Roger pulled the retirement card on 60 minutes on Sunday. I'm pretty sure he's done this time. He wasn't being evasive because he wants to pitch next year, he was being evasive because everything he's done in his career, pre/post steriods is about to be trashed. The more you have to lose the more likely you are to lie to protect it.

Petite is looking really good about now.

Clemens has "retired" every season since 2003. The fact remains that he is only 9 wins away from Warren Spahn and the title "winningest pitcher of the modern era". Like you said, he has a HUGE ego. If this Congressional hearing goes well or his trainer recants, look for Clemens to try to pitch another half season.

[jiminphilly]

Roger pulled the retirement card on 60 minutes on Sunday. I'm pretty sure he's done this time. He wasn't being evasive because he wants to pitch next year, he was being evasive because everything he's done in his career, pre/post steriods is about to be trashed. The more you have to lose the more likely you are to lie to protect it.

Petite is looking really good about now.

Clemens has "retired" every season since 2003. The fact remains that he is only 9 wins away from Warren Spahn and the title "winningest pitcher of the modern era". Like you said, he has a HUGE ego. If this Congressional hearing goes well or his trainer recants, look for Clemens to try to pitch another half season.

If you're retired, you're not on the active roster and thus you can not be drug tested.. seems like Roger needed some time for the drugs to leave his system.. once he was clear.. time to unretire.

[BSmack]

If you're retired, you're not on the active roster and thus you can not be drug tested.. seems like Roger needed some time for the drugs to leave his system.. once he was clear.. time to unretire.

That is certainly possible. Although it is just as possible that would have been able to obtain designer verities of steroids and HGH that could not be detected by baseball's current testing protocols.

[jiminphilly]

Based on the phone conversation, Mcnamee admits to his connection with Kirk Radomski and states he warned Clemens' agents - what he warned them out is still in questio... . Reportedly, one of Radomski's sources for HGH and steroids were from AIDs patients (he's wait outside clinics and buy their prescriptions). Since baseball doesn't test for HGH, the 'roids Roger may have been getting were probably no different than anyone elses. But it's all speculation until Roger testifies under oath.

[Rack Fu]

The two biggest tells for me were:

1) The question about what the penalty should be for someone who gets caught using performance enhancing drugs. An innocent person would say something unequivocal like "Lifetime ban" or "Suspended for X amount of time." A guilty person qualifies it and doesn't give a definite answer. "The effects on their body is punishment enough..." bullshit certainly fits that bill.

Considering the fact that Clemens would like to pitch in the majors next year, I can certainly understand his unwillingness to say anything on the subject. Why open that can of worms for no good reason?

It's not about opening a can of worms. That's a textbook answer by a deceptive person to that kind of question. The 60 Minutes question writers know that's a trigger question. That question is Interrogation 101. Honest people tend to answer it one way and deceptive people another.

You can't look at his reaction and answer to one question as the total indicator. You have to factor in his reaction and answers to all the questions and come to a conclusion.

2) The question about the polygraph. Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.

Or maybe Clemens knows his legal rights and isn't going to play that game. If polygraph's were accurate, they would be admissible as evidence.

I've always had my doubts about Clemens. But it has to do with evidence I have seen based on his performance, not some cop's dime store psychology theories.

What legal rights? He's not under arrest nor is 60 Minutes a law enforcement agency nor can you make someone take a polygraph. Polygraphs are not an exact science and rightly not admissable in a court of law. Once again, honest people tend to answer it one way and deceptive people another and (as I said before) you have to factor in his reaction and answers to all the questions and come to a conclusion. There were multiple indications of deception.

Your last comment made you sound like a dolt. There is a couple thousand years of well researched and well documented science to back up these "dime store theories." I'm sure all those doctors and researchers with advanced degrees and experience in medical science, physiology, psychology, sociology, etc. must not know what they're talking about when it comes to human reaction and behavior while lying. I was basing my opinion on his performance - his performance in that 60 Minutes interview.

What do you do for a living again? How many people have you interviewed or interrogated who are being less than truthful? What training do you have in the matter?

Clemens could come out of all this smelling like roses. His story may very well end up being 100% truthful. Whatever happens, whatever may or may not be the truth - he still gave off a lot of signals that he was being decepetive.

[BSmack]

His legal and career jeopardy should be obvious. He's been accused of trafficking in and using controlled substances.

Clemens could come out of all this smelling like roses. His story may very well end up being 100% truthful. Whatever happens, whatever may or may not be the truth - he still gave off a lot of signals that he was being decepetive.

Nice backpedal. You start of with "he was lying" and now you've talked yourself into admitting that he just might not be lying.

I have no further use for this witness.

[Rack Fu]

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

[BSmack]

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Let's review the tape. You tell me how...

For someone with a fair amount of training in detecting when people are lying, he was lying.

turned into...

Clemens could come out of all this smelling like roses. His story may very well end up being 100% truthful. Whatever happens, whatever may or may not be the truth - he still gave off a lot of signals that he was being decepetive.

You start with a simple declarative sentence and follow it up with what you yourself would have described as "guilty" behavior. You know, qualifying things and not giving definite answers.

BTW: Clemens is now being investigated by a Congressional Committee and the DoJ. An outcome that any reasonable person should have expected given the nature of the allegations made in the Mitchell Report. Of course that won't stop someone with a cop mentality from presuming guilt when someone invokes their legal rights.

[Rack Fu]

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Let's review the tape. You tell me how...

For someone with a fair amount of training in detecting when people are lying, he was lying.

turned into...

Clemens could come out of all this smelling like roses. His story may very well end up being 100% truthful. Whatever happens, whatever may or may not be the truth - he still gave off a lot of signals that he was being decepetive.

You start with a simple declarative sentence and follow it up with what you yourself would have described as "guilty" behavior. You know, qualifying things and not giving definite answers.

BTW: Clemens is now being investigated by a Congressional Committee and the DoJ. An outcome that any reasonable person should have expected given the nature of the allegations made in the Mitchell Report. Of course that won't stop someone with a cop mentality from presuming guilt when someone invokes their legal rights.

My bad for using the "lying" word in my first sentence - which I never used again nor before when I titled the topic as "Clemens was being deceptive." I was typing on the fly and didn't edit my comment.

I still don't know why you're hung up on this legal rights thing. What legal right is he invoking by answering the polygraph question like a person being deceptive? It's a yes or no question. It's not a vague question that needs a qualifying and ambiguous answer. A person can never be compelled to answer questions or take a polygraph under any circumstances. If he said, "Yes, I'll take one" or "No, I won't take one" - it doesn't matter as he doesn't have to do anything. It's in the way that he answered the question that raises a red flag.

And as an aside, polygraphs are extremely accurate. Just not 100%, proof positive accurate. We use them all the time on people because they're right 90+ percent of the time and is a great tool to get people to eventually admit and confess when you tell them that they're full of shit and failed the poly. It works very well. Their confession and admission is certainly admissable in court.

[BSmack]

Not sure why the prosecutor thought a redirect would be a good idea, but here goes...

My bad for using the "lying" word in my first sentence - which I never used again nor before when I titled the topic as "Clemens was being deceptive." I was typing on the fly and didn't edit my comment.

Yea, oops your bad. You just used an extremely pejorative word to try to illustrate your point. I'm sure it was a total mistake.

I still don't know why you're hung up on this legal rights thing.

Member of an organization known for trampling all over Constitutional rights says what?

What legal right is he invoking by answering the polygraph question like a person being deceptive?

Well, for starters he's invoking the right to counsel. We all know his legal team prepped him with that answer.

BTW: You do realize that a 60 Minutes interview is slightly different than an interview in an FBI interrogation room? Like it or not, Clemens is being tried right now in the court of public opinion.

It's a yes or no question. It's not a vague question that needs a qualifying and ambiguous answer. A person can never be compelled to answer questions or take a polygraph under any circumstances. If he said, "Yes, I'll take one" or "No, I won't take one" - it doesn't matter as he doesn't have to do anything. It's in the way that he answered the question that raises a red flag.

Funny, in your original post you didn't provide "No, I won't take one" as an option. Let's review...

Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.[/quote

But hey, isn't it just possible that he elaborated because that's his nature? You could accuse me of being the guy in the grassy knoll and demand that I take a polygraph and I'd probably answer the question the same way Clemens did.

And as an aside, polygraphs are extremely accurate. Just not 100%, proof positive accurate. We use them all the time on people because they're right 90+ percent of the time and is a great tool to get people to eventually admit and confess when you tell them that they're full of shit and failed the poly. It works very well. Their confession and admission is certainly admissable in court.

So they're a good way to get idiots who don't know their legal rights to cave under questioning. No shit. So is the old, "your friends already ratted out out" ploy. That doesn't mean that a smart person should EVER take one.

[Dinsdale]

What's really important here, is whether Rocket put his hand on the Bible and was sworn in before the 60 Minutes interview :yup,they'rerolling:


Legal rights? WTF are you talking about? 60 Minute isn't a freaking courtroom. Sure, it served as a de facto deposition in the court-of-public-opinion, but guess what? He also had a legal right to not appear on 60 Minutes. But ho chose to, and subjected himself to this exact type of judgement. Fu offered up his judgement, just as we're all allowed to. Fu claims to have some professional training, and offered up some allegedly more-informed-than-Average-Joe thoughts (which since he's chronicled his professional persuits over the years, I have no reason to doubt).

But really, Fu could be trolling, and maybe dude doesn't work for the Feds. Maybe he's J Edgar Hoover's grandson. Regardless, he offered an opinion, and now there's some massive FBI conspiracy to railroad Clemens? I'm really not following that logic.


Devil's advocate sidenote -- go spend some time at the community corrections/probation office, and you can get advice from literally dozens of guys who can give you detailed lessons on how to fool a polygraph... never done it myself (never had to take one), but I've known enough people who have, due to committing "youthful indescretions" and always seemed to come out of their polygraph appointment with flying colors, when they had no business doing so. Don't want to give away all the underbelly's secrets to the feds, so we'll leave it at that. But if you know a little about it, a polygraph is quite "beatable"... which I'm sure Painted-In-A-Corner-Clemens is looking into as we speak.

[Rack Fu]

Not sure why the defense attorney with a semester of high school civics class continues to chime in, but here goes...

What legal right is he invoking by answering the polygraph question like a person being deceptive?

Well, for starters he's invoking the right to counsel. We all know his legal team prepped him with that answer.

BTW: You do realize that a 60 Minutes interview is slightly different than an interview in an FBI interrogation room? Like it or not, Clemens is being tried right now in the court of public opinion.

I realize that it's different. Obviously, you do not as you're STILL hung up on "Clemens knows/invokes his legal rights." As I said earlier in this thread and Dinsdale said in the previous reply to this one - 60 Minutes is not a courtroom, or a congressional hearing or an official law enforcement interview.

There are basically two separate rights to counsel - one for the Fifth Amendment and one for the Sixth Amendment. The Fifth version ties into Miranda and is only triggered by custody + interrogation. The Sixth version deals with fairness of prosecution and is triggered by an adversarial judicial proceeding. At last check, 60 Minutes is neither a law enforcement agency nor a courtroom. So, right to counsel does not apply in the least bit.

Can you just admit that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and move on or shall you continue?

Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.[/quote

But hey, isn't it just possible that he elaborated because that's his nature? You could accuse me of being the guy in the grassy knoll and demand that I take a polygraph and I'd probably answer the question the same way Clemens did.

Possible? Anything is possible. Probable? Nope.

And as an aside, polygraphs are extremely accurate. Just not 100%, proof positive accurate. We use them all the time on people because they're right 90+ percent of the time and is a great tool to get people to eventually admit and confess when you tell them that they're full of shit and failed the poly. It works very well. Their confession and admission is certainly admissable in court.

So they're a good way to get idiots who don't know their legal rights to cave under questioning. No shit. So is the old, "your friends already ratted out out" ploy. That doesn't mean that a smart person should EVER take one.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here but...

What fucking legal rights are you talking about? Just because something is inadmissable in court doesn't mean it's some kind of legal rights violation. It's a purely voluntary action on their part that can and will be used against them in everything but a court of law. Since when did it become a constitutional rights violation to ask someone to volunteer for something?

Judging from your intellectual prowess so far, I can guarantee that I've gotten people much smarter than you with the "polygraph ploy."

[BSmack]

I realize that it's different. Obviously, you do not as you're STILL hung up on "Clemens knows/invokes his legal rights." As I said earlier in this thread and Dinsdale said in the previous reply to this one - 60 Minutes is not a courtroom, or a congressional hearing or an official law enforcement interview.

There are basically two separate rights to counsel - one for the Fifth Amendment and one for the Sixth Amendment. The Fifth version ties into Miranda and is only triggered by custody + interrogation. The Sixth version deals with fairness of prosecution and is triggered by an adversarial judicial proceeding. At last check, 60 Minutes is neither a law enforcement agency nor a courtroom. So, right to counsel does not apply in the least bit.

The right to counsel is absolute. Period. An American ALWAYS has the right to obtain legal representation. What you are referring to are situations so grave in their potential consequences that the Founding Fathers and subsequent Supreme Courts have considered it necessary to amplify said right.

Can you just admit that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and move on or shall you continue?

This coming from someone who thinks Americans do not have an absolute right to legal counsel?

Innocent people say something like "Yes, I'll take one right now." Deceptive people pull the "I don't know if they're accurate..." bullshit.

But hey, isn't it just possible that he elaborated because that's his nature? You could accuse me of being the guy in the grassy knoll and demand that I take a polygraph and I'd probably answer the question the same way Clemens did.

Possible? Anything is possible. Probable? Nope.

Well, I do have an airtight alibi in that I wasn't born in 1963.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here but...

What fucking legal rights are you talking about? Just because something is inadmissable in court doesn't mean it's some kind of legal rights violation. It's a purely voluntary action on their part that can and will be used against them in everything but a court of law. Since when did it become a constitutional rights violation to ask someone to volunteer for something?

I'm talking about the right NOT to take a polygraph. We do still have that right? Or did Gonzalez take that one away along with Habeus Corpus?

Judging from your intellectual prowess so far, I can guarantee that I've gotten people much smarter than you with the "polygraph ploy."

I can guarantee I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Dinsdale]

I can guarantee I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

I'm going to overstep my bounds here, and deign to speak for Fu...


and thank you for making his point for him.

It's a yes or no question. It's not a vague question that needs a qualifying and ambiguous answer. AIf he said, "Yes, I'll take one" or "No, I won't take one" - it doesn't matter as he doesn't have to do anything. It's in the way that he answered the question that raises a red flag.

"Go fuck yourself" is a difinitive, unqualified answer.

[Rack Fu]

I realize that it's different. Obviously, you do not as you're STILL hung up on "Clemens knows/invokes his legal rights." As I said earlier in this thread and Dinsdale said in the previous reply to this one - 60 Minutes is not a courtroom, or a congressional hearing or an official law enforcement interview.

There are basically two separate rights to counsel - one for the Fifth Amendment and one for the Sixth Amendment. The Fifth version ties into Miranda and is only triggered by custody + interrogation. The Sixth version deals with fairness of prosecution and is triggered by an adversarial judicial proceeding. At last check, 60 Minutes is neither a law enforcement agency nor a courtroom. So, right to counsel does not apply in the least bit.

The right to counsel is absolute. Period. An American ALWAYS has the right to obtain legal representation. What you are referring to are situations so grave in their potential consequences that the Founding Fathers and subsequent Supreme Courts have considered it necessary to amplify said right.

You would be absolutely wrong.

Barring the 5th or 6th Amendment triggers, it's certainly your voluntary choice, option, and maybe, a moral entitlement to counsel in any other forum or situation.

Your absolute Constitutional right to counsel is only triggered by what I mentioned before - the Miranda custody plus interrogation or an adversarial judicial proceeding. Otherwise, you have no definitive Constitutional right to counsel. Everything else would be your choice. I just can't say that enough. My pediatrician says you have to introduce something to a child about 10 times before it sinks in. Am I up to 10 yet?

This coming from someone who thinks Americans do not have an absolute right to legal counsel?

No, it's coming from someone who has a more advanced understanding of Constitutional law than you. My golden retriever has a more advanced understanding of this topic than you do.

I'm talking about the right NOT to take a polygraph. We do still have that right? Or did Gonzalez take that one away along with Habeus Corpus?

I don't know how many different ways that I can say this to you but...

It's not a Constitutional right to not take a polygraph. Once again, it's your choice or option to take one or not as it's entirely voluntary.

You really need to brush up on what a Constitutional right is as opposed to a voluntary choice or option. You're confusing what you consider a "right" to make a voluntary choice with absolute rights afforded and protected by the Constitution.

I'm done with this because you're apparently incapable of understanding what is going on here. Is ignorance as blissful as they say?

[BSmack]

Barring the 5th or 6th Amendment triggers, it's certainly your voluntary choice, option, and maybe, a moral entitlement to counsel in any other forum or situation.

Your absolute Constitutional right to counsel is only triggered by what I mentioned before - the Miranda custody plus interrogation or an adversarial judicial proceeding. Otherwise, you have no definitive Constitutional right to counsel. Everything else would be your choice. I just can't say that enough.

It is an absolute right. If I want to hire a lawyer to advise me on ANY issue, I have that right, be it criminal, civil or some other matter. This is not a matter for debate, this is a fundamental concept.

No, it's coming from someone who has a more advanced understanding of Constitutional law than you. My golden retriever has a more advanced understanding of this topic than you do.

Dream on buddy.

I don't know how many different ways that I can say this to you but...

It's not a Constitutional right to not take a polygraph. Once again, it's your choice or option to take one or not as it's entirely voluntary.

You're tripping over your own semantics again. What is it about the word voluntary that you don't understand to mean the same thing as "has a right to refuse"?

You really need to brush up on what a Constitutional right is as opposed to a voluntary choice or option. You're confusing what you consider a "right" to make a voluntary choice with absolute rights afforded and protected by the Constitution.

And you need to buy a fucking dictionary. Christ you G-men types are fucking obtuse.

[Rack Fu]

Barring the 5th or 6th Amendment triggers, it's certainly your voluntary choice, option, and maybe, a moral entitlement to counsel in any other forum or situation.

Your absolute Constitutional right to counsel is only triggered by what I mentioned before - the Miranda custody plus interrogation or an adversarial judicial proceeding. Otherwise, you have no definitive Constitutional right to counsel. Everything else would be your choice. I just can't say that enough.

It is an absolute right. If I want to hire a lawyer to advise me on ANY issue, I have that right, be it criminal, civil or some other matter. This is not a matter for debate, this is a fundamental concept.

No, it's coming from someone who has a more advanced understanding of Constitutional law than you. My golden retriever has a more advanced understanding of this topic than you do.

Dream on buddy.

I don't know how many different ways that I can say this to you but...

It's not a Constitutional right to not take a polygraph. Once again, it's your choice or option to take one or not as it's entirely voluntary.

You're tripping over your own semantics again. What is it about the word voluntary that you don't understand to mean the same thing as "has a right to refuse"?

You really need to brush up on what a Constitutional right is as opposed to a voluntary choice or option. You're confusing what you consider a "right" to make a voluntary choice with absolute rights afforded and protected by the Constitution.

And you need to buy a fucking dictionary. Christ you G-men types are fucking obtuse.

There's nothing semantical or obtuse about it, jackass. You're seriously fucking stupid and in way over your head here.

Here's a snippet relating to the 5th Amendment Right to Counsel:

Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel
The United States Supreme Court held in 1966 in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that a person has a right to an attorney during questioning by the police. The basis for this right is the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Under the Fifth Amendment, when a person is taken into custody and when the person is being interrogated by the police, the person then has a right to an attorney. The interrogation must immediately cease when a person demands an attorney. The failure of the police to stop the interrogation makes any subsequent statement by the person inadmissible at a trial.

When a person demands an attorney during questioning, the police cannot ask any further questions of the person. The police also cannot make any further statements or comments that might elicit a response from the person. When a person demands an attorney during questioning, the police must cease the questioning, even if the person is not able to obtain an attorney.

Whether a person has actually invoked his or her right to counsel during questioning requires a statement from the person that expresses a desire for the assistance of counsel. If the person mentions the word "attorney," it does not necessarily mean that the person has requested an attorney. Also, if the person asks about sentencing, it is not necessarily an invocation of that person's right to counsel. Ambiguous or equivocal statements about a right to counsel do not constitute the invocation of the right to counsel. The police are not required to ask the person to clarify his or her ambiguous statements.

When a person requests counsel prior to being in custody and prior to interrogation, he or she is not invoking the right to counsel. Also, if the person requests counsel in the future, he or she is not invoking the right to counsel during questioning. The person must specifically request counsel while he or she is in custody and while he or she is being interrogated by the police.

Only a person who is being questioned by the police may invoke his or her right to counsel. A person claiming to be the person's attorney may not invoke the right to counsel. An attorney can invoke the right only if he or she represents the person, if the right is invoked in the presence of the person, and the person does not contradict the attorney's invocation of the right.

The police are not required to inform a person that an attorney is attempting to contact that person. The police are only required to cease questioning when the person demands an attorney.

The 6th Amendment trigger is even self-explanatory enough for you... I think.

You're tripping over your own semantics again. What is it about the word voluntary that you don't understand to mean the same thing as "has a right to refuse"?

Voluntary is basically having the power of free choice and free will. You have the free choice to refuse to take a polygraph. You do not have a Constitutionally protected right to refuse it nor does anyone have a Constitutionally protected right to compel you to do it. Exception being the Employee Polygraph Protection Act - which isn't the issue here.

I know that I said I was done with this but I take sick pleasure in watching complete idiots like yourself somehow look more idiotic.

Continue on with your ignorant retorts about your "absolute rights" and how I'm wrong. The only way that you'll ever get those "absolute rights" is if you find some unclaimed land and start your own country - because you don't have them as a citizen of the US of A. Sorry, pal. That's life. Never meant to burst your bubble.

[Rack Fu]

Let me elaborate on the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which is the only way that a person has the actual Constitutionally protected right to refuse (the term that BSmackedaround is so fond of) a polygraph.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) generally prevents employers from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions. Employers generally may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act.

The major exemptions are for the Federal, State and Local governments. For example: A polygraph is mandatory for becoming a FBI Special Agent. I certainly had the voluntary choice to say "No, I refuse to take it." That was certainly my option. The FBI/DOJ then had the voluntary choice to say "Sorry, no job for you." I HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (as interpreted by law) TO REFUSE IT, JUST A VOLUNTARY CHOICE ON MY PART. The EPPA offers me no protection. If your employer (assuming it's in the private sector) asks you to take one, you do have the right to refuse to take the test.

The EPPA is the only possible way that you have the protected right to refuse a polygraph. That's it. This certainly isn't applicable to the Clemens situation as 60 Minutes isn't his employer, nor is any law enforcement agency, courtroom or congressional hearing.

In review...

There are only two possible ways to invoke the Constitutional right to counsel and only one possible way to invoke the right to refuse a polygraph. Seriously, just take your beating, lick your wounds and move on. You've lost this battle in a big way. I'm right and you're wrong. There is no debate.

I refrained from calling you stupid until my previous post. You were ignorant as to the law. I informed you what the actual law is (repeatedly). You can no longer be described as ignorant since you've been informed and educated. You're inability to grasp the simple truth now makes you stupid. If stupid is too "obtuse or semantical" for you, feel free to use whatever derogatory term that you'd like to describe your lack of brainpower.

Any further replies by you enter into the realm of just plain sad. Stop, I'm starting to actually feel like a bully.

[BSmack]

Any further replies by you enter into the realm of just plain sad. Stop, I'm starting to actually feel like a bully.

You beg me to stop yet claim YOU feel like the bully?

You claim I do not have the Constitutionally protected right to refuse to take a polygraph? I'll tell you what. Why don't you come up to Rochester and MAKE me take one?

Ah, what was that? Something about the 5th Amendment? Something about having the right to refuse to give evidence against yourself? Of course your choice to take, or not take a polygraph is voluntary. That's kind of the whole point of the Constitutional protection contained within the 5th Amendment. You also have the CHOICE to plead guilty when charged with a crime. Should we infer from that that you do not have the Constitutionally protected right to plead NOT GUILTY?

I'll be breathlessly awaiting your next post in which you presume to claim that water is not wet and the color of the sky is mauve.

[Rack Fu]

Any further replies by you enter into the realm of just plain sad. Stop, I'm starting to actually feel like a bully.

You beg me to stop yet claim YOU feel like the bully?

You claim I do not have the Constitutionally protected right to refuse to take a polygraph? I'll tell you what. Why don't you come up to Rochester and MAKE me take one?

I've said several times that you can't be made to take one either. Can you read? You do have the Constitutionally protected right to refuse to take a polygraph under the EPPA assuming none of the exemptions apply. Can you read? If the EPPA does not apply, you have no protected right to refuse it. You have the choice not to but with choices come consequences.

Please cite me case law where your point is correct. You can't because it doesn't exist. I cited the one and only law that applies to a right to refuse a polygraph. You haven't proven shit. I've proven all my points.

You seem to be fixated on some "it's a free country, so I have all these absolute rights" doctrine that is just plain ignorant. Just because you have the voluntary choice to do something or not do something doesn't mean that this choice is absolutely protected by the Constitution. Once you finally realize this, you're going to feel real fucking stupid for carrying on in this thread. You really look like a fool.

Ah, what was that? Something about the 5th Amendment? Something about having the right to refuse to give evidence against yourself? Of course your choice to take, or not take a polygraph is voluntary. That's kind of the whole point of the Constitutional protection contained within the 5th Amendment.

Now you're starting to make a more rational argument. I'd also basically agree with you on this. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has only passed judgement on very specific cases in the "polygraph vs self-incrimination" debate - EPPA issues, probationers and post-conviction polygraph screening and Federal employees or contractors suing because a mandatory polygraph caused them to lose a security clearance (and subsequently their job or job prospect).

They have not made any overall and sweeping decisions on a polygraph exam's affect on the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Most of these issues are settled in the lower state and federal courts where the rulings have been pretty definite in that a polygraph does not violate the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) because an individual must give his or her consent before taking the polygraph. The Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination) is not violated because of the same reason: consent. If the person was in custody (where anything voluntary is certainly questionable), the Miranda triggers take effect and 5th Amendment protection is a given. Lastly, polygraph results generally are not admissible in a criminal trial, therefore, not used against the person anyway.

There's plenty of debate about the issue. Nevertheless, there's no sweeping law or decision that grants 5th Amendment protection against the polygraph.

You also have the CHOICE to plead guilty when charged with a crime. Should we infer from that that you do not have the Constitutionally protected right to plead NOT GUILTY?

You have the absolute right to plead not guilty. You do not have the Constitutional right to plead guilty. That's the first correct thing that you've typed in this whole thread. The subject has a legal right to plead not guilty and to require the prosecution to prove the subject's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If a subject wants to enter a guilty plea, the subject must waive his right to plead not guilty.

Not sure how this is at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Rack Fu]

I'm just going to toss in my 2 cents. You are both right....except I think you're talking about apples and oranges.

If Sixty Minutes shows up at your door and starts asking questions, you would certainly have an option/right to call your attorney (or your dad, brother, or best friend) before choosing to answer any of their questions....but your announcement of desiring legal counsel would not prohibit them from continuing to ask their questions. Not so if it's the FBI knocking on your door and asking their questions. You always have a right to call your attorney, whether you're buying real estate, being interviewed by Sixty Minutes, or if you're being questioned by the FBI, but I've yet to see the Sixty Minutes folks mirandize anyone before an interview.


Mace

You're getting tripped up on the same wording as BSmack. Do not confuse a voluntary choice with an absolute Constitutional right. Right and choice are not interchangeable words here. Don't get hung up on that. It's not semantics either.

When the FBI comes knocking on your door, and you're not under arrest - you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to counsel. Once I place you in custody and start asking questions - you do have the Constitutionally protected right to counsel.

[BSmack]

You're getting tripped up on the same wording as BSmack. Do not confuse a voluntary choice with an absolute Constitutional right. Right and choice are not interchangeable words here. Don't get hung up on that. It's not semantics either.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You know, like the RIGHT to hire a lawyer any damn time I feel like it.

[Rack Fu]

You're getting tripped up on the same wording as BSmack. Do not confuse a voluntary choice with an absolute Constitutional right. Right and choice are not interchangeable words here. Don't get hung up on that. It's not semantics either.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You know, like the RIGHT to hire a lawyer any damn time I feel like it.

Holy fuck, you are stupid.

Let me elaborate this point a bit more.

Let's say that I go out to interview someone who is not under arrest and has voluntarily agreed to be interviewed. At some point in the interview, they say that they want an attorney and will not answer any further questions. For whatever reason, they continue to talk and make statements after stating that they want an attorney. Are these statements admissable in court even though they asked for and wanted an attorney? Surely, they cannot be according to you since we have some inherent right to an attorney. Guess what, skippy? Those statements are most certainly admissable and will be used against them. The person was not in custody and therefore not protected by the 5th Amendment right to counsel. Their attorney will certainly make some lame ass attempt to suppress their statements but it will be denied. That precedent has been set in stone for a long time.

If you had the "RIGHT to hire a lawyer any damn time I feel like it," then why would those statements be admissable in a court of law?

The answer (for the millionth time) is that it's not Constitutionally protected in that instance. Your right to counsel is only protected by virtue of the 5th and 6th Amendment triggers that I've been trying to beat into your pea sized brain.

The best part of all this is that you just don't realize how absolutely clueless and idiotic that you are. It's comical at this point. It's certainly not my fault that you don't understand Constitutional law.

Once again, please cite me some case law and precedent that you're correct. I won't hold my breath. Your uninformed and ignorant opinion doesn't count. I know that you're a big fan of your opinion here, sadly it's not shared by our forefathers and the United States Supreme Court.

[Rack Fu]

You're getting tripped up on the same wording as BSmack. Do not confuse a voluntary choice with an absolute Constitutional right. Right and choice are not interchangeable words here. Don't get hung up on that. It's not semantics either.

When the FBI comes knocking on your door, and you're not under arrest - you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to counsel. Once I place you in custody and start asking questions - you do have the Constitutionally protected right to counsel.

No, I'm not really getting "tripped up", Fu, and I understand what you're saying. But, if you come knocking on my door for questioning regarding a crime, I may not want to talk to you without an attorney being present and could slam the door in your face. In other words, I can tell you to "go fuck yourself, I ain't talking to you", and be perfectly within my rights to do so. If I felt the need to have an attorney present, I'd call one, and have every right to do so. You don't have to be mirandized to call an attorney, or be arrested before you have a "right" (Constitutional or otherwise) to have legal counsel present during the interview. If you're telling me that I'm wrong....then there's something fucked up with the system. Okay, I know the system is fucked up, but I mean even more than I thought. All I'm really saying is that there is nothing you (or Sixty Minutes) can do to compel me to talk, with or without an attorney being present.

So, as I said before, both you and Bri are correct. You're correct regarding Constitutional law about ones right to counsel after being mirandized/arrested but Bri is right that he can call an attorney any damn time he wants before talking, or not talking to you.

Mace

It's certainly your choice whether you want to talk to me or not. It's certainly your choice to have an attorney present if you'd like. You cannot be compelled to talk to me. All that said, you do not have the Constitutionally protected right to counsel. We're debating what is Constitutionally protected. It's not as fucked up as you might think. Though you do not have the right to counsel, the flip side is that I do not have the right or power to compel you to talk or deny you counsel. That's the check and balance for that.

The Constitutionally protected right to counsel is only triggered by the Miranda custody + interrogation or an adversarial judicial-type proceeding. It may sound strange, it may seem weird, it may seem un-American or whatever - those are the only two situations where a person has the right to counsel. That's just how it is. I don't know how to explain it any further. Feel free to ask an attorney that practices criminal law if you don't feel that I have articulated it to your satisfaction. I'm not making this shit up or blowing smoke up anyone's ass. It just is what it is.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just misusing the word "right" in regard to Constitutional protection in this instance. Everyone seems to think they have blanket rights for this or blanket rights for that. It's a lot more defined and strict than people think.

[BSmack]

Let me elaborate this point a bit more.

Let's say that I go out to interview someone who is not under arrest and has voluntarily agreed to be interviewed. At some point in the interview, they say that they want an attorney and will not answer any further questions. For whatever reason, they continue to talk and make statements after stating that they want an attorney. Are these statements admissable in court even though they asked for and wanted an attorney? Surely, they cannot be according to you since we have some inherent right to an attorney. Guess what, skippy? Those statements are most certainly admissable and will be used against them. The person was not in custody and therefore not protected by the 5th Amendment right to counsel. Their attorney will certainly make some lame ass attempt to suppress their statements but it will be denied. That precedent has been set in stone for a long time.

If you had the "RIGHT to hire a lawyer any damn time I feel like it," then why would those statements be admissable in a court of law?

Because the Constitution does not protect a citizen against poor decision making.

Again, you have the right to hire an attorney. You also have the right to suffer for making incriminating statements even AFTER you are in custody, much less before you have been arrested. Furthermore, if one is not "in custody", what are they doing hanging around talking to you after you have informed you of their desire to hire a lawyer? Were they not free to go?

[Rack Fu]

Because the Constitution does not protect a citizen against poor decision making.

Again, you have the right to hire an attorney. You also have the right to suffer for making incriminating statements even AFTER you are in custody, much less before you have been arrested. Furthermore, if one is not "in custody", what are they doing hanging around talking to you after you have informed you of their desire to hire a lawyer? Were they not free to go?

Sure they were free to go. Often times the interview is in their own house.

People like to talk. It proves to be the downfall for quite a few folks.

And for the millionth time, you do not have the right to an attorney. Provide proof that your statement is correct. I've provided all the proof necessary to PROVE you wrong. There is no debate.

[BSmack]

Sure they were free to go. Often times the interview is in their own house.

People like to talk. It proves to be the downfall for quite a few folks.

Seems to me that just about all the folks have that problem. Even the Cosa Nostra guys can't shut up any more.

And for the millionth time, you do not have the right to an attorney.

You're obviously confusing "right to have an attorney provided for you" with "right to HIRE an attorney". Seriously, did you for one second think that Roger Clemens was in need of a court appointed lawyer?

[Rack Fu]

I was working with a federal prosecutor (AUSA) yesterday and asked her how to best articulate this issue to someone. She said to not get caught up on the strict legal definition of the word "right." She said that I am technically 100% correct in what I am saying but that she doesn't have a problem with people using the phrase "right to an attorney" as they see fit. This is her exact quote: "Let them call it whatever they want, just let them know that it's not protected by the Constitution unless the criteria for the 5th and 6th Amendment right to counsel are met." That's 20 years of experience as a federal prosecutor talking. If you don't want to take my word for it, I'd take her's.

Although we may not have agreed on literal definitions of a word here, I did say numerous times "Constitutionally protected right."

[BSmack]

I was working with a federal prosecutor (AUSA) yesterday and asked her how to best articulate this issue to someone. She said to not get caught up on the strict legal definition of the word "right." She said that I am technically 100% correct in what I am saying but that she doesn't have a problem with people using the phrase "right to an attorney" as they see fit. This is her exact quote: "Let them call it whatever they want, just let them know that it's not protected by the Constitution unless the criteria for the 5th and 6th Amendment right to counsel are met." That's 20 years of experience as a federal prosecutor talking. If you don't want to take my word for it, I'd take her's.

Although we may not have agreed on literal definitions of a word here, I did say numerous times "Constitutionally protected right."

Ask her what she has to say about the 9th Amendment reserving all rights not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government to the States and the People. I mean seriously, are you saying that the government could pass a law barring attorneys from working in anything but cases protected by the 5th and 6th Amendment right to counsel provisions?

[Dinsdale]

The Constitutionally protected right to counsel is only triggered by the Miranda custody + interrogation or an adversarial judicial-type proceeding. It may sound strange, it may seem weird, it may seem un-American or whatever - those are the only two situations where a person has the right to counsel.

And unless you aren't thinking and decide to run your mouth and confess crimes to a law enforcement officer...

Those are pretty much the only times you need criminal defense counsel.


Duh.

[Dinsdale]

See if I've got this right -- McNamee now claims he kept used syringes from 7 years ago? And catalogged them to know whose was whose?


This shit keeps getting more and more weird. Dude sounded quite credible -- now he sounds like a nutcase.