The Recap: One might wonder how much use a Q&A might be when each congressman gets only 10 minutes of face time before the panel. The legal issues that were most glaring to me were (1) could either McNamee or Clemens (especially Roger) be charged with perjury and, even more shocking, (2) could Clemens and/or his attorney be charged with obstruction of justice in what will soon be known as "Nannygate?"

Summary: The questioning was remarkably partisan and it was difficult to ignore. Most of the Republicans were clearly partial to Roger Clemens and it was difficult to ignore the effect of the "Clemens Tour" of Congress before the hearings. What was even more difficult to accept were how star struck some of these politicians were and their inability to realize how transparent they were and that their comments were so incredibly inappropriate. Rep. William Lacy Clay asked open ended questions designed to allow Clemens to talk about what a good upstanding citizen he is followed by an inquiry as to what uniform Clemens was going to wear in the Hall of Fame. Hard to believe. I found that those that tried to discredit McNamee were doing far more grandstanding about old wine. Rep. Dan Burton kept asking/reminding McNamee about his prior lies before he came clean with the truth. Was he any different than Andy Pettitte or other superstar that was afraid to tell the truth but now felt compelled to inform people about the dangers of steroids and had no other ill conceived motives? The difference between Pettitte and McNamee is that nobody heard of McNamee before this hearing - and didn't get a chance to tour Congress.

McNamee didn't have proud moments when Rep. Christopher Shays had nothing to add except, on camera, call the former trainer a "drug dealer" several times. Please congressman, I think there is a big difference between the school pusher and wealthy athletes knowingly wanting to get an edge over the competition with millions of dollars at stake. But the two most devastating blows came against Clemens and I didn't see the news media emphasize them enough.

(1) Nannygate - Obstruction: I could not believe what I heard and it would be shameful if Congress didn't pursue the following matter. Roger Clemens swore that he and his family were not at the famous "Canseco Lunch" which was a party on one fine day. Apparently Jose Canseco (probably the least credible person of all) swears Roger wasn't there but his ex-wife said that she remembers vividly that Debbie Clemens, Roger's wife, was there. Of additional note, Clemens provided receipts from a golfing store - right near Canseco's home - to claim he was golfing but not at the party. McNamee remembers seeing Clemens' nanny at the party. But when Congress asked Roger and his attorney, Rusty Hardin, for the name of that nanny, apparently they were not forthcoming for at least a week. Instead, Roger Clemens located her and invited her down to his house - after over [I]8-9 years[/I] of silence between the two, to discuss the matter of his not being at the party.

"There will always be a question now about whether you tried to influence her testimony," Waxman said. Hardin jumped up ferociously, muttering something about this wrongfully casting an appearance of impropriety and that attorneys always interrogate first before handing over the information, etc. I'm not so sure about this is the process (and we are talking about Congress) and I'm especially sure this isn't acceptable conduct when a party actually contacts a witness directly! This reeks even more than the surprise phone call that Clemens made to McNamee that he secretly recorded in an attempt to discredit McNamee. But moreso, is this punishable conduct in obstruction of justice - for both client [I]and [/I]attorney?

(2) Perjury: Clearly the most compelling 15 minutes of the hearings were those contributed by Rep. Elijah Cummings. Clemens confirmed that his close friend and teammate, Andy Pettitte, was a man of uncompromising integrity. He revealed to us that Andy Pettitte apparently testified under oath, after being questioned three times on the topic, that he clearly recalled Roger Clemens telling him about his HGH steroid use many years ago. The best Clemens to do was explain that his best friend "misheard" him. Yet this conversation was so important that Pettitte's wife testified as well that her husband told her about this subject - one that would probably be clarified in great detail given its importance. Cummings further followed up by nailing Clemens to the wall - McNamee gave testimony about 3 players who initially denied their usage and now corroborated McNamee's story. Again Clemens muttered about being "misheard." It was also challenging to believe Clemens given that he couldn't recall the 2005 conversation with Pettitte where Clemens specifically "corrected" his best friend that the HGH steroid use was actually his own wife, Debbie. It seems like HGH was known to the Clemens family for quite a while. Pettitte clearly recalled this conversation and stated that he didn't care to argue with Clemens about what he heard clearly years before.

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York thanked Clemens for his accomplishments and then surprisingly hit him hard with his biggest, bare faced lie of all. Clemens had to admit that he told Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes that he did not speak to former Senator George Mitchell because he was advised by his lawyers not to do so. Yet in his deposition with the committee investigators, Clemens said on six occasions that he did not know Mitchell wanted to speak to him. When Clemens was asked about his contradicting statements he reiterated that he did not know Mitchell wanted to talk to him. She asked stated that if his agents did him a disservice by keeping Mitchell's request to speak to him, as Clemens agreed, then she would have fired them like members of her own staff.

In fairness, I'm not sure what to say about McNamee's testimony. He claims it's the truth and other than some minor inconsistencies about getting dates perfect, it seemed very credible. It was also backed up by Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, the other two players McNamee claimed he injected who first denied and then agreed. They weren't coerced.

Conclusion: I mercifully didn't see the rest of the hearings because the time spent pandering to the camera was wasteful and not a shining moment for our government. Without taking sides and trying to let all the evidence I've heard thus far come into play, I couldn't help but be reminded of one stinging line delivered and difficult to ignore - "I hate to say that. You're one of my heroes. But it's hard to believe you." Rep. Elijah Cummings

Right now we are in the court of public opinion. We don't uphold a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and, like every day situations, our need to use our own common sense comes into play. I look forward to hearing your reactions and thoughts on the process, the potential issues above and what should be done.