First, an update on my original question 2 RE: being placed under oath. I read an article in the local paper that said that when at least one of the witnesses was being questioned by Mitchell et al, a "federal investigator" was there to remind the witness that making a "false statement" would have legal implications. Though not as good as under oath, at least it adds a bit more credibility to his statements.
BobbleheadDoll:
Thank you for the explanations in your first post. Though I agree with you in the vast majority of what you said, I do have three points I would like to make. First, the fifth ammendment allows you to refuse to give testimoney or answer questions IN ANY INVESTIGATIVE FORUM whether it be a police interrogation room, a congressional hearing or a quasi-legal creation of MLB; not just it a court of law if, and only if, giving a true statement in answer to a question might incriminate you. Second, hearsay (i.e. an out of court statement offered by someone other than the declarant to prove the truth of the matter asserted) is often allowed in the courtroom under a variety of exceptions (business records, dieng declaration and about 25 other exceptions to the hearsay rule. Third, Malice is required to hold the maker of the libelous statement liable for damages in court if the person libeled is found to be a "public figure". Though some of the more than 80 former and current MLB players named in the report might not be considered "public figures" certainly Roger Clemmens would be. Thus, in addition to untrue statement and damages, Clemmens's lawyers will have to prove malice to win a libel case against MLB, etc. Rent the movie "Absence of Malice" starring Paul Newman and Sally Field for 2 hours of good drama and a through rendering of the malice issue in libel.
With regard to your second post, I mean to say that there are a couple of ways you can do an investigation like this. One is you invite all the players to come and talk to you at first. Then you get a few players, ex-players, trainers, GM's, assistant GM's, whatever to name some players that might have taken steroids, HGH, etc. Now if the first group refuses to talk and the second group implicates about 80 plus of the first group, what do you do? Apparently, unlike Mr. Mitchell who chose to stop right there and write a 400+ page report, I would then contact the 80 plus again and say, "Hey, guess what? Somebody says you were on the juice in 19?? or 200?. Would you like to come in now and deny this if you can?" Now, if the investigation had been conducted like that and none of the 80+ had come in, wouldn't you feel better about the truth of these allegations? I certainly would.
Again, a mess is a mess, of course, of course, unless the mess is made worse, of course, that is, of course, unless a source, talked to Mr. Mitch.
TW344