Big time jail time should only be awarded for crimes proven in a court of law. The evidence needs to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, and that does not include opinions based solely on how a defendant presents himself.
In this case, there is no credible evidence (that I have seen) that proves Clemens guilty of perjury (which is the only legal charge he could face, IIRC).
Where has our party gone? To the dogs, if unproven allegations are sufficient to deprive a man of his liberty.
Big time jail time should only be awarded for crimes proven in a court of law. The evidence needs to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, and that does not include opinions based solely on how a defendant presents himself.
Of course. And if Roger is charged with lying to Congress, he will have the presumption of innocence in court, same as any other defendant.
Not “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the legal standard in this country.
In this case, there is no credible evidence (that I have seen) that proves Clemens guilty of perjury (which is the only legal charge he could face, IIRC).
There I can't agree with you.
Either Clemens is lying or Andy Pettite is. His accuser might not be a choirboy (few witnesses in drug crimes are), but his claims have gained much credibility through Pettite's admissions.