Roger Clemens -- with a twist

As most sports fans know, Roger Clemens has been on trial -- again. The trial is going on 2 months, some jurors have been dismissed for falling asleep, and no end appears to be in sight any time soon.

It's not about whether he took steroids, human growth hormone, or other "performance enhancing drugs", but rather whether he lied to Congress about this some 8 years ago. This is old news. Being charged with lying to Congress, who many think have historically been a pack of liars themselves, likely seems ludicrous to some. Yet they plow away with their prosecutors, spending untold millions of our tax dollars in the process. You'd likely agree that Congress wasting our hard earned money on some ridiculous projects is most definitely old news. But it is what it is.

When you get right down to it, the whole case is pretty simple. Brian McNamee, the "witness for the prosecution" and Clemens' former "trainer", has testified under oath that he injected Clemens a few times with PEDs. These alleged occasions happened either during Clinton's presidency, or George Jr.'s first term -- in other words -- quite a while back.

Clemens testified in front of Congress in 2004 that it never happened. Obviously, our legislators, in their infinite wisdom, think he lied -- hence the current charges and trial.

That's it.

All the other junk that's gone on in that courtroom is nothing but fluff -- distractions that are irrelevant.

So it all boils down to two things the jurors have to consider.

First, who do they want to believe? McNamee or Clemens?

And second, even if they believe McNamee, which would mean Clemens "used", do they really want to convict him for lying to other liars about it? Almost a decade later, does it really matter? Is it worth all this time and expense, or will the jurors feel insulted for having been dragged through this ordeal?

Hard to say, but here's a twist nobody else has mentioned yet.

Obviously, either Clemens, under oath before Congress way back when, or McNamee, recently under oath in federal court -- lied. One of them is guilty of perjury.

If Clemens is found guilty, the judge will sentence him to what the court deems appropriate. McNamee will carry on doing whatever he does these days.

But what if Clemens is acquitted on all charges? That would mean the jury deemed him to be truthful. Simple logic would dictate that makes McNamee guilty of perjury. Like flipping a coin, there has to be a winner and also a loser. It can't be both ways.

If Clemens wins, shouldn't McNamee be immediately arrested and tried for perjury himself?  It would certainly be fodder for the reporters for the next several months, and the feds could blow another few million bucks of our tax money on silliness.

On second thought......

Nevermind, and please don't forward this to your local congressperson.

They might get together and actually do it.