Did Jose Canseco flip on Roger Clemens?
You may remember that one of the big points of contention in Roger Clemens’ hearing before Congress was whether or not he was at a party at Jose Canseco’s house back in 1998 during which steroids were discussed. McNamee said Clemens was there. Clemens said he was not.
Jose Canseco has long backed Clemens, saying no, he was not there. Back in June he testified before the grand jury and -- while cameras and stuff aren’t allowed in the grand jury room -- Canseco told reporters afterward that he again reiterated that, no, Clemens was not there.
Seems hard to square with the fact that the indictment specifically charges Clemens with lying about not being at the party. If Jose Canseco really did stick to his guns under oath, I’m not sure how Clemens could be charged. Likewise, the easiest way to charge Clemens with lying about that statement was if Canseco flipped on him.
And if Jose didn’t flip, and said that Clemens was not at the party, and the grand jury knows that’s a lie (which they must to have indicted Clemens), wouldn’t Jose Canseco be subject to a charge of lying to the grand jury too?