In a court filing in Texas as part of Roger Clemens’ defamation suit against former trainer, Brian McNamee, U.S. attorney Matthew Parrella stated that he told McNamee that his cooperation with the Mitchell Investigation was required to maintain an existing proffer agreement granting him immunity. Potential charges stemmed from McNamee’s purchasing of performance enhancing drugs from Kirk Radomski.
Parella’s declaration was one of four submitted by McNamee’s lawyers. Also submitted were declarations by Charles Scheeler, a lawyer working with the Mitchell Investigation, and McNamee’s lawyers, Earl Ward and Richard Emery.
In a very basic sense, the main contention of Clemens’ suit is that McNamee lied when he cooperated with a private citizen (the Mitchell Investigation) and is therefore responsible for damages. McNamee claims he was (a) telling the truth, (b) compelled by the government and (c) granted immunity, and therefore not responsible for damages.
The declarations are thought to bolster McNamee’s defense, especially those of Parrella and Scheeler.
From Parrella’s declaration:
“I told McNamee that speaking to the Mitchell Commission was part of his cooperation with the investigation in order to maintain his witness status.”
From Scheeler’s declaration:
“On each occasion, McNamee was advised that he would face criminal charges if he made any false statement during these interviews, which were deemed by the prosecutors to be subject to his written agreement with the US Attorney’s Office.”
One of Clemens’ attorneys, Lara Hollingsworth, said the declarations don’t hurt their case.
“These affidavits … don’t contradict our prior positions. [McNamee] was not under court order, he was not under legal compulsion. He talked to Sen. Mitchell because it was to his benefit to do so.”
McNamee’s lawyers are hoping most of the case will now be dropped.
“I expect the lawsuit will be dismissed as far as the Mitchell Commission elements go.”
Emery believed the part of the suit concerning the conversation between McNamee and Andy Pettitte about Clemen’s drug use might remain, but thought it was of little consequence.
“There are no damages for Brian to talking to an admitted drug user about a mutual friend’s drug use. It would lead to perhaps the deposition of Pettitte and Clemens, but that case is tiny.”
