There is nothing quite like a high-profile scandal to attract Congressmen like moths to a flame, and the Mitchell Report on steroid and HGH use in baseball is one of the brightest flames around these days.  Two Congressional Committees have scheduled hearings in January on the issue, inviting former Senator George Mitchell and MLB Commissioner Bud Selig to testify.  Back in March 2005, in the first round of publicity-mongering on steroids in baseball, the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee invited a number of major leaguers to testify about steroid use.  That hearing produced Mark McGwire’s famous non-assertion of the Fifth Amendment when he proclaimed he would only talk about the future — who cares about what a retired baseball player does after his playing days — and Rafael Palmeiro aggressively asserting that he never used steroids — only to test positive a couple months later, thus ending his career.

The prospect of such enticing nuggets showing up on YouTube may well result in one or more invitations to superstar pitcher Roger Clemens to testify about his reported steroid use.  Clemens is the highest profile player, perhaps after Barry Bonds, named in the Mitchell Report, and he issued the following statement denying the assertions in the Report: "I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life.  Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take."  A USA Today story (here) quotes Representative Tom Davis as stating that no players will be subpoenaed, but they are free to appear voluntarily and testify under oath.

The source of the information about Clemens is a former trainer, Brian McNamee, who is reported to have spoken to Mitchell and his investigators pursuant to a proffer agreement with federal prosecutors that limits any subsequent use of his statements against him while requiring him to be truthful.  This type of limited immunity, sometimes called a "Queen for a Day" agreement, usually is a prelude to a plea bargain with the government that will include a recommendation of leniency from prosecutors based on the defendant’s cooperation.  There is no report at this point that McNamee has agreed to plead guilty to any charges, and there’s a chance prosecutors could decide not to charge him or even grant full immunity.  Either way, the limited protection does not mean he is a credible witness automatically.

Given Clemens’ denial and McNamee’s statements to Mitchell, could there be much better theater than having them both appear on Capitol Hill, a surefire lead story on the evening news?  While statements to the media are not subject to the perjury or false statement laws, much to the consternation of many journalists, testimony before Congress is under oath.  If you were Clemens’ attorney, would you have your client testify, especially if there were others out there aside from McNamee who could provide information against him?  On the other hand, given the clarity of his denial of steroid and HGH use, can counsel advise Clemens not to testify if given the opportunity?  While Clemens declined to speak with Mitchell, now that his name it out in public, there will be enormous pressure on him to go to Capitol Hill.  In his statement he said "I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way."  Is a Congressional hearing the "appropriate" forum, or was he thinking about perhaps going on Larry King?

Of course, Congress would learn nothing of any importance from having Clemens testify, just like no real legislative purpose was served in 2005 when McGwire, Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, and others were dragged in front of the Committee — but not Barry Bonds, as it turns out.  The invitation is really asking Clemens to step into a perjury traps because Congressional testimony is under oath, and hence subject to a perjury prosecution.  The trap is easily avoided, if Clemens is not subpoenaed to testify, because he can just decline the invitation while castigating the media.  Indeed, he may already have laid the groundwork for such a position when his statement included the following: "I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt."  Perhaps he will simply ask for the benefit of the doubt, but at what cost to his credibility if there’s an open invitation to reiterate under oath what he has already said to the media. (ph)