(Page 2 of 4)
Usually, this is because the person exhibiting the righteous indignation is not, well, righteous. But even if they are completely innocent, the approach generally proves ineffective. This is because nobody likes to see someone act like that. The public likes humility, contrition and a perspective outside oneself, which the Righteous Indignation approach typically makes you look like a pompous jerk.
2) Discrediting the Witness
Brian McNamee's been called a "drug dealer," and his criminal history has been brought to the forefront of the controversy, even things of which he was accused but never convicted. In addition, there are indications that McNamee was pressured into helping the Mitchell investigation, though it's not clear that they had any authority to get him convicted of anything, given that this was, in fact, a private investigation. He was not however, offered immunity.
A standard legal defense, it actually has some merit. If you can make your accuser look like anything less than a fine-upstanding citizen, or if you can demonstrate they had some reason to make up lies about you, you can gain some ground.
In the court of public opinion, where this fight has mostly been staged up to this point, this will win you some supporters, or it will at least give the people who already wanted to support you an excuse to do so.
In criminal court, painting your accuser in such a bad light can be just enough to establish a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, get you off the hook.
In a government hearing, however, especially one in which a report written by a formerly high-ranking member of that governing body is being discussed, it's unclear how much this does to help you, other than force people to take sides. Which brings us to tactic No. 3...
3) Divided We Conquer
If you can't beat 'em...get 'em to beat each other!
A lot has been made of the apparent situation that has Republicans generally believing, or at least supporting Roger Clemens, and disparaging the name of Brian McNamee, while Democrats tended to believe McNamee more and regard Clemens' statements with greater skepticism.
Though there are various possibilities as to why this might be the case, I think Occam's Razor will help us a lot here, i.e. the simplest answer is usually also the correct one: The Democrats who run the committee brought Clemens in because they're concerned about this whole Steroid Thing and Clemens has publicly stated that the allegations made against him in the Mitchell Report are not true. They want to know why he thinks that (or at least says it).
A lot has been made of the apparent situation that has Republicans generally believing, or at least supporting Roger Clemens, and disparaging the name of Brian McNamee, while Democrats tended to believe McNamee more and regard Clemens' statements with greater skepticism.
Though there are various possibilities as to why this might be the case, I think Occam's Razor will help us a lot here, i.e. the simplest answer is usually also the correct one: The Democrats who run the committee brought Clemens in because they're concerned about this whole Steroid Thing and Clemens has publicly stated that the allegations made against him in the Mitchell Report are not true. They want to know why he thinks that (or at least says it).
And the Republicans? Well, they're Republicans.
We're going to send you the most entertaining New York Yankees articles, videos, and podcasts from around the web.
1 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete