Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Obama, McCain Sweep Tuesday Primaries; Roger Clemens Under Oath; The Death of a Top Hezbollah Leader
Aired February 13, 2008 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Under oath and under fire, a baseball hero and the man who says he injected the player with steroids getting grilled on Capitol Hill.
Hello, everyone. I'm Don Lemon, live at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kyra Phillips.
Baseball star Roger Clemens says he never used performance- enhancing drugs ever, but his former trainer says that is not true. Brian McNamee says he knows this because he is the one who gave those drugs to Roger Clemens. The baseball legend and his accuser sat just a few feet away from each other on Capitol Hill and testified under oath.
For his part, Clemens denied repeatedly that he has ever used performance-enhancing drugs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER CLEMENS, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER: How do you prove a negative? No matter what we discuss here today, I'm never going to have my name restored. But I have got to try and set the record straight.
However, by doing so, I'm putting myself out there to all of you, knowing that, because I said that I didn't take steroids, that this is looked as an attack on Senator Mitchell's report.
Where am I to go with that? I'm not saying Senator Mitchell's report is entirely wrong. I am saying Brian McNamee's statements about me are wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Brian McNamee has turned over evidence he says amounts to proof that he injected Clemens with steroids, including needles and gauze pads. But Congressman Dan Burton had a skeptical response to McNamee's story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN BURTON (R), INDIANA: I want to make sure I have got this straight. Your friend Roger Clemens, you allegedly gave him these shots. You kept the pads and the needles for five years and went on and kept working for him because he was your employer.
And then you say you said you felt bad -- you felt bad about proposing and giving these to the Mitchell committee when you first started talking to them?
BRIAN MCNAMEE, FORMER PERSONAL TRAINER TO ROGER CLEMENS: Yes, sir.
BURTON: Gee whiz! Are you kidding me?
MCNAMEE: No, sir.
BURTON: My goodness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Let's go now to Washington live and Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Oversight Committee speaking right now. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
REP. TOM DAVIS (R), VIRGINIA: ... both challenged on their statements, I think, substantially.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: What message are you sending to other leagues with regards to their steroid policies (OFF-MIKE)
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA), GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: We want them to make sure that they do everything to stop the use of these illicit drugs in their sports.
And I want to make sure that they have a testing regimen, an educational regimen, and they get the drugs out of major league sports. I don't want that link any longer. So, while we have looked at baseball today, we have looked at other sports during the 2005 hearings. And we're going to continue to monitor how all professional athletes -- athletics are handling this matter.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Is forensic testing being done on this evidence that you know of? Is forensic testing being done?
DAVIS: You have the ask is the federal authorities whom this was turned over. Really, that is in their purview at this point.
QUESTION: Which is which agency?
DAVIS: Probably Justice, I think. Justice Department.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... judge on this? DAVIS: Probably.
QUESTION: Is that to say you are reluctant to refer it to DOJ, or what case you, at this point, to refer this matter to DOJ?
DAVIS: Well, we haven't said that discussion yet. I think we have to go and parse the testimony, take a look at the total records, additional documents. I don't we are there yet.
Are you thinking...
WAXMAN: I certainly have not come to any conclusions along those lines. And that is not my thinking at the moment. I will evaluate it. I will think it over.
QUESTION: It seemed to get partisan in the questioning, Republicans questioning McNamee harshly, Democrats questioning Clemens (OFF-MIKE)
WAXMAN: Well, I it just was not other than the fact that members came out on different sides.
Mr. Souder, on the Republican side, I thought made some very interesting statements, in light of the work that he has done in illicit drug issues, where he talked about how, sometimes, you get a little story at first and then it gets bigger and more information later on. I thought that was an observation that was very, very worthwhile.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Last question for Chairman Waxman. Last question.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: It is possible that you all could come to the conclusion that one of these people was lying, and yet not make a recommendation for a perjury charge?
WAXMAN: It is certainly possible.
DAVIS: Sure.
WAXMAN: Thank you all very much.
LEMON: Henry Waxman, Tom Davis, the leading Republican on the House Oversight Committee, talking about why they held these hearings today and what they plan to do if anything in the future.
In the meantime, CNN is going to break it al down for you. Our national correspondent, Gary Tuchman, he was inside of the hearing. And he will join us in the NEWSROOM in just a few minutes.
Meantime, we want to ask you this. Who do you believe? That is a question we're posing in today's "Quick Vote" at CNN.com. Is Roger Clemens telling the truth or is his former's account more credible, or are neither of them telling the truth? Log on to CNN and vote at CNN.com.
Here is the voter breakdown as it stands right now. Nineteen percent of you say that Roger Clemens is telling the truth. Nine percent -- I should say 36 percent believe his trainer is telling the truth. And nearly half don't believe either person is telling the truth in this case.
KEILAR: Topping the Political Ticker: big wins by Senator Barack Obama and John McCain in the Potomac primaries. Obama handily beat his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. And for the first time now, he leads her in the total delegate count.
On the Republican side, front-runner John McCain also came out on top in those three primaries. Now, despite his losses in yesterday's Potomac primaries, Republican Mike Huckabee is still pressing ahead. He says he is staying in the race as an alternative to John McCain. Huckabee says he is -- quote -- "a solid conservative, absolute pro- life candidate."
And another senior level staff member is leaving Hillary Clinton's campaign. Deputy campaign manager Mike Henry has resigned. That word coming from Clinton campaign officials, and this is the second such departure in the last few days. It was revealed Sunday that former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was being replaced by longtime Clinton aide Maggie Williams.
A major endorsement for Hillary Clinton in a key primary state for her. Former astronaut and Ohio Democratic Senator John Glenn backing her. Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, served in the Senate for 24 years. And the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4 are huge for Senator Clinton.
A new look now on our Democratic delegate board. For the first time, Barack Obama has passed Hillary Clinton in the total delegate count. You see there he has 1,253 delegates, Clinton 1,211. The candidate who will be the nominee needs to get a total of 2,025 delegates to become the Democratic nominee.
Now, let's check out Republicans. This is where the delegate count stands right now. You can see McCain 827, Huckabee 217, and then also Mitt Romney, who suspended his campaign, had more than 200, close to 300, but has since suspended his campaign, as I said. Ron Paul with 16 delegates. And the Republicans need to get -- the candidate, I should say, needs to get 1,191 delegates to win the nomination.
Now, next big stops on the trail, Texas and Ohio, and you can track all of the action from the campaign trail at CNNPolitics.com, plus, of course, analysis from the best political team on television, all of that and more at CNNPolitics.com.
LEMON: His nickname was the Fox for his ability to stay ahead of the American and Israeli authorities hunting him for 25 years. Today, a long--wanted terror mastermind is dead, the apparent target of a car bombing on the other side of the world.
Here is CNN's Beirut bureau chief, Brent Sadler.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRENT SADLER, CNN BEIRUT BUREAU CHIEF (voice-over): One of the world's most wanted terror suspects, Imad Mughniyeh, targeted by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.,
Mughniyeh was a top Hezbollah operation, a Lebanese mastermind, it is claimed, by Israeli and U.S. officials, behind a chain of attacks against U.S., Israeli and Jewish targets that sometimes shook the world.
Harrowing images in 1983 of a truck bombing that collapsed a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut helped shape a hasty U.S. withdrawal from the quagmire of Lebanon's sectarian civil war -- 241 U.S. civil personnel died in that attack.
MARC SIROIS, MANAGING EDITOR, "DAILY STAR": He was obviously a very capable operator who could plan, carry out, execute very complicated operations and obviously get away with it for a very long time.
SADLER: Some of Hezbollah anti-Israel terror tactics were originally inspired by Mughniyeh, it is claimed by Western security sources, and used to help wage Hezbollah's asymmetrical war against Israel, especially during the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah conflict.
Mughniyeh had been in hiding for years. But his footprint, according to Western intelligence, appeared not only in Lebanon, where he was also linked to the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner and its passengers, but also Iran, Syria and as far afield as South America.
Israel believes deadly attacks during the 1990s against its Argentine embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires were also the work of Mughniyeh.
SIROIS: A lot of people can gain from Imad Mughniyeh's death. One could be the Syrians. The Israelis also gain. The Americans gain.
SADLER (on camera): Imad Mughniyeh is expected to be buried by Hezbollah with honors Thursday in the heart of the group's teeming stronghold in South Beirut, parts of which were obliterated by Israel some 18 months ago.
(voice-over): A few miles away in a repeat of last year's turnout, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are expected to commemorate the assassination of long-serving Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a tense day of remembrance for two very different men, whose deeply divided followers have been at each other's throats for over a year, as an Hezbollah-led political opposition tries to topple a Western-backed government.
Brent Sadler, CNN, Beirut. (END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: And we want to tell you that coming up in the CNN NEWSROOM, our international anchor, Mr. Jim Clancy, has covered a lot of this situation, covered a lot of the bombings that this man is responsible for. He's join us in the CNN NEWSROOM in just a moment.
KEILAR: And those heated baseball and steroids hearing on the Hill, they have wrapped up, and we are expecting Roger Clemens, himself, to come to the mike shortly. We are going to bring it to you right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Roger Clemens addressing the media in Washington. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
CLEMENS: I am glad to have the opportunity finally, and I hope I get the -- and I know I will -- have the opportunity to come here to Washington again under different terms.
So, just thank you all very much.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: What did Mr. Clemens say to Andy Pettitte in 1999 or 2000 that was misheard? What was it?
What was it? Can you say that? That is an important point.
RUSTY HARDIN, ATTORNEY FOR ROGER CLEMENS: Let me just -- no. No. No. You heard the hearings.
QUESTION: But he didn't say what he said, sir.
HARDIN: Let me just finish real quickly and then we will get out quicker, if you don't want it.
I have always been bothered by when I see people handicapping what happened in a particular public appearance, so we are not going to go into a lot of detail about it. I think all of you got an opportunity to see each of the parties. And the public can make its own determinations.
What Lanny and I say about who is or who is not believable is not going to be accepted. So, we will just let the public and everybody judge for themselves. I think Roger showed who he is. I think he showed the kind of person he is. And I think, at the end of the day, those with an open mind will be receptive. I think that we want to thank all the members.
Some of you said what about the partisan breakdown? I don't really see it as a partisan breakdown. I see a lot of members on both the Democratic and the Republican side were fair. And then some people had some points of view that they are obviously entitled to.
God bless the First Amendment.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... wanted to believe Andy Pettitte. Do you have any explanation at all for the miscommunication or whatever you want to describe -- however you want to describe it, of Andy Pettitte?
HARDIN: No. No, you need to understand, part of what we heard from Andy -- them say today about what Andy said, we had not heard before. And so Roger is having to respond to some things he had not heard before.
I understand they have released everything on the Web site. I think, if you look at it fully, there may be some things that show less certainty than perhaps came out today, but I don't know that. At the end of the day, Roger really likes, cares deeply about Andy. He thinks Andy is mistaken.
And there are two things you ought to remember. Good people, whether it is Senator Mitchell or whether it's Andy, can make mistakes. Andy heard one thing. Roger believes and knows another thing. And everybody else can go from there.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... desire to meet with him?
LANNY BREUER, ATTORNEY FOR ROGER CLEMENS: I just want to add for a moment a couple of points.
QUESTION: Did you communicate to Roger that Mitchell wanted to meet with him?
HARDIN: Mitchell didn't. By the time we were involved, it was a done deal.
QUESTION: Did he contact you and just express his desire to want to meet with Roger?
HARDIN: No.
BREUER: No.
QUESTION: He never did?
BREUER: Never did.
(CROSSTALK)
BREUER: Now, we of course weren't in the case then.
I just want to make a couple of points. We made a promise to all of you from the very beginning that Roger would make himself available to anybody and everyone, he would answer every single question, and he would do it directly.
And he has done exactly that. He met with every member of Congress who is interested and answered every question. He answered every question in the deposition. And he answered every question today, number one.
Number two, any suggestion whatsoever that this hearing was a result of our request is simply not accurate. When I was first retained, I argued to this committee that this should not be the kind of hearing that they had, that Roger Clemens would be proud and delighted that to join Chairman Waxman and to anyone else, and to say to them to what he has said to children all over America, that there are no shortcuts, that it is hard work, and that he is against steroids and he is against HGH.
I was turned down flat. Then the committee decided to go forward, Chairman Waxman. It was only after the depositions where it is all written that we were then asked, do we want to go forward? And even then, my colleague and I said, we did not need a hearing as long as there would be a fair report.
But what we could not live with is a report that was cut and pasted without all of you hearing and seeing from Roger directly. And that is what you did. Those of you who ask us about Andy Pettitte, Roger cares deeply about Andy Pettitte. He considers him a friend. But for some reason, Andy Pettitte was not here today.
We only can talk about a deposition transcript. We could only see Mr. McNamee and we saw Roger. We will let the American people decide for themselves. Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: The question was, real quick, can we expect a perjury charge?
HARDIN: Number one is -- number one is, Roger Clemens certainly did not commit perjury, told the truth. He didn't use steroids and he didn't use human growth hormone.
Whether or not the chairman decides to make a referral, that is totally his decision. The thing that I think people are missing though is the very possibility -- the very fact that Roger subjected himself to this possibility and still agreed to swear under oath two different times, both at his deposition and here, should show you that he believes strongly he is telling the truth.
No sane man -- and I have had everybody say we are insane lawyers for allowing this -- no sane man would subject himself to that unless he deeply believed he was telling the truth.
QUESTION: What are the syringes going to show?
HARDIN: Nothing. It is the silliest poppycock I have ever seen.
QUESTION: Why? HARDIN: Well, because seven-year ago syringes from a guy who said -- even the person himself says he was given shots by the guy? He could keep them and do whatever the hell wanted with it. There's no way to -- I will guarantee you this. Representative Duncan was right on point as a former judge in Tennessee. There is not a court in the world who would ever admit those things.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: Oh, I think whether anybody won is in the minds -- is in the eye of the beholder.
You have got to understand, if we had one a poll, I will bet you to 75 percent to 90 percent of the public when these allegations came out just jumped on that Roger did it. That is not a scientific poll. It's just based on the way everybody reacted.
We have always said that if we could move the pendulum back to where people with an open mind made up their mind after they heard everyone, then we would have won in that sense. But win is defined as all Roger -- I don't know how we define it. All Roger can do is to tell the truth, let people make up their own mind.
BREUER: And, Rusty, can I add to that for a moment?
HARDIN: Yes.
BREUER: The other promise we made was there would be no secrets or surprises. And there were no secrets or surprises.
We had a great doctor from Baylor look at the medical records and the committee knew that and today you all found out about that.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: It's a surprise that Roger didn't call the doctor after his wife got an injection. Why didn't he call the doctor?
HARDIN: Why would he?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... doesn't feel good, why wouldn't you call the doctor after getting an injection of HGH?
HARDIN: Do you call the doctor every time you don't feel good.
QUESTION: If I take HGH, I would?
HARDIN: Give me a break? Really?
BREUER: Really?
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: How would you know that? Have you taken HGH? Next question.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: You don't have to answer that. You don't have to answer that. Do you need a lawyer?
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: The IRS investigator was sitting there in the hearing. You can honestly say you don't he is going to come out of this looking to press charges?
HARDIN: Well, I hope not. But, if he does, that it is certainly his right. It was his right to be there.
Let me explain something that you all -- you need to keep in mind two things. The allegations he was asked about, McNamee was, in a series of questions about whether or not he was pressured by law enforcement, worked off of our petition which we made very clear in the lawsuit. We have no idea what the government did with him. I am willing to accept the government's word at face value they didn't do any of that.
We are working off what McNamee has told us on the tape. It will be released. And you will hear that the day before the Mitchell report, he contends he all kinds of pressure on him. I don't have any real reason to believe he did. I just think it may be another time he is lying.
But the point is, is that we don't know what the Mitchell commission did, and we don't know what the government did. And we are not making my allegations we did. We are only talking about what Brian McNamee has told others. And you all can do decide whether that it is true.
At the end of the day, you folks are going to have to decide what you would have done. And I ask every member of the public, when Lanny got retained to work as co-counsel with us on this case, he had the same reaction that any lawyer would initially. He had the same reaction I did when I was retained by Roger.
If Roger walked out and said that the Mitchell report was wrong as to him, we always knew and he was advised that one day he would be here, OK, because the committee felt proprietary toward that report. That was no secret. They had a lot to do with it being done.
And so that was one reason we waited and made sure Roger understood that if he ever came out publicly that that report was wrong to him, he faced a possible criminal referral down the line if he testified before Congress, and he would be asked to testify at least two times, once in a staff deposition and once -- he walked out -- in there knowing it.
I have never seen a person more steadfast and credible and believable in my view that he didn't do what is wrong. The question I ask everybody in America to ask, it's the same one I asked Lanny. When Lanny and I meet -- and I think he would agree -- first, he says, after having heard all this stuff, well, he can't testify, right?
No lawyer is going to let him go in there and do it. And I said, Lanny, what happens if Roger is telling the truth? What would your position be? And he goes, well, then, I guess we would have to fight.
I said, well, let's go over and let you listen to Roger and see what you think. At the end of the day, the Saturday that he and I first get together on this, he agrees, we have got to fight. The whole world will think he is crazy. Why in the world? You saw the skepticism about it. Roger always knew that.
But I ask everyone to decide, if your public reputation and you had lived in public all of your life and many consider you the greatest baseball pitcher of all time and certainly of our generation, and somebody comes out and say the things about you that were in the Mitchell report, what is that person supposed to do to try to protect their public reputation?
BREUER: And Rusty, can I join you...
HARDIN: Yes, with one sentence, you can.
(LAUGHTER)
HARDIN: And that is...
BREUER: Let's hold him to it.
HARDIN: ... that you do what Roger Clemens did and let the devil take the hindmost. You tell the world you didn't do it and let everybody else decide.
BREUER: And on that point, I just want to be incredibly open, as Roger has told us to be.
When I met with the committee and it was private, I made it clear, Roger Clemens was not, has not and never will challenge the Mitchell report. He challenges the veracity and accusations of one man, Brian McNamee. And Roger Clemens has spent his entire career to be the great athlete and pitcher and citizen he is, the man who talks to kids all over the country.
He has to be able to confront his accuser. The notion that he -- that there is something wrong with that is terrible. That is what he did today. And that is what he is going to continue to do.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: What about Andy Pettitte's accusations and his wife's accusations?
(CROSSTALK)
BREUER: Andy Pettitte... QUESTION: And his wife.
BREUER: You know, know they are not here, and I would love to know why they weren't here. As Roger has said, maybe Andy is mistaken.
But for some reason, Andy Pettitte wasn't here today, nor his wife. Their relationship remains. People are wrong. People make mistakes, and people forget.
HARDIN: There's one final thing we will address, and then we are going to go.
BREUER: Right.
HARDIN: And the question here was is, are we concerned about the suggestion of impropriety with the nanny? OK.
I will tell you, it was hard to hold Roger down on in his seat on that. He knew. And he was anxious not to get upset about anything. This woman is a lifetime friend of the family who quit working with them when her daughter had a child and she stayed home to help her daughter raise the child.
She is still very close to them. She has had a relative killed before in another country. She is very nervous about the government. Roger and them didn't even know Friday when the committee asked for it, staff asked for it.
And, remember, when which say committee, we are talking staff. We hadn't dealt with the representatives themselves. They asked us for the first time Friday night about they wanted to get in touch with the baby-sitter. We didn't even know she was there ourselves. And so we asked Roger. He says, we don't even know where she is. We will try to find her.
They find her some time Saturday afternoon. They tell us. We ask -- and I won't say anything about the lawyer for Mitchell committee, what he had to say today. But the -- we asked him if you can get her to talk to us. We had two investigators, the same one who had involved in it, interview her at Roger's house, away from Roger.
All Roger did that day was greet her at the house and say, these guys would like to talk to you. Then they go and they're interviewed. And then we give the next morning the name of the baby-sitter and the address and the way they can contact her.
I will say this. I will have very little to say about my view of the chairman's perspective on this. But I will say this, that if you watched around, he waited to raise that issue until there was nobody up there on the dais from either side that could correct him who was also part of that interview as to whether that was being misrepresented.
BREUER: And, if I can add to that, I just want a little objective facts, and you judge and let the American people judge what is fair.
Friday, late afternoon, is when we get the request. We don't even know why they are making the request about a nanny who the family has not talked to in years. And it is because of Roger Clemens, it is because he is open, and it is because we cooperated that we were able to find this person and make her available to the committee.
And you all judge for yourselves, those who you have had nannies and baby-sitters, could all you have found a nanny or a baby-sitter from your family who you had not talked to for years and years? That is the kind of person we are talking about. That is this what matters...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Well, he just said they were close. He just said the nanny was close.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: But she hadn't worked for them for eight years.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: We didn't even know if she was still in Houston.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: Pardon?
TUCHMAN: They hadn't spoken in years, according to them.
HARDIN: She hadn't worked for them or spoken in eight years. That's right. We didn't even know she was still in Houston.
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: Because, when she worked there, they were extremely close. What do you mean?
(CROSSTALK)
HARDIN: She worked for them for 13 years.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Then all of a sudden...
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... he invites her over to her house after seven years.
HARDIN: So we could interview her.
QUESTION: OK. (CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: But the committee found that inappropriate.
(CROSSTALK)
BREUER: So, let me tell you about that.
HARDIN: Sure.
BREUER: As we have dual -- can we do this? All right. So, let me answer one last question.
So, here again is...
QUESTION: The question is about why did he three times say in his deposition say that he had no conversations about HGH with McNamee and then, in the same conversation, he testifies he had two heated conversations?
BREUER: Yet again, no good deed goes unpunished.
So, in those...
(CROSSTALK)
BREUER: Well, in those depositions, people talk. Anyone who was in that room who is being fair-minded would be -- it was clear, regardless of the exact words, with the firing of questions in the beginning of the deposition -- and I was there and I was sitting with him, as was Rusty.
It was clear that those discussions were aimed at, did you, Andy Pettitte, talk, and you, Roger Clemens, talk about HGH for you, Roger Clemens?
It was Roger Clemens. It wasn't the committee. It was Roger Clemens who later brought up the issue. And a more artful question was asked and said, wait a minute, let me tell you about my wife. It was Roger Clemens who was open and brought it up in the same deposition.
In fact, anybody who has been a lawyer and has been involved in a deposition knows that, throughout the day, as questions are asked differently, things evolve. The notion that a man would give an open answer, and, then, a couple of hours later, on his own, volunteer this suggests openness and candor. And any suggestion to the contrary is specious and grossly unclear.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, thank you, guys.
HARDIN: Take care.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Bye. LEMON: OK. All right.
Roger Clemens' attorneys there singing his praises, of course. And that is what they should do. He is paying them to do that, saying several times: That is the last thing I am going to address. We're not going to take any more questions.
Then they take more.
But let me just sort of summarize what have said. Regarding those syringes which have really been at the front of this. People have been watching the pictures of those syringes and of the proposed or the alleged, at least -- there we go right there -- the alleged steroid paraphernalia, he said -- quote -- "That is poppycock." He said that Roger didn't have anything to do with that.
They are saying Roger took the stand today, testified, answered every single question. He also, Roger Clemens, before his attorneys got up, Roger Clemens said: "I am glad that I finally got the chance to testify. I hope I can come back to Washington on better circumstances next time."
And the chance that he had to spend with the panel, he said that he enjoyed it, but he was glad that he got to speak.
Also, his attorneys saying that he has nothing to do with steroids. He wanted every child in America to know that there are no shortcuts, that it is all hard work, and nothing to do with steroids, that steroids are bad.
We want to ask you this question, as we continue our continuing coverage here of the Roger Clemens testimony and hearings in Washington, D.C.: Do you believe -- who do you believe? Do you believe Roger Clemens? Which one is telling the truth, Roger Clemens or is it his former trainer?
Here's what our quick vote is showing right now. Nineteen percent of you say you believe Roger Clemens. Thirty-seven percent say you believe Brian McNamee. And then I think it's 46 percent -- roll up prompter. It's not in our -- 50,000 respondents, we've had. Forty-four percent don't believe either at all. So there you go.
National correspondent Gary Tuchman is going to us a breakdown and some analysis on this after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: We've done a whole lot of reporting on the rising number of home foreclosures, but now a new disturbing trend in car loans has some experts concerned about defaults in that area.
Let's get now to Susan Lisovicz. She's at the New York Stock Exchange with that. But first a check of the market right -- Susan?
SUSAN LISOVICZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right.
(STOCK MARKET REPORT)
LISOVICZ: Coming up, the naked truth about a lawsuit that won't melt in your hands. I'll have that story when I return for the closing bell -- Brianna and Don, what a day it has been.
KEILAR: It sure has. Thanks, Susan.
LISOVICZ: You're welcome.
KEILAR: And you can keep track of your financial fortunes and also get the latest developments, analysis and much more at CNNmoney.com.
LEMON: Well, he is the most honored baseball pitcher of his generation -- one of the all time greats. Well, today Roger Clemens faced one of the toughest challenges of the storied career -- saving his reputation and defending himself under oath against claims that he used performance-enhancing drugs. He took questions from members of Congress. Sitting just a few feet away from him was his former trainer, who was also his main accuser.
Our national correspondent, Gary Tuchman, is on Capitol Hill, where we just heard from Clemens' attorneys -- Gary, what was your impression of this news there that happened just moments ago?
And we actually heard from him, as well.
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right.
It was a fascinating and somewhat pitiful four-and-a-half hours, the hearing. What is really amazing -- and I haven't covered as many hearings on Capitol Hill as I have covered trials over the years, but the partisanness (ph) between Democrats and Republicans -- even on an issue like this. Most of the Republicans were very pro-Clemens and most of the Democrats were questioning Clemens quite aggressively.
Why? I don't know. But the partisanness -- you don't get to the facts very quickly when you act like that, and that's, I guess, a lot what happens on Capitol Hill to these people we pay all our tax dollars do.
Nevertheless, we hope to hear from Clemens himself -- and he just came behind me a short time ago. We hoped to ask him two key questions, but he made a statement and then he walked away.
The two key questions were this -- what he did say to Andy Pettitte back in 1999 or 2000?
Andy Pettitte is the key witness in this case because Andy Pettitte, who is a Yankee pitcher who has admitted that this trainer, Brian McNamee, injected him with human growth hormones. And then he also added, when he testified under oath to these congressmen in a private session, he also added he injected himself.
He is saying that he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999 or 2000 where Clemens acknowledged use of human growth hormone. Clemens denies that. Clemens said during this hearing that his friend, Andy Pettitte -- he regards him as a very good friend and a very honorable person -- but he says that Andy Pettitte either misheard him or mis- remembered it.
So we wanted to ask that question to Clemens. Clemens left. His attorneys were here and we asked that question. They would not answer that question.
The other thing we wanted to ask them -- this is really a very key part of the testimony, too, and very surprising -- especially to people who don't know much about this story -- but Roger Clemens has acknowledged that his wife was injected by this trainer with HGH -- with human growth hormones.
Now, the trainer says he did it to her with Roger Clemens' knowledge and encouragement. Roger Clemens says he didn't know about it, his wife kind of did it on the side. His wife ended up getting circulation problems. Clemens did not call a doctor, despite the fact that that she had circulation problems. We wanted to ask why he didn't call a doctor and that question wasn't asked either.
LEMON: Yes. And that was asked by the lawyers, as well. And one of the lawyers said there, you know, during the little scrum out front, do you call the doctor every time you're -- you know, you have a cold or something like that, or every time you get sick?
TUCHMAN: Well, that was -- to me. He said that. He said would you call ...
LEMON: That was you? OK.
TUCHMAN: Yes, he said would you call if your wife had done this? Do you know anything about HGH?
And on the day before Valentine's Day, I will tell you that I would call the doctor and I would be in trouble if I didn't say that. But the fact is that I was embarrassed.
LEMON: Right.
TUCHMAN: That's not necessarily calling. Maybe I wouldn't. Or if there was a crime, maybe I wouldn't. But that was a question that we wanted to hear answered and it really wasn't answered.
LEMON: OK. So I have to ask you this, then -- and I don't know if you can answer it, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. Someone brought out a perjury charge during your scrum out front -- do you think that a perjury charge would be brought against Mr. Clemens. And he said well, they have no idea, but he told the truth. He didn't perjure himself at all.
TUCHMAN: Here's what has to happen. The U.S. Justice Department has to decide, based on the evidence and based on this hearing, if it wants to then issue a perjury charge against not only Clemens, but McNamee. McNamee -- if he is lying -- could face a perjury charge and could face -- he could face extra time in jail. So it's the U.S. Justice Department that will have to make that decision, not the congressmen on this committee.
LEMON: Was that the most surprising thing from the attorneys, about calling a doctor, that you witnessed far there, Gary?
TUCHMAN: I think the key thing -- if this ever goes to trial, Andy Pettitte is the key.
LEMON: Yes.
TUCHMAN: Everybody in baseball considers him an honorable man. He has admitted to what Brian McNamee said. If he says under oath that there's no way I was mistaken that Roger Clemens talked about this, that would be very powerful. But if he would say maybe I'm wrong, then you'd have -- maybe you'd have to believe Clemens.
But either way, at this point, without Pettitte here -- and Pettitte was allowed not to testify here because they relied on his testimony under oath behind closed doors -- if Pettitte was here, I think we would have learned a lot more -- Don.
LEMON: Hey, Gary, they're wrapping me up in my ear. But, I mean, you know, in all of your years -- I know you're a pro. You're a seasoned pro. Have you seen anything like this when it comes to professional sports?
TUCHMAN: Well, thank you for those words. And it was really -- as a baseball fan and as someone who follows politics, it was a fascinating confluence of events.
LEMON: Yes. All right. Very well put. Thank you. Gary Tuchman, our national correspondent.
KEILAR: The man who was the role model for Osama bin Laden is killed. We're going to be talking to a CNN veteran who witnessed some of his deadliest work.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: A suicide bomber killed Pakistan's former prime minister in December, but today we hear that he had help doing it. Pakistan's interior minister says two suspects in custody in Pakistan confessed to arming the man who assassinated Benazir Bhutto. A senior police official tells CNN that the two men in custody claim to be part of a five men team behind the bomb plot. The suspect allegedly housed, armed and drove the bomber that day.
KEILAR: And one of the world's most wanted terror masterminds is dead. Over 25-plus years, the FBI hunted him, the Israelis hunted him and Osama bin Laden learned from him. Imad Mughniyeh is linked to one of the deadliest attacks on Americans overseas. That would be the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. And that's a milestone event that CNN's Jim Clancy saw with his own eyes.
Jim joining us right here. Now, a lot of people -- maybe Mughniyeh -- this name doesn't really ring a bell for them. They've been so inundated with the name Osama bin Laden. But you covered, as the Beirut bureau chief in the '80s, a number of attacks that Mughniyeh is responsible for -- or said to be responsible for.
JIM CLANCY, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: He's said to be one of the founding members of Hezbollah. It was just emerging there in the early 1980s in the midst of the Lebanese civil war. And Mughniyeh always the mystery man. He was a man of deception. He was the main player, the main character who always -- he never wanted to be center stage at all. You don't know his name. He's not like Osama bin Laden at all. He doesn't send out videotapes.
Is that his picture? Boy, I don't know. You know, I think I met him once when, you know, he had came to the Commodore Hotel. And this was after the 1985 hijacking. And they actually wanted to perhaps take me away.
I'll tell you, I was so focused on spending the next years chained to a radiator that I never asked him for his passport to try to prove who he was, but that certainly doesn't look much like him -- or maybe it wasn't him. But that's what he was -- a man of deception.
KEILAR: And you suspect that he had plastic surgery.
CLANCY: The Marine bombing -- we never knew who was behind the Marine bombing. We couldn't figure it out. And we wondered, well, who is the individual. And, actually, a couple of months later, there was another -- remember, it was a simultaneous bombing. It was not just the Marines -- 241 killed there. But a fewer number of French paratroopers were also killed -- simultaneous bombings that went off in Lebanon that day, October, 23rd 1983.
And then a couple of months later in Kuwait, another series of simultaneous bombings. And even from Beirut we have this impression that maybe we're going to find out who it is now, because one of the attackers lost his thumb and it enabled them to identify him. They rolled up a group of 17 of them.
Well, lo and behold, among those 17 was Imad Mughniyeh's brother- in-law. And in order to get him out, he launched a spree of kidnapping. In all, more than 90 Westerners or international people from around the world, really -- I think from more than 20 countries -- were kidnapped in Lebanon in those years. They would let some go. They'd take some others. Some didn't make it out. Terry Anderson, the chief Middle East correspondent -- for the Middle East served -- if we can call it that -- seven years in that situation until he was released.
Was he tied to Iran? Was he tied to Syria? Well, it's notable that when all the Western hostages got out, already the 17 who had been arrested years earlier in Kuwait were released in 1991, when the Iraqis rolled into Kuwait City.
KEILAR: So a bit of a shadowy figure, as you said. But how big of a deal is this? Is this going to have a major impact on Hezbollah or will they be able to easily recover with a void in leadership? Will (INAUDIBLE)?
CLANCY: I'm not sure how much of a major impact it's going to be. I think in terms of, you know, knowing that he is gone from the scene, maybe that's encouraging. But I really question -- you know, whenever I think of Imad Mughniyeh, I think of deception, of the times that he's managed to get away, the fact that he had plastic surgery to change his features. And I really wonder -- I really wonder whether he actually was killed in a bombing.
What evidence do we have of that? Is he dead? Well, he very well might be dead. But perhaps it was something far less heroic than a bombing that can be blamed on the Israelis. And maybe what -- you know, all of this seems to be working out in Syria and Iran's favor and Hezbollah's favor in that tomorrow, on the streets of Lebanon, when tens or hundreds of thousands of people come out to remember Rafik Hariri -- who was killed in a bombing that, after all, is blamed on Syria -- when they all come out, there's going to be a competing demonstration that very same day by Hezbollah in honor of Imad Mughniyeh.
KEILAR: And, obviously -- I mean you question the timing there. You sort of wonder because he is so elusive.
CLANCY: He's the master of deception.
KEILAR: But who do you think did this? Because Hezbollah obviously says Israel. Israel is not saying they did it, but it's not unusual for them to not claim responsibility for assassinations or suspected terrorists.
CLANCY: No, but they haven't had a lot of assassinations on the streets of Damascus. I mean it's a police state and they have pretty tight control. I think it's doubtful. I mean I really wonder -- I really wonder, because, once again, when I think of that name, Imad Mughniyeh, I think of deception.
KEILAR: And so you wonder if it isn't sort of something that has been contrived to make him a martyr, especially with the timing.
CLANCY: Exactly. You know, hey, his role -- his historic role -- I mean it's down there as fact the U.S. -- you know, he was known to have been on that hijacking in 1985. He's really suspected strongly in the embassy bombing, his ties -- family ties to the bombings in Kuwait and so many other acts. You know, he's blamed in Argentina, the attack on the Jewish center -- so many other things.
KEILAR: Such an interesting point. Jim Clancy thanks for breaking that down for us.
CLANCY: OK.
KEILAR: Appreciate it.
LEMON: The numbers game -- the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates battle to reach their party's magic number of delegates. We'll find out where things stand right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Well, presidential candidates have to reach a magical number of delegates to secure their party's nomination. With their sweeps of yesterday's Potomac primaries, Republican John McCain padded his delegate lead and Democrat Barack Obama passed Hillary Clinton for the first time. But it's still looking like super-delegates could decide the Democratic race.
Here's CNN's chief national correspondent, John King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The count at the top of this map is still an estimate. It has delegates -- super-delegates involved. It's an estimate because a lot of the proportions take time to figure out. But let's, for the sake of argument -- this is unlikely to happen, but let's, for the sake of argument, say Barack Obama runs the board. These are the states -- the white states have yet to vote.
I'm going to touch them not in the order they will vote, just the way they are on the map east to west. We're giving all of these to Barack Obama. And watch this. Let me do this. Here's the finish line. This is Senator Obama. This is Senator Clinton here. I'm going to give you the rest of the states across the board to Senator Obama. It's programmed at 55 to 45 percent margin. My Boston accent coming out there.
So let's give it to him across-the-board to Senator Obama. Watch his number grow. Senator Clinton is growing, too, because of the proportional Democratic rules. But we're assuming a sweep by Obama.
Now, again, it's just a hypothetical scenario at 55-45. Watch the numbers grow -- Hawaii.
We're now out of states and now look at this. If Obama runs the board, winning five a 55-45 the rest of the way out...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow!
KING: ...he still does not clinch the nomination.
Now, these numbers could be adjusted. Let's say, in the State of Hawaii he wins by more. We can adjust the delegates a little bit based on the proportions and he moves up some. But he would have to win by huge margins -- 60/40, even higher than that -- to get to the finish line.
So unless somebody -- unless this race breaks -- you heard Paul talked about the momentum and the firewall in Texas -- unless the race breaks, you could conceivably see one candidate.
The same scenario for Senator Clinton. If she ran the board the rest of the way, she would end up at about the same spot. So unless somebody starts winning by bigger margins, because of the Democratic proportional rules, this is the problem, the issue, the dilemma facing the Democratic Party -- somebody may get to the finish line at the end of the race close, but not all the way across.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: That was our chief national correspondent, John King, with an interesting happening and intriguing look at what very well might happen in the race for the Democratic nomination.
And I'm sure more analysis on what happened last night from our Wolf Blitzer, right?
KEILAR: Yes, that's right. He is standing by in "THE SITUATION ROOM" to tell us what's coming up at the top of the hour -- hi, Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Lots more analysis, lots more news, guys, coming up at the top of the hour.
He was there the last time there was a convention fight over a Democratic nominee and he says we're headed there again. My one-on-one interview with Willie Brown. That's coming up in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
Also, John McCain -- he's struggling with Evangelicals and he says he'd like Mike Huckabee to actually drop out.
And one of the world's most wanted terrorists killed -- how it happened, why he had a $5 million price tag on his head.
All that and a lot more, guys, coming up right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM."
LEMON: We're looking forward to it, Wolf. Thanks.
KEILAR: All right. And the closing bell and a wrap of the action on Wall Street straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: The closing bell is about to ring on Wall Street.
LEMON: Susan Lisovicz is standing by with a final look at the trading day and a close-up look, I hear, at a scantily clad person.
LISOVICZ: Male. Cowboy.
LEMON: Yes.
LISOVICZ: Yes. He is a fixture in Times Square. I'm sure both of you have seen him on one your visits.
KEILAR: Oh, yes.
LEMON: Oh, yes. Yes. LISOVICZ: The naked cowboy. He's not quite naked, of course, because he does wear a cowboy hat. He does wear cowboy boots, if you can see that. And he wears ...
KEILAR: He wears cowboy underpants.
LISOVICZ: Yes -- tiny, tiny little tighty whities (ph), Brianna. And he's trademarked that. He's very proud of that image that he has presented through fair weather and foul weather. And today is bad weather.
But you see the beads of rain on his cowboy hat? And he's...
LEMON: And he hates having his picture taken.
KEILAR: Oh, yes.
LISOVICZ: Well, unless you pay for it. Unless you pay for it. But, you know, he is suing Mars Candy, because M&Ms had the nerve to put up a video billboard in Times Square that showed two M&Ms with a little cowboy hat and little cowboy boots and a little white acoustic guitar. He says that's his trademark, he's been working hard for it and he's taking them to court. So we'll follow that story for you.
(STOCK MARKET REPORT)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxantshop.com
