So Roger Clemens’ lawyer Rusty Hardin gave an interview to New York Lawyer magazine about his representation of the Rocket. In part:
Hardin: What is a public person to do if he’s falsely accused? Why do lawyers think that the safest strategy is the best strategy? Roger has made clear that he is not interested in the safest strategy. He has made clear that his public reputation, what his family and friends think, is what he holds dear. Who the hell am I to tell him that he’s wrong?
Mag: You don’t think much of your critics?
Hardin: I expect second-guessing. But these people on TV, they talk about whether I should "allow" a client to testify, whether I should "allow" him to assert his innocence. Their attitude is paternalistic and patronizing. Who the hell is the lawyer to make that decision?
Mag: It seems like he was asking for trouble.
Hardin: I saw it all coming. I knew there would be a deposition and a congressional hearing. I knew there would be a criminal referral. I fully advised Roger. He made the decision. He’s a grown-up.
Mag: Even if that decision sends him to jail?
Hardin: I believe strongly that people that can fight, should fight. Roger has the means, the ability, and the heart to fight. I salute him.
So Clemens’ attorney is essentially broadcasting the story that:
- Roger could have taken the safe route
- I (the lawyer) told him the easy thing was to shut up
- He is big bad Roger and wants to fight for his reputation
Gosh. That might be what an innocent person would do. Or even what a “You can’t prove I’m guilty” person would do.
Might be part of an overall PR strategy.
So why are Scott and Stephen so sure that Hardin is sneaking behind his client’s back without his explicit permission to broadcast this story? Is Harden so dumb he doesn’t think this interview might get back to Roger?