Was Brian McNamee Set Up to Implicate Roger Clemens in Mitchell Report?

Matt Watson told you earlier today that Roger Clemens fired the first shot by suing Brian McNamee. Part of the suit is the suggestion that McNamee was threatened with jail if he didn't connect Clemens with steroids. Combining Clemens' claims on 60 Minutes with the content from the taped phone call played in the press conference today makes it seem like this is the angle the Clemens camp is trying to pursue.

On 60 Minutes, Clemens repeatedly told Mike Wallace that he treated McNamee well, better than most other people. In the taped phone call, Clemens repeated this theme -- a sentiment with which McNamee agreed. McNamee also said he raised his kids based on the model of parenting he had seen with Clemens. Naturally, I was expecting Clemens to ask on the phone why McNamee lied in the report. I've been told he wasn't allowed to do that because it would be considered tampering with a witness.

Considering that this is the angle that Clemens and his team is taking, is it believable? Is it conceivable that McNamee was setup to implicate Clemens? I realize Mitchell and his report would carry more clout with the implication of a superstar like Clemens, but I don't really buy that they would intentionally try to get Clemens out of all the possible people in the game. I also don't buy this argument because Andy Pettitte was implicated in the same section as Roger and Pettitte admitted he used HGH. So why would McNamee be pressured to lie about only Clemens, especially considering the Pettitte usage turned out to be true? It seems to me that Clemens is hurt that McNamee ratted him out, not upset that he "lied." Though the setup angle by the Clemens camp seems like a wise one to pursue, I'm not buying it.