Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes! Now bring on court! @BenVolin: Stephen A: "I'm hearing that Tom Brady actually destroyed his cell phone."@stephenasmith: Im hearing that Bradys 4-gm suspension will likely be upheld by the NFL. Ahh taking a page from Aaron Hernandez's book eh? CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 @BenVolin: Stephen A: "I'm hearing that Tom Brady actually destroyed his cell phone." @stephenasmith: Im hearing that Bradys 4-gm suspension will likely be upheld by the NFL. If he did that, then there's absolutely no way he'll ever get this thing overturned. Federal court judges are not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 How can they prove that he destroyed it though? CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Stephen A. Smith may prove to be right about the cell phone, but he's also -- in the immortal words of Walter Sobchak regarding Larry Sellers -- a f**king dunce. I'm not going to depend on his word, that's for sure ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac2001 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 It's interesting but could just be him spitting garbage out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Stephen A. Smith may prove to be right about the cell phone, but he's also -- in the immortal words of Walter Sobchak regarding Larry Sellers -- a f**king dunce. I'm not going to depend on his word, that's for sure ... Yeah, I'm not exactly holding that account as gospel...if, however, that's the case...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 What would be the point of destroying his phone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 @BenVolin: Stephen A: "I'm hearing that Tom Brady actually destroyed his cell phone." @stephenasmith: Im hearing that Bradys 4-gm suspension will likely be upheld by the NFL. Of course he did. He's a cheater and a liar and he's going down. StephenA is not the most reliable of sorts, but... There is a decent chance that Brady follows fellow lying disingenuous scumbag Robert Kraft, and is all bluster until he realizes he's fighting a losing battle because he's dead wrong and has been all along, and just caves. Then says he did it for the good of the league. And some people actually buy that total garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) What would be the point of destroying his phone? Stephen A. Smith. Consider the source. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a classic example of drawing attention to himself and then saying that he only "heard" about it and that it wasn't meant as real reporting anyway because it was on twitter. Edited July 28, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 What would be the point of destroying his phone? I'm trying to think of one. It's never going to go to a court case where they could subpoena the texts and phone records and emails from a phone company or server. So not sure what good it would do. Maybe Tom's an idiot, we know he's a cheater and a liar. Of course, this is Stephen A stands for A-hole Smith, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 What would be the point of destroying his phone? Do you really not know the answer to this? I feel that I have conversed with you enough to say with certainty that you're 100% capable of discerning that without asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Do you really not know the answer to this? I feel that I have conversed with you enough to say with certainty that you're 100% capable of discerning that without asking. I can't think of a reason either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I can't think of a reason either. I believe the assumption would be that if he destroyed his phone, he won't have to turn it over. I realize fully well that it makes no sense, since they could subpoena his records regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I believe the assumption would be that if he destroyed his phone, he won't have to turn it over. I realize fully well that it makes no sense, since they could subpoena his records regardless. Right. There is no way he would have a trial with that possible. His entire legacy would go under because he would look like a fool. Even if he did, they would have them all from the phone company and server. So that assumption doesn't make any sense. Edited July 28, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Right. There is no way he would have a trial with that possible. His entire legacy would go under because he would look like a fool. Even if he did, they would have them all from the phone company and server. So that assumption doesn't make any sense. I don't disagree with any of that...and despite all of that being true, we've still seen folks destroy communication devices when they're about to get caught for something they don't want the world to see. Guilt and panic make people do strange, strange things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Right. There is no way he would have a trial with that possible. His entire legacy would go under because he would look like a fool. Even if he did, they would have them all from the phone company and server. So that assumption doesn't make any sense. would AT&T really step in here with records of texts from 2 years ago in a dispute regarding a collective bargaining? as others have said, wouldnt the courts, to some degree, not be hearing this as an appeal gathering evidence to judge if brady is guilty but making a decision based on the process that was followed an what was available at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I don't disagree with any of that...and despite all of that being true, we've still seen folks destroy communication devices when they're about to get caught for something they don't want the world to see. Guilt and panic make people do strange, strange things. I agree with that, too. But that's not what WEO asked. He asked what would be the point? What would be the advantage gained, not why might someone do something stupid in a panic. would AT&T really step in here with records of texts from 2 years ago in a dispute regarding a collective bargaining? as others have said, wouldnt the courts, to some degree, not be hearing this as an appeal gathering evidence to judge if brady is guilty but making a decision based on the process that was followed an what was available at the time? Yes. Completely. I have been stating that all along, there isn't a chance Brady contests the actual findings in a court case so that it becomes an investigation all along. Never. It's all going to be about process and does Goodell have authority. But if Brady did sue on the actual investigation, then the phone records would be subpoena'd and the actual phone would be superfluous. That's what WEO was saying. That's never going to happen because Brady is not that dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 Lying is not fully cooperating. They caught him lying. That's part of his suspension. They said his answers were simply not plausible. Flat out. According to Wells yes. Others viewing the case may not conclude the same. See http://wellsreportcontext.com/for some context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 would AT&T really step in here with records of texts from 2 years ago in a dispute regarding a collective bargaining? as others have said, wouldnt the courts, to some degree, not be hearing this as an appeal gathering evidence to judge if brady is guilty but making a decision based on the process that was followed an what was available at the time? Really depends upon what grounds Brady and his lawyers are appealing I believe. I agree with that, too. But that's not what WEO asked. He asked what would be the point? What would be the advantage gained, not why might someone do something stupid in a panic. The point, I supposed, would be to not have to turn over the phone if it were subpoenaed. It gains no advantage. And again, it's Stephen A. Smith, so I have no reason to believe it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 To point 1: no, you cannot. As I've told you directly on multiple occasions: you can take issue with the de facto numbers, but not with the discrepancy between the deflation of the sets of footballs. The NE* balls deflated more than the Indy balls by an amount that cannot be explained away by either the Ideal Gas Law or the Van der Waals equation (and both should be applied). Then, of course, you'd have to explain away why a guy that calls himself "the deflator" took the footballs away from where they were supposed to be, into a bathroom (supposedly to use a urinal that it turns out doesn't exist), for enough time to remove 1-2 psi from each of 12 footballs. Then you'd have to explain why this guy and his crony all of a sudden start having 10 and 20-minute conversations with Tom Brady day after day once the investigation starts. Just for good measure, you'd do well to also explain why Brady claims he didn't know McNally, yet also gave him autographed paraphernalia on more than one occasion. To point 2: he is obligated per the NFL's policy on investigations into violations of the integrity of the game to fully cooperate with any and all requests made by investigators. The request was as lenient and easy to comply with as possible: Brady and his attorney could comb through his telephone correspondence and select material that applied to the case and submit it. They refused. It's time to ask yourself why? They cheated. Yep. http://wellsreportcontext.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts