Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 The Brady team brought that up because BEFORE the investigation even started the NFL announced it in their official release. The idea they were not allowed to see his notes is somewhat of an issue, and another mistake the NFL probably made. But even the NFLPA and Kessler and Brady's team isn't accusing him of being part of the investigation. Just you. Not me... MR. NASH: Your Honor, that’s true only if you accept their argument about how to interpret a press release in February. THE COURT: It’s not my press release, so I didn’t write it, so you all wrote it.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Not me... MR. NASH: Your Honor, that’s true only if you accept their argument about how to interpret a press release in February. THE COURT: It’s not my press release, so I didn’t write it, so you all wrote it. Which was before the investigation even started. That is what the judge is referring to. The judge isn't accusing him of being part of the actual investigation either. You're embarrassing yourself here.
Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Which was before the investigation even started. That is what the judge is referring to. The judge isn't accusing him of being part of the actual investigation either. You're embarrassing yourself here. We all know that. The judge wants to know why Pash was not made available, based on how Pash was labeled by the league (and presumed never was announced at a later time as no longer an investigator by the NFL). I'm assuming you understand why he is asking. Or is he embarrassing himself as well?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 We all know that. The judge wants to know why Pash was not made available, based on how Pash was labeled by the league (and presumed never was announced at a later time as no longer an investigator by the NFL). I'm assuming you understand why he is asking. Or is he embarrassing himself as well? Of course I know why he is asking and I already addressed it to you and already said the NFL made a mistake. You, however, are implying that Pash actually was part of the investigation which no one else is.
Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Of course I know why he is asking and I already addressed it to you and already said the NFL made a mistake. You, however, are implying that Pash actually was part of the investigation which no one else is. Neither of us can say if he was or was not. He doesn't behave as though he was not part of anything to do with the invesitgstion and the NFL didn't want him to be available for examination and they didn't want the NFLPA to know ow he altered the Wells report. You think all of that is perfectly appropriate and not in the least bit suspicious. This is where we disagree.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Neither of us can say if he was or was not. He doesn't behave as though he was not part of anything to do with the invesitgstion and the NFL didn't want him to be available for examination and they didn't want the NFLPA to know ow he altered the Wells report. You think all of that is perfectly appropriate and not in the least bit suspicious. This is where we disagree. How many times do I have to say it was a mistake? And they should have showed his notes and should have allowed him as a witness if they had to. You don't even read the posts you respond to. I said it twice in the last several posts. I think it was appropriate because there isn't even anyone accusing him of wrongdoing. They are just finding anything they can poke holes in and this is one of them. The NFL screwed up not allowing the notes. Who knows why. But the investigation wasn't part of that and isn't even being implied that he had something to do with it. They are just using the NFL's own words of "co-investigator" which they used simply because the league has to have someone represent it if they are doing the investigation, to get them to look bad. If they had any reason or inkling to say or imply or accuse him of actually being in the investigation THAT would be the biggest story and element of this but they haven't.
MattM Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Funny that we're all here arguing whether or not he should get off on what all would agree is a technicality when all you really needed to do was read the texts between the two maroons, the gifts Brady lavished on the Deflator (I'm still waiting for the Pats* to bring forward other low level staffers who got anywhere near what McNally got from Brady), Brady's creepy sudden interest in these guys when the story broke and Brady's totally unconvincing non-denial denial to know he did this. The breaking of the phone just as he was being questioned was just icing on the cake. Everything Brady's defense team (which seems to include Mike Florio) is meant just to obfuscate those facts.....
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Funny that we're all here arguing whether or not he should get off on what all would agree is a technicality when all you really needed to do was read the texts between the two maroons, the gifts Brady lavished on the Deflator (I'm still waiting for the Pats* to bring forward other low level staffers who got anywhere near what McNally got from Brady), Brady's creepy sudden interest in these guys when the story broke and Brady's totally unconvincing non-denial denial to know he did this. The breaking of the phone just as he was being questioned was just icing on the cake. Everything Brady's defense team (which seems to include Mike Florio) is meant just to obfuscate those facts..... Exactly. All of the other stuff and all of the ways that he could possibly get off are on technicalities.
Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 How many times do I have to say it was a mistake? And they should have showed his notes and should have allowed him as a witness if they had to. You don't even read the posts you respond to. I said it twice in the last several posts. I think it was appropriate because there isn't even anyone accusing him of wrongdoing. They are just finding anything they can poke holes in and this is one of them. The NFL screwed up not allowing the notes. Who knows why. But the investigation wasn't part of that and isn't even being implied that he had something to do with it. They are just using the NFL's own words of "co-investigator" which they used simply because the league has to have someone represent it if they are doing the investigation, to get them to look bad. If they had any reason or inkling to say or imply or accuse him of actually being in the investigation THAT would be the biggest story and element of this but they haven't. "Who knows" why the NFL made these "mistakes"? Come on! These were not simple ("oops!") omissions, but delberate decisions by the NFL. I read your posts. The whole case turns on whether the commisiioner acted with bias. You refuse to acknowledge the basis of the case befroe the court and the clear purpose of the judge's questions to the league or exactly what he is getting at. Clearly the NFLPA is imlying tht Pash was involved somehow in the investigation based on the NFL's behaviour and clearly the judge is getting to that exact point with his questioning. You are pretending this is not happening.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) "Who knows" why the NFL made these "mistakes"? Come on! These were not simple ("oops!") omissions, but delberate decisions by the NFL. I read your posts. The whole case turns on whether the commisiioner acted with bias. You refuse to acknowledge the basis of the case befroe the court and the clear purpose of the judge's questions to the league or exactly what he is getting at. Clearly the NFLPA is imlying tht Pash was involved somehow in the investigation based on the NFL's behaviour and clearly the judge is getting to that exact point with his questioning. You are pretending this is not happening. A lot of the questioning has nothing to do with his ruling. He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this. That is all they have. The NFL did major stupid things in earlier cases. All of these are minor and have nothing to do with the actual case. The judge is actually dead wrong about a couple things in his admonishment, but that is all it is. Not showing the notes is a mistake. There is zero evidence or even insinuation that Pash was involved in the investigation. You have to know that if there was ANY tiny shred they would be all over it. But they are not. A lot of what he is asking is not to do with bias. Edited August 29, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
NoSaint Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) A lot of the questioning has nothing to do with his ruling. He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this. That is all they have. The NFL did major stupid things in earlier cases. All of these are minor and have nothing to do with the actual case. The judge is actually dead wrong about a couple things in his admonishment, but that is all it is. Not showing the notes is a mistake. There is zero evidence or even insinuation that Pash was involved in the investigation. You have to know that if there was ANY tiny shred they would be all over it. But they are not. A lot of what he is asking is not to do with bias. Of course without access to the raw documents, or further the nfl emails- we have no idea if pash was giving direction to the investigators and even cleaning up stuff at the end to fit that direction better. The nfl has been incredibly shady with this exact process before, so I don't know if you can give them blanket benefit of the doubt that they'd in no way violate the integrity of the process this time. The nflpa and judge clearly see it as a questionable situation even if they don't have proof to levy accusations (in part because the nfl refuses to open their books or make a key player available for questioning). Edited August 29, 2015 by NoSaint
Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) A lot of the questioning has nothing to do with his ruling. He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this. That is all they have. The NFL did major stupid things in earlier cases. All of these are minor and have nothing to do with the actual case. The judge is actually dead wrong about a couple things in his admonishment, but that is all it is. Not showing the notes is a mistake. There is zero evidence or even insinuation that Pash was involved in the investigation. You have to know that if there was ANY tiny shred they would be all over it. But they are not. A lot of what he is asking is not to do with bias. The opposite is true. The judge is plainly pointing out to the league how they are exposed regarding bias in this case. And since the question of bias is the basis of the case before him, the judge's line of questioning is logical. Your claim that this judge is "dead wrong" is pretty silly. Edited August 29, 2015 by Mr. WEO
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 The opposite is true. The judge is plainly pointing out to the league how they are exposed regarding bias in this case. And since the question of bias is the basis of the case before him, the judge's line of questioning is logical. Your claim that this judge is "dead wrong" is pretty silly. First of all, talking about stuff within the investigation is not about bias. He's in a sense retrying some of the case like a criminal court judge and not ruling in an arbitration appeal case. I know what he is doing but a lot of it has nothing to do with bias. Second of all, you don't even know what I was referring to when I said he was dead wrong about something so how would you know if it was silly?
dave mcbride Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 I'm sticking with my prediction that the suspension will be vacated in full. We'll know in 6 days.
Mr. WEO Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 First of all, talking about stuff within the investigation is not about bias. He's in a sense retrying some of the case like a criminal court judge and not ruling in an arbitration appeal case. I know what he is doing but a lot of it has nothing to do with bias. Second of all, you don't even know what I was referring to when I said he was dead wrong about something so how would you know if it was silly? you said: "He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this." So what is he "dead wrong " about? You don't think when the judge asks what role Pash had in the investigation, why he was the only one to review and edit the report, he's NOT asking about potential bias? That's not a serious argument you are making....
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 you said: "He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this." So what is he "dead wrong " about? You don't think when the judge asks what role Pash had in the investigation, why he was the only one to review and edit the report, he's NOT asking about potential bias? That's not a serious argument you are making.... You're too funny. I said not everything he is asking about is about bias. That means something's are and something's are not. You use one example of what he was talking about, out of 100, and then say what do you mean he wasn't talking about bias. Are you retarded? The judge was dead wrong implying the NFL gave out the four game punishment for just the one game, the Championship Game, which they didn't have direct evidence that Brady was involved, when they didnt do that at all. They gave the punishment for the overall scandal and non-cooperation that went back several games, which is blatantly obvious from the fact that the texts had so much to do with it and most of them were from earlier in the season. And "the deflator" nickname and the swag promised McNally, etc. that didn't have anything to do with the Championship game. They determined that this happened over a long period of time and that Brady's explanations for it, for this game as well as the earlier games, was implausible.
dave mcbride Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 You're too funny. I said not everything he is asking about is about bias. That means something's are and something's are not. You use one example of what he was talking about, out of 100, and then say what do you mean he wasn't talking about bias. Are you retarded? The judge was dead wrong implying the NFL gave out the four game punishment for just the one game, the Championship Game, which they didn't have direct evidence that Brady was involved, when they didnt do that at all. They gave the punishment for the overall scandal and non-cooperation that went back several games, which is blatantly obvious from the fact that the texts had so much to do with it and most of them were from earlier in the season. And "the deflator" nickname and the swag promised McNally, etc. that didn't have anything to do with the Championship game. They determined that this happened over a long period of time and that Brady's explanations for it, for this game as well as the earlier games, was implausible. I feel it is my duty to point out yet again that they have no evidence of malfeasance in those earlier games. Not that it matters for this particular debate ...
JohnC Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 A lot of the questioning has nothing to do with his ruling. He's is spanking the NFL for doing minor stupid things in the overall scheme of this. That is all they have. The NFL did major stupid things in earlier cases. All of these are minor and have nothing to do with the actual case. The judge is actually dead wrong about a couple things in his admonishment, but that is all it is. Not showing the notes is a mistake. There is zero evidence or even insinuation that Pash was involved in the investigation. You have to know that if there was ANY tiny shred they would be all over it. But they are not. A lot of what he is asking is not to do with bias. Why didn't Pash who is a senior counsel for the league simply receive the report, as is? He acted inappropriately when he edited/re-shaped the report (however you want to characterize it) and didn't disclose his involvement with the report to the NFLPA. You are trying to portray Pash's acts as inadvertent and an oversight. That makes no sense. Mr. Pash is a high powered attorney who knows the law and knows how to work in high stakes legal contests. He has been in hundreds of discovery proceedings in his career. He has a full understanding of what his responsibilites are in those types of settings. My point is that when he doesn't disclose his involvement (meaningful or not) it is deliberate. He didn't follow the rules of the law/proceedings when he didn't disclose his participation in the report, regardless if it was significant or not. Why do you think the judge is asking pointed questions regarding his lack of notification to the NFLPA? You keep stressing that Pash wasn't involved in the investigation. When you re-word a report done by someone else you are certainly involved in the investigation and the development of the report. Without a doubt by subtly changing the wording of a small section of the report you can dramatically change the implication derived from the report.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 I feel it is my duty to point out yet again that they have no evidence of malfeasance in those earlier games. Not that it matters for this particular debate ...Sorry Dave but that is one of the weakest arguments possible. So if Jastremski texted McNally and said "Tom Brady told me to have you deflate the footballs" you would say "there is no evidence of malfeasance in those earlier games?" There is extremely compelling, virtually inarguable, circumstantial evidence. Unless, of course, you want to say that Jastremski and McNally were just making that all up about "Tom" and the earlier games and the texts at halftime telling Jastremski to deflate, because it's all about weight loss or they did it without Brady even though they are constantly referencing Brady as knowing and complicit. Why didn't Pash who is a senior counsel for the league simply receive the report, as is? He acted inappropriately when he edited/re-shaped the report (however you want to characterize it) and didn't disclose his involvement with the report to the NFLPA. You are trying to portray Pash's acts as inadvertent and an oversight. That makes no sense. Mr. Pash is a high powered attorney who knows the law and knows how to work in high stakes legal contests. He has been in hundreds of discovery proceedings in his career. He has a full understanding of what his responsibilites are in those types of settings. My point is that when he doesn't disclose his involvement (meaningful or not) it is deliberate. He didn't follow the rules of the law/proceedings when he didn't disclose his participation in the report, regardless if it was significant or not. Why do you think the judge is asking pointed questions regarding his lack of notification to the NFLPA? You keep stressing that Pash wasn't involved in the investigation. When you re-word a report done by someone else you are certainly involved in the investigation and the development of the report. Without a doubt by subtly changing the wording of a small section of the report you can dramatically change the implication derived from the report. No. You Brady supporters dont even read what you respond to. I said the NFL and Pash made a mistake. He should have turned over his notes. He probably should have been a witness because it wouldn't have mattered. I never implied it was inadvertent and an oversight. Where the !@#$ does that come from? I'm saying Pash didn't take part in the actual Wells investigation, he edited the report after it was already done, and unless you want to say that Wells found Brady innocent but Pash edited it to say he was guilty it didn't change anything. What Wells did is laid out in extreme detail at every turn. He may have been biased, he may have presented the case in a way someone else may not have but it doesn't change any of the facts in the case we know to be true.
K-9 Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 I feel it is my duty to point out yet again that they have no evidence of malfeasance in those earlier games. Not that it matters for this particular debate ... No direct evidence, yes. But the circumstantial evidence that McNally deflated balls in the past and that he did it for compensation from Brady, is very compelling. Any reasonable person could say there is at least a 51% chance of that likelihood. If the judge is assuming the league's case is strictly about the championship game vs. the Colts, then shame on the league for not making their case clear enough. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts