JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 No it wouldn't. He wasn't in a court of law and the NFL was clearly allowing him to admit guilt. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/06/23/tom-brady-swears-his-innocence-in-deflategate-appeal/ "The state’s perjury law is broadly written to suggest that a person can perjure himself outside the context of an official proceeding, even when the statement is made to a private body, experts said."
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I'm talking about the hearing before the judge. What did he say? And again, there would never be a purjury charge if he accepted guilt. He did speak before the judge I believe, in both the actual hearing and private talks before the hearing presumably in the judges chambers. But I believe people were talking about a possible perjury charge because of what he said in the appeal hearing. That is where we know what he said and he was blatantly lying.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/06/23/tom-brady-swears-his-innocence-in-deflategate-appeal/ "The state’s perjury law is broadly written to suggest that a person can perjure himself outside the context of an official proceeding, even when the statement is made to a private body, experts said." John, the NFL was offering him a deal. He would not be charged if he accepted it. He did speak before the judge I believe, in both the actual hearing and private talks before the hearing presumably in the judges chambers. But I believe people were talking about a possible perjury charge because of what he said in the appeal hearing. That is where we know what he said and he was blatantly lying. Oh, you believe? lol...I clearly said the appeal of his appeal. You need to read slower or something...
Nanker Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Exactly. Perjury in this case is a red herring... or should I say, "Smokescreen". And I believe KTD was only referencing other posters who brought it up to essentially poo-poo the idea that it would happen. Edited September 1, 2015 by Nanker
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Oh, you believe? lol...I clearly said the appeal of his appeal. You need to read slower or something... You started this whole line by questioning Tuco about a perjury charge and he was specifically referring to Brady's sworn testimony which was the appeal hearing. Then people answered you about why that was possible. Then you went off on another tangent.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Exactly. Perjury in this case is a red herring... or should I say, "Smokescreen". I should have given you props for your analogy upstream, Nanker. It was also what I was getting at. Might as well charge every convicted criminal for his "not guilty" plea as well. As for the rest of the group who would like to simply go "under oath" and say they truly believe Brady would be charged with perjury if he accepted guilt for a lesser suspension? You started this whole line by questioning Tuco about a perjury charge and he was specifically referring to Brady's sworn testimony which was the appeal hearing. Then people answered you about why that was possible. Then you went off on another tangent. I said he would not be charged if he accepted the guilt for lesser punishment. No tangent. Edited September 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO
K-9 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I don't believe that he instructed anyone to deflate the balls below the legal limit. Whether he gave him or others gifts is not as significant as many think. He swore that he never asked any staff to provide him with balls under the limit. There is no secret that he wanted his balls at the lower end. Just as Aaron Rogers wanted his balls at the higher end. Some qbs wanted their balls worn a bit and others wanted their balls a little newer. Different balls for different qbs. I I think you are avoiding the question when you keep on emphasizing "below the legal limit." I'll ask again, do you think McNally received compensation from Brady for deflating balls to ensure the softer feel that Brady prefers? As you said, no secret he preferred a softer ball. How was that softer ball ensured if not by McNally deflating balls? Follow-up question: is it against the rules to alter the game balls after the game officials do the pregame check and before they are delivered to the field? If I follow your logic, you are OK with players bribing team employees to undermine efforts by game officials to "ensure compliance with league rules." GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I should have given you props for your analogy upstream, Nanker. It was also what I was getting at. Might as well charge every convicted criminal for his "not guilty" plea as well. As for the rest of the group who would like to simply go "under oath" and say they truly believe Brady would be charged with perjury if he accepted guilt for a lesser suspension? I said he would not be charged if he accepted the guilt for lesser punishment. No tangent. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You said though that he wouldn't or couldn't be charged with perjury because he wasn't in a court or in front of a judge and three or four people showed you why he could.
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 So you truly believe McNally stole the balls and lowered them on his own? MattM/KTD, Brady swore that he never instructed anyone to lower the balls below the limit. I believe him. When Wells was asked if he had direct evidence that Brady was involved in a conspiracy regarding the balls he answered no. In addition, I have held the position from the start that the condition of the balls issue in general is a trivial and insignificant issue that didn't merit the level of response that it received. It had no effect on player performance and had no effect on the game. If the type of response regarding equipment in this case was handled in the same manner as other similar equipment issues this extended fiasco would never have occurred. Jaywalking is not manslaughter! Common sense and reasonable judgment were lacking out of the commissioner's office.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) There will be no deal. The league won't consider a deal unless Brady accepts some form of responsibility for the balls. He is resolute in not accepting those terms because he doesn't believe that he is culpable to any degree. In addition, he is not going to go against his sworn testimoney and put himself in jeopardy. If the league is ruled against the judge is going to write his judgment in such a way that it will be difficult to overcome in an appeal. Also, if RG loses the owners are not going to allow this fiasco to continue, regardless what the commissioner wants to do. What can the judge rule that would make an appeal difficult for the NFL? What jeopardy would Brady place himself in if he accepts what the NFL has been asking for all along? The NFL is asking him to admit to breaking the rules. Since Brady's previous testimony has been entered into the court record, agreeing to that now would amount to perjury. No it wouldn't. He wasn't in a court of law and the NFL was clearly allowing him to admit guilt. This is how it started and what I was responding to. The bolded part was incorrect on my part. But the original point that he would not be charged with perjury for taking what amounts to a plea deal is absolutely true still. Edited September 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I think you are avoiding the question when you keep on emphasizing "below the legal limit." I'll ask again, do you think McNally received compensation from Brady for deflating balls to ensure the softer feel that Brady prefers? As you said, no secret he preferred a softer ball. How was that softer ball ensured if not by McNally deflating balls? Follow-up question: is it against the rules to alter the game balls after the game officials do the pregame check and before they are delivered to the field? If I follow your logic, you are OK with players bribing team employees to undermine efforts by game officials to "ensure compliance with league rules." GO BILLS!!! What the heck are you talking about. He dealt with the equipment person who handled the balls. Who else is he going to deal with regarding the balls? Who do you think Aaron Rogers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Peyton Manning deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Rivers deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Drew Brees deals with regarding how he wants the balls? Who do you think Dalton deals with regarding the balls? They all deal with the equipment staff who are responsible for the condition of the balls. Who else would they go to on that issue? Not the PR guy. Not the video guy. Not the water boy. Let's use some common sense here.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 MattM/KTD, Brady swore that he never instructed anyone to lower the balls below the limit. I believe him. When Wells was asked if he had direct evidence that Brady was involved in a conspiracy regarding the balls he answered no. In addition, I have held the position from the start that the condition of the balls issue in general is a trivial and insignificant issue that didn't merit the level of response that it received. It had no effect on player performance and had no effect on the game. If the type of response regarding equipment in this case was handled in the same manner as other similar equipment issues this extended fiasco would never have occurred. Jaywalking is not manslaughter! Common sense and reasonable judgment were lacking out of the commissioner's office. That doesn't answer the question really. It's an inarguable fact that the balls were stolen by McNally and taken to the bathroom. The fact he gave three different answers to three different people about why all but shows he did something to them, combined with the fact the game ball was two pounds under and another one was too which cannot be explained by science. Plus he is known as "the deflator." So the balls were deflated. Whether it is minor (which I believe too) or didn't help them (which I believe it didn't) is immaterial to this question: Did Brady instruct him to do it or did he do it on his own? That
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 This is how it started and what I was responding to. The bolded part was incorrect on my part. But the original point that he would not be charged with perjury for taking what amounts to a plea deal is absolutely true still. I agree, and others have made the same point, that it is doubtful that he would be charged with perjury in this case. But the basic point some of us were making is that there was some legal exposure to perjury because he made a sworn statement in the legal proceeding. That's all I (we) were saying.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 This is how it started and what I was responding to. The bolded part was incorrect on my part. But the original point that he would not be charged with perjury for taking what amounts to a plea deal is absolutely true still. I agree with that and again I think everyone does. You responded to my post and I directly responded to that about the perjury. And why it is still perjury. Your bolded part even shows you know you were in error. He's never going to be charged with perjury because no one will go there. But he is liable for it and open to it even though he was not in court.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I agree, and others have made the same point, that it is doubtful that he would be charged with perjury in this case. But the basic point some of us were making is that there was some legal exposure to perjury because he made a sworn statement in the legal proceeding. That's all I (we) were saying. I appreciate that John. But I was saying it was impossible to believe he could be charged or even be "exposed" if he accepted a deal. Clearly Tuco was claiming otherwise. A plea by definition assumes perjury.
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 That doesn't answer the question really. It's an inarguable fact that the balls were stolen by McNally and taken to the bathroom. The fact he gave three different answers to three different people about why all but shows he did something to them, combined with the fact the game ball was two pounds under and another one was too which cannot be explained by science. Plus he is known as "the deflator." So the balls were deflated. Whether it is minor (which I believe too) or didn't help them (which I believe it didn't) is immaterial to this question: Did Brady instruct him to do it or did he do it on his own? That Back and forth. Back and forth. Back and forth. Let's just wait for the ruling.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) I agree with that and again I think everyone does. You responded to my post and I directly responded to that about the perjury. And why it is still perjury. Your bolded part even shows you know you were in error. He's never going to be charged with perjury because no one will go there. But he is liable for it and open to it even though he was not in court. No, not is any practical sense. In fact there would be no plea if he was exposed to perjury. Edited September 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 No, not is any practical sense. In fact there would be no plea if he was exposed to perjury. Yes, he is. You're liable before it. Just because a cop is not likely in ten years to pull you over for going five miles over the speed limit you are liable for it.
Mr. WEO Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) Yes, he is. You're liable before it. Just because a cop is not likely in ten years to pull you over for going five miles over the speed limit you are liable for it. If you take a plea deal? That is what I was saying. The answer is no. If he doesn't take a deal and someone can later prove he was lying, yes. But in the scenario I mentioned, no. The only reason perjury was brought up was in reference to him accepting guilt. Edited September 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO
JohnC Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I appreciate that John. But I was saying it was impossible to believe he could be charged or even be "exposed" if he accepted a deal. Clearly Tuco was claiming otherwise. A plea by definition assumes perjury. A plea deal by definition, unless it is only over the cooperation issue, does assume perjury. I agree with that view. I doubt that he would be charged with perjury under any circumstance but that doesn't mean there isn't some degree of "exposure" (miniscule).
Recommended Posts