NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[Falconidae]

(05-11-2012 11:45 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  But Mary Jo also said this in reference to the declaration:

In describing Hargrove's declaration last week, Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney hired by the NFL to review its investigation, said the player, "acknowledges the nature of the program and his participation in it, and, which is really the thrust of the declaration, that he was told to lie about it, and he did when he was asked about it in 2010 by the NFL investigators."

Now, we both know that the document clearly does not "acknowledge the nature of the program".

It also clearly does not "acknowledge his participation in it".

It also clearly does not "acknowledge that he was told to lie about it".

There is no way that can be misinterpreted.

So yes, the NFL absolutely DID say that he lied. They totally misrepresented the declaration to the media when announcing the player punishments. The actual declaration didn't surface until later and now Goodell and Ms. White have been caught with their pants down.

There is no way any of you can dispute that fact.

Now, whose credibility might be in question?

You know, you got me on that one, and doesn't change my opinion one iota. I believe the NFL is not insane and that they have proof of the bounty system.

And, if they have proof of the bounty system, the only possible interpretation of Hargrove's statement is that he lied.



Notice you didn't tackle the post before. I'm going out of town and outside of internet range, I'll be back next week.

[Dale4Saul2Red0]

Funny thing about all this Hargrove and NFLPA stuff is that the NFLPA actually read the signed declaration and they were the ones who handed it in to the NFL yet they tried to claim they haven't seen it and it may not exist. NFLPA is led by a fucking moron.

[ATLBound]

(05-11-2012 11:45 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  But Mary Jo also said this in reference to the declaration:

In describing Hargrove's declaration last week, Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney hired by the NFL to review its investigation, said the player, "acknowledges the nature of the program and his participation in it, and, which is really the thrust of the declaration, that he was told to lie about it, and he did when he was asked about it in 2010 by the NFL investigators."

Now, we both know that the document clearly does not "acknowledge the nature of the program".

It also clearly does not "acknowledge his participation in it".

It also clearly does not "acknowledge that he was told to lie about it".

There is no way that can be misinterpreted.

So yes, the NFL absolutely DID say that he lied. They totally misrepresented the declaration to the media when announcing the player punishments. The actual declaration didn't surface until later and now Goodell and Ms. White have been caught with their pants down.

There is no way any of you can dispute that fact.

Now, whose credibility might be in question?

It doesn't say "clearly"

It says it acknowledges the existence of a bounty

It says it acknowledges Hargrove's participation in it

It says it acknowledges Hargrove was told to lie about it.

The word "clearly" was never established. This is very important because if using logic, then yes what Mrs. White said was correct.

It acknowledges the existence because why would someone be called in tp deny or play dumb to something that doesn't exist.

It acknowledges his participation in it because the NFL and Saints coaches called in Hargrove specifically about the interview and to play sumb about it.

It acknowledges that he was told to fabricate it because he was told to play dumb about it. That is the equivalent of a half truth or in essence a lie.

Once again you are missing the point because Mrs. White never said "clearly" from what I have seen. Understand Mrs. White is a former prosecutor so when she acknowledges what this declaration could mean she is indicating that if we were to take this evidence into a court of law then we could use this as proof of these 3 things.

That's where you are failing and yet you are still trying to make it seem as if Mrs. White is going to forego her reputation at a prestigious law firm to help the NFL. You're trying every angle to make yourself and the Saints seem right and it's pitiful. Bottom line is Mrs. Whte being a lawyer see this declaration and says to herself and the NFL if we were in court then how can we prove this. She basically MAPPED out how this could be used as proper evidence. The problem the players have at this point though is that it doesn't have to go to court. Goodell is the judge. Sorry!

[AsylumGuido]

(05-11-2012 12:40 PM)Dale4Saul2Red0 Wrote:  Funny thing about all this Hargrove and NFLPA stuff is that the NFLPA actually read the signed declaration and they were the ones who handed it in to the NFL yet they tried to claim they haven't seen it and it may not exist. NFLPA is led by a fucking moron.

The NFLPA never claimed to have not seen it nor did they ever claim it didn't exist. Not once ... ever. They were the ones that helped Hargrove fashion it.

I'm really not sure where you came up with that.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-11-2012 12:51 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  It doesn't say "clearly"

It says it acknowledges the existence of a bounty

It says it acknowledges Hargrove's participation in it

It says it acknowledges Hargrove was told to lie about it.

The word "clearly" was never established. This is very important because if using logic, then yes what Mrs. White said was correct.

It acknowledges the existence because why would someone be called in tp deny or play dumb to something that doesn't exist.

It acknowledges his participation in it because the NFL and Saints coaches called in Hargrove specifically about the interview and to play sumb about it.

It acknowledges that he was told to fabricate it because he was told to play dumb about it. That is the equivalent of a half truth or in essence a lie.

Once again you are missing the point because Mrs. White never said "clearly" from what I have seen. Understand Mrs. White is a former prosecutor so when she acknowledges what this declaration could mean she is indicating that if we were to take this evidence into a court of law then we could use this as proof of these 3 things.

That's where you are failing and yet you are still trying to make it seem as if Mrs. White is going to forego her reputation at a prestigious law firm to help the NFL. You're trying every angle to make yourself and the Saints seem right and it's pitiful. Bottom line is Mrs. Whte being a lawyer see this declaration and says to herself and the NFL if we were in court then how can we prove this. She basically MAPPED out how this could be used as proper evidence. The problem the players have at this point though is that it doesn't have to go to court. Goodell is the judge. Sorry!

I was the one that said clearly. What I meant was that it is clear that it does not acknowledge any of those things. White stated on record that the declaration "acknowledged the nature of the program". It does not. It doesn't go into the nature of the program AT ALL. All it does is talk about denying it exists.

White also stated on record that it "acknowledged his participation in it". It does not at all. Go back and read it closely and copy and paste here the exact text that acknowledges his participation. You can't because it isn't there.

White also stated, once again on record, that it "acknowledged that he was told to lie". It does not at all. Once again, show me the exact text that proves that he was told to lie.

Your fellow member Falconidae acknowledges all of this.

You act as though you think I'm the only one who has this opinion. It is now widely excepted in the media that the declaration "clearly" does not relay what Goodell and White claimed that it relayed prior to its appearance in full public view.

You can't defend this. It is right there in black and white. Or rather, it ISN'T there in black and white.

[pauliwood]

(05-11-2012 12:13 PM)Falconidae Wrote:  I'm going out of town and outside of internet range, I'll be back next week.

You will be too late, The Saints will have won the Superbowl by then.

[ATLBound]

(05-11-2012 01:20 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  

I was the one that said clearly. What I meant was that it is clear that it does not acknowledge any of those things. White stated on record that the declaration "acknowledged the nature of the program". It does not. It doesn't go into the nature of the program AT ALL. All it does is talk about denying it exists.

White also stated on record that it "acknowledged his participation in it". It does not at all. Go back and read it closely and copy and paste here the exact text that acknowledges his participation. You can't because it isn't there.

White also stated, once again on record, that it "acknowledged that he was told to lie". It does not at all. Once again, show me the exact text that proves that he was told to lie.

Your fellow member Falconidae acknowledges all of this.

You act as though you think I'm the only one who has this opinion. It is now widely excepted in the media that the declaration "clearly" does not relay what Goodell and White claimed that it relayed prior to its appearance in full public view.

You can't defend this. It is right there in black and white. Or rather, it ISN'T there in black and white.

That's your problem and anybody else who agrees. You're looking at in Black and White when it isn't like that with Mary Jo White.

This is why I said earlier that you have to understand what Mary Jo White's profession is/was. She was a former federal prosecutor. She was hired by the NFl to act in that role.

To help you out here's a little dialogue:

NFL: Hi Mrs. White here is a declaration. With this declaration, can you use this as evidence in court to make a jury believe that a bounty existed, the author of this declaration was involved in it, and that the author of this declaration was advised to be dishonest about it?

Mary Jo White: *Reads the document* Yes I can do this, ask this question, say this word to make a jury believe in a court of law that all those 3 things are true.

This is what I was talking about and what Beef was eluding to. To understand what I am talking about, then you have to take YOUR mind from the situation and place it in the mind of Mrs. White and how she would think. Understand this declaration and what it says or doesn't say is under normal circumstances under a debate from me to you. It is evidence and evidence has and will always be for years used, flipped, tossed, and spun around to make what you say seem true and to make what the other person says false.

Please tell me that you see where I am going with this. I can not make it any more clear.

[ATLBound]

I apologize, but I forgot to put a condenscending smiley face so here you go.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-11-2012 01:53 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  That's your problem and anybody else who agrees. You're looking at in Black and White when it isn't like that with Mary Jo White.

This is why I said earlier that you have to understand what Mary Jo White's profession is/was. She was a former federal prosecutor. She was hired by the NFl to act in that role.

To help you out here's a little dialogue:

NFL: Hi Mrs. White here is a declaration. With this declaration, can you use this as evidence in court to make a jury believe that a bounty existed, the author of this declaration was involved in it, and that the author of this declaration was advised to be dishonest about it?

Mary Jo White: *Reads the document* Yes I can do this, ask this question, say this word to make a jury believe in a court of law that all those 3 things are true.

This is what I was talking about and what Beef was eluding to. To understand what I am talking about, then you have to take YOUR mind from the situation and place it in the mind of Mrs. White and how she would think. Understand this declaration and what it says or doesn't say is under normal circumstances under a debate from me to you. It is evidence and evidence has and will always be for years used, flipped, tossed, and spun around to make what you say seem true and to make what the other person says false.

Please tell me that you see where I am going with this. I can not make it any more clear.

The NFLPA's lead attorney is also a former federal prosecutor as is Vilma's personal attorney. There is a lot more money in private practice.

But, I know where you are going with it and I even said that when looking at evidence in a vacuum you never know how much substance it contains. White most likely did think there was some sort of evidence in the declaration IF you couple it with several assumptions. But, on its own merit, the declaration does not support what it was claimed to support. As I also mentioned, cases go to trial all of the time with enough possible evidence to convince a grand jury that a trial is warranted, only to have that very evidence discredited under cross-examination.

The email from Ornstein is also being questioned by many as a source evidence against the players as it had been described.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-11-2012 01:54 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  I apologize, but I forgot to put a condenscending smiley face so here you go.

The smiling face was due to my use of clearly. It wasn't meant to be condescending. It was meant to show my exasperation. I had actually went in and added the word clearly just before posting. I should have reworded it using "It is clear that" instead. My fault for confusing you on that point.