Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***phocis850*** · 05-11-2012, 02:14 PM

You can't live on the basis that only the NFL is lying. And defense lawyers are just throwing stuff out there to make their clients look better.

Beef · 05-11-2012, 02:22 PM

(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.

This is nothing more than you choosing to misrepresent what the declaration really means, how it's context should be interpreted, and why it was really written.

Mary Jo White is absolutely correct.

It acknowledges the existance of a bounty because it is completely irrational to try to pass blame on to Williams and Vitt for something that didn't exist.

It does acknowledge Hargroves participation by the mere fact he was singled out by coaches and directed to do/say William's and Vitt's side of the story (be on the same page). If he wasn't involved in bounties, then there is no rational reason to tell him to play dumb and stay on the same page.

It does acknowledge Hargrove was told to lie. For Christ sakes, THAT'S IT'S PURPOSE! He thinks that by throwing Williams and Vitt under the bus by infering they told him to lie, it will lessen his punishment. But use your head... If there's really no bounty, then how could passing culpability to someone else for something that doesn't really exist possibly lessen his punishment????????

Guess what... IT CAN'T! That's why the declaration is FUTILE/WORTHLESS/STUPID AS FUCK unless there REALLY IS A BOUNTY!

And EVERYONE knows that's exactly what it infers in it's real context.

Your bizzarro world delusional and overwhelmingly dishonest interpretation of the declaration's context is BS. You're misrepreseting it and essentially lying because you refuse to state the truth about what it REALLY infers.

Choosing to ignore the true context and spin something other than the truth is the same as lying. You are not fooling anyone. (except maybe falconidae)

ATLBound · 05-11-2012, 03:25 PM

(05-11-2012 02:09 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: 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.

The difference between Mary Jo White and the NFLPA's and Vilma's attorney is that Mrs. White wasn't hired to represent the NFL. She was hired as a consultant.

This means the NFLPA and Vilma's attorneys have a clear bias to represent their client in a certain fashion.

Mrs. White as a consultant has no bias. She isn't the NFL's attorney, so if she thought the declaration whatever else they have wasn't enough then she could have told them. It is of no benefit to her to lie.

Beef · 05-11-2012, 03:44 PM

(05-11-2012 03:25 PM)ATLBound Wrote: The difference between Mary Jo White and the NFLPA's and Vilma's attorney is that Mrs. White wasn't hired to represent the NFL. She was hired as a consultant.

This means the NFLPA and Vilma's attorneys have a clear bias to represent their client in a certain fashion.

Mrs. White as a consultant has no bias. She isn't the NFL's attorney, so if she thought the declaration whatever else they have wasn't enough then she could have told them. It is of no benefit to her to lie.

DING DING DING!!

This is HUGE. This is yet another thing Guido is misrepresenting on purpose and attempting to spin.

She gets no more or no less pay for telling the truth or telling a lie. As a result, it makes no sense for her to lie simply because she is getting paid by the NFL. She does not have any incentive to lie, while she has her and her firm's reputation to lose if she does.

Jesus · 05-11-2012, 04:41 PM

Wait a second, there was a bounty program in New Orleans?

AsylumGuido · 05-11-2012, 05:20 PM

(05-11-2012 02:22 PM)Beef Wrote: This is nothing more than you choosing to misrepresent what the declaration really means, how it's context should be interpreted, and why it was really written.

Mary Jo White is absolutely correct.

It acknowledges the existance of a bounty because it is completely irrational to try to pass blame on to Williams and Vitt for something that didn't exist.

It does acknowledge Hargroves participation by the mere fact he was singled out by coaches and directed to do/say William's and Vitt's side of the story (be on the same page). If he wasn't involved in bounties, then there is no rational reason to tell him to play dumb and stay on the same page.

It does acknowledge Hargrove was told to lie. For Christ sakes, THAT'S IT'S PURPOSE! He thinks that by throwing Williams and Vitt under the bus by infering they told him to lie, it will lessen his punishment. But use your head... If there's really no bounty, then how could passing culpability to someone else for something that doesn't really exist possibly lessen his punishment????????

Guess what... IT CAN'T! That's why the declaration is FUTILE/WORTHLESS/STUPID AS FUCK unless there REALLY IS A BOUNTY!

And EVERYONE knows that's exactly what it infers in it's real context.

Your bizzarro world delusional and overwhelmingly dishonest interpretation of the declaration's context is BS. You're misrepreseting it and essentially lying because you refuse to state the truth about what it REALLY infers.

Choosing to ignore the true context and spin something other than the truth is the same as lying. You are not fooling anyone. (except maybe falconidae)

That is exactly what Goodell and White did with the declaration. The ignored the true context and spun it to mean what they wanted it to mean.

It appears to you that is living in the bizzaro world. Take the time to read what others are saying about the declaration. Nobody of note is saying that it supports the league's claims of proof that players, including Hargrove, took part in a bounty scheme. Nobody! Yet, several stories from publications all over have said just the opposite and echo what I am saying.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point because you do not need any proof.

AsylumGuido · 05-11-2012, 05:21 PM

(05-11-2012 04:41 PM)Jesus Wrote: Wait a second, there was a bounty program in New Orleans?

Not that anyone is able to confirm.

AsylumGuido · 05-11-2012, 05:27 PM

(05-11-2012 03:44 PM)Beef Wrote: DING DING DING!!

This is HUGE. This is yet another thing Guido is misrepresenting on purpose and attempting to spin.

She gets no more or no less pay for telling the truth or telling a lie. As a result, it makes no sense for her to lie simply because she is getting paid by the NFL. She does not have any incentive to lie, while she has her and her firm's reputation to lose if she does.

How do you know what her arrangement is with the NFL? There is a big difference between lying and telling someone what they want to hear. But the fact is that the declaration does not state what it was implied to have stated prior to it becoming public. Regardless of how you want to interpret it many, many others with no dog in the fight agree that the league misrepresented the declaration. That's not just me saying that.

***phocis850*** · 05-11-2012, 05:28 PM

(05-11-2012 05:20 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: That is exactly what Goodell and White did with the declaration. The ignored the true context and spun it to mean what they wanted it to mean.

It appears to you that is living in the bizzaro world. Take the time to read what others are saying about the declaration. Nobody of note is saying that it supports the league's claims of proof that players, including Hargrove, took part in a bounty scheme. Nobody! Yet, several stories from publications all over have said just the opposite and echo what I am saying.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point because you do not need any proof.

smh

AsylumGuido · 05-11-2012, 05:31 PM

(05-11-2012 02:14 PM)phocis850 Wrote: You can't live on the basis that only the NFL is lying. And defense lawyers are just throwing stuff out there to make their clients look better.

I am living on the basis that the NFL went to bat with very little evidence and that evidence is starting to crumble around them. The Saints front office is screwed one way or the other. They have no union, but the players do have a union and they are insuring that the players do not get punished with no valid cause.