Specter says "there was filming" (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Please don't piss in the Shark Pool. Please keep all discussion of beating up politicians in either the FFA or the Obama forum.

This thread has quickly turned into bashing of Rush and Specter...

Based on what is coming out of Boston, it isnt that easy. The Patriots say that there isnt a confidentiality agreement with Walsh so there should be no problem, right? Wrong. The NFL cannot grant the guy immunity from criminal prosecution. If part of his evidence is taped conversations with various members of the Patriots organization, that is against Massachusetts law and Walsh could go to jail for that. If Walsh has stolen from the Patriots, that is against the law as well.If Walsh has anything at all, it is possible that we may never see it because it was unlawfully obtained. Walsh cant supply evidence that is going to implicate him in a criminal charge. The NFL cannot give him immunity for that. I have seen that if he stole tapes that the NFL could claim that the tapes are ultimately their possession to skirt any criminal charge but if Walsh taped conversations, the NFL can do nothing to give him immunity from those criminal charges.

However, that doesn't prevent the NFL from imposing further penalties on the Patriots. Doesn't matter if Walsh stole or not, the NFL is not bound by the same rules as the governmentThis is more than NFL vs Walsh vs Patriots.... this is Walsh vs Patriots vs. United States Government.I can definately see Goodell wanting to cover this up as much as possible:1) it puts a negative spot light on the NFL2) his butt could be on the line3) you don't want government getting involved in anything...like the saying goes "less is more"The NFL cannot grant him immunity, only the US Government can. And even so, granting him immunity may be letting the only guy they can prosecute go. Who's to say that Walsh didn't film on his own? A lot of reasonable doubt can be had.However, let's say he made copies of tapes that NE asked him to record... that's where it gets fuzzy, and unfortunately my fiance (lawyer), is not here to really clear stuff up for me... nor do I want to ask and get a 15 minute long answer when a simple "yes or no" would suffice This is a lot more complicated than most of us can comprehend. What may finally happen is that the NFL will see what Walsh has, will most likely sweep it under the rug and hope that it goes away in time. However, I would definately like to see the Patriots lose all their draft picks for 2008, though given the draft is a few weeks away, and how slow this thing has moved since Walsh came forward, I really doubt that will happen (though he should have just done that in the first place)

While it may now involve the US government, as far as I can tell the government cannot penalize the Patriots directly in this circumstance. The league has its own rules and its own practices. I do not believe that the government can impose sanctions against the Patriots on its own.

 

[Interseptopus]

Please don't piss in the Shark Pool. Please keep all discussion of beating up politicians in either the FFA or the Obama forum.

This thread has quickly turned into bashing of Rush and Specter...

Based on what is coming out of Boston, it isnt that easy. The Patriots say that there isnt a confidentiality agreement with Walsh so there should be no problem, right? Wrong. The NFL cannot grant the guy immunity from criminal prosecution. If part of his evidence is taped conversations with various members of the Patriots organization, that is against Massachusetts law and Walsh could go to jail for that. If Walsh has stolen from the Patriots, that is against the law as well.If Walsh has anything at all, it is possible that we may never see it because it was unlawfully obtained. Walsh cant supply evidence that is going to implicate him in a criminal charge. The NFL cannot give him immunity for that. I have seen that if he stole tapes that the NFL could claim that the tapes are ultimately their possession to skirt any criminal charge but if Walsh taped conversations, the NFL can do nothing to give him immunity from those criminal charges.

However, that doesn't prevent the NFL from imposing further penalties on the Patriots. Doesn't matter if Walsh stole or not, the NFL is not bound by the same rules as the governmentThis is more than NFL vs Walsh vs Patriots.... this is Walsh vs Patriots vs. United States Government.I can definately see Goodell wanting to cover this up as much as possible:1) it puts a negative spot light on the NFL2) his butt could be on the line3) you don't want government getting involved in anything...like the saying goes "less is more"The NFL cannot grant him immunity, only the US Government can. And even so, granting him immunity may be letting the only guy they can prosecute go. Who's to say that Walsh didn't film on his own? A lot of reasonable doubt can be had.However, let's say he made copies of tapes that NE asked him to record... that's where it gets fuzzy, and unfortunately my fiance (lawyer), is not here to really clear stuff up for me... nor do I want to ask and get a 15 minute long answer when a simple "yes or no" would suffice This is a lot more complicated than most of us can comprehend. What may finally happen is that the NFL will see what Walsh has, will most likely sweep it under the rug and hope that it goes away in time. However, I would definately like to see the Patriots lose all their draft picks for 2008, though given the draft is a few weeks away, and how slow this thing has moved since Walsh came forward, I really doubt that will happen (though he should have just done that in the first place)

While it may now involve the US government, as far as I can tell the government cannot penalize the Patriots directly in this circumstance. The league has its own rules and its own practices. I do not believe that the government can impose sanctions against the Patriots on its own.

No you're right on that one- they can't penalize the Patriots themselves. I'm actualy curious to find out what, if anything, they actually can do. I'll ask the 'ball and chain' and see if I can report back anything... I'm curious to figure out why Specter even decided to get his panties in a bunch over this...I don't know, I've personally just tried to ignore it as it further fuels my dislike for Belichick and it's not even worth my time or frustration. I'm all about putting Belichick in the stocks in NYJ territory for the 2008 season and calling it even... it's getting overplayed in my opinion- let's move on

 

[Road Warriors]

...

While it may now involve the US government, as far as I can tell the government cannot penalize the Patriots directly in this circumstance. The league has its own rules and its own practices. I do not believe that the government can impose sanctions against the Patriots on its own.

Does this now really involve the US Government? Has Specter done anything in an official "US Senator" capacity regarding this issue? Or has he used his position in the Government and notoriety to strongarm an agenda forward in the media, with vague references to governement possibly getting involved through mention of "favored status" with an anti-trust exemption?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Are you really this stubborn to not have the slightest clue as to what I would mean by HOT? HOT as in interesting, thought provoking, even polarizing, possessing an ability to generate attention and thus sales and reveune. The Spurs obviously do not qualify. The point of the discussion is driven by the selling of a book. Youre suggesting that a subject pertaining to the San Antonio Spurs would be useful in selling a book that people would otherwise not have the slightest interest in. Cmon, man. Jump back on board this thing. I know you dont really mean to insult either us like this. Im letting that one go, because I understand where youre coming from. But that's obviously not the even the same the same 'book' let alone the same 'page' Im on.

It helps to word things correctly. If you want to say that the Patriots Spygate scandal is currently the hottest sports story or topic, that is fine; I would probably agree with that, although one could say the Roger Clemens steroid story is bigger. But not the hottest sports team. That kind of loose title usually applies to the team with the most momentum or longest winning streak at the time, not necessarily with the most buzz. For example, a week ago, the Houston Rockets had won 22 games in a row, and were undoubtedly the hottest team in the NBA, despite not getting as much buzz as, say, the Lakers, Celtics or even Suns. Having said all of that, I get what you are saying, but just be a little more specific and clear next time, as saying "they are the hottest sports team right now" is not accurate; saying "the Patriots Spygate scandal is the hottest sports story/topic right now" probably is.

 

[twitch]

Are you really this stubborn to not have the slightest clue as to what I would mean by HOT? HOT as in interesting, thought provoking, even polarizing, possessing an ability to generate attention and thus sales and reveune. The Spurs obviously do not qualify. The point of the discussion is driven by the selling of a book. Youre suggesting that a subject pertaining to the San Antonio Spurs would be useful in selling a book that people would otherwise not have the slightest interest in. Cmon, man. Jump back on board this thing. I know you dont really mean to insult either us like this. Im letting that one go, because I understand where youre coming from. But that's obviously not the even the same the same 'book' let alone the same 'page' Im on.

It helps to word things correctly. If you want to say that the Patriots Spygate scandal is currently the hottest sports story or topic, that is fine; I would probably agree with that, although one could say the Roger Clemens steroid story is bigger. But not the hottest sports team. That kind of loose title usually applies to the team with the most momentum or longest winning streak at the time, not necessarily with the most buzz. For example, a week ago, the Houston Rockets had won 22 games in a row, and were undoubtedly the hottest team in the NBA, despite not getting as much buzz as, say, the Lakers, Celtics or even Suns. Having said all of that, I get what you are saying, but just be a little more specific and clear next time, as saying "they are the hottest sports team right now" is not accurate; saying "the Patriots Spygate scandal is the hottest sports story/topic right now" probably is.

I was vague in that reference. I didnt give it a ton of thought, but considering the context, I didnt think it was very significant. Nevertheless, we understand one another. So, as you usually do, you offer good thoughts that I have no choice but to respect. And with that in mind, I only look forward to the day when New England is less of a hot story and more of a hot team again.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Are you really this stubborn to not have the slightest clue as to what I would mean by HOT? HOT as in interesting, thought provoking, even polarizing, possessing an ability to generate attention and thus sales and reveune. The Spurs obviously do not qualify. The point of the discussion is driven by the selling of a book. Youre suggesting that a subject pertaining to the San Antonio Spurs would be useful in selling a book that people would otherwise not have the slightest interest in. Cmon, man. Jump back on board this thing. I know you dont really mean to insult either us like this. Im letting that one go, because I understand where youre coming from. But that's obviously not the even the same the same 'book' let alone the same 'page' Im on.

It helps to word things correctly. If you want to say that the Patriots Spygate scandal is currently the hottest sports story or topic, that is fine; I would probably agree with that, although one could say the Roger Clemens steroid story is bigger. But not the hottest sports team. That kind of loose title usually applies to the team with the most momentum or longest winning streak at the time, not necessarily with the most buzz. For example, a week ago, the Houston Rockets had won 22 games in a row, and were undoubtedly the hottest team in the NBA, despite not getting as much buzz as, say, the Lakers, Celtics or even Suns. Having said all of that, I get what you are saying, but just be a little more specific and clear next time, as saying "they are the hottest sports team right now" is not accurate; saying "the Patriots Spygate scandal is the hottest sports story/topic right now" probably is.

I was vague in that reference. I didnt give it a ton of thought, but considering the context, I didnt think it was very significant. Nevertheless, we understand one another. So, as you usually do, you offer good thoughts that I have no choice but to respect. And with that in mind, I only look forward to the day when New England is less of a hot story and more of a hot team again.

It's all good.

 

[redman]

Note to self: Never show anything to Arlen Specter on the promise of confidentiality.

My first thought too. I guess "confidentiality" could mean that you can't quote it, but usually it means you can't even refer to it.

 

[redman]

I disregard anything Rush Limbaugh says or is said on his show. NON STORY.

That's funny, because here I thought that this was about what Arlen Spector said, not what Rush said.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Note to self: Never show anything to Arlen Specter on the promise of confidentiality.

My first thought too. I guess "confidentiality" could mean that you can't quote it, but usually it means you can't even refer to it.

The existence of the confidential material is widely known -- it's simply the NFL's contract offer to Walsh. We know they offered something, we just (apparently*) don't know what. He's not violating any duty of confidentiality by acknowledging that he's seen the contract. His opinion that it's a bad offer *is* confidential, but I suspect Walsh and co. said it's alright for him to say that. *I say apparently, because I thought there was a copy of the agreement the NFL offered to Walsh posted in the Pool a couple of months ago. I guess this is different, or my memory stinks.

 

[fatness]

*I say apparently, because I thought there was a copy of the agreement the NFL offered to Walsh posted in the Pool a couple of months ago. I guess this is different, or my memory stinks.

There were multiple posts linking to this ESPN article with the text of the immunity agreement offered by the NFL, as well as the immunity agreement sought by Walsh's lawyer.

 

[fatness]

I disregard anything Rush Limbaugh says or is said on his show. NON STORY.

That's funny, because here I thought that this was about what Arlen Spector said, not what Rush said.

It is. Rush is just a convenient way to veer off the subject. I guess I should post a Washington Post link so we could veer equally to the left?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I disregard anything Rush Limbaugh says or is said on his show. NON STORY.

That's funny, because here I thought that this was about what Arlen Spector said, not what Rush said.

It is. Rush is just a convenient way to veer off the subject. I guess I should post a Washington Post link so we could veer equally to the left?

Don't you mean the New York Times?Perhaps its less of an attempt to veer off the subject as it is a reflection of the paucity of any meaningful status change?

Seems like this will get resolved shortly with the owners meeting coming up, but who knows at this point.

 

[redman]

Note to self: Never show anything to Arlen Specter on the promise of confidentiality.

My first thought too. I guess "confidentiality" could mean that you can't quote it, but usually it means you can't even refer to it.

The existence of the confidential material is widely known -- it's simply the NFL's contract offer to Walsh. We know they offered something, we just (apparently*) don't know what. He's not violating any duty of confidentiality by acknowledging that he's seen the contract. His opinion that it's a bad offer *is* confidential, but I suspect Walsh and co. said it's alright for him to say that. *I say apparently, because I thought there was a copy of the agreement the NFL offered to Walsh posted in the Pool a couple of months ago. I guess this is different, or my memory stinks.

First of all, the NFL is in no position to offer any immunity to Walsh. As far as confidentiality goes, you can define it pretty much any way you want to. Spector had no "duty" to maintain confidentiality except insofar as it was agreed upon by him as a condition of seeing the letters. I just found it to be a bit bizarre that in the same breath that he's talking about confidentiality he's also commenting upon the substance of the confidential information, albeit in a conclusory fashion. That's highly suspect, though I acknowledge that it could be in technical compliance with his deal with Walsh's attorneys.

 

[PatsWillWin]

let's just see the friggin tapes already, if they exist.