boom, take this clown to the woodshed. SUE ME, CARNES!! I DARE YOU!
Lubrano & Lord on Freeh.
- Thread starter ralpieE
- Start date
boom, take this clown to the woodshed. SUE ME, CARNES!! I DARE YOU!
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
That's fine and may well be. But unless that information is released, he's just a guy making claims. I saw unicorn in the woods crapping rainbows. What more proof do you need?
Absurd examples doesn't make your case. Falls outside the "reasonable man" construct. Further, the information you seek is protected by AC privilege, work product doctrine, and promises of confidentiality made to interviewees.
And, for some reason, they want to hide the "facts". Even though they are telling us that they are hiding them to spare us further embarrassment (beyond 99% of the press referring to our former coaching staff as covering up for pedophilia) and signing a consent decree that they thought would kill the program for several years.
Wait....thinking about this...something doesn't add up....
Then you haven't poven anything and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. The FACT that they want to push the "paterno is a pedophile enabler" on some notion that there is something worse doesn't pass the smell test. Nor does the FACT that they were willing to kill the football program in order to protect the program from your fantastical exhuberations that there was something worse than pedophilia.
Sorry 66. I read your posts and listen to you but this assertion is far beyond absurd.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
And that's exactly what Freeh did. He proffered his own professional opinion based on what a reasonable person would conclude based on what 300+ other people told him.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Who was trying to kill the football program and specifically for what reason?
More like based on 5 or 6 Trustees, on a failed and befuddled general counsel and a fired administrator. Wonder why investigators who HAVE interviewed McQueary etc. don't implicate Joe?
exactly. they aren't protecting ACP, work product, confidentiality . . . they've already proven on numerous occasions that they don't think the rules apply to them anyway. they're protecting their own dumb asses and the nasty sh*t they said to freeh. and they send out king dumb ass of dipwad mountain to defend them. pathetic.
SUE ME CARNES! I'll joust you, wrestle you, rub your face in some good old fashioned Central Pennsylvania sod. you don't scare me.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
The legacy trustees did that? Then you must have been present during their interviews. Tell me what they said that was damning. Go ahead, we're all listening.
Easy....because they fired Joe and suddenly realized that they looked like (what they really are). They needed to justify their actions and figured they would pin it on Joe and the football program. Because they are so incredibly arrogant, they would then take credit for rebuilding the program in their own image. Please, stop putting the ball on the tee for us!
Agreed, it is his opinion, which is based on not interviewing any of the key people. It's about quality, not quantity... the quantity of non-key witnesses doesn't matter.
OK, so Frank Fina's opinion, is that Joe Paterno was not involved in a cover-up. We all know that Fina had access to more evidence than Freeh, and {Gasp!} actually interviewed some of the key players. So how can you possibly think that Freeh's report is valid?
Whomever was responsible for drafting and agreeing to the part of the CD that allowed players to transfer without sitting up until summer 2013, that's who.
The football program came within a whisker of collapsing. However thanks to great leaders like Mauti and Zordich it never happened. Im sure you masters were quite upset when their plan was not successful.
Some might even say you witnessed Obli witnessing the rainbow dumpin unicorn, thus some people witnessed Obli.
Well, it was in the news. The NCAA was threatening the death penalty and PSU signed a consent decree that allowed all of our players to transfer (not to mention several other cool ditties).
LINK
Now excuse me as I have to go watch my daughter perform the Napoleon Dynamite dance at camp
Did he interview 300+ people or conduct 300+ interviews with a handful of people?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Laughing at you! I thought you had me on ignore. Isn't what you said the other day? You just can't stay away can you? You so wish you were me. You hid behind the monitor's skirts like a little girl the other day asking for your post to be deleted and now you want to rumble with me? Internet muscles? I don't fight with little girls but in your case I'd make an exception.
But first let's see if you're man enough to put your money where your mouth is. Would you like to make a bet for charity that says I'm not who you say I am? Go ahead, I'm listening.
... and were those interviewed key involved players, or just random people on the street?
Does it really matter who you are?
I contend it is more important what you are.
I contend it is more important what you are.
Off the record? Given the opportunity Ms. Baldwin would exonerate Joe.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Seems to me if the Board and Administration really wanted to kill the program they would have taken either of two alternatives to the decree. That being 1) immediately accepting the death penalty that was said was on the table or 2) fighting the NCAA which would have resulted in years of protracted litigation with no guarantee of prevailing. How hard do you think it might have been hiring a top flight coach and recruiting blue chip prospects with the real possibility of losing a court battle with the NCAA? Not to mention possibly getting kicked out of the conference and losing around $24M/yr in conference revenue.
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
He directed a comment at me so I know he's reading my posts either directly or indirectly. He's just trying to save face by not responding now.
Uhh..guess what? When you consider the transfer without sitting until 2013 clause in the CD there was NO guarantee we'd even be able to field a team....so....there's that. I'll say it again just in case, the CD did NOT guarantee we'd even be able to field a team in 2012 or 2013. It did NOT present a better alternative than fighting the NCAA via litigation. All it did was admit guilt on PSU's behalf with ZERO due process and cement the false narrative. Good job BOT!!
My guess is your masters wanted football to take a back seat or get dissolved completely but didn't want to come right out and say so. Hence the sneaky transfer without sitting clause which was essentially a defacto death penalty. Most in the media completely glossed over the fact that our team almost dissovled....which was a DIRECT result in your masters agreeing to the CD and the transfer without sitting clause.
Here's my answers.........
* BS
* BS
* BS
* It doesn't exist!!!
.....oh and did I forget
* one more BS for good measure
sorry man - you really have no idea what you are talking about
I stand corrected and in this case, if true, glad to be mistaken.
Then why does his summary say "that the key evidence is the 3 emails" that have been discussed at length on this forum. Witness statements is a joke since he didn't talk to any of the key individuals.
Nice attempt at spinning.
That AC privilege you refer to went out the window when they allowed Freeh to put the report on blast on national TV.
I have Carnes on ignore. he's just so hopelessly predictable, I have a little pinwheel I spin to guess what he has posted
I'm right some of the time. or most of the time. or all of the time. I need michnit's keen legal insight to figure that one out
bwifan
Well-Known Member
When you have someone on ignore, can you see their posts when someone else quotes them?
nope.
I also have one section on my Jim Carnes BS Pinwheel that just says "Hibble Bibble"
Please? Anyone with the ability to comprehend the English language knows that those emails disprove Freeh's conclusions in their entirety.
Why do you only respond to the "easy" questions?
Still waiting to hear your response to:
Let's say I agreed with 'reasonable' person bs for the sake of the argument, it still doesn't change the fact his impression is an opinion, and not a fact. Seriously, some of you bot sycophants do more harm to your position by making yourselves look so stupid when all you really want to be is deceitful. Eh, whatever floats your boat I guess.
Similar threads
