Micahel Smith on ESPN2, "The NFL is full of it."
Jemele Hill adds in that the only one damaging the integrity of the game is Roger Goodell.
Jemele Hill adds in that the only one damaging the integrity of the game is Roger Goodell.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
"On March 2, 1962, Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 pts...not an anniversary per se, just reminded me of Judge Berman vs the NFL..." - Matt Chatham, 2 minutes ago
CaptainLaddie said:
Except that this fact situation may be hard to dispute factually -- you defer to Goodel, and there is evidence to sustain that finding.
But the real questions he is focusing on are authority predicates:
(1) was Brady involved in conspiracy -- only evidence is the "inferrence" created by destroying the phone
(2) was conspiracy a "conduct detrimental" threshold -- if the underinflation doesn't help, is it "conduct detrimental?"
Stephen Brown @PPVSRB 11s11 seconds agoMassapequa Park, NY
Berman to Kessler: It looks like they...deflated the game balls? Why would either one of them do that without Mr. Brady’s consent?"
Kessler needs to SCIENCE this thing quick
Berman to Kessler: It looks like they...deflated the game balls? Why would either one of them do that without Mr. Brady’s consent?"
Kessler needs to SCIENCE this thing quick
It's their best (only) argument and whatever would be in second place is so far back as to be invisible. The merits of the decision itself are laughable to anyone who's missing an axe and a grinding wheel.CaptainLaddie said:
And it might be all they need.
MarcSullivaFan said:
Isn't that par for the course for a judge that has been so explicit about wanting a settlement, though?
Stephen Brown @PPVSRB 20s20 seconds agoMassapequa Park, NY
Kessler: "It is conceivable Mr. McNally thought it would be something that would be good for his QB. That makes a certain logical sense."
Kessler: "It is conceivable Mr. McNally thought it would be something that would be good for his QB. That makes a certain logical sense."
Just be careful about reading too much into the questions. It's tempting but a path strewn with danger.
You need go no further back that the Supreme Court argument on the affordable care act. Doom was predicted based on oral arguments. It survived by a 6 to 3 vote.
You need go no further back that the Supreme Court argument on the affordable care act. Doom was predicted based on oral arguments. It survived by a 6 to 3 vote.
Corsi said:
Yeah, don't like this move. The science is solidly on your side, Kessler. Hammer that point.
Stephen Brown @PPVSRB 6s6 seconds agoMassapequa Park, NY
Kessler: After all this money, all this investigation, he couldn’t get beyond…at least he was generally aware something may have happened."
Kessler: After all this money, all this investigation, he couldn’t get beyond…at least he was generally aware something may have happened."
Guys -- the fact that the judge thinks the facts are fair game to discuss and ask about is good. It's a standing double. Don't get too caught up in whether his questions favor this or that or the other thing.
Is it smart to challenge what the judge is saying and not just answer the question? That would be my thought as to why he did not bring out the Science.
I still think Kessler is going to argue that the balls were not in fact deflated before Berman is done questioning his side.
Not really. Goodell's assessment of the underlying facts is the least concerning thing for the NFL. It's all the procedural issues that the NFLPA has to hang its hat on: Lack of notice, exceeding authority by shifting rationale for discipline, etc.E5 Yaz said:
Weighing of the evidence and competing experts is the sort of thing reviewing courts feel like they should leave to the fact-finder. Science notwithstanding, the causal link in the chain to Brady is the easiest one to snap legally, given the standard of review at issue.Corsi said:
Seabass177 said:
As soon as you admit something shady might have gone on with those footballs, Brady's awareness of it is a reasonable conclusion. This is way too late to introduce "team employees gone rogue" as a possible justification.
Stephen Brown
@PPVSRB
Berman tells him to stay focused on his questions. "What are you saying?" Courtroom cracks up.
Well, not so much GIDDYUP.
Ugh.
@PPVSRB
Berman tells him to stay focused on his questions. "What are you saying?" Courtroom cracks up.
Well, not so much GIDDYUP.
Ugh.
Because
The judge however wants to know if there is any tie to Brady, and Kessler is saying there is no evidence, and the alternative of those two doing it on their own is realistic.
He's reading the judge. The judge will defer to Goodel on finding that there was deflation. He's said it so often, and the standard defers completely to Goodel on it.Seabass177 said:
The judge however wants to know if there is any tie to Brady, and Kessler is saying there is no evidence, and the alternative of those two doing it on their own is realistic.
Silverdude2167 said:
The best oral advocates will answer the question first, and then explain why they think it's the wrong question. But we're only getting tweets, and we don't see context or know whether Kessler had the time or ability to do that.
mandro ramtinez said:
Agree. I think it's very unlikely that he simply abandoned the ideal gas law, or that he won't circle back to it, or that the judge's question didn't have a preface that makes clear he knows that's their argument, but is asking an "if there was deflation" question.
Right. I find it hard to believe that a guy asking tough questions and not buying the NFL Bullshit is going to "Forget Science".
I bet its his trump.
Something like "and while all this is plausible.....I am still leaning to this being a natural occurance" =YOU BETTER FUCKING SETTLE NFL!!!
I bet its his trump.
Something like "and while all this is plausible.....I am still leaning to this being a natural occurance" =YOU BETTER FUCKING SETTLE NFL!!!
Steve Dillard said:
This sounds correct to me. Berman is skeptical of the tie between Brady and the "conspiracy." He hasn't expressed skepticism that someone deflated the footballs however. Kessler is lucky to be getting into the facts at all, so he's going after the window the judge gave him, not the window he didn't.
Stephen Brown @PPVSRB 28s28 seconds agoNew York, USA
Kessler says Wells didn't communicate directly with Brady, establish expectation of punishment is he didn't cooperate
Kessler says Wells didn't communicate directly with Brady, establish expectation of punishment is he didn't cooperate
RedOctober3829 said:
For context, this is in response to why he didn't produce texts. I'm guessing the judge will follow-up by asking again why he didn't produce texts if he is innocent.
Exactly. This may not be what Pats fans want to hear, but it's appropriate for a guy defending Brady. Even if Dorito Dink deflated, Brady cannot be held strictly liable.bowiac said:
This is all so silly.
I can't believe our tax dollars are going toward having to defend a guy being bullied by the NFL owners' corporate puppet. When you take a step back and consider all that's going on right now, it's kind of depressing that it has to come to this. Football is supposed to be fun and the NFL is supposed to be the model of how to manage and play the game the right way. And here we are, in a publicly-funded hearing, having to put a power-hungry jackass who's ruining the league back in his place.
I can't believe our tax dollars are going toward having to defend a guy being bullied by the NFL owners' corporate puppet. When you take a step back and consider all that's going on right now, it's kind of depressing that it has to come to this. Football is supposed to be fun and the NFL is supposed to be the model of how to manage and play the game the right way. And here we are, in a publicly-funded hearing, having to put a power-hungry jackass who's ruining the league back in his place.
Kessler may have just waived a portion of any attorney client privilege Brady had with Yee. I'd have to think that's from a position of strength. That is, that there's nothing bad there.
