axx said:
WARNING: axx, stay on topic. If you can't show your work on how any of this has to do with liberal (or conservative, libertarian, or whatever party one roots for), I strongly suggest not try to throw a match on a pile of hay.
The Ray Rice Debacle
- Thread starter amarshal2
- Start date
WARNING: axx, stay on topic. If you can't show your work on how any of this has to do with liberal (or conservative, libertarian, or whatever party one roots for), I strongly suggest not try to throw a match on a pile of hay.
I don't think spousal privilege would have affected the case. See here: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2014/03/according-to-espn-baltimore-ravens-running-back-ray-rice-and-janay-palmer-were-married-friday-what-makes-this-both-sad-a.html. Plus, the videotape would have been sufficient.Deathofthebambino said:
One other factual note. It's been said that Rice going into pre-trial diversion was unusual. That's correct but only because it was unusual for Rice's case to be elevated from Municipal Court to Superior Court. The pre-trial diversion program is not available if the case stays in Municipal Court, but Rice would have only faced a misdemeanor there.
edit: second link was incorrect. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/16/program-that-accepted-rice-rare-in-domestic-cases/15704943/
Can Goodell do enough of an about-face to save his job? Would it be better, in terms of 'the nfl v. Domestic violence' for him to stay, with this constant pressure for him to be intense about it?
Otherwise, they could dump Goodell and have some guy come in and talk big but do little. If Goodell stays it seems like he'd have to really stay on too of it...
Otherwise, they could dump Goodell and have some guy come in and talk big but do little. If Goodell stays it seems like he'd have to really stay on too of it...
WBCD, I'm not sure I think that guys opinion is correct. With respect to the first rule he cites (509), doesn't that read that least one of them has to consent to testify for the privilege to not apply? If Ray doesn't consent, and if she doesn't want to testify, I don't read that as requiring her to do so.
Likewise, I agree that any statements made by them prior to the marriage would not be covered, but I still don't think they can compel her to testify against him. The way I read those two rules in conjunction with each other is that you normally need both spouses to consent to one of them testifying to get around marital privilege, except in cases where one of them is the accused or the complainant. In that case, you don't need the consent, but I don't think it reads that you can compel testimony of a spouse against the other. Even if you could compel one spouse to testify against the other, would a prosecutor really do it? I don't practice criminal law, so I have no idea, but I always thought a spouse could never be compelled to testify against the other unless they volunteered to do so, or they both agreed to allow it.
That said, obviously, it doesn't matter like you said. The videotape would have been more than enough for a conviction, however I'm not following the point you're making about diversion program, if you're trying to make a point that is. Originally, his case was in municipal court, and he was getting ready to accept a plea deal, but isn't that when the prosecutor got his hands on the tapes and decided to give it to the grand jury, and then he got indicted for a felony, moving it to Superior Court? Once there, he became eligible for the diversion program, but according to that ESPN article, less than 1% of the people charged with the crime he was charged with were given the diversion program. Are you saying it's strange that he got charged with the felony given what he did? I thought from the minute I saw that video, he was charged correctly, but I was surprised and still am that the court allowed him into the intervention program.
Likewise, I agree that any statements made by them prior to the marriage would not be covered, but I still don't think they can compel her to testify against him. The way I read those two rules in conjunction with each other is that you normally need both spouses to consent to one of them testifying to get around marital privilege, except in cases where one of them is the accused or the complainant. In that case, you don't need the consent, but I don't think it reads that you can compel testimony of a spouse against the other. Even if you could compel one spouse to testify against the other, would a prosecutor really do it? I don't practice criminal law, so I have no idea, but I always thought a spouse could never be compelled to testify against the other unless they volunteered to do so, or they both agreed to allow it.
That said, obviously, it doesn't matter like you said. The videotape would have been more than enough for a conviction, however I'm not following the point you're making about diversion program, if you're trying to make a point that is. Originally, his case was in municipal court, and he was getting ready to accept a plea deal, but isn't that when the prosecutor got his hands on the tapes and decided to give it to the grand jury, and then he got indicted for a felony, moving it to Superior Court? Once there, he became eligible for the diversion program, but according to that ESPN article, less than 1% of the people charged with the crime he was charged with were given the diversion program. Are you saying it's strange that he got charged with the felony given what he did? I thought from the minute I saw that video, he was charged correctly, but I was surprised and still am that the court allowed him into the intervention program.
Less than 1% go onto PTI because most cases are dealt with at the Municipal level, where the program isn't available.
Rice's case was handled in a unique manner all around - in some ways more harshly and in others less. My point is that citing the statistic that 1% of DV cases results in pre-trial diversion in and of itself is misleading since the majority of cases aren't eligible for that program.
Rice's case was handled in a unique manner all around - in some ways more harshly and in others less. My point is that citing the statistic that 1% of DV cases results in pre-trial diversion in and of itself is misleading since the majority of cases aren't eligible for that program.
I guess I'm just confused about the spousal privilege. The law treats two spouses as one entity under the law, at least historically, and I agree that there is an exception to it when one party is accused of committing a crime against the other, but I still can't wrap my head around how the court could compel a spouse to testify against the other when that spouse doesn't want to do so. I guess it's the distinction with respect to the accused or the complainant. For example, Ray Rice has a spousal privilege so if he committed a crime against someone else, and his wife wanted to testify against him or the state subpoena'd her, Ray could assert the privilege. If she didn't want to testify, she could assert the privilege. But in a case where she is the one that got hurt, the state could compel her to testify against him if she didn't want to? When it says that there is an exception to the privilege for cases in which the spouse is charged with a crime against the other spouse, I can understand why Ray's privilege would be waived (he couldn't say Janay couldn't testify him in that situation), but I can't figure out why Janay's would be. Does it seem counter-intuitive to anyone else, or did I have one two many glasses of scotch tonight.
Also, if they could compel Janay to testify and she didn't, what would the penalty be? Contempt? Has there ever been a DV case where a spouse was charged with contempt for not testifying against her husband?
Also, if they could compel Janay to testify and she didn't, what would the penalty be? Contempt? Has there ever been a DV case where a spouse was charged with contempt for not testifying against her husband?
I don't think spousal privilege would apply but agree that it could be interpreted differently. I'm sure it would have been an interesting argument to hear.Deathofthebambino said:
Still, I suspect that the marriage was done for financial reasons first. Particularly if there had been previous acts of violence, which I suspect there was.
When you say "most cases," does that include felonies? Can the municipal courts handle felonies like this? I guess that's where you're losing me. If the Municipal court can handle felonies, then I see what your saying and don't know why it would have been sent to Superior Court. But, if the municipal court can't handle felonies, then are you saying that most cases like this wouldn't be considered felonies?
If the case had to be sent to Superior Court because it was classified as a felony, then I don't see how that's weird because to me, it should have been a felony charge, but I can see how reasonable minds would disagree on that.
If the case had to be sent to Superior Court because it was classified as a felony, then I don't see how that's weird because to me, it should have been a felony charge, but I can see how reasonable minds would disagree on that.
Who is they....The owners? Goodell is being spared (so far) because a major corporate sponsor has not yet pulled out. The first one that does will presumably cause a chain reaction and then (and only then imo) the owners will be forced to act. I expect the domino effect, IF the first one ever pulls to be quick and swift.simplyeric said:
The owners aren't motivated to act until it begins affecting their profitability. They are happy being in the background while Goodell is taking the heat......if their actions in allowing their head coaches to stand behind a podium getting hammered isn't evidence they don't want to get involved in this crap I don't know what is.
Goodell's future lies solely on the sponsors imo.
From what I understand, cases generally don't go from Municipal Court to Superior Court. If a case is referred to Municipal Court, it usually stays there. Not saying NJ prosecutors did anything wrong, and one could argue that the tape warranted the action, but it has been suggested that if Rice were some ordinary joe, the case would have stayed in Municipal Court.Deathofthebambino said:
Here's one story (that I was trying to link to earlier but failed) http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/16/program-that-accepted-rice-rare-in-domestic-cases/15704943/
and a similar article with a bit more info: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-jersey-data-unclear-on-whether-ray-rice-got-special/article_cc96a97f-f1bf-52d6-8917-f1a041a5ab48.html
They = Bernie Bartokowitz.HomeRunBaker said:
But anyway, doesn't it seem like the current trend is towards something precipitating Goodell's departure? So I'm asking, can he say and do 'the right things' such that owners, and sponsors, don't give up on him?
And would that result in a stronger Anti-DV policy than a new guy?
Well it's clear that Anheuser-Busch has been involved with Goodell in establishing what they want (demand?) to see. I'd "imagine" they layed out an outline of how they want to see the NFL act right now. It wouldn't surprise me that Goodell's creation of the Social Responsibilty advisers was a direct "order" from AB. IF this is the case the owners aren't going to rock the boat and IF AB is leading the charge and the other sponsors see Goodell "getting it right" that should save his job UNLESS more crap keeps popping up.simplyeric said:
Obviously all this is speculation but I'm pretty certain there is a ton of behind the scenes dialogue occurring as Goodell, the owners, and the sponsors all have skin in the game to "get this right" whatever getting it right actually means.
How this new revelation plays out is anyone's guess.
ESPN reported last week (seems like forever ago) that 4 of their 5 sources said that Rice told Goodell he punched Janay. The 5th said that Rice only said he slapped her. That's why it's not right to say that the Rices clearly downplayed his actions: the weakness of the 2-game suspension could just as well be from Goodell's inability to understand the horror of the incident (i.e. Rice told the truth but until video came out Goodell just didn't understand the violence), or from the fact that the freaking Ravens' top management were in the room during the interview. Even if they did downplay the situation, part of the controversy is Goodell's inability to recognize that domestic violence victims often downplay what happened when questioned in front of their abuser.Deathofthebambino said:
Goodell was way out of his depth trying to figure out the facts of a DV case, and there was nothing to be gained from interviewing the pair together. Some in this thread have suggested that you might be able to read the body language or ascertain facts from the interview, but I find that hardly likely given that Goodell doesn't have training or experience in dealing with such situations, and that's not even counting the fact that there was a good chance that Janay Palmer would tell a version of the story that puts some blame on herself. That's part of the controversy: if Goodell's defense is that Janay Palmer told him something less than truthful and that is why the suspension was so light, then he is essentially saying he doesn't understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
This relates to the other part of the controversy: whether or not Goodell had seen the tape by the time of the interview, it should have been obvious that the tape existed (particularly after Mort ran a detailed description of what was on the tape), and the NFL has never had problems getting hold of footage in the past. He could have waited for / asked to see the tape instead of holding the (useless) interview.
The guy who really comes off pretty bad in the OTL piece is Cass. In fact, for all the focus on Goodell, Cass really comes off as pretty calculating, obstructionist and, well, downright culpable when it comes to enabling domestic violence. The book is still out on Goodell. His handling of this has been abysmal. And as the captain of the ship he is responsible for what happened on his watch. But at the end of the day, it's still possible that his crime is willful blindness and bending to the will of his cronies. But if the OTL piece is true or mostly true, Cass really has some explaining to do.
Also, Mueller is simply not a tenable investigator given the deep connection between Cass and Mueller's law firm.
Also, Mueller is simply not a tenable investigator given the deep connection between Cass and Mueller's law firm.
I wouldn't worry too much about the connection between Cass and Mueller because of WilmerHale. There is obviously some potential for a conflict, but WilmerHale is not some small mom and pop law firm where everyone knows each other, etc. They've got at least a half dozen offices around the country, with over 1,000 lawyers and thousands and thousands of support staff. They are probably considered by many to be the top law firm in the country, if not the world. Mueller has shown himself to be above reproach, IMO, in these types of investigations over the years. I wouldn't be surprised if the two guys barely know each other, or even knew of each other's existence prior to this situation. In addition, a lot of the attorneys that "work" for WilmerHale do so in name only, whether it be in an 'of counsel' capacity or otherwise. Some maintain an affiliation just for name purposes only, and the opposite holds true as well, the firm uses some attorney's names just for the recognition it provides the firm. Without some sort of evidence of impropriety or conflict, I wouldn't even bat an eye, and given the high profile nature of this, I would think Mueller would recuse himself if he thought there was any way he couldn't be unbiased as a result of Cass' former affilation with WilmerHale.
Deathofthebambino said:
I don't agree. When attorneys move from the public sector back to a big firm, they are brought in by other partners for their name recognition and ability to bring in business. And usually the public-sector attorney does it to cash in. The partners managing WilmerHale made a decision to pay Mueller substantial compensation for his ability to bring in business (although it's probably little compared to what they'd pay to recruit a high-profile partner at an existing firm). This is a lucrative matter that he has brought in. If his actions cause the firm to lose enough other lucrative business, the management committee will quietly push him out the door. There's no question that he will feel pressure to take actions that benefit the firm's bottom line.
dcmissle said:
I've enjoyed your takes on this case throughout and I generally agree. Here, I am not surprised Goodell took actions that Bisciotti desired - Bisciotti's one of his bosses and they have to maintain a good relationship. (Spygate was a special case because Goodell was demonstrating his authority to all the franchises after his recent promotion to commissioner). But I am surprised that the Ravens were protecting Rice. I believe you mentioned this earlier. Why not just cut the guy loose? He was pretty clearly cooked and had little on-field value. There are two scenarios I can see: (1) the Ravens thought so little of domestic violence charges that they thought the risk was absolutely zero, or (2) they saw value in protecting Rice's reputation as a marketing face of the franchise. The second seems like the most plausible but still seems not worth the risk.
johnmd20 said:
Side point which I found interesting: This phrase originates with Watergate, but it seems likely the crime at the core of Watergate was Nixon scuttling peace talks and getting more soldiers killed so he could get elected president. This article is interesting: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-heinous-crime-behind-watergate/ "The mainstream media’s big takeaway from Richard Nixon’s Watergate resignation is that “the cover-up is always worse than the crime.” But that’s because few understand the crime behind Watergate, Nixon’s frantic search for a file on his 1968 subversion of Vietnam peace talks" [SIZE=13.63636302948px](That site is poorly designed but the author is a former AP reporter).[/SIZE]
SeoulSoxFan said:
This is what I am talking about. It's crazy that Rice had much value at all, never mind enough to take a risk like this.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
We don't know what Rice said, but ESPN said the Ravens were told the video was "[expletive] horrible". http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/09/espn_ravens_official_told_ray_rice_video_was_expletive_horrible_but_team_didnt_pursue_tape.html
riboflav said:
Bisciotti told Goodell to be lenient.
You don't think Goodell makes decisions about assets owned by a billionaire without the billionaire's consent - do you? When a player does something bad, Roger calls HIS boss (one of 32, all of whom remind him to fill out his TPS reports properly) and is told what "the league" has decided to do. The, Roger announces it. And takes whatever heat there is for that decision.
Steve Bisciotti has more important things to do, like go to Europe. And find Roger's monthly salary by sorting his loose change dish.
riboflav said:
"This" isn't remotely comparable to Sterling, an odious human being finally crossing the line in public far enough that his "partners" can kick him out of the club. I mean...the Clippers: an embarrassment for decades.
As for your list, none of those things are happening.
SeoulSoxFan said:
I love that you're using different font color to really drive home your message.
DO NOT MAKE SSF ANGRY.
SeoulSoxFan said:
Stay cool, you're limiting the impact with the excessive use of the red font.
My friend, right and wrong aside, there is no reasonable explanation for what the Ravens did here.crystalline said:
If you're talking about Rodgers, or Manning or Brady maybe you'd be tempted. But even then, you HAVE to figure the tape is going to come out, so you are better off taking an 8-game or season suspension, which would likely have out an end to this even after the tape came out.
But this is brain dead. Dennis Pitta and Steve Smith are significantly more important to the Ravens this year than Rice. The other backs they have don't provide the dimension Rice did in the short passing game, but provide as much as runners or close to it.
This makes no sense.
dcmissle said:
I thought the new OTL article did a nice job of explaining this element, which I agree has been the most perplexing from the beginning. Ray Rice is the hill you gamble everything for and die on? In 2014? Zero sense. It seems pretty clear that Rice's ability to sell shit for sponsors and the team to the community made him a prized bull for Biscotti far beyond his on-field contributions.
Ray Lewis mentored Ray Rice, and as messed up as this is given their histories, the Ravens have held up both men as models of behavior. Given the fallout from the leniency for Ray Rice, obviously the Ravens have cut ties with him but in the early days of this story, it sure looked like they were going to sweep it under the rug and continue to present Rice as one of the "good guys" a la Ray Lewis.
soxfan121 said:
I'm not sure what evidence we have that Goodell simply does what an owner wants when it comes to player or organization discipline. I highly doubt Kraft was telling RG to fine him $500,000 and take away a first-round pick. I don't think Saints' ownership wanted to see Payton gone for a year - a lost season for the Saints and one fans knew from the start would be uninspiring and fruitless so I'm not sure how RG protected Benson's assets especially when he had no hard evidence that Payton knew anything. I doubt the Browns are happy that their best skill position player is out for the year. And on and on. As I suggested, I'm certain the owners and teams' managers consult with and even lobby RG for mercy. But, why has RG been so severe in his punishments with most and yet so lenient with few?
As for my list, it was really a wish list written from the heart. Even I'm not naive enough to think I'll get half of what I desire.
riboflav said:
1. A congressional investigation, as publicity-seeking and useless as it is, must be pacified. Kraft is one of thirty-two and trying to make it 1:1 is misguided. Goodell is the front man and when the Feds coming sniffing around, the front man goes out front and announces the problem will be dealt with expeditiously. [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]It had precisely zero to do with the individual team or owner and instead was a "league business problem". [/SIZE]
2. The NFL is trying desperately to settle the lawsuit(s) brought by ex-players concerning CTE and neurological damage. A team-sponsored program to "target the head" is the kind of thing that juries turn into landmark decisions. Instead of costing the 32 owners several hundred million (ahem, pocket change) in this settlement, they would be risking several billion without making a firm "we don't tolerate targeting the head" message. It had precisely zero to do with the individual team or owner and instead was a "league business problem".
3. Josh Gordon was suspended in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement owners have with players. This is actually the least involved Goodell could be; he has a clear guideline, agreed to by his bosses and the union saying "three strikes = one season". Plus, drug use and drunk driving are another thing that is "bad for league business". But Roger literally had 0.0 to do with this.
4. Goodell hasn't been "severe"; the recent issues were brought about because "he" was lenient with Rice before the video was released. And that has nothing to do with whether he makes the decisions. Inconsistency in the application of the Personal Conduct Policy is a part of the evidence that he is the mouth-piece for the owners; each owner has a different level and Goodell has to work for them. So Bisciotti can demand two games and get it while the Rooneys can demand four games for Roethlisberger to preserve the family/shield reputation.
I don't think it's that perplexing. At the risk of being redundant, I'll repeat myself. If anyone has ever been in the same situation - a friend of theirs hits his partner or has been hit by his partner - you'd act the same way. You want to believe your friend when he says that it's the only time, it's a mistake, and it will never happen again. You want to believe when the partner said she had something to do with it; that he was drunk; that it will never happen again.JimBoSox9 said:
You want to believe that because you have a history with your friend and you don't want to believe that you are friends with a wife beater or your friend is a partner to a wife beater.
They didn't treat Rice like a football player; they treated him like a friend.
And that's one of the problems with DV. In the vast majority of cases, no one ever steps up to someone and says, "That's wrong" until something horrible happens.
Any video of a man striking a woman is going to be "horrible." I suspect that it simply did not cross Biscotti's or Ozzie's mind just how "horrible" it was going to be.crystalline said:
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Ding ding ding ding ding.
I also don't think people realize that owning a sports franchise isn't exactly a rational thing. A lot of these guys see themselves as friends to their players, especially the franchise players.
You are underestimating what Ray Rice means (well, used to mean) to not only the Ravens organization but to the city of Baltimore. He is (was?) loved there as Brady is loved here and had done a ton of goodwill in that city.dcmissle said:
Yes it's indefensible now that the Ravens got busted but it isn't hard to recognize why they went this route and hoped time would heal all wounds (poor choice of words I know) and they could cover this up like so many others have done. I mean shit.....this is an organization that experienced what time did for Ray Lewis' reputation in their city.
Would the Pats have done this for Kevin Faulk? I don't think so. And again, had they added another 6 games to the suspension, it is highly likely that none of this would have happened.HomeRunBaker said:
As for the fans, an estimated 7000 fans participated in the jersey exchange. That is almost 6x the number who turned in Aaron Hernandez jerseys.
crystalline said:
While this case is high-profile, it's small potatoes from a revenue-generation standpoint as far as internal investigations go. The real money in investigations is in the cases that occupy huge teams of attorneys for years, which this case won't. There is almost no chance Wilmer jeopardizes its reputation for integrity and independence, and hence its ability to win far more lucrative investigations business in the future (where various gov agencies can closely scrutinize choice of counsel), just to do their old buddy Cass a solid. Their incentives all run in favor of independence.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I get what you're saying, and there was probably a bit of the cognitive dissonance self-denial you're talking about going on in their heads, but honestly? Spare me the 'they treated him like a friend' violin. They treated him like a valuable asset worth protecting. Biscotti's "there's just no way I was emotionally prepared to meet the media" is maybe the single biggest line of shit I've had to eat (in print) ever. My null hypothesis on guys like that isn't that they have friends they value more than an extra million bucks.
http://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/46257146161125483380944048128_2e9c6ab554f.5.1.5322294077768982747.mp4?versionId=A9Xqdm8LozjqpZWNw20d.3S5EwEDaRH3
"It's some things you can cover up, and some things you can't." - ESPN NFL analyst Ray Lewis.
"It's some things you can cover up, and some things you can't." - ESPN NFL analyst Ray Lewis.
JimBoSox9 said:
I think we all share your skepticism about Biscotti, but the facts don't support your conclusion. Rice is not a valuable asset at this point. He was awful last year, had a massive contract, and plays one of the more fungible positions in football. From an on-the-field perspective, he had negative value.
Which is why I said the OTL article does a good job explaining that exact point from an off-the-field perspective, bridging the logical gap between Rice's low on-field value and the energy exerted to protect him (a.k.a the 'facts that support my conclusion'). Like, twenty posts ago.MarcSullivaFan said:
JimBoSox9 said:
So is this statement the backlash to the backlash? Because I don't agree. By all accounts, Ray Rice wasn't a guy worth protecting. And, yet, they bent over backwards to protect him. That is partially because he was a leader in the community and partially because, it seems, these guys were friends with him.
They weren't protecting an asset. Because he really wasn't one. Even those texts Biscotti sent to him were an indication he was trying to prop us his "Bro." They basically said, "I'm sorry my friend, we had no choice, but we have your back."
No, you're right. If he's doing good work on the football field, he's an asset. If he's going great work with M&B Bank, it's just God's work in the community by a good buddy pal. Biscotti definitely doesn't value Rice's ability to make him money as a brand ambassador, that viewpoint is strictly limited to football.
Edit: those text messages indicate he was trying to buy Rice's silence on the 'he lied to us' angle with some money on the back end, not that they were pals.
Edit: those text messages indicate he was trying to buy Rice's silence on the 'he lied to us' angle with some money on the back end, not that they were pals.
$imple. It gets people to tune in as these network executives fight for ratings. It worked for me......I watched ESPN pre-game to hear specifically what outrageously words would come out of Ray's mouth. It's addicting.reggiecleveland said:
coremiller said:
That's a fair point - that Mueller has more to gain by bringing in future investigations business than by protecting WilmerHale's business with the NFL. Just keep in mind the Incognito investigation: Ted Wells released a report that appeared tough on bullying but essentially threw players under the bus while protecting the owner and coaches. (I don't think it changes much that Wells is a white collar defense partnet at Paul, Weiss, which has closer ties to the NFL.) And the Ravens owner Cass worked in the same DC office for 31 years.
I realize this has likely passed WilmerHale's internal conflicts review. But I think a guy that just got hired by a big firm for his ability to bring in business is likely to be careful about throwing a big potential future client under the bus.
Maybe we'll be wrong and Mueller will issue a report blaming Goodell or Ravens management and resulting in Goodell's firing or a forced team sale. If he does that I've got 50 bucks to the Jimmy Fund he's out at WilmerHale within three years.
coremiller said:
That's a fair point - that Mueller has more to gain by bringing in future investigations business than by protecting WilmerHale's business with the NFL. Just keep in mind the Incognito investigation: Ted Wells released a report that appeared tough on bullying but essentially threw players under the bus while protecting the owner and coaches. (I don't think it changes much that Wells is a white collar defense partnet at Paul, Weiss, which has closer ties to the NFL.) And the Ravens owner Cass worked in the same DC office for 31 years.
I realize this has likely passed WilmerHale's internal conflicts review. But I think a guy that just got hired by a big firm for his ability to bring in business is likely to be careful about throwing a big potential future client under the bus.
Maybe we'll be wrong and Mueller will issue a report blaming Goodell or Ravens management and resulting in Goodell's firing or a forced team sale. If he does that I've got 50 bucks to the Jimmy Fund he's out at WilmerHale within three years.
Put away your tin-foil hat. Mueller's partners could have pressed him not to take the engagement, but having allowed him to do so, they won't interfere with his work. Mueller's reputation will be destroyed if his investigation is a whitewash, and WilmerHale's business would be ruined if it came to light that the firm pressured its lawyers to alter their work for one client for the sake of another client's interests.
I also dispute the assertion that the Wells Report was a whitewash. Yes, it drew a bright line of culpability that stopped well short of Philbin and above (but did axe the positional coach) and the optics of that are quite...convenient for management. But the fact is that finding is also totally consistent with the day-to-day realities of running a large-scale operation like a football team, especially when the coach/GM aren't overly competent.