Started By
Message
re: Now the Federal Govt is involved
Posted on 11/9/10 at 9:58 pm to cyde
Posted on 11/9/10 at 9:58 pm to cyde
In all seriousness, if a situation like that ended up being true - where boosters or whomever gave cash money to a church offering plate with a wink to the preacher, how can this be 1) confirmed (i.e. how to prov who gave the cash), 2) be construed as bribery if there is no supporting tapes or documented emails or something saying thay such a "gift" would then mean the athlete would go to the boosters' school?
I know you would expect there to be SOMETHING that referenced what happened either via recordings or paper trail, but hypothetically I wonder what if there was none of that.
I know you would expect there to be SOMETHING that referenced what happened either via recordings or paper trail, but hypothetically I wonder what if there was none of that.
2
Posted on 11/9/10 at 9:58 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
I can't deal with the stupid in this thread. Denial is one thing, but the FBI isn't there to help AU sleep at night.
No, no! The word came down from ITAT. The possibility of there being any collateral damage from the investigations into John Bond and Kenny Rogers has been calculated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000128%
The boogs are completely safe.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:01 pm to cyde
quote:
cyde
You gotta keep in mind how thick the denial is in Barnerland this week. It's like collecting firewood when you camp, when you think you have enough for the night, collect three times more wood.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:01 pm to CreoleAubie
quote:
In all seriousness, if a situation like that ended up being true - where boosters or whomever gave cash money to a church offering plate with a wink to the preacher, how can this be 1) confirmed (i.e. how to prov who gave the cash), 2) be construed as bribery if there is no supporting tapes or documented emails or something saying thay such a "gift" would then mean the athlete would go to the boosters' school?
I know you would expect there to be SOMETHING that referenced what happened either via recordings or paper trail, but hypothetically I wonder what if there was none of that.
No, you're right, actually.
See, the thing is that I don't know what happened. I don't know that anything happened, so I'm not going to claim something happened.
The crux of everything I've said on this matter to date, though, is that I'm not going to claim NOTHING happened. Everything anyone may see me say regarding this situation is solely to mock the people who are so naive as to ardently claim that nothing happened and there is nothing to worry about.
This is just people setting themselves up to be devastated if the hammer comes down. It's foolhardy.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:02 pm to beatbammer
quote:
Be careful what you wish for. If they start looking into AU/LSU games they will look into ALL of them and they WILL find the mystery person who blew that frickin' whistle in the stands at the 1995 game in Baton Rouge. And when they do that fricker is TOAST.
shite they better not find I burned down their barn
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:04 pm to CreoleAubie
quote:
I know you would expect there to be SOMETHING that referenced what happened either via recordings or paper trail, but hypothetically I wonder what if there was none of that.
nothing can be done about it i believe. that's why it's so common.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:05 pm to BamaDixi
quote:
Probable cause...
Like violating numerous states laws against agents of any sort interacting with amateur players?
So now the FBI is investigating violations of state law?
quote:
Or possible tax code violations or tax evasion by the donors of money for pay-to-play scenarios...
Treasury Department.
quote:
I mean...those are just two examples that come to mind.
Would you like to try some more?
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:08 pm to cyde
quote:quote:
Looks like John Bond is well and truly fricked then.
Yes, because Auburn has not only paid Cam to come play, but they've paid the FBI and NCAA to turn a blind eye to anything other than John Bond's culpability that might turn up in the investigation.
Since my response only makes sense with regard to the exact statement to which I responded, well played removing that statement from your response so that my statement is totally out of context.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:12 pm to parkjas2001
Sounds like the Feds might have found some interesting funds increases for the Newton family church. The only way the FBI even touches this is likely the finding of some serious issues with the numbers they are getting out of the finances of the church and likely Rogers.
I still think it's funny how many Auburn fans think Bond is just making this shite up. Somehow he changed his story because the great journalistic accuracy of ESPN writers is ironclad. Also, I never saw an actual QUOTE in those ESPN articles saying he directly spoke with Rogers. We don't know that the ESPN writer didn't just assume that Bond meant he directly spoke to Rogers.
If the NCAA is ever willing to release the information that Bond told them, we'd know if he actually changed his story.
So for now, Auburn fans will twist the story in anyway to shoot the messenger.
I still think it's funny how many Auburn fans think Bond is just making this shite up. Somehow he changed his story because the great journalistic accuracy of ESPN writers is ironclad. Also, I never saw an actual QUOTE in those ESPN articles saying he directly spoke with Rogers. We don't know that the ESPN writer didn't just assume that Bond meant he directly spoke to Rogers.
If the NCAA is ever willing to release the information that Bond told them, we'd know if he actually changed his story.
So for now, Auburn fans will twist the story in anyway to shoot the messenger.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:12 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
I can't deal with the stupid in this thread. Denial is one thing, but the FBI isn't there to help AU sleep at night.
Again, LOOK AT THE STATEMENT TO WHICH I RESPONDED, to whit:
You never want FBI/DOJ and your name in the same sentence
Since John Bond's was the ONLY name that was attached to the ONLY source for this FBI thing (the TMZ article), that is why my response was pertinent (and intentionally snarky).
I never said that the FBI would NOT look further than Bond, just specifically replying to the "don't want your name in the same sentence" assertion.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:23 pm to beatbammer
Still think you are clear
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:27 pm to beatbammer
quote:
I never said that the FBI would NOT look further than Bond, just specifically replying to the "don't want your name in the same sentence" assertion.
Convenient.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:33 pm to DarthTiger
quote:
If you're here to pile on AU and Newton, then yes...welcome.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:48 pm to beatbammer
quote:
So now the FBI is investigating violations of state law?
A murder is committed in Alabama. Well, the Code of Alabama provides a statute which speaks with specificity to the crime of murder doesn't it. State all the way.
Now, let's add in there that it was a murder based upon race. Holy shite, ladies and gentleman. Guess what we have here...a violation of someones civil rights. Gee golly. Who would deal with that aspect? Maybe we should look at kidnapping. State all the way, right? Well, what if the act is interstate in nature? Or maybe not interstate but a child of "tender age" is involved? Looks like some blue suits may show up.
Your narrowly tailored "investigating state law" comment is disingenuous at best. Of course the purview of the FBI is defined. Hell, it is set out in the U.S.C. However, they can be involved in investigations..even in an advisory manner.
In this instance the FBI has fulfilled its jurisdictional requirement somehow...or else they wouldn't acknowledge involvment.
Now, as to your earlier "look who found wiki" comment. I guess we can just wait and discuss things at the next CLE we attend. That is if you are admitted in Alabama.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 10:51 pm to mkemp0113
Been there done that, twice. FBI is not to be fricked with ever. It is like having the guys from 60 minutes show up at your office, nothing good is ever going to come of it.
Posted on 11/9/10 at 11:30 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
I agree they have intimidation power, but I don't think they have broad subpoena power.
This is the most ludicrous statement I've ever read on this board and that's saying a lot! What the FBI wants, the FBI shall have.
Page 18 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News