Started By
Message
re: Former US Attorney on AU wiretap claims (Sticky)
Posted on 11/19/10 at 8:51 pm to Ross
Posted on 11/19/10 at 8:51 pm to Ross
quote:
I love how we both say we'll leave the thread, and both fail.
Not having the last word irks me, I can never really let it sit.
Neither of us is willing to concede defeat. We came to play a full 60 minutes.
1
Posted on 11/19/10 at 8:52 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:
So if Cecil Newton is sitting by his lawyer and says he didnt take money for Au, Are you still going to have the opinion that he's 'most likely telling the truth'?
You have to look at the context and the reason each one might have incentive to lie. Rogers had to be concerned about telling the truth to avoid prosecution in case he made inconsistent statements to the FBI. What does he have to gain by stating that Cecil was asking for money? If he is lying he can be prosecuted if he made that statement to the FBI and it is shown to be false. Would he risk that as a presumably rational actor with legal representation? If he is in trouble for participating in a scheme to get money improperly, why lie about others and potentially increase your risks of prosecution for additional charges?
On the other hand, Cecil, if he did ask for money is likely to deny it. He would likely try to protect his son. He also will try to protect himself. He is in a very differnt position than Rogers, and the consequences and risks are very different. He stands to gain by lying (protecting Cam, protecting himself), Rogers gains little to nothing by lying and risks jail.
That is not to say that Cecil is lying or that Rogers is lying, but simply to point out that it isn't just the lawyer's presence that matters, but what the speaker has to gain or lose by lying that matters even more.
This post was edited on 11/19/10 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 11/19/10 at 8:53 pm to cyde
Really, we could distill the whole debate down to this:
You say I should wait until the facts are in to form my opinion of the Newton camp.
I say that it is not incumbent upon me to do so, as I am not responsible for the young man's fate.
The bone of contention is the use of the term 'lynch mob'. You see it as analogous to the 'guilty until proven otherwise' public mindset.
I see it as, frankly, cheap pandering.
ad infinitum.
We can continue this for the rest of the night when I get back from grabbing a smoke, Ross.
You say I should wait until the facts are in to form my opinion of the Newton camp.
I say that it is not incumbent upon me to do so, as I am not responsible for the young man's fate.
The bone of contention is the use of the term 'lynch mob'. You see it as analogous to the 'guilty until proven otherwise' public mindset.
I see it as, frankly, cheap pandering.
ad infinitum.
We can continue this for the rest of the night when I get back from grabbing a smoke, Ross.
This post was edited on 11/19/10 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 11/19/10 at 8:53 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:
My point is, if that post which is 100% rumor about AU's football team deserves to be stickied, well an attorney, albeit a defense attorney, is debunking it, that deserves to be stickied too.
So FTR, you are stating that AU's BoT isn't full of crooks?
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:03 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Tuna quoted a bunch of BOL shite. Stuff from a gump message boards that are too stupid to get very simple facts right that are common knowledge to many.
How bout you break it down for us then? Point out every falsehood in that thread for us. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:16 pm to Alahunter
Gotcha.
Yeah his credibility is shot after defending that corrupt sob.
quote:
Since then, he's lost a round in court defending Larry Langford in his bribery scheme, and is now defending others involved in gov't fraud.
Yeah his credibility is shot after defending that corrupt sob.
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:21 pm to Ross
quote:
being a rational human being
This isn't about rational, it is about college football
Therein lies the rub
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:33 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Since then, he's lost a round in court defending Larry Langford in his bribery scheme
Who is Mike Rasmussen or Glennon Threatt?
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:35 pm to crimsonsaint
quote:
Yeah his credibility is shot after defending that corrupt sob.
^^^^^^^^^
Don't believe everything you read on a message board!
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:45 pm to BamaScoop
Scoop, you're killing me.
Posted on 11/19/10 at 9:51 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:Regardless about McGregor...
No he doesnt, he does work for another co defendant though. Still, we should listen to Bama boards instead of him right?
If I were a MooBarn fan, I would worry about Bobby Lowder and Pat Dye. Don't act like the feds aren't interested in the Colonial collapse. 30% of the total payouts (since the FDIC's inception) forced upon the government through the FDIC came from Colonial. So the Feds are sniffing hard, and you can believe that the tapes will lead to Lowder and Dye chatting up their lovely little recruiting class.
Posted on 11/19/10 at 10:39 pm to BamaDixi
quote:
30% of the total payouts (since the FDIC's inception) forced upon the government through the FDIC came from Colonial.
You know I'm going to ask for a credible link for that information, so why didn't you post it.....unless you just pulled that out of your arse.
Posted on 11/19/10 at 11:31 pm to Vince
quote:
You know I'm going to ask for a credible link for that information, so why didn't you post it.....unless you just pulled that out of your arse.
Links are for kids.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News