Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Does Matt Walsh deserve a book deal?

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=RussianGreen;2373734]If he is right and BB is nailed being cheating scumbag he is - sign me up for $250 leather-bound limited edition.[/QUOTE]

    Two years of your salary for a book?:eek:

  2. #22
    [quote=RussianGreen;2374000]He started very young - at 11. He is Mozart of videotaping[/quote]

    :D He must have been. He's even talking about his family being in danger. I guess Kraft is going to send in the boys from Providence to rub his family out. :rolleyes:

    I heard the only two conditions the NFL gave him were
    1) he told the truth
    2) he had to return any stolen property.

    #1 was a deal breaker for him :eek:

    The guy wants to be able to say anything without having to be responsible for what he says. :rolleyes:

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=FoxboroFanatic2;2374009]Two years of your salary for a book?:eek:[/QUOTE]

    30 minutes of billable time.

  4. #24
    A book? Probably not.

    Maybe a pamphlet.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=RussianGreen;2374013]30 minutes of billable time.[/QUOTE]

    Is that what guys pay you these days?

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=RussianGreen;2374013]30 minutes of billable time.[/QUOTE]

    A taxi is $500 an hour? :eek:

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=FoxboroFanatic2;2374015]Is that what guys pay you these days?[/QUOTE]

    No. Girls.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=CleatMarks;2374010]:D He must have been. He's even talking about his family being in danger. I guess Kraft is going to send in the boys from Providence to rub his family out. :rolleyes:

    I heard the only two conditions the NFL gave him were
    1) [B]he told the truth[/B]
    2) he had to return any stolen property.

    #1 was a deal breaker for him :eek:

    The guy wants to be able to say anything without having to be responsible for what he says. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Who determines what the truth is? Is Clemens lying or McNamee? You should know by now that whoevery has the most money is the one who tells the truth. Ask OJ.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Enemy Territory
    Posts
    6,518
    [QUOTE=PatsFanTX;2373721]Another friggn' thread on this?

    It's amazing the mods let this stuff go.

    One thread would seem suffcient. :yes:[/QUOTE]

    Another attempt to stir the pot?

    It's amazing the mods let you get away with constantly hijacking threads and turning them into pissing contests.

    One ban would seem sufficient, yet you keep turning back up. :yes:

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Enemy Territory
    Posts
    6,518
    [QUOTE=PatsFanTX;2373733]Why would I be "uncomfortable" with this?

    Who would you suggest to write the preface of Walsh's book?

    Brian McNamee?[/QUOTE]

    You could write it, but most people outside this forum might be confused by your use of the term "Noodle Arm."

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    11,181
    [QUOTE=The Boston Patriot;2373925]A specious argument and position. One does not relate to the other except in
    your mind and others of your ilk who see things as they would like to, rather
    than reality.[/QUOTE]
    TX was the first to suggest the connection in this thread. I was simply seeking a clarification as to whether or not in retrospect he really thought comparing the two was a good idea.

    You might want to actually read the quote I was responding to.

    Nevertheless, I will play.

    Brian McNamee was a physical trainer who had no problem administering questionable "medications" to his clients. If he is to be believed, and it seems that the corroborating evidence is mounting, then other more famous people are implicated in that scandal. Observers have raised questions about how could he possibly collect and save information on Roger Clemens and others and then hold onto it for so long? Now there is a specious argument! The information implicating other parties (Clemens, Petite, etc) is what it is... It is either convincing or it is not. This is quite a seperate question from whether or not you would feel comfortable having Brian McNamee over for dinner. The reason he collected and held onto the swabs it was fairly obvious. He felt it was likely thet he would not be believed unless he had physical evidence to back up his claims.

    Now we have Matt Walsh. If he is to be believed then he was employed by the Patriots in part at least to conduct nefarious taping operations against other teams. This during an era when the Patriots have admitted that at least some taping was being authorized and conducted by them on a regular basis. Like McNamee, Walsh is far less important as a player in this drama than the other parties whom he might be in a position to implicate. If Walsh indeed collected evidence then he is going to need to produce it or, just like Brian McNamee he will not be believed. If on the other hand he does produce the evidence in the form of tapes then I think that issue about how he collected copies of that information from his employers is largely irrelevant.

    Good luck trying to make the case that the tapes were not authorized in an era when they authorized plenty of them for years before that week and plenty more for years after tha week. Good luck explaining what Walsh was doing with Club credentials during Superbowl week staying in a hotel on the Patriots dime. Seriously good luck selling that one.

    The parallels between the two cases, far from being specious as you claim are fairly stark in their similarity.

  12. #32
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Huntington, NY
    Posts
    8,688
    [QUOTE=The Boston Patriot;2373925]A specious argument and position. One does not relate to the other except in
    your mind and others of your ilk who see things as they would like to, rather
    than reality.[/QUOTE]

    Actually it would only be small minded patriot fans wo cannot see a correlation here. If Walsh has legitimate evidence then how is any difference than what Mcnamee did? Same story - The little guy brings down the big guy.

  13. #33
    Whatever the hell Walsh has or doesn't have...when the frig are we going to find out? This is getting bboooooorrrringgg.

    Who is talking to him? Goodell, Specter, or who??

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    11,181
    [QUOTE=FoxboroFanatic2;2374161]Whatever the hell Walsh has or doesn't have...when the frig are we going to find out? This is getting bboooooorrrringgg.

    Who is talking to him? Goodell, Specter, or who??[/QUOTE]
    Goodell is never going to offer blanket immunity because it defeats his best interest to do so. They will continue as they have until this point which is to appear to offer an immunity deal but with so many loopholes that the implied threat to be able to put Walsh into the poor house is still a valid one.

    We are waiting for a congressional hearing where Arlen Specter can offer testimonial immunity and he is not going to do that until he has some of the bigger fish on record in fornt of the committee denying it first. A la Roger Clemens.

    This is going to be a while.

    But look, the Patriots taped for eight years. We are not going to get to the bottom of this in eight minutes here. Slow and steady wins the race ;)

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In The Cone of Doom
    Posts
    7,129
    [QUOTE=EM31;2374225]Goodell is never going to offer blanket immunity because it defeats his best interest to do so. They will continue as they have until this point which is to appear to offer an immunity deal but with so many loopholes that the implied threat to be able to put Walsh into the poor house is still a valid one.

    We are waiting for a congressional hearing where Arlen Specter can offer testimonial immunity and he is not going to do that until he has some of the bigger fish on record in fornt of the committee denying it first. A la Roger Clemens.

    This is going to be a while.

    But look, the Patriots taped for eight years. We are not going to get to the bottom of this in eight minutes here. Slow and steady wins the race ;)[/QUOTE]

    Goofy in the NFL bunker cannot offer anyone immunity on a civil violation of
    a confidentiality agreement. It is a contract between employer and employee
    and not even Sen Sphincter can immunize this ******* from civil prosecution.

    If a law has not been broken (taping signals - give me a break) then what
    pray tell does the government have to offer to immunize, sympathy?

    Only in JI land can this ******* hold the hope of an entire fan base hostage
    for a minor rule infraction of a sports team event. :rolleyes:

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=EM31;2374225]Goodell is never going to offer blanket immunity because it defeats his best interest to do so. They will continue as they have until this point which is to appear to offer an immunity deal but with so many loopholes that the implied threat to be able to put Walsh into the poor house is still a valid one.

    We are waiting for a congressional hearing where Arlen Specter can offer testimonial immunity and he is not going to do that until he has some of the bigger fish on record in fornt of the committee denying it first. A la Roger Clemens.

    This is going to be a while.

    But look, the Patriots taped for eight years. We are not going to get to the bottom of this in eight minutes here. Slow and steady wins the race ;)[/QUOTE]

    So my question is what's next? Or is this just going to be blah blah blah blah blah blah blah forever?

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,477
    [QUOTE=EM31;2374225]Goodell is never going to offer blanket immunity because it defeats his best interest to do so. They will continue as they have until this point which is to appear to offer an immunity deal but with so many loopholes that the implied threat to be able to put Walsh into the poor house is still a valid one.

    We are waiting for a congressional hearing where Arlen Specter can offer [B]testimonial immunity [/B]and he is not going to do that until he has some of the bigger fish on record in fornt of the committee denying it first. A la Roger Clemens.

    This is going to be a while.

    But look, the Patriots taped for eight years. We are not going to get to the bottom of this in eight minutes here. Slow and steady wins the race ;)[/QUOTE]

    "Testimonial Immunity"? I know Congress is all powerful but the Pennsylvania Senator has ZERO authority to offer immunity aganist perjury.

    If Walsh "stole" the tape he could be held civilly liable (monetary damages) but the NFL has already stated they'd cover his legal costs/penalities so why the hesitation on his part? No DA would criminally prosecute someone who took a $3 tape. He is covered civilly; Walsh should stop making melodramatic soundbites through his lawyer and turn over whatever he has.

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    11,181
    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;2374295]"Testimonial Immunity"? I know Congress is all powerful but the Pennsylvania Senator has ZERO authority to offer immunity aganist perjury.

    If Walsh "stole" the tape he could be held civilly liable (monetary damages) but the NFL has already stated they'd cover his legal costs/penalities so why the hesitation on his part? No DA would criminally prosecute someone who took a $3 tape. He is covered civilly; Walsh should stop making melodramatic soundbites through his lawyer and turn over whatever he has.[/QUOTE]
    If a tape exists are you or the Patriots really stupid enough to claim it is Patriots property? The would be like taking someone to court because they stole your Heroin stash.

    I think you will find that Specter has a perfect and rather customary right to offer blanket immunity from criminal or civil actions based upon information that came out as part of a witnesses testimony. Very common. Very. Any subsequent civil action would need to be able to prove that an information source was developed prior to and independently of any testimony that was given before the committee. Seriously I think you need some civics lessons.

    The issue with the current NFL/Patriots immunity non-offer offers is just that. They are not real offers. They are designed so that the NFL and the Patriots can go on TV and claim to have made an immunity offer. They have not. The deep pockets Patriots still have the ability to send Walsh into poor house by claiming that he lied. They spend a million in court and if he does not have a million to defend himself then he is screwed. The Patriots know all of this.

    So it is what it is... a bullsh1t offer that any first year law student will tell you is a bullsh1t offer. Probably only Patriots fans of the not-too-smart flavor would buy into that "thinking". Is that playing well over at patsfans.com?

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    11,181
    Obviously if Walsh lies under oath before a Congressional committe then his goose is cooked but that would not be for the Patriots or the NFL to prosecute.


    Obviously any immunity deal is not going to be entered into blind. Immunity would only be given after the witness has revealed in advance what it is that they are willing to testify to and what evidence that they may have in their posession to support the testimony.

    So I agree that there is no immunity from perjury under oath in a congressional proceeding, which incidentally is why I think they want to get BB, Goodell and Kraft under oath FIRST.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=EM31;2373718]Does Matt Walsh deserve a book deal?[/QUOTE]

    No.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us