"Innocent until proven guilty."
Good Day for the Good Guys
- Thread starter wensilver
- Start date
"Innocent until proven guilty."
Lengthy track records of being "good guys" perhaps? What makes any of them not "good guys"? Oh the OAG allegations, got it.
It was my understanding that she wasn't just "concerned", she was PO'd about Joe getting his own lawyer.
Sure does give one the impression that someone was trying to get the fix in.
I'm buying shares of popcorn makers, because if this gets to trial, the shelves will be empty. It's a sad situation all around, though.
You kind of showed your hand there, didn't you?
If I remember correctly Gary Schultz gave close to 40 years of service to PSU apparently without incident - as a matter of fact most PSU fans probably never even heard of him until this whole Sandusky bullshit hit the fan. I don't know Schultz personally but he must have been doing something right to stay at PSU for as long as he did and rise to a senior level. Funny how many who were quick to accuse Paterno and CSS never stopped to look at the long track record of these guys and ask themselves if there was anything in their track record that would suggest that after all these years these guys would throw everything away to cover for a pedophile. This was especially true of Paterno who had a 61 year track record with PSU that was about as clean as you can get. Shouldn't that have earned him at least a little in the way of the benefit of the doubt? As mentioned earlier Schultz attended PSU and worked there for around 40 years; Curley attended PSU and worked there for around 33 years I believe; and Spanier was president for 16 years and I think he taught at PSU before that. Among the 4 of them that's about 149 years of work history. Had anyone analyzed the totality of that work history to see if there was anything that would suggest these men have a track record of corruption and dishonesty? If someone did I haven't seen it - yet the media and everyone else was so quick to toss 149 years of a track record and instantly believe the worst about these men - the worst as put forth by agents of one of the most corrupt states in the country.
according to Jamele Hill, 61 years of exemplary service isn't enough to give Joe the benefit of the doubt
you know, it is kind of like the "woman who stood up to Joe Paterno" . . . in 61 years, she's the ONLY employee (besides the drunk loser McCue) who ever had an issue with how Joe did things, she pissed off everyone else she worked with, has a long history of failure in the academic field . . . but let's give her narrative more credibility . . .
s
As we are inclined to say in the Corporate World when upper management frequently makes an emotional and/or uninformed decision: "unencumbered by the facts"
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Good day for the good guys? Are you referring to the three amigos who were charged with child endangerment, failing to report, perjury and who played a major role is causing this now 4 year cluster ****? Those good guys? Are you out of your mind?
The title of the article is:
"It’s been nearly four years since charges were bought against former Penn State president Graham Spanier and two administrators for covering up Jerry Sandusky’s abuse."
There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. Charges were brought. By definition, when charges are brought and the accused have not yet gone to trial, the charges are alleged.
Well, apparently you've already decided what the truth is, so why is anybody even bothering to have a trial. They should just take him out back and shoot him.
Anyway, on TOS you have made your position crystal clear. You don't appear to believe in the Constitution, do you?
I see how that works. Well, I heard that Nittany Steel hangs out with gangsters and commits illegal acts all the time. What makes YOU a "good guy"? Huh? Are you going to explain to everybody on this board why some of your best friends are known felons.
(Now, before you accuse me of slandering you or just making things up...because hey, you can't just ACCUSE somebody of something and have it be true, right? But what if I worked for the state and I made those accusations against you in front of a Grand Jury? Well, then the budren isn't on ME to prove you're NOT a felon. Now the burden is on YOU to prove that you're a "good guy")
you gotta just laugh at the fact that University counsel got these 3 into this mess and PSU has been footing their current legal bills for 4 years now with PSU counsel as the focal point of this thing even moving forward. Any guesses as to what their legal bills would amount to during this time? Its gotta be huge!!! Is psu also paying for Spaniers legal bills in his suite against Freeh?
The cluster**** is entirely the fault of your friends who colluded with Tom Corbett.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Hey everyone Jimmah is here to throw some masterful spin control and deflections everyone's way... Looking forward to what deflections he will cast today enjoy everyone!
No, because that is a civil suit brought by Spanier against freeh. I do believe that Trustee Lord, with his own personal money, has been helping Spanier pay the legal bills for his suit against freeh. Which is the reason Lord has had to recuse himself from certain BOT votes, etc.
You left out the part about the 1998 investigation clearing Sandusky. Logically that would lead one to think the same thing was happening in 2001.
You also assume you know exactly what he was told by MM. Nobody's actions are consistent with MM seeing child molestation. Everybody's actions are consistent with MM seeing something uncomfortable.
I agree there is nothing inaccurate about that statement. But it just feels biased.
Anytime we get closer to the truth it is a good day for us, and a bad day for you. Anytime the corrupt scum on the OGBOT are dragged a little further into the light is a good day for us and a bad day for you.
You better suck it up, buttercup, because you are going to have an awful lot of bad days.
I wonder how small CR's tailgate will get once the truth becomes fully known?
First of all if you actually read the testimony, MM didn't eye witness any sex act/molestation. The only thing he "eye witnessed" was JS taking an inappropriate late night shower through a few seconds glimpse into a freaking mirror. He couldn't even see JS's hands so he couldn't tell if molestation/fondling was occurring. Everything other that was speculation/assumption on MM's part.
Apparently it's lost on you that the state's own child care experts (CC CYS and PADPW) told PSU that JS's naked bear hug from behind showering behavior was A-OK in their book in 1998. In fact, they didn't even so much as indicate JS or restrict his 1:1 access to kids after 1998.
When PSU admins heard another story in 2001 about JS taking an inappropriate shower they probably just thought it was a repeat of the very same behavior the state's child care experts gave their good housekeeping stamp of approval to. The one and only witness to 2001, MM himself didn't even feel the need to call UPPD that night or EVER make a written statement to UPPD. hmmm...that sure speaks volumes to the veracity of what he thought was happening that night in 2001 now doesn't it?
Your argument that CSS should have known better/questioned the standard the state's own child care experts set re: JS's showering behavior after 1998 is ridiculous and non logical to say the least.
Finally, CSS didn't basically do nothing and I'm sick and tired of people trying to claim that. In 2001 they informed legal counsel, they talked to MM, confronted JS and told him his behavior was wrong and needed to stop, took away JS's guest privileges, and informed TSM (you know the people with DIRECT control over JS's access to kids) about their new directives and of the incident.
Ummm, it doesn't work that way - Baldwin cannot go into Corrupt Feudale's Chambers along w/ Fina directly before C/S/S are scheduled to testify, tell both the presiding SWIGJ Judge, Feudale, & the OAG Prosecutor that she is representing PSU and then be permitted to tell the SAME Judge only moments later from the Bench in the SWIGJ Courtroom that she is there to represent the party testifying personally! Feudale is obligated to immediately point out that she just told him "in Chambers" in front of the OAG Prosecutor that she was there representing PSU and that being the case she was "in conflict" with representing the party personally and she would be required to leave the room at the very least. More likely, the parties testimony would have to be rescheduled since the the clearly orchestrated OAG/Baldwin coorinated stunt would have deprived C/S/S from representation at their SWIGJ appearance - a violation of their Civil Rights under the Bill of Rights within the Constitution (e.g., this is clearly a tyranous action).
Did you ever see the scene in the movie "Dave" where the Chief of Staff is having his party?
LOL... Buttercup. Can the rest of us use that or are you trademarking it?
I want to cross pollinate......
How about "Douchecup" or "Butterbag".....do either of those resonate?
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
The trustees aren't the ones being charged with crimes so they're not being dragged into anything. So tell me sweet cheeks, why is it that a fair number of your minions no longer seem to want to get to the truth. The poll conducted in the other thread is 2:1 in favor of excluding Baldwin's testimony at trial. Why is that? Seems to me that the majority of your cohorts are now afraid to hear the truth for fear of having to admit that Freeh got it right. How utterly distasteful and embarrassing would that be?
I hope the courts allow all of what Baldwin knows into the record because it will show just how right I was and just how wrong you and your minions were. And even if some or all of her testimony is disallowed, it's all but certain that at least one of the defendants will be nailed for failure to report.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
There is our boy Jimmah!!! Deflecting away and ignoring the facts! We were worried you left the group!
The court will do what it is going to do, and no poll of fans will have any more effect than cheering in your living room does. Being the sort of dimwit you are it is clear that you have failed to consider that the court could exclude the testimony for use in a criminal trial, yet permit its discovery in civil matters for a variety of uses. Exclusion in one case does not mean the transcript is destroyed as though it never existed. BTW, haven't at least one of these men sued ol' CB for malpractice? Do you think if the judge finds she was that man's lawyer and excludes her testimony as criminal case evidence that another judge is going to exclude the damages it caused at her malpractice trial? Think again, buttercup. HAA!
Cruising Route 66
Well-Known Member
Could care less about a civil lawsuit. Shultz filed some kind of suit early on but it hasn't seen any activity since 2012 and is likely dead. Further, Hoover already ruled that Baldwin didn't represent any of the amigos personally at the grand jury. Malpractice trial? You've seen the personal service agreements between Cindy and the amigos? I'm curious, how much was her retainer?
Dimwit? Moi? I was comfortably retired in my early thirties. You I assume are still scratching out a living. Who's the dimwit?
Jim, do you really think that Schultz' suit was going anywhere, just yet? Wait and see, my boy.
Are you really as dumb as you seem to be?
Are you really as dumb as you seem to be?
