I can't believe I just read a 3 page thread about a person I don't know who works at a TV station I don't watch.
Last edited:
Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point
- Thread starter TenerHallTerror
- Start date
Regardless of the 1998 incident Erickson signed paperwork approving professor emeritus status for JS, giving him access to Lasch whenever. JS was not traditionally eligible for emeritus status. Who pushed for it? Joe's notes indicate he had strong reservations about JS having kids around.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Last edited:
He can do this whereas others might not be able to. I also think she's well aware of who Chi is. I cannot comment further without this devolving into a color wars misunderstanding.
Here's what you are missing, either on purpose or because you are not quite getting it. I won't make any comments about your intellectual capacity, but I will be very blunt:
THE FALSE NARRATIVE splashed all over creation, in "opinion" form or not, assures there WILL be another Sandusky or another Nassar. Opinions are like..... They KEEP AT RISK KIDS IN DANGER.
Jemele, as an MSU alum with a large platform on the network that basically enabled Nassar because of their terrible Sandusky case coverage, was addressed very nicely and asked to please do a complete show to make up for the opportunities missed 5 years ago to do a public service on this topic. The thought was Jemele as an MSU alum with a large platform would be able to get more factual inside MSU info, and would be just the person to do this public service.
You are not seeing all of the exchanges with this woman yesterday if you're not a tweeter. She responded in the most arrogant, flippant self-centered manner instead of as a normal human being would.
From all that I read? She deserves to be roasted.
Nah, you just don't like her opinion. And that's fine, but let's not say it is because of a false narrative. She had the narrative correct and came to the opinion she has.
She may have had the narrative correct, but not so much the facts.
One truth is that MM is a coward. I have first hand experience....
getmyjive....he believes what he believes. No one will change that. Just put him on ignore. Life is better that way.
getmyjive....he believes what he believes. No one will change that. Just put him on ignore. Life is better that way.
Ironically, Paterno got the watered down version too, and he did the most with it. Those who got the full version before him did NOTHING and have avoided penalty.
"I don't know what you would call it". Direct from his non-cross examined testimony, that we've never heard to verify it's accuracy.
No. They aren't.
The "Joe should have done more" crowd absolutely does not have a fundamental understanding of the facts.
Cc: @colt21
Please show where Penn State ever adopted a "No guests in showers" policy? Granted, Patrno did not want Sandusky to bring kids into the facilities, but when did Penn State ever create that policy?
Edit: added "not."
Last edited:
I believe you to be the type of person who could fall into a barrel of luscious boobs and come back out sucking your thumb.
He dumb, and not he gone, best describes you.
Joe was interviewed for seven minutes, or somewhere in that time range, and his testimony was not very definitive relative to Mike. He said sexual but then backtracked indicating he doesn't know what to call it. I think joe had his memory refreshed. Additionally this was a very, very sick man at this point.
I'll defer to Mike's actions.
He didn't backtrack, he merely was saying that he couldn't describe the sexual act.
I missed where Mike described a sex act to joe in his watered down version. Problem with your theory is now who is lying between Mikey, his daddy and the doc friend. Remember the doc asked Mike three times if he saw anything sexual. The gutless turd said no three times. Who's lying I wonder. I guess Mike saved the juicy details for the football coach. Smh
Great advise. Just did that. That asshole is a total jerk. Goodbye.
For those that are on the side that the Penn State admins messed this up, do you believe in the idea of their having been a concerted coverup?
Right. He "knew" it was a sexual act but said in those same 7 minutes that he didn't want to interfere with anyone's weekend over it. The same 7 minutes where he repeatedly said "I don't know".
You should try saying "I don't know" a lot more often. You would increase your % of being right about anything by magnitudes.
I am not exactly sure what "messed this up" means, but the idea that there was a "cover up" of a known pedophile that involved the PSU admins, the CCDA, the OAG, state agencies, etc. in '98 is preposterous. The out of context emails in 2001 make even less sense in that scenario.
I personally believe it was a combination of a lack of caring for some and a concerted coverup by others. The two who I believe are responsible for the actual coverup (based on the info that we know) are Curley and Schultz.
And when did they provide this testimony relative to the incident? Was it immediately afterward?
6 months later? A year?
Considering that MM was vague with Paterno, it makes perfect sense that he knew it was of a sexual nature but did not know exactly what it was.
That's all you come back to when discussing this. It doesn't mean that the testimony was inaccurate. A normal person would not formulate being told of something of a sexual nature between a man and a boy because it was 10 years later.
Yes, it starts right now with Michael McQuery. I wont say he lied, though. His recollection of what happened 7-10 years after the fact was very different than what actually occurred. He was bullied in to his statements.
It is that "logic" that exposes what a complete fool you are. Wow.
It's the logic that the majority of the country has. You follow a different logic because it kills your narrative.
The majority of the country formulated their opinion in the first 3 or 4 days based on a false Grand Jury Presentment and a media that didn't care what the truth was once Paterno's name was involved.
You on the other hand are intellectually challenged. Some simply call what you are dumb.
Joe's public statement after the GJP was leaked made it clear the only thing he knew for sure at the time was the shower was inappropriate and it weirded out/upset MM. That's it. His GJ testimony is essentially the same thing. Joe speculating/thinking out loud during the GJ testimony on whether or not the shower was sexual in nature is irrelevant.
This is a hard pill for the trolls to swallow.
This is a hard pill for the trolls to swallow.
It appears you missed everyone's testimony. Typical. Guess daddy and the doc are lying. Poor misunderstood Mike. Okay.
If you genuinely believe this, then your concept of memory is fundamentally flawed.
And if your posts are any indication, then you seem to have difficulty with a number of fairly simple concepts.
Smh. Mike was vague with everyone I guess, including his daddy and the doc. Mike should learn to be less vague, or tell the truth. People tend to be vague, or lie, when they're trying to cover their ass or deflect blame for their own actions, or inactions, as is the case.
THE FALSE NARRATIVE splashed all over creation, in "opinion" form or not, assures there WILL be another Sandusky or another Nassar. Opinions are like..... They KEEP AT RISK KIDS IN DANGER.
I don't even think that's possible. You can't really have a coverup conducted by two people when several people (anybody's guess as to how many but at least 7 off the top of my head) have the same information. You also can't really conduct a coverup without the complicit involvement of the only eyewitness.
There has been no evidence produced to this point that even points to a coverup.
I will add to my previous post that if you are going to point to absolutes from the grand jury testimony, then you would have to go with the belief that the testimony presented was not believable enough to charge Sandusky as the grand jury that actually heard the testimony chose not to charge.
No, he said it was sexual in nature. He wasn't thinking out loud.
The doctor said that MM referred to sexual sounds. That is consistent with suspected CSA.
