ADVERTISEMENT

Jemele Hill goes after Scott Paterno on twitter, avoids his point

They had two victims in 1998 and didn't prosecute. Sandusky was convicted for what he did in 1998 in 2012, but with just one victim. Sandusky could have been prosecuted at the time, and there could have been a wider investigation. I am not suggesting that is Penn State's fault.

In most cases, however, a person may be discharged for non criminal acts. That is fairly common. I would suspect that most people fired are not fired for a criminal act.

Also, there is a question of if Penn State should, in light of the 1998 act, enacted a "no guests in the showers" policy. In that, Penn State does have some blame.
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.
What's the difference between 2011 & 2001?
Lies, lies and more lies.
 
Last edited:
ChiTown Lion--please keep doing what you are doing. Your twitter replies to her are tremendous. I'm sure your point is totally lost on her, but I find it amusing. You'd think she might have a thought like, "gee, this over the top sanctimonious BS sure is annoying, This must be what Penn Staters felt like 5 years ago!" But nope, she's too dumb.
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.
 
It's not a false narrative to think that a person's actions (or lack there of) are immoral. You can piss and moan about it all you want, but you are wrong.
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.
 
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.
 
Sure. And so could have the multiple other people MM told (one of whom was a doctor). Paterno was the first person to actually tell someone else of significance MM's story. In actuality Paterno did facilitate MM getting to Schultz (who was in administrative control of UP police).

People can think Paterno was immoral. Though people often have silly opinions.

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.

Wrong. It is from Paterno's own mouth when he took the stand.

"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.
 
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 indicates he had strong reservations about JS having kids around.


Spanier.
 
Last statement is not true


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:
If MM lied then so did Paterno.
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
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
 
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?
 
He didn't backtrack, he merely was saying that he couldn't describe the sexual act.

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.
 
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?

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 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
You missed MM and Paterno's testimony? Okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
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?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stufftodo
And when did they provide this testimony relative to the incident? Was it immediately afterward?

6 months later? A year?
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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 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.

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.
 
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.
No, he said it was sexual in nature. He wasn't thinking out loud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royal_Coaster
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT