Trustees: Were you lying THEN, or are you lying NOW?

[B_Levinson]

http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015/05/psu-trustees-were-you-lying-then-or-are.html

It pretty much speaks for itself.


http://progress.psu.edu/resource-li...board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions, was taken down—quite possibly due to the admissions in Masser's and Frazier's depositions, which I personally circulated as widely as possible to expose the Board for lying about the circumstances of Paterno's dismissal. I would construe this page's disappearance as Penn State's admission that the Board lied to Penn State, and on Penn State's behalf. It's still online at http://giveto.psu.edu/s/1218/2014/i...id=15638&calpgid=61&pgid=252&ecid=3519&crid=0, though, and I downloaded the entire page as proof before it also disappears.

 

[91Joe95]

http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015/05/psu-trustees-were-you-lying-then-or-are.html

It pretty much speaks for itself.


http://progress.psu.edu/resource-li...board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions, was taken down—quite possibly due to the admissions in Masser's and Frazier's depositions, which I personally circulated as widely as possible to expose the Board for lying about the circumstances of Paterno's dismissal. I would construe this page's disappearance as Penn State's admission that the Board lied to Penn State, and on Penn State's behalf. It's still online at http://giveto.psu.edu/s/1218/2014/i...id=15638&calpgid=61&pgid=252&ecid=3519&crid=0, though, and I downloaded the entire page as proof before it also disappears.

Yes.

 

[BarryPSU]

You have done a great job of exposing their lies. They can't have it both ways!

 

[PSU-Knocker]

You have done a great job of exposing their lies. They can't have it both ways!

They have so far.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015/05/psu-trustees-were-you-lying-then-or-are.html

It pretty much speaks for itself.


http://progress.psu.edu/resource-li...board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions, was taken down—quite possibly due to the admissions in Masser's and Frazier's depositions, which I personally circulated as widely as possible to expose the Board for lying about the circumstances of Paterno's dismissal. I would construe this page's disappearance as Penn State's admission that the Board lied to Penn State, and on Penn State's behalf. It's still online at http://giveto.psu.edu/s/1218/2014/i...id=15638&calpgid=61&pgid=252&ecid=3519&crid=0, though, and I downloaded the entire page as proof before it also disappears.

No one is lying and here's why.

Masser wasn't Chairman when the official Board position was issued in March 2012, Peetz was chair and she would have been the one to have final say on the Board's official reason for JVP's removal. Further, during the discussions leading up to the the trustee vote on JVP's future employment status, there was a myriad of reasons put forth by a number of trustees as to why they thought JVP could not be retained.

In a January 12, 2012 NYT's article by Pete Thamel and Mark Viera (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/s...trustees-recall-decision-to-fire-paterno.html )the trustees laid out what they said were THREE key reasons for removing JVP: "his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program."

Accordingly, the Board's "official" reason and Keith's reason are consistent with what Thamel and Viera reported in their article of January 12th. No one is lying and Keith is likely expressing what he considers his own personal reason for voting the way he did.

 

[B_Levinson]

No one is lying and here's why.

Masser wasn't Chairman when the official Board position was issued in March 2012, Peetz was chair and she would have been the one to have final say on the Board's official reason for JVP's removal. Further, during the discussions leading up to the the trustee vote on JVP's future employment status, there was a myriad of reasons put forth by a number of trustees as to why they thought JVP could not be retained.

In a January 12, 2012 NYT's article by Pete Thamel and Mark Viera (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/s...trustees-recall-decision-to-fire-paterno.html )the trustees laid out what they said were THREE key reasons for removing JVP: "his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program."

Accordingly, the Board's "official" reason and Keith's reason are consistent with what Thamel and Viera reported in their article of January 12th. No one is lying and Keith is likely expressing what he considers his own personal reason for voting the way he did.

Masser testified that THE reason Paterno was removed wasn't for anything he had or hadn't done, not HIS reason.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Masser testified that THE reason Paterno was removed wasn't for anything he had or hadn't done, not HIS reason.

You're trying to make an issue out of something where no issue exists. If Keith is ever questioned about his answer that's likely how he's going to explain it and its a legitimate, plausible and reasonable explanation in the context of the three reasons stated in the article.

 

[marshall23]

Its a simple answer the Ship of Fools lied then and they are lying now. They will continue to lie because that is what liars do. They hired a known liar to justify THEIR lies and they crap money to keep their lies from discovery. They retire or resign from the board and ratify another liar to replace the retiring liar. Sometimes they actually recondition retired liars. In the world of The Fools, old liars never die, they are crowned emeritus liars. They are confident that the extent of their lies will never be revealed since they have influential liars strategically placed in The Commonwealth Judicial System. They hire university presidents who are comfortable with their lying ways because again money talks.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Its a simple answer the Ship of Fools lied then and they are lying now. They will continue to lie because that is what liars do. They hired a known liar to justify THEIR lies and they crap money to keep their lies from discovery. They retire or resign from the board and ratify another liar to replace the retiring liar. Sometimes they actually recondition retired liars. In the world of The Fools, old liars never die, they are crowned emeritus liars. They are confident that the extent of their lies will never be revealed since they have influential liars strategically placed in The Commonwealth Judicial System. They hire university presidents who are comfortable with their lying ways because again money talks.

You lie! And don't tell me you haven't.

 

[marshall23]

and you get paid for witty comebacks like that? Please, where do I sign up?

 

[pandaczar12]

You are really grasping at straws. The 2014 version says “the decision to remove coach Paterno had nothing to do with what he had known, what he hadn’t done.” That completely destroys your theory. If it was one of three key reasons, he wouldn’t say “had nothing to do with with”.

Obviously we all know that Paterno was praised in 2012 by the AG for doing exactly what he should have, and that the BOT is trying to distance themselves from their poor decision. Let’s just assume that you are right, can you explain why the dramatic shift in the party talking points? Whether you consider that lying or not, they are definitely trying to mislead the public.

 

[demlion]

http://restorepsu.blogspot.com/2015/05/psu-trustees-were-you-lying-then-or-are.html

It pretty much speaks for itself.


http://progress.psu.edu/resource-li...board-of-trustees-concerning-nov.-9-decisions, was taken down—quite possibly due to the admissions in Masser's and Frazier's depositions, which I personally circulated as widely as possible to expose the Board for lying about the circumstances of Paterno's dismissal. I would construe this page's disappearance as Penn State's admission that the Board lied to Penn State, and on Penn State's behalf. It's still online at http://giveto.psu.edu/s/1218/2014/i...id=15638&calpgid=61&pgid=252&ecid=3519&crid=0, though, and I downloaded the entire page as proof before it also disappears.

Bill, thank you for this, and for your unstinting aggression against this evil. A couple of points. Even though we knew from the day the depo was released that Masser was telling an irreconcilably different story, it is VERY important to lay the docs up side by side and review them together. This is how you impeach a witness. These claims cannot be reconciled. CR's attempt elsewhere in the thread to reconcile them thru the NYT story is like a bridge in an MC Escher painting--at first it looks good, but then you realize it is impossible.

Second, even though there are much more important issues Masser, et al, have lied about, it is useful to have as many examples as possible of their dishonesty. If he is this far outside the lines on something this basic, then there is a decent chance that the truth is not in him. whatever he does not lie about he will simply misremember. As such, his death or retirement from the board would be a blow to our hopes.

Nasty as she was, Karen Peetz is a much more accomplished liar than Masser, and therefore harder to take down. Masser is an extremely useful idiot, and will provide much fodder for the plaintiffs going forward. The idea that a dimwit like him is chair tells us volumes about the quality of governance at PSU.

Again, thanks for your efforts.

 

[Talpsu]

WOW!!!! CR you are really grasping at straws. So you are saying that they DID fire him then for "not doing more" with regards to the Sandusky mess? Works for me!!!! There is a reason that Masser said what he did when he did. Firing Joe for the Sandusky mess was and is going to get them in hot water. Its why he back peddled under oath and is trying to prevent the hammer that is about to come crashing down on them. However, since you said that they DID IN FACT fire him over the Sandusky mess, that works for me and Im SURE it will work for Wick and the Paterno group. Thanks for verifying that!!!!

 

[Obliviax]

No one is lying and here's why.

Masser wasn't Chairman when the official Board position was issued in March 2012, Peetz was chair and she would have been the one to have final say on the Board's official reason for JVP's removal. Further, during the discussions leading up to the the trustee vote on JVP's future employment status, there was a myriad of reasons put forth by a number of trustees as to why they thought JVP could not be retained.

In a January 12, 2012 NYT's article by Pete Thamel and Mark Viera (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/s...trustees-recall-decision-to-fire-paterno.html )the trustees laid out what they said were THREE key reasons for removing JVP: "his failure to do more when told about the suspected sexual assault in 2002; what they regarded as his questioning of the board’s authority in the days after Sandusky’s arrest; and what they determined to be his inability to effectively continue coaching in the face of continuing questions surrounding the program."

Accordingly, the Board's "official" reason and Keith's reason are consistent with what Thamel and Viera reported in their article of January 12th. No one is lying and Keith is likely expressing what he considers his own personal reason for voting the way he did.

That's pretty funny, actually. That's what Keith said, doesn't matter if he was the chair or not. He was in the meetings and had a responsibility to lay out the facts, as he knew them. If he didn't know them, why did he speak up? He said something then and is now saying the 180 degree opposite. That, by any definition, is a lie.

 

[RobBliz]

You're trying to make an issue out of something where no issue exists. If Keith is ever questioned about his answer that's likely how he's going to explain it and its a legitimate, plausible and reasonable explanation in the context of the three reasons stated in the article.

Most times the explanation is the easy one... he lied. He can explain all he wants, it doesn't change the facts.

 

[mbahses]

They have no options left but to start telling the truth. As with any lie, it doesn't stay hidden forever. The architects of the false narrative are fearful of what is known. They rooted out a hotel manager. Who else is on that list, and who remains to be rooted out?

 

[JR4PSU]

You lie! And don't tell me you haven't.

He isn't a member of the PSU BOT answering a question under oath or issuing a formal press release expressing the official position of the PSU BOT. I think the standards of truthfulness are just a tad different, no?