Just to be clear, I have no doubt of Brady's innocence in all this.
That said, there are three moves by the Patriots' or Brady's attorneys that still bother me and that I cannot make sense of.
(1) Yee claimed that Brady did not divulge his personal texts because doing so would create a "dangerous precedent" going forward. I don't understand this logic. It just makes no sense. There is no "precedent" being created. If there was, it is irrelevant to a lawyer's job to defend his client, not future clients. And since Goodell can just suspend someone for noncooperation, if there is a precedent being set, it's in the opposite direction.
(2) The explanations for why McNally was not made available for another in-person interview make no sense to me either. The explanations are of the form "it would be inconvenient to McNally", or "it would be unnecessary to Wells", or something. I don't understand the logic here. The Patriots' attorneys' job is to represent the organization, not to minimize inconvenience to McNally. (That is, the Pats lawyers are representing the Patriots corporation, which is distinct from any one employee). McNally's convenience or lack thereof isn't a factor they should (or can) consider. And it's not their role to guess when Wells thinks he has enough information or doesn't. Indeed, by reducing Wells' billables, not making McNally available again just needlessly antagonizes Wells.
(3) The most surprising to me of all these is Brady's decision not to go the White House. How could his lawyers have let him skip that? Brady's explanations, that he had a "prior family commitment" make no sense: why can't he have broken the commitment? The explanation, which sounds fake even if it isn't, just hurt Brady's credibility exactly when he needed it helped.
Also, just to be clear, there are alternative explanations for all these moves. But by putting out implausible or incredible ones ("dangerous precedent", "prior family commitment", "inconvenient") I feel like the credibility takes an unnecessary hit.
That said, there are three moves by the Patriots' or Brady's attorneys that still bother me and that I cannot make sense of.
(1) Yee claimed that Brady did not divulge his personal texts because doing so would create a "dangerous precedent" going forward. I don't understand this logic. It just makes no sense. There is no "precedent" being created. If there was, it is irrelevant to a lawyer's job to defend his client, not future clients. And since Goodell can just suspend someone for noncooperation, if there is a precedent being set, it's in the opposite direction.
(2) The explanations for why McNally was not made available for another in-person interview make no sense to me either. The explanations are of the form "it would be inconvenient to McNally", or "it would be unnecessary to Wells", or something. I don't understand the logic here. The Patriots' attorneys' job is to represent the organization, not to minimize inconvenience to McNally. (That is, the Pats lawyers are representing the Patriots corporation, which is distinct from any one employee). McNally's convenience or lack thereof isn't a factor they should (or can) consider. And it's not their role to guess when Wells thinks he has enough information or doesn't. Indeed, by reducing Wells' billables, not making McNally available again just needlessly antagonizes Wells.
(3) The most surprising to me of all these is Brady's decision not to go the White House. How could his lawyers have let him skip that? Brady's explanations, that he had a "prior family commitment" make no sense: why can't he have broken the commitment? The explanation, which sounds fake even if it isn't, just hurt Brady's credibility exactly when he needed it helped.
Also, just to be clear, there are alternative explanations for all these moves. But by putting out implausible or incredible ones ("dangerous precedent", "prior family commitment", "inconvenient") I feel like the credibility takes an unnecessary hit.
Last edited: