- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
He explicitly qualified his statement by saying "that's what I'm hearing" and "I don't know", so not really.Add Stephen A Smith to the list of potential defendants of a defamation lawsuit.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.He explicitly qualified his statement by saying "that's what I'm hearing" and "I don't know", so not really.Add Stephen A Smith to the list of potential defendants of a defamation lawsuit.
He explicitly qualified his statement by saying "that's what I'm hearing" and "I don't know", so not really.
Yes, and they can be very easily subpoenaed. Anyone who paid attention to the Hernandez trial would know that, since Aaron's first thing to do was (super idiotically) destroy his cell phone.
The problem here is that now every moron nitwit in the world will actually believeBrady destroyed his phone, even it's later shown to be false.
Exactly this. He was on some ESPN show (not even sure even the hosts were as i was just looking to see if there was anything to this BS) and was acting all Adam Shefter like he had just broke the story of the century. People have clearly picked their sides here and are hoping they wind up looking like heroes when the NFL* doesn't vacate the suspensionAdd Stephen A Smith to the list of potential defendants of a defamation lawsuit.
First he implies Brady is racist, now he's breaking stories about Brady destroying his phone. Since when the hell is Stephen A Smith an NFL insider? He's just making **** up.
He explicitly qualified his statement by saying "that's what I'm hearing" and "I don't know", so not really.
The problem here is that now every moron nitwit in the world will actually believeBrady destroyed his phone, even it's later shown to be false.
Oh, Smith kind of just threw the "destroyed his phone" thing as an after thought. He was focusing on him not turning over the phone records and after he just added that he's even heard from some sources that he destroyed his phone.....just trying to make the phone thing a fresh dagger. He hasen't heard from any real NFL* sources I guarantee you, he just likes to play Adam Shefter on TV.The problem here is that now every moron nitwit in the world will actually believe Brady destroyed his phone, even it's later shown to be false.
If you were Kraft, knowing the hate against PATs, would you take a chance by leaving
your Hall of Fame Coach's fate up to some court or appeal process?
If there is even a vague reference to banning BB why let legal beagles twist it to justify the
banning action?
Yes, it's nice for him that he used all of those weasel words.
But notice when the story gets passed along, the qualifiers are often dropped:
From Gary Tanguay:
If Brady is innocent why Brady destroy his phone.
https://twitter.com/Gary_Tanguay/status/626043537310773248
Though twitter is limiting, with 140 characters and all:
If Brady is innocent, why might SAS be hearing from some unnamed somebody that Brady may have destroyed his phone, more likely than not, or was at least generally aware of a plan to destroy his phone, a plan that might or might not have happened.
He's well versed in the Fox News technique of "just asking questions."
The problem here is that now every moron nitwit in the world will actually believeBrady destroyed his phone, even it's later shown to be false.
The human population has always been more morons and nitwits than not. The problem is that in the social media era they all have a platform to make themselves heard.Normally, I don't sweat the opinion of moron and nitwits but it's disturbing how many of them there are these days.
Pretty much all media lol.He's well versed in the Fox News technique of "just asking questions."
The human population has always been more morons and nitwits than not. The problem is that in the social media era they all have a platform to make themselves heard.
Actually destroying your phone is worse than doing nothing. It is considered "spoliation" of evidence and a court could allow an inference of "consciousness of guilt" if he was found to have done that. Considering the legal advice he has been getting from day 1, the chances of this being true are nil.......Once it became clear this was going to court, I'm 100% certain that his legal team would have explained--if they even had to--that destroying your cell phone accomplishes exactly nothing. Your provider has copies of your call logs and every text you've ever sent (aka the same stuff that would be on your phone, without the ability to delete them) readily available for subpoena.