Specter on Limbaugh show: "There was filming"

I think we all know that Specters posturing is all about the Comcast/NFL feud and has nothing to do with the Patriots. He is using the Pats as a pawn for Comcast.

Specters making a fool of himself, first it was the Howard Stern show now hes on Limbaughs. Next hes going to be on the Playboy radio show talkin bout spygate, this guys a joke.

Rob0729 said:

Funny, the guy talks more and more about this the more he is hyping his stupid book. I'm sorry, but even if I didn't hate the guy there would be no way I would buy his book.

Besides, he didn't say there was evidence that there was taping. That could just be Walsh's story that he told Specter with no evidence to back it up.

This does raise questions of Specter's and Levy's relationship since Levy is showing Specter communications between them and the NFL. That isn't illegal, but you gotta wonder if Specter is funding Levy either directly or indirectly (through Comcast).

Click to expand...

If Walsh tapped without the Pats permission and the Pats never saw the tape, it's no big deal. It makes the Rams look stupid. He might have a tape (doubt it) but his big problem is proving that anyone in the Pats organization actually saw it. Did he make two tapes and keep one? That's what he will say no doubt. The onus is on Specter to prove that and that's what the legal fight is. They have no proof. End of story.
DW Toys

lorijean said:

I believe if there was a tape we would have seen it by now. If Walsh had a tape he would have released it right before the Superbowl. With all the media hysteria he could have made a fortune and done even more damage to the Pats. But so far...no tape. Walsh has nothing.

Click to expand...

I think that, for convenience, we should call this Walsh's paradox: If a tape exists, why haven't we seen it yet?

[I take this from Fermi's paradox--if extraterrestrial life exists, why haven't we detected it yet?]

I tell ya, Eagles fans just don't know when to let go.

NePatriots said:

I tell ya, Eagles fans just don't know when to let go.

Click to expand...

If I was an Eagles fan I would be embarrassed by Specter's behavior. I know some Eagles fans and they put the Super Bowl loss on the shoulders of McNabb.

Gainzo said:

I think we all know that Specters posturing is all about the Comcast/NFL feud and has nothing to do with the Patriots. He is using the Pats as a pawn for Comcast.

Click to expand...

Bingo.....

Add in press for his book as well...

Gainzo said:

If I was an Eagles fan I would be embarrassed by Specter's behavior. I know some Eagles fans and they put the Super Bowl loss on the shoulders of McNabb.

Click to expand...

Sure they do. Moreover, Andy Reid has already said that the signals were entirely different between the earlier game and the Super Bowl--so even if the Pats were attempting to use the signals gained earlier to their advantage in the game, which I do not believe, they would have been unsuccessful; in fact, they probably would have been slaughtered. This has nothing to do with the Eagles, and he is a posturing blowhard for continuing to insinuate otherwise.

The real bombshell from this interview that no one mentions: The NFL is trying to dissuade Walsh from coming forward, and Specter has seen letters from the NFL saying so.

If this is true, it's horrible for the league and makes Roger Goodell look like a hypocrite. That's what Specter was talking about when he said "light a fire" under this thing. He's giving the impression the NFL has something to hide... basically saying that publicly, the NFL has been throwing the Patriots under the bus, while privately trying to sweep it under the rug.

The government and Specter are not going after the Patriots. Big picture... they are giving the NFL the Microsoft treatment, the same treatment they give every billion dollar corporation.

"...there was filming..." Who in the world knows what that means?

it's time to get this over with and learn what Walsh has and what he has to say.

if all he has is more innuendo, accusing the Pats of filming the walkthrough or of filming during SB XXXVI, but no proof in the form of a tape, then people will just go on believing what they already believe and the story will eventually go away. if he has a tape, then it's all over for us. it won't matter if the Pats management claims it was "unauthorized." no one outside this board will believe them.

The bottom line: There's two possibilities.

He has a tape or he doesn't.

And if he does then its his word against the entire Patriot organization's word about whether he was authorized to tape the practice.

Of course, I'm sure everyone will believe Walsh - because if you can't trust a guy who was fired for making unauthorized recordings to tell the truth about an unauthorized recording, well, then who the hell CAN you trust?

ctpatsfan77 said:

I think that, for convenience, we should call this Walsh's paradox: If a tape exists, why haven't we seen it yet?

[I take this from Fermi's paradox--if extraterrestrial life exists, why haven't we detected it yet?]

Click to expand...

Ah, but Fermi's paradox can be sufficiently resolved. Walsh's paradox is much simpler: he wants fame/money.

If this guy wants an asterisk next to all our wins, how about all our loses as well?

Time to give back that tainted trophy to the league New York.

I've seen the letters. Walsh's lawyer let me see them on a promise of confidentiality, and I believe an objective and fair reading of those letters is that the NFL is discouraging Walsh from coming forward.

Click to expand...

I got a chuckle out these comments from Specter.

So, Levy lets Specter read the letters "in confidence." Specter, in turn, breaks his confidentiality agreement by providing a summary that makes it look like the NFL is trying to cover things up. And the beauty is, everyone outside the negotiations has to take Specter's word for it because they can't see the letters.

In addition, if Levy proposes terms under which Walsh will speak and the NFL finds them unacceptable, you could claim that the league is "discouraging" him from speaking.

As others have stated, regardless of whether Walsh has nothing, old news, or a shocking bombshell, once he speaks, the NFL can address the situation and begin to move on. Preventing Walsh from speaking on the matter does not help accomplish that.

Why have a process that guarantees due process, Specter has the answer anyways...

quote
I've seen the letters. Walsh's lawyer let me see them on a promise of confidentiality, and I believe an objective and fair reading of those letters is that the NFL is discouraging Walsh from coming forward.
unquote
Shouldn't a promise of confidentiality mean Specter should not comment on the letter or characterize it in any way?

Now everybody knows that Spector is paying for Levy.

When I first heard about Spector and these letters, I speculated that he had read them...from Mar 10...

It's interesting when Spector is questioning the internal workings of a company (the NFL) NOT about any law breaking vut about the very runnings of that company. I THINK he has gone way too far. And to demand that letters sent in confidence in negotiation REALLY means that Spector has the copies already from Walsh's attorney. I truyly believe that he had a hand in having Walsh's Washington attorney hired for him. He needs to be investigated here..because his ethics in having ANYTHING to do with the NFL given the Comcast donations SMELLS. For someone who supposedly knows the law, he's PRETTY brazen about taking it to the edge. My ONLY hope is that someone pushes the skunk over the edge. The fact that he is calling for information between lawyers to be made public is a bit frightening to me..would he want dealings in private between Comcast and the NFL be made public?? He really has NO business sticking his nose in here..would be better that he spend his time with something substantive..where LAWS were broken..To me the quicker he makes a fool of himself, the better for everyone.

Spector is obviously trying to orchestrate this whole thing...from hiring Levy having a hand in that to trying to manipulate public opinion on this. He's already breeched confidentiality by saying what is there...too bad he's not making an instore appearnce where he could be really bombarded with questions..

bosfan said:

quote
I've seen the letters. Walsh's lawyer let me see them on a promise of confidentiality, and I believe an objective and fair reading of those letters is that the NFL is discouraging Walsh from coming forward.
unquote
Shouldn't a promise of confidentiality mean Specter should not comment on the letter or characterize it in any way?

Click to expand...

That's what it would mean if he was a man of integrity & honor...

sure there was filming if walsh has d coordinators signals ita a non story