He did do an excellent job. He got the outcome his client hired him to get. That is the very definition of a good job, especially for a lawyer.
I was about to suggest that you must have had a Three Martini Lunch, but then I remembered that it wasn't Wells' job to argue the NFL's case in the Appeal before the SDNY; that was primarily Nash's job...a job at which he did not cover himself with glory.
So, yes, Wells delivered his client enough for his client's purposes, however specious, during Brady's first Appeal to the "Arbiter," aka Goodell. He made an argument and concluded, no matter how flawed you and I might find that argument and conclusion, that the facts suggested that there was a "scheme" to deflate the footballs and that Brady had to be "generally aware" of it. Goodell found that sufficient for his purposes. So, Wells did his job.
I've avoided spending the money for the Copley Court transcript of the Appeal Hearing, mainly I think because I want to prove to myself that I'm not THAT obsessed that I'd drop a couple hundred bucks on the Transcript...not that I might not yet do so...I've talked to them and gotten a quote, but so far I've resisted the temptation...so far...
But, it's my impression from the Twittered dribs and drabs of the proceedings that the Appellate Judges in their questioning (emphasis on "questioning") more or less ignored Berman's ruling and tried to see if they could convince themselves that there was enough of a case in the Wells report that they didn't have to limit themselves to ruling on the details of Notice, Access to Pash and Access to other materials and witnesses, on which Berman's ruling was based.
I have no idea what to make of that. And don't pretend that I do, so comments are welcome.
Had the Appeals Judges determined that Berman ruled correctly to the extent of what was warranted by the matters he considered in his ruling? Is that why they let Clement more or less off the hook? There was nothing to talk about with him.
Were they wondering whether there was another possible Theory of the Case in which the evidence against Brady should have been considered and that Berman may have erred in not considering it more thoroughly, especially in regard to the destruction of the phone and the communications between Brady and the Equipment staff? Before the flames are ignited by others, please note that I am not saying that I regard that as "evidence," but is it possible that the judges were exploring the possibility that it should have been considered as such by Berman?
Were their questions to Kessler, then, really designed just to see how Kessler would address this alternative Theory of the Case? In other words, have many people made far too much of how they questioned Kessler if what they were doing was just exploring another way of looking at the matter?
And, if so, did Kessler err by apparently losing his cool by suggesting that the Judges had, in some way, predetermined a view of the case, instead of just walking through the logic of their questions with them and showing that it was flawed and that Berman, therefore, had focused on the right things?
If they determine that Berman ruled correctly on the three matters he considered but erred in not considering the "evidence" against Brady, would they not then have to rule that Berman should rehear the Case, rather than overturn his decision?
