Jump to content

Keef

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    676
  • Joined

Everything posted by Keef

  1. Of course the nightmare scenario in all of this is Biden wins with 270 and Trump and the crazies manage to peel off one faithless elector in a state that doesn't require the electoral college to vote in accordance with the state's presidential election results.
  2. i have to say, that is a very University friendly contract. Wow Tom.
  3. I don't think his contract is in the public domain, but termination for "cause" definitions (assuming Tom had halfway decent representation) are generally drafted pretty narrowly if the employee has any leverage at all. Tom had a ton of leverage. Plus, I don't think anyone wants a public spat over whether the termination is for "cause" or not.
  4. You mean Tech isn't the 1999 Rams?
  5. Isn't Tom owed a ton of guaranteed money? He's not going anywhere, even if the rest of the season is a massive disappointment. Reading between the lines on the Jake Smith and Brennan Eagles reporting and Super K saying a few days ago he expects us to lose 3-4 recruits based on negative recruiting coming from current players, it is crystal clear that some kind of blowup happened and there are real issues going on behind the scenes. This team needs to win and use the bye week to get their shit together.
  6. I'd bet the WH is quietly okay with this. Blocking him from testifying earlier bought them some time to get stories straight. Plus Sondland is a Trump guy all the way (think he was a 7 figure donor) so he'll put things as positively for Trump as possible.
  7. No idea. But the notion that those self-serving DOJ memos saying that a sitting President can't be indicted for a crime are absurd. They are arguably binding on a DOJ employee (which I think Mueller was?), but I don't think courts will ascribe them any weight.
  8. Trump is trying to fight this in the political arena rather than the legal arena, which is smart.
  9. Apparently there are messages and emails on the ambassadors personal device that are being withheld by the administration as well.
  10. You draft the definition of any future university employer to include any and all affiliated and related entities for purposes of the salary offset. You also tightly define "salary". This is common stuff -- disputes over employment agreement entitlements happen all the time and I suspect even moreso in college athletics given the coaching turnover. Having never read the contract (aka have zero idea what I'm talking about in this circumstance) it's not unethical to exploit poor draftsmenship. UT is a sophisticated party represented by high dollar attorneys and if there was a loophole there for his client to exploit, Charlie's lawyer did nothing wrong telling him how to do so. If all this is true and we shot ourselves in the foot, I imagine this is why UT hasn't made a stink about this in the media.
  11. I hope this story isn't true and UT hires better lawyers than that. A modestly competent drafter would never make that mistake. I also wonder if that scenario (employed by the University, paid by the Foundation) creates wage withholding or non-profit tax issues.
  12. Gordon Sondland doing his best to create a CYA paper trail.
  13. I actually lean towards that being intentional. Tons of people don’t like Trump, even within his administration, and this is a man who did just threaten to resign. It’s a way to say yes without saying yes. He could have just as easily said he couldn’t confirm or deny, but if there was such a conversation, it’d be covered by executive privilege and he couldn’t discuss. This is a sophisticated dude who was most definitely prepped for that exact question.
  14. I actually lean towards that being intentional. Tons of people don’t like Trump, even within his administration, and this is a man who did just threaten to resign. It’s a way to say yes without saying yes. He could have just as easily said he couldn’t confirm or deny, but if there was such a conversation, it’d be covered by executive privilege and he couldn’t discuss. This is a sophisticated dude who was most definitely prepped for that exact question.
  15. Cant wait to read the word for word transcript. It has to be out there because I’m sure whoever leaked that Trump brought up Biden 8 times had to be looking at it. Given that the person leaked to the WSJ, my guess is it’s a high level official close to Trump (or formerly close like Bolton).
  16. Or his lawyer helped him write it, which is the most obvious conclusion. It’s written like a legal memo.
  17. Where are you seeing the Russian language readout stuff?
  18. Nixon did this same shit too. Released a super misleading transcript that basically absolved him of all the really bad stuff. Fortunately prosecutors discovered the tapes.
  19. If there are word for word transcripts of that call as the report suggests, those need to be subpoenaed ASAP. Forget this “based on the recollections of the parties there” nonsense.
  20. This is a pretty damning timeline for Trump and Giuliani, and does a good job distilling the information: https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/
  21. Agree 100%. But it’s obvious that the report isn’t being released because of the White House.
  22. Congress needs to stipulate that the report will have no redactions and no alterations. If Donald is releasing this, it’s because he’s getting pressure from republicans in Congress (can’t believe I typed that).
  23. Demas’s twitter is way over the top aggy in a Tate Martell kind of way. So aggy it’s weird.
  24. If there is even a modicum of deniability (e.g., Trump is literally caught on tape saying precisely "you aren't getting aid unless you give me damaging information on Hunter and Joe") the Republicans will put their fingers in their ears. If its an implied quid pro quo, no matter how obvious and apparent, they'll continue to stand behind him. And I doubt the Ukrainians, who still need and want the aid, are going to do anything to damage their working relationship with the White House. Frankly, if you are going to piss off one political party, wouldn't you rather it be the Democrats? The Republicans are wayyy more likely to seek retribution.
  25. *they’re
×
×
  • Create New...