All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
May 12, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have your favorite lightning rod, Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
I know the NFL, I know the NFL thinks that they are guarding and protecting the integrity of the game.
I get that.
But I don't know.
I can't I can't get my arms around it.
That by all the action they're taking here is a tantamount admission that the product is not what everybody has always thought it is.
And I will have more on that as we get into the uh Tom Brady aftermath sound bites, what will undoubtedly be an appeal of this.
But first, just a couple other things.
Don't ever want to get sidetracked by a single issue here and have other things go unspoken about.
Get this.
A Baltimore preacher by the name of Jamal Bryant was on MSNBC the other night complaining that because and I'm not kidding, I'm not making this up.
He was complaining because of economic disenfranchisement.
The rioters in Baltimore could only find one store to destroy.
Can only find one anchor store in that neighborhood to destroy.
No, let me read the soundbite to the gun to you here.
The city council is meeting in just about an hour, and I'm leaving here the MSNBC interview.
I'm leaving here to go there to give some kind of assessment of the fiscal damage that's taken place.
It's it's an umble estimate that is about $25 million worth of damage that has occurred on the city.
And what is very critical is that the riot or the uprising that happened in 1968 after the assassination of Dr. King, that cost DC 113 million in 1968 to rebuild.
In Baltimore in 2015, you're talking only about 25 million dollars.
The focal point of the uprising in Baltimore has been one store, CBS store.
Whereas in those riots in 1968, or the uprising that happened in Los Angeles in 1992, you're talking about blocks.
And so really comparatively, it's a very small number.
It's been blown grossly out of proportion.
What it really says to is how much disenfranchisement's taken place.
They can only find one store in the neighborhood to destroy.
I'm not making this up.
This pastor is trying to say, look at how bad off our town has become.
Look at what economic disintegration is taking place here.
When our rioters set out to destroy, they can only destroy $25 million worth of property, because that's all there is here.
Back in the good old days in 1968, 1992, why we were able to inflict hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
But now we're Pikers.
Because in Baltimore, there's only one such CVS store, 25 million.
It's jump change.
And he's blaming it.
He's blaming it on the economy is so bad in Baltimore that this but his word disenfranchisement does not work.
I mean, that has a specific definition, and it has nothing to do with the way he's using it, but I know what he means.
He means that the poor and and African Americans in Baltimore have been so forgotten and so discarded and so lost.
The economy in that town is so bad, there's nothing other than a CVS store of any value to destroy in a riot.
And he's using this as an example of how bad things are economically for people in Baltimore.
And he wasn't through.
He said, and that's what the community is crying out, almost like Freddie Gray did in the back of that police vehicle to no aid, no assistance.
We need jobs, we need businesses, and we need opportunities.
Parentheses to be able to destroy in a future riot.
Did he ever stop to think that maybe the reason that people are not rebuilding in these neighborhoods is because they know that guys like this are hanging around waiting for the next opportunity to destroy them in a riot?
You think this is what I mean.
This is this is typical, and this was on MSNBC where they think this is a dead serious problem.
And a very, very worthwhile comment.
Again, the uh the pastor is Jamal Bryant.
There's a story.
I had this in, I had this one in the snack yesterday, folks, and I'm I'm I have to tell you I was blown away by this.
The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League more than five.
Did you hear the story?
The Department of Defense paid the National Football League more than five million dollars in taxpayer money, 2011 to 2014, to honor U.S. soldiers and veterans at games.
Otherwise, all those pregame shows that we've seen with giant American flags covering the whole field and color guards and uniformed military personnel.
All the while, I'm sure that you, I did.
I thought that individual teams were doing this to honor the military.
Because we were at war.
We were at wall in Iraq.
We were at war in Afghanistan.
We've been at war everywhere.
And we thought that the NFL was doing this.
Individual teams were to honor the military.
It turns out the DOJ had to buy these pregame ceremonies.
Why don't they had to, but I think they did.
I don't know that the DOJ went to the NFL and said, hey, we think you should honor us.
And the league said, No, you have to buy it.
I just think the military offered it.
They offered to buy.
Well, yeah, nearly 5.4 million was given to 14 NFL teams across the fruited plain, the bulk of which 5.3 million was supplied by the National Guard.
Holy smokes, that's 5.3 out of 5.4 million was supplied by the National Guard.
That means a hundred thousand of the 5.4 million was paid by the Army and Air Force.
Instead of purely heartfelt salutes to soldiers from hometown football teams, the halftime segments were reportedly part of paid promotions under federal advertising contracts for the military.
So that's how it was that's how it was booked and accounted for as advertising.
And the NFL sold space on the field at halftime.
And here we all thought, what a bunch of nonsense we are.
Here we all have a halftime show was to honor some local high school band by letting them get out there in March, or some guy with his dog in a frisbee, uh, or military display of some kind.
The NFL selling that.
Earlier this week, U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, Republican Arizona called out the spending as an egregious and unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.
He said, those of us that go to sporting events and see them honoring the heroes, you get a good feeling in your heart.
And then to find out they're doing it because they're compensated for it?
Well, it leaves you a little underwhelmed.
It seems a little unseemly.
In New Jersey, the Defense Department and the New Jersey Army National Guard paid the New York Jets a total of $377,000 during the four-year period, according to the federal contract.
The team's agreement included money for a hometown heroes segment to salute soldiers on the stadium's jumbotron at uh at home games and also tickets for the soldiers and their friends in box seats.
The investigation revealed the Atlanta Falcons collected just over a million dollars, the most of any team.
The Green Bay Packers received the single largest payment for one event 400 grand.
The rest of the Teams paid by the federal government for military pregame and halftime festivities were the Baltimore Ravens, the Buffalo Bills, the Cincinnati Bengals, the Cleveland Browns,
the Dallas Cowboys, the Indianapolis Colts, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Miami Dolphins, the Minnesota Vikings, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the St. Louis Rams, all were paid by the NFL.
Tom Brady, four games, the Patriots, a million-dollar fine, loss of the first round draft choice next year, a fourth round pick in 2017, all because Brady was likely involved in deflating footballs below regulation inflation on multiple occasions and stonewalled an investigation to get to the bottom of it.
That pretty much sums up what was released by the NFL in the form of the Wells report late last week on Friday, and then the commissioner announcing, well, the NFL announcing the punishment yesterday.
We start the audio soundbites at number...
I've done it again.
I've misplaced the very stack.
Thank you.
Here it is.
We start at number eight, in no particular order here.
This is Jim Gray, a well-known sports journalist on CBS this morning.
And he was talking with uh who's asking the question here?
Nora O'Donnell, well-known football expert at uh CBS this morning.
She said, okay, I read through Troy Vincent's letter to the Patriots.
He points out that it's significant that none of the key witnesses, Mr. Brady, Yostremsky, McNally, were not fully candid during the investigation.
If they didn't have anything to hide, why do you think they didn't cooperate with the NFL?
I mean, this is the organization that they're a part of.
There was no jurisdiction here.
There was no civil suit.
There was no deposition.
There was no criminal activity.
So does that just mean that any employer at any time, because they're having an investigation, can now demand your cell phone?
I mean, Tom and his wife are major superstars.
She's a model, the top model in the world.
Do you really want somebody going through your cell phone and sifting through it no matter what the circumstances are?
But I don't think that's the standard that any American wants for their employer to be able to do.
Central question here.
It is a central question.
Now, the usual constitutional rights to privacy do not present here.
There's nothing here that the government's involved in doing, and that Brady is protected from by virtue of the Fourth Amendment or anything else in the Constitution.
There is a collective bargaining agreement between the players and the league.
And the rules are spelled out.
The rules for the employees are spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement.
I don't know what they are in a circumstance like this, but I have heard that the players' union really leaned on Brady not to turn over his phone, no matter what guarantees he was given, even if it was his lawyer, and only his team permitted to vet his cell phone, and only find things relevant and keep from everybody else things that were irrelevant.
I'm told that the Players Association really leaned on Brady to fight this and not set the precedent.
Other people are saying that the collective bargaining agreement allows the league to get to the bottom of their employees.
Okay, wherever you work, let's turn this around.
Your job is the XYZ widget company.
You're there right now, and your employer is conducting an investigation because something has been going on below board and it's cheating, and the league, your boss wants to get to the bottom of it to limit any further damage.
He calls you in and says, I need whatever is pertinent and relevant on your cell phone any emails or text to gauge your involvement in this.
And you can have your lawyer go through your cell phone for me and find out what's relevant and only turn that over to me.
Does your boss in your mind have the right to demand that of you?
If you are involved in something at the company that might give it a black eye or might be illegal, according to the rules of the company.
There is no government constitutional liberty or freedom involved here because Brady doesn't work for the government.
And the government's not regulating this in a way.
So this is this is clearly up to the NFL and the CBA, the collective bargaining agreement, and so forth.
I don't think it's that unreasonable a request from the NFL.
And I think the refusal.
See, there's no Fifth Amendment, the NFL doesn't have subpoena power, and all that stuff that Jim Grace talking about would be applicable.
If the government were involved in pursuing Brady, if there were a local prosecutor trying to convict him of something, but this is just a business.
Trying to get to the bottom of something that happened that they think is a direct assault on the integrity of the game and the product, and they want to get to the bottom of it and they want to find out what really happened.
And they need the assistance of the employees involved to find out where we happened.
And if the employee involved will not cooperate with every request for information.
Well, you got people on both sides of this.
People supporting Brady and his right to privacy, which there is no constitutional right to privacy, period.
And there certainly isn't one here.
Not in terms of U.S. statutory law.
And then you have other people who say this company has every right.
They're paying these people, they're employees.
They have every right to get to the bottom of something that might be doing damage.
What if Brady were fired because of this?
Folks, I take it back, you may nobody will remember this.
Back in the early days of my TV show, of an activist woman employed at Microsoft was fired for using her Microsoft computer to plant spam and character defamation stuff about me in the early days of the Internet, back and copy serving this kind of stuff.
And we found out who it was, and she was fired.
And uh she refused to participate, but they found out who she was.
It's not unprecedented here, is the point.
It's just that Brady is the highest profile player in this league ever, ever to come under such scrutiny and action.
Let's take a break.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Time to check the pulse of the people on the telephones.
That's right.
We start Oxford, North Carolina.
Hi, Zach.
Uh, great to have you, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing, Rush?
Um very well.
Thank you, sir.
Um, so I got to thinking, I'm a big New England fan.
And I got to thinking uh Tom Brady probably knew what was wrong with those footballs.
See, I mean, I can go with that.
He probably knew.
Well, um, what if we applied the same logic and passed the same judgment upon uh Hillary Clinton?
She probably knew she was lying when she was talking about some video that had to do with Bengazi or Eric Hodder.
He probably knew what was in those documents that he didn't want to turn over.
I just keep it thinking.
I mean, okay.
I'm I'm glad you called with this because a lot of people are focusing on this word probably and uh greater probability than not.
That is a specific legal term that means we're sure.
With with without saying, no, the whole phrase there is a greater probability than not means we think he did it.
It's not gray.
The league does not mean this is gray.
You're and and it's I think the league should explain this to people.
This is legalese.
It is a phrase that has been concocted for specific purposes by the league and its various law firms, and it has a much more specific meaning than what it just appears to mean when you read it.
It's it's you could put a number to it, it's 51%, 55% certainty, whatever, but if it is it it leaves uh some vagueness.
All it means is the preponderance of the evidence is circumstantial, yeah, but we got it.
It's it's just short.
It's not vague, it's not gray at all.
It's just short of ontological certitude.
Okay, if that helps anybody, the league is damn certain that this all happened, but they don't have 100% truth or what have you.
And that's because nobody's admitted it.
And the witnesses aren't talking.
It's not a court of law.
I saw Trump had an interesting tweet last night.
I turned on CNN.
I'm sorry.
Slap me.
I turned on ESPN for the first time since the Super Bowl yesterday.
I hadn't had C ESPN on.
Man.
That's its own topic.
And I'm going to stay away from it.
But they were putting up a bunch of tweets from people.
And there was a tweet from Trump.
And his tweet, and I knew I know if you saw it, if you hear about it, you're going to glom onto it and go, yep, right on.
If Brady has to produce his emails, why doesn't Hillary have to produce hers?
Mrs. Clinton destroyed 32,000 emails that were on a server, a private personal server of hers that she was using against government regulations.
She was undoubtedly trying to shield her email from any federal investigators or other people in the State Department who monitor what's going on for all the obvious reasons.
She was shielding it.
And when it became known that she was doing this, there were official requests, and she destroyed the emails.
More probable, slash likely than not, is simply the language of civil law, folks.
As opposed to criminal law, what's your head beyond a reasonable doubt?
I remember I read, I forget the page number, and I don't have this in front of me, but there was a summation of short little paragraph.
In sum, the report said that they were relying only on assumptions here.
I mean, they made it clear they didn't have any hard hard code evidence.
All they've got is a very, very strong circumstantial case.
And people are saying, how in the world can you suspend the guy and find him two million bucks?
That's total game checks for four games.
How can you do that without knowing for sure?
He's the employee and they're the boss, is how you can do it.
And we're not in a court of law here.
I don't think getting hung up on that is uh clearly they can do it, folks.
Now there's gonna be an appeal, too.
And the the whole thing may be thrown out on the appeal.
It could well be that Brady and his agent did a ropodope here.
It could well be that Brady wasn't forthcoming, not because he had something to hide, but because there's a bombshell they've got that will nuke this whole thing that they will reveal in the appeal process.
Who knows?
Anything is still possible here.
People are finding it difficult to believe that the league would even do this to their number one star marquee player.
And others are thinking this Keyshawn Johnson, this is this is a slamp on the wrist compared to what he did.
This is nothing.
And there's a lot of players, folks make no mistake about something.
I haven't yet.
Now I'm sure there are.
So I'm not I'm not denying this.
It just what I've seen and read, I haven't seen a single player other than Patriots teammates say this is too much.
Most NFL players are saying it's right on or not enough.
And some are saying this should have been eight games.
This should have been eight, ten games.
This should have been.
There is obviously throughout this league.
If you listen and if you know how to list between the lines, it is obvious throughout this league, there is resentment for this Team and dislike for this team based on spygate.
And there are a lot of people.
This league is highly competitive.
People think of the NFL as a fraternity, where you're all in the same business, you're just at different locations, different teams, but there's a camaraderie here.
Do not fault for that.
There is competition all the way up to owner level.
You ought to see some of the owner's suites for the visiting team in some of these stadiums.
They're like closets.
I mean, it's it's vicious out there in this league, and the player competition is the same.
And there are a lot of people who think the Patriots have cheated their way to all of these Super Bowls and think that they didn't get punished enough in Spygate, and so this is justice based on that.
I mean, it's all over the place out there.
I've heard all of this expressed by any number of people.
I've read it.
Everything I've said, none of what I've said is an original thought of mine.
I don't think there's an original thought to be had, because everybody has had something to say about it.
Here's uh here's more from Jim Gray back on CBS this morning with noted NFL expert Gail King, who said, you know, many people saw the event last Thursday when you talked to Tom Brady for the first time, and he was clearly reluctant to get into the report.
At one point you said to him, What are you, a slow reader?
Which got a laugh from everybody?
How do you think he'll respond now, Jim?
And have you talked to him since this latest ruling has come down?
The Patriots and Tom Brady will now go to war.
Uh they will not let this continue in this fashion.
They will appeal this.
Uh, they will come out guns ablazing.
I think this is the seventh round of a 12-round fight.
Uh, it's just the beginning.
The NFL could have done away with this within 36 to 48 hours.
Uh, instead, the commissioner went down this path where he hired a special investigator.
You know, they're bringing on their own trouble once again to themselves.
It's going to cause a tremendous, tremendous fraction amongst uh ownership and Mr. Kraft.
Okay.
Now let's let's let's look at that.
NFL could have done away with this within 36 to 48 hours.
Then they could have uh issued some immediate ruling that we think this slap on the wrist, nobody move on.
Well, they didn't.
Why didn't they?
Why did they spend so much time and have so many investigators to try to get to the bottom of this?
Which does not make their league look good.
Go back to the original point that I made.
The league allowed a championship game to be played knowingly with improperly inflated footballs, which is not insignificant.
Why did they do that?
If they would have just gotten a hold of those footballs and tested them, even though the referee said he couldn't find them for the first time in his career, they weren't where they were supposed to be.
They eventually found them, they were on the field, bring them back in, measure them if they're below regulation, make them legal and play the game, and we're not even here.
And they can say what happened, and we can you can you can take care of this the day of the game and be done with it, but they didn't.
They let this play out, that's why some are calling this a sting, and because it was it's been alleged about the Patriots have been doing this for more than just this game.
The NFL, as Gray says, could have wiped this out real soon, but didn't.
Why?
Why are they?
I mean, I think it's incredible.
And it's the obvious answer to the question is that they, somebody in this league is really, really worried about the integrity of the game.
Or somebody in the league office really, really, really has it out for the Patriots and was going to do anything they could to harm them.
And by the same token, Jim Gray here says that the league could have gotten rid of this in 36 to 48 hours, so could have Brady.
Let's not leave the Patriots out of that equation.
If what do you think would happen if Brady would have early on in this thing, owned it, said, Yeah, you know, I didn't know any of that.
I just I like footballs the way they feel to me.
My hands are such, I like footballs in flavors of certain things I didn't know, but all this, yeah.
These guys wouldn't have run around and done that without me.
I told them to do it, but I had no idea any of this.
It would have been over with.
There wouldn't have been no deception, there wouldn't have been any hiding, there wouldn't have been any smugness, and the NFL could not have meted out this kind of discipline.
Instead, Brady didn't do that.
He acted aloof and didn't address it.
And some have said that he even appeared smug in that thing at Salem University last week with Jim Gray, which, if in if people in the league office interpreted that, that just ratchets and might be even more.
If you're going to have one of your employees act with with open disrespect for what you're trying to do, and if what you're trying to do is show up the integrity of the game, that's going to inspire people on the penalty side to ratchet things up.
But there's any number of things that could have been done to make sure this didn't happen, including, and first and foremost, grab those footballs or uninflated and fix them.
Before kickoff.
Done.
No problem.
Nobody would have even known.
It probably would have never even been reported.
Nobody would have had the slightest idea that those balls were except the Colts who brought the original allegation.
But if the balls could have been fixed pregame, the Colts' complaint would have been satisfied, and that's that.
None of that happened.
So the league wasn't interested in ending this thing in 36 or 48 hours or whatever it was.
There's something going on.
I've always believed that there's something, even now that we don't know what's going on, or I don't know how big and small it is.
Uh Bob Costus, noted gun control expert next on the Today Show today, Matt Wauer, said Tom Brady, one of the marquee players in the league, he's out four games, million-dollar fine, and two draft picks.
Look, nobody can accuse Roger Goodell of going soft on a friend in Robert Kraft or going soft on a superstar.
Does the punishment fit the crime here, rapping Roberto?
The context in which it happens is important.
It's been a bad couple of years for the NFL with Bounty Gate, with the bullying scandal, with domestic violence, with child abuse, and the way the NFL has ruled in each of these cases was sometimes perceived as random and sometimes perceived even as incompetent, and Roger Goodell wanted to make sure that he got this right.
Back on NBC, NBC Nightly News with the bespectacled Lester Holt said to uh Costus, walk me through what happens here if uh if he serves the fur of the the full four games.
What do you mean walk me through what if he said?
Well, let's listen to the answer.
If he serves the four games, the Patriots happen to have their bye early in the season.
And so the fifth game for them would be week six, and he would return on a Sunday night against the Indianapolis Colts, the very team that blew the whistle on him in that AFC championship game, the very team that started the whole deflate gate thing.
Well, that's true.
The the uh the Colts did do that, but they did it long before the championship game.
I think they complained back in October.
Sometime in November, some team did.
I think it was the it was the Colts.
Look at this kind of what I was talking about in the first hour of the program.
Look at this list that cost us sites.
It's been a bad couple of years for the NFL.
Bounty Gate, that's the Saints thing.
The bullying scandal, that's it, the Miami Dolphins.
Uh domestic violence.
That's everywhere.
Uh child abuse, that's Adrian Peterson, and the way the NFL has ruled on each of these cases was sometimes perceived as random and some I my point is during all those, I think the sports media ate this stuff up.
That's that's they loved reporting on all of this because it just it fits the leftist agenda of how imperfect and flawed people are, and how we need a central authority to rein them in and control them and punish them.
And so forth.
And so the drive-by's were highlighting all this stuff.
And and when Goodell was not properly punishing, when he wasn't tough enough, whoa, did they come down?
And all the while, it's the league taking the hit on this stuff.
It cannot be helpful.
Just cannot.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
We've got more of your phone calls coming up after this, so don't go away.
Here's the noted sports agent.
Show me the money.
Lee Steinberg, the model for the movie Jerry McGuire, on CNN earlier today with uh with noted sports legal expert, Ashley Banfield.
She said, Lee, do you think ultimately that a lot of this punishment for Tom Brady is for his intransigence for failing to turn over some of his devices and for not helping the investigation?
Had Tom Brady simply said back at Super Bowl time, I like to throw balls which are a little underinflated.
I'm a competitor.
I push the staff to give me that type of ball.
If that broke some rule, I'm very sorry.
This thing would have ended.
Appealing would be the worst last thing I would ever suggest to a client.
Every single time this issue's brought up, it's going to conflate Brady cheating.
Brady cheating.
Interesting.
Steinberg says exactly what you just heard from your host, that if Brady had owned this in an entirely innocent manner way back at the outset, we'd have been done with it.
And it's true, by the way.
I really believe that.
It's another one of these things where the uh the cover-up done more damage than the original crime.
I use the word crime loosely here.
But what about this idea that Steinberg, if he were the agent, would not let Brady appeal it.
Just take it and move on.
You appeal this thing and you just keep opening doors for more to be learned and for more data to be forthcoming.
And if you don't control all of it, and some of it's negative, it could even more negatively impact your reputation than what has happened so far.
Here's uh here's Alan in New Iberia, Louisiana.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Quite an honor, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I just think that the fines and sanctions against the Patriots uh were pale in comparison to the Bounty Gate that was handed down to the New Orleans Saints after their their Super Bowl run.
And uh, you know, they had a team in place that could have been in that Super Bowl the next year again.
We take coaches and players out.
Um it it just it deflated the whole team, it deflated the community.
Um, why isn't Coach Belichick weren't sanctions held against him or the any members of the of the staff that were involved in this?
You see, that's I I that that's an interesting question, too, about because I've cited this uh uh this fact before.
Alan, thanks for the call.
The coach, and by the way, the bounty gate penalties did destroy that team.
They destroyed that team, they ended prematurely a couple careers.
Um, Jonathan Vilma and Scott Vucita, Fujita, I think.
And maybe maybe some others.
And Sean Payton, the coach, was suspended for a whole season purely because of ignorance.
They had this big bounty gate program going on in his locker room.
He didn't know.
So his question here is a Saints fan, well, Belichick said he didn't know anything about the deflating of the footballs.
How come he not punished here?
Well, he wasn't personally, but the but the league did hand out a million-dollar fine, these guys.
But this is what's given rise.
I'm just I'm folks, I'm not associating myself with any of these conspiracy theories, but I'll give you an example of the answer to this guy's question.
The reason that Belichick didn't get any punishment was because he's got something on the league from Spygate.
There's one thing that happened at Spygate that people still don't understand.
All of the video tapes that the Patriots had were destroyed.
Commissioner demands all of the video tapes that the Patriots were using constituted cheating.
And after reviewing what was on the tapes and handing out decision, he ordered the evidence destroyed.
And nobody has ever understood that.
And it happened fairly soon after the investigation was completed and the punishment handed out.
Why would you destroy it?
Well, the conspiracy theory has filled a vacuum.
The conspiracy theory is that Belichick told the league, hey, pal, it ain't just us.
There are all kinds of teams and coaches doing this and more, and I've got the goods on them.
And if you ever come back at me again, I'm gonna go public with everything that now it sounds a little bit baseless to me, but it's the kind of conspiracy theory that that small minds will concoct.
Because it seems to me that this is one of those episodes where Belichick, if he had threatened the league previously, hey, you come back at me, and I'm going to blow the whistle on everybody that I know of cheating.
Well, here's an opportunity to do it.
They've just sat down his team, his star quarterback for the first four games.
They have fined his team a million bucks, and they've taken away two key draft choices.
Seems to me would be enough to trigger Belichick going public with all these uh facts that he has that he, according to the conspiracy theory, threatened to reveal if they after came came after him again.
Uh I think that's kind of out there, but it's an example of what happens when answers to questions are not known.
A void will be filled.
Poor Ron Fournier, he has just got to be swimming.
The Clintons have let him down over all of the stuff they're involved in now with the foundation.
And now the White House dossier is reporting that Fournier said Monday night on Fox News that Obama could go down as one of the worst presidents in history.
If Iran develops nuclear weapons because of or under the deal Obama is negotiating.
▲
Export Selection