Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

Boatshoes said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Baylor would not have sent that letter to Briles back in August if any of this was even possibly true. So just think this through folks.

---

Absolutely correct.

---

It would be great if Baylor had a lot of credibility on the subject but they don't have any.
Maybe next time, instead of attacking and bashing, one goes quietly and waits to whip out the letter.
It would be wise not to run a pr campaign against the school that paid you and gave you the letter.
The Baylor regent pr campaign reached 100,000s households while Briles had 45 miles of tv.

Run a copy of that letter and wipe butt on it. It cost more to write than it is worth.

The "evidence" you're looking for is pretty well outlined in the Starr op-ed to the WTH.

There's no evidence of a cover-up because for all intents and purposes, there wasn't one.

CAB & Co. didn't do things as they should have, we all agree on that, I think. But the system failed them (and the poor girls), and they had to go. They got paid very well to leave, and Baylor saved its brand.

I don't have any "privileged" information, but know well those working behind the scenes on CAB's behalf.

BU254 said:

---

The "evidence" you're looking for is pretty well outlined in the Starr op-ed to the WTH.

There's no evidence of a cover-up because for all intents and purposes, there wasn't one.

CAB & Co. didn't do things as they should have, we all agree on that, I think. But the system failed them (and the poor girls), and they had to go. They got paid very well to leave, and Baylor saved its brand.

I don't have any "privileged" information, but know well those working behind the scenes on CAB's behalf.

---

nope

What a riveting reply, as vapid as anything else you've ranted in the #cab fantasy you harbor.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Chanceux said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Baylor would not have sent that letter to Briles back in August if any of this was even possibly true. So just think this through folks.

---

That letter sure is confusin. No doubt about it. I reckon much of it has to do with firing Briles for what he said to PH and thinking that wouldn't be turned around on him. Baylor tryin to cover its tracks along with paying him off.

---

The letter itself is not confusing at all - it says next to nothing.

Only the "why" such a letter was written is a question.

---

I know what the letter says boudreaux. I certainly was talking bout the why.

Kinda hard when there is no system in place. Just as much the fault of Baylor (the institution), if not more, but CAB was the face of our university, so it had to end the way it did. Unfortunately.

I haven't heard any credible reports of Briles discouraging anyone from reporting an incident like the coach at Paul Fraudbum's alma mater did.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

---

I think you have me confused with another poster. I said on the other thread there that there is no evidence of rape coverups by members of Briles' staff. In response, BeerThief, who has since conveniently disappeared, said there was evidence, and cited a DMN article that said nothing of the sort, When I asked him to point out the evidence in the article, he then referred me to the "Pepper Hamilton report," and named 5 coaches who were involved. The thread was then locked.

BU254 said:

---

Kinda hard when there is no system in place. Just as much the fault of Baylor (the institution), if not more, but CAB was the face of our university, so it had to end the way it did. Unfortunately.

---

Yessir. Course PH was dirt digging for sexual assaults. Then they found the other stuff that aint sexual assault. Then the white tower used it to fire him. But that prolly wasn't legal. So they offer up a boatload of cash and a letter.

football follies aside, I have significant concerns about the involvement of Buddy Jones in the ongoing operations of Baylor University.

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

---

I think you have me confused with another poster. I said on the other thread there that there is no evidence of rape coverups by members of Briles' staff. In response, BeerThief, who has since conveniently disappeared, said there was evidence, and cited a DMN article that said nothing of the sort, When I asked him to point out the evidence in the article, he then referred me to the "Pepper Hamilton report," and named 5 coaches who were involved. The thread was then locked.

---

I agree with you here

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

The answer is as obvious as you can get . 0/7. Art is telling the truth .

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

---

I think you have me confused with another poster. I said on the other thread there that there is no evidence of rape coverups by members of Briles' staff. In response, BeerThief, who has since conveniently disappeared, said there was evidence, and cited a DMN article that said nothing of the sort, When I asked him to point out the evidence in the article, he then referred me to the "Pepper Hamilton report," and named 5 coaches who were involved. The thread was then locked.

---

I agree with you here

---

Everything I said is correct, not just the part you highlighted.

Do you have some evidence that the staff covered up rapes?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

---

If pleadings are reliable, then so is what Cannon said in Briles' suit against the regents. Stop citing Shillinglaw as anything more than an opinion piece that happens to line up with your own.

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

---

I think you have me confused with another poster. I said on the other thread there that there is no evidence of rape coverups by members of Briles' staff. In response, BeerThief, who has since conveniently disappeared, said there was evidence, and cited a DMN article that said nothing of the sort, When I asked him to point out the evidence in the article, he then referred me to the "Pepper Hamilton report," and named 5 coaches who were involved. The thread was then locked.

---

I agree with you here

---

Everything I said is correct, not just the part you highlighted.

Do you have some evidence that the staff covered up rapes?

---

Cover up of rape, no.

It was reported in the WSJ and in more detail in the Shillinglaw response that allegations of a gang rape were known and not reported to Judicial Affairs, but that is not the same as covering up rape.

Boatshoes said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Baylor would not have sent that letter to Briles back in August if any of this was even possibly true. So just think this through folks.

---

Absolutely correct.

---

Dear Art,
We bought you off and dipped you in grease after the pr war but no fear you didn't do anything personally wrong.
We hope Finebaum will hire you to baby sit his dog and good luck in the future.
Thanks again for selling us your reputation and not damaging our reputation.
Sincerely,
$750 an hour.

Whether there is EVIDENCE of a cover up of rape or not is clear. It's a criminal offense and Briles is not in handcuffs. Nor are any of his staff.

Now, should he have been fired for lack of institutional control and oversight? This will forever be debated.

But one thing is clear, anyone arguing that he should have been fired (Keyser, MV, and their ilk) and not applying the same standard of accountability across the entire university, clearly including the BOR per the Ph report, is just a hypocrite. Plain and simple. But that's been proven over the course of 1000 pages on BF. Nothing will change that. Shills are shills.

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

---

If pleadings are reliable, then so is what Cannon said in Briles' suit against the regents. Stop citing Shillinglaw as anything more than an opinion piece that happens to line up with your own.

---

I have stated clearly what they are. They have made many statements of events that occurred. Those statements are not opinions, they are either correct or incorrect facts. I have seen little to no material contradiction.

here is an exapmple

On September 13 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and "supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling." Coach Briles' first response was "What kind of discipline She a stripper?" When Shillinglaw said the player made the request at a salon and spa while getting a massage, Coach Briles wrote, "Not quite as bad."

That is not opinion. That is a statement of fact - now it may be right or wrong, but it is not an opinion.

Do you have anything to refute that example?

Mothra, I hope you have a long life expectancy, for like the just released JFK documents, the BOR will be releasing all the tell tell documents in 2067.

Until then, they will traumatize you by withholding the truth. They will hide the truth. They will let you speculate about the truth as you are now doing. They will only realease bits of truth that advantage them.

Many on here who are interested in the truth will not live another 50 years, and you will be buried not knowing the truth. As Scripture says, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Unfortunately we have a BOR that picks its scripture to guide them just like they pick the truth to release, so long as it beneficially helps them. They are not willing to set us free by giving us the truth. So sadly, you will be pushing up dirt not knowing the truth before the truth comes out.

So did the player rape her, did she say no, did he rape her, did she say yes, did he rape her.

What was Briles to do?

Call the cops?

Report to BOR?

Make player run laps?

Turn in to cops?

Was a crime committed?

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

---

If pleadings are reliable, then so is what Cannon said in Briles' suit against the regents. Stop citing Shillinglaw as anything more than an opinion piece that happens to line up with your own.

---

I have stated clearly what they are. They have made many statements of events that occurred. Those statements are not opinions, they are either correct or incorrect facts. I have seen little to no material contradiction.

here is an exapmple

On September 13 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and "supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling." Coach Briles' first response was "What kind of discipline She a stripper?" When Shillinglaw said the player made the request at a salon and spa while getting a massage, Coach Briles wrote, "Not quite as bad."

That is not opinion. That is a statement of fact - now it may be right or wrong, but it is not an opinion.

Do you have anything to refute that example?

---

What is your point with this story? That a girl from a spa wanted the staff to discipline the player and Briles thought it was a little bit better that the player was at a spa instead of at a strip club? I don't get the issue here. The player was being a moron. Did he ask for favors, or did he take liberties? Did the girl want a big deal made of it? No. Was she a student so that Title IX applied? No. Is this the best they have so that they felt it was one of the more damning incidents worthy of being put in the pleading? Weak. Weak. Weak.

What difference does any of this make? I mean really, at the end of the day we are left with a football program that will never contend for any conference or national championship. The sooner folks accept this, the better off Baylor will be. Savor each win as if it's our last...

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Dungeon Athletics said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

---

If pleadings are reliable, then so is what Cannon said in Briles' suit against the regents. Stop citing Shillinglaw as anything more than an opinion piece that happens to line up with your own.

---

I have stated clearly what they are. They have made many statements of events that occurred. Those statements are not opinions, they are either correct or incorrect facts. I have seen little to no material contradiction.

here is an exapmple

On September 13 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and "supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling." Coach Briles' first response was "What kind of discipline She a stripper?" When Shillinglaw said the player made the request at a salon and spa while getting a massage, Coach Briles wrote, "Not quite as bad."

That is not opinion. That is a statement of fact - now it may be right or wrong, but it is not an opinion.

Do you have anything to refute that example?

---

What is your point with this story? That a girl from a spa wanted the staff to discipline the player and Briles thought it was a little bit better that the player was at a spa instead of at a strip club? I don't get the issue here. The player was being a moron. Did he ask for favors, or did he take liberties? Did the girl want a big deal made of it? No. Was she a student so that Title IX applied? No. Is this the best they have so that they felt it was one of the more damning incidents worthy of being put in the pleading? Weak. Weak. Weak.

---

Exactly when you go to a massage therapist one is typically nude. He if lowered his towel on purpose so she could see his junk and that bothered her then that is stupid on his part. If he asked for a happy ending and she said no and that was the end of it, then call the police for indecent exposure if she felt it was that. (This is not a serious offense btw). Not sure why the therapist would call Baylor to deal with the issue of a player asking a woman for a sexual favor and when she said no that was the end of itthe player it appears practiced "no means no". Sounds like Briles from the email thought a legit salon sounded better than out at a place like Sonny's because that would sound like a prostitution situation.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Mothra said:

---

...I have never read anywhere of rape cover up, only failure to report allegations to Judicial Affairs.

---

The rest of your post is extraneous. The subject of the thread is based upon a specific allegation from one beerthief, that 5 specifically named coaches "covered up rape."

---

---

Have never seen anything to substantiate Beertheif

Moth has mentioned "no proof" in broad brush strokes on many occasions and took an opportunity.

---

I think you have me confused with another poster. I said on the other thread there that there is no evidence of rape coverups by members of Briles' staff. In response, BeerThief, who has since conveniently disappeared, said there was evidence, and cited a DMN article that said nothing of the sort, When I asked him to point out the evidence in the article, he then referred me to the "Pepper Hamilton report," and named 5 coaches who were involved. The thread was then locked.

---

I agree with you here

---

Everything I said is correct, not just the part you highlighted.

Do you have some evidence that the staff covered up rapes?

---

Cover up of rape, no.

---

Apparently no one else does either. I guess the poster known as beerthief doesn't know what he's talking about.

I have read that a "coach", which the description of sounds like one of the named coaches, was said in the book Violated (I have not read the book, but I have read that specific excerpt) to have talked to a gang rape victim's parents at the time it happened and nothing was done to the players.

If the parents were unwilling to go to the police, I am not sure it is those two "coaches"' legal responsibility to. But they did fail to report it to Baylor as required by Title IX. (The book says it is unknown if Briles was told at that time, but his previous statements on the incident claimed he did not know about it for another year. You can decide for yourself if you believe that.) I don't know if that is criminal but I doubt it, because I don't think the coach I read of did it purely to protect the team as much as he didn't believe a crime had been committed. My belief in the last sentence is not based on any information I have about the matter other than it would be my guess. Art Briles interview answer about this gang rape were along the lines of my belief.

There was a 2nd person discussed but I don't remember enough about the 2nd one to now even suggest who that person was.

I was told by someone on the room after the report and before the firings that:

"There is absolutely zero evidence of a purposeful cover-up at any level."

I was told I could pass that part of the convo on, so here it is. I got off that phone call certain Briles wouldn't be fired as you'd have to be a moron to fire a football coach in May without him committing some sort of crime. Well, I still stand by the "have to be a moron to fire a coach in May" part.

Keyser Soze said:

---

Boatshoes said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

Briles dropped his suit first but the regents made a reply in the Shillinglaw case. This response is essentially the detail behind the findings of fact. You can read it here

It tells us

Why they spoke to the WSJ
Text messages of Briles deliberately keep things away from Judicial Affairs
Knowledge of the need to report to JA.
Story of Oakman terrorizing a femal student
Academic improprieties regarding Tevin Elliott
Briles own admissions
Why Briles was not suited to clean up and go forward

Now I know what Shillinglaw is. If you want to be Mr Attorney, no question it is not proof at all. Now if you are a reasonable person and just want to know what happened, it is right there for you.

---

So there you have it, folks. BOR cheerleaders trotting out a legal filing by the people they are cheerleading for and presenting it a as proof why reasonable people shoud agree with them. Not an investigation, not a judgement, not even a third party report. Just because you take an opinion and write it up in legalese and present it to a court doesn't make it a fact.

That should go in the encyclopedia as an example of circular reasoning.

---

I clearly stated what it is

They have presented the detailed story - if it is wrong give us the details why ..... or you can just ***** and moan which is what I expect you to do

---

You are so full of s***. Tell us again, when did the incompetent board implement the changes specific to the regents that PH recommended.

mmodine said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Baylor would not have sent that letter to Briles back in August if any of this was even possibly true. So just think about this.

---

Spin this out. Baylor gives Briles that letter knowing he's going to use it to try and get a job. Hamilton Ti-Cats hire Briles. Let's say they don't wuss out later. Then Dunnam uncovers Briles with live boys and dead girls. Baylor looks worse than ever in the media, and gets sued by Hamilton (who Baylor knew would be relying on this letter).

So I agree with you. If they'd found dead bodies they don't write that carefully worded letter.

---

Robert,

I am glad you circled back for Milli. This will allow us to drill down and get the ball rolling. Remember, there is no "i" in team. We don't need to re-invent the wheel. We just need to go after the low hanging fruit. We can't keep moving the goalposts.

Mgt.

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

here is an exapmple

On September 13 2013, Shillinglaw sent a text to Coach Briles about a player who got a massage and "supposedly exposed himself and asked for favors. She [masseuse] has a lawyer but wants us to handle with discipline and counseling." Coach Briles' first response was "What kind of discipline She a stripper?" When Shillinglaw said the player made the request at a salon and spa while getting a massage, Coach Briles wrote, "Not quite as bad."

That is not opinion. That is a statement of fact - now it may be right or wrong, but it is not an opinion.

Do you have anything to refute that example?

---

This is the parade of horribles? Seriously?

It appears that the cost benefit analysis here may have been very poorly done.

I think "the letter" pretty much answers your question.

Did they intentionally, explicitly cover up crimes? No. Did he create/allow a system where he was "the last to know?" Yes, Briles himself admitted such, according to the rumors here. That's why the letter repeatedly uses the term, "directly." He didn't directly cover up anything or directly discourage victims from reporting incidents; but it seems he was probably guilty of running a loose ship and allowing his assistants to encourage problems to disappear. At least that's what I make of all this.

bmcc87 said:

---

I think "the letter" pretty much answers your question.

Did they intentionally, explicitly cover up crimes? No. Did he create/allow a system where he was "the last to know?" Yes, Briles himself admitted such, according to the rumors here. That's why the letter repeatedly uses the term, "directly." He didn't directly cover up anything or directly discourage victims from reporting incidents; but it seems he was probably guilty of running a loose ship and allowing his assistants to encourage problems to disappear. At least that's what I make of all this.

---

Ok. So after he cries and says he'll do whatever they want to fix it, we fire him for this. Consider the consequences (p5 vs g5, etc). Then we go on public jihad against our own program, tank it, and waive privilege on whatever salacious details exist.

Good decision making?