Jump to content

Keef

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

Everything posted by Keef

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Gordon Sondland doing his best to create a CYA paper trail.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. Or his lawyer helped him write it, which is the most obvious conclusion. It’s written like a legal memo.
  8. Where are you seeing the Russian language readout stuff?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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/
  12. Agree 100%. But it’s obvious that the report isn’t being released because of the White House.
  13. 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).
  14. Demas’s twitter is way over the top aggy in a Tate Martell kind of way. So aggy it’s weird.
  15. 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.
  16. Maybe Surly litigators can set me straight, but how could AC privilege be claimed with regards to communications made to (or in the presence of) third parties (e.g., the Ukrainians)? Doesn’t that destroy privilege? Not to mention the crime/fraud concerns?
  17. Democrats are playing not to lose in 2020 and it’s infuriating. Run, run, run, punt isn’t an effective strategy against rampant corruption and an opponent willing to do whatever it takes.
  18. Dude does seem to have some legit offers (assuming all reported offers are real) and both Herman and Fisher made him a priority. How did he do at the opening?
  19. None of this will matter. Trump got away with telling Lester Holt on live television he fired Comey because of the Russia thing. This will get bogged down in fights over executive privilege, Trump is really fighting the corruption of the “Biden Family” and is actually a hero, Trump can say what he wants to foreign leaders, etc. Best case scenario is he loses in 2020, some of the political fever passes, and he answers to charges then. Zero chance this resolved before the election.
  20. Fine. The only thing he’s done so far was trick us into thinking he was a sophomore.
  21. I'm down to play one tough non-conference game a year. The rest should be tune-ups. Our schedule is filled with some real heavyweights in the next several years. There's general goodwill between the Texas and Rice programs, lots of alumni/family overlap, tons of UT alums in Houston, and we always beat them. Holgerson will make UH more dangerous and there's reason to give them that pedestal. Screw UH, happy to continue playing Rice.
  22. Real rough stretch in the schedule there
  23. Will Blazer’s football takes makes my ears bleed.
×
×
  • Create New...