re: Skeptic or Not, Can we agree on the meeting?

Trying to muddy the water. Most of the coaches charged are Asst's, Wade's HC of a top SEC program. They strategically leaked the Wade blurb. They knew what would happen. As far as testifying, I dont how Wade could possibly help them, unless he knows something that the Feds dont.

quote:

---

Why is Wade going to testify in April? Please explain to me his his testimony is relevant as to whether the defendants bribed Louisville, TCU, Creighton, NC State and Kansas coaches? Just because a lawyer is threatening a subpoena doesn't mean the judge will allow the testimony. Nothing that Wade could add is relevant. Let me guess, you read that he was subpoenaed in the paper, but have no idea what that means.

---

Here is the deal. The FBI has charged Dawkins with fraud and bribery.

The FBI contends the Univesities are the agrieved parties. That is Dawkins defrauded them.

Dawkins’ lawyer is basically WTF my client did not defraud anyone. The coaches knew what was going on and were active participants. That’s what they are trying to show.



Dawkins’ attorney is expected to subpoena Wade as a witness in a trial set to begin April 22, apparently hoping Wade’s testimony could undermine the prosecution’s case by demonstrating university officials were in on the scheme. Prosecutors have portrayed colleges as the victims.

quote:

---

Let me guess, you read that he was subpoenaed in the paper,

---

Perhaps I'm missing your point. But did you not read that Wade was subpoenaed or under threat of subpoena in the paper? Do you have no idea what that means? From your post, unless I'm missing it, none of that seems readily evident. Regardless, what's worse is whoever calls the shots at LSU appears to be in the identical boat.

In the same vein, LSU's attorney recently made a public pronouncement. He audaciously claimed that an individual under federal subpoena or imminent threat of subpoena should feel free to talk with potentially unknown individuals on speakerphone about upcoming federal testimony. That claim was made at behest of someone at LSU. It is breathtakingly stupid. In the end, we have to assume the attorney was representing FKing's perspective in saying what he did.

Two weeks ago, worrisome news from a marginally credible source suddenly surfaced about WillWade. Wade's response should be something Alleva and FKing would want to hear. Wade's response would be something they would benefit from hearing. Wade's response would be something they should want to hear in advance of outside parties hearing it. Wade's response would enable them to form the basis of a plan of attack moving forward. That plan of attack could include anything from Wade's immediate dismissal and LSU's withdrawal from postseason competition to a full-out defense of the school and aggressive counter-narrative response to press reports.

Instead, FKing screwed the pooch. Rather than quickly meeting with Wade privately, someone decided to invite a veritable audience to the meeting. Someone even decided to include a third party conference call during the brief. Whoever proposed a conference call under those circumstances, much less one with the NCAA (and potentially the FBI) at the other end of the line, needs to be drawn-and-quartered. There was no need for it. There was no good purpose served by it. It scuttled any possibility of LSU gaining information. There is no excuse for that kind of abject stupidity. None!

Ultimately FKing (or possibly James Williams) was responsible for calling that shot. Others may have suggested it. But FKing did it. No way around it. Then he had LSU counsel attempt to justify it to the public.

The goal after the Yahoo! story broke should have been for Alleva and FKing to hear Wade's side of the thing, then to make an INFORMED decision about Wade, the BBTeam, and how to move forward with NCAAcompliance. Incorporation of a conference call with the NCAA assured FKing beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt he'd receive no additional clarifying information or explanation from Wade's camp. It assured FKing he'd not hear Wade's side. It assured FKing he'd be acting solely on basis of information from reporters with a very sketchy history of accuracy, and who were sourcing a shyster lawyer whose motives have nothing to do with accuracy or truth.

Unless the decision was already made to fire Wade, the tack chosen (or accepted) by FKing assured failure. Failure to attain facts. Failure to attain a fuller understanding. Failure to be able to make a well informed decision. Failure to control the PR narrative instead of responding to it. Failure was 100% assured! There could be no other outcome, and if the decision had been made to fire Wade, why suspend him? Even that fails.

There is an old saying, "Failure is not an option." For scenarios FKing involves himself in, it seems he creates no option but failure. The guy is a disaster. LSU has been sullied under his watch.