Vrabel and Russini

[ChesterCopperpot1]

7 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

None of those are active support. They're avoidance of a legally touchy subject. The exact opposite of commentary. 

 

You're a lawyer. You should be able to tell the difference.

They’re both public figures. You enjoy wide latitude of freedom of speech talking about public figures. This isn’t media not talking about it because they’re afraid of being sued; it’s media not going after one of their own. Russini and Vrabel wouldn’t have a chance in hell of proving actual malice if media were actually discussing this. 
 

Again, more times than not, the simplest answer is the right answer. 
 

you may not view silence as “actual support,” but I sure as hell do. It’s a “hey, I got you because im not going to talk about this and amplify it.”

[ChesterCopperpot1]

Sportscenter opened a show after the Coldplay couple incident by mocking them with the anchors each playing a part. That’s not even sports related but they worked it into a show as a joke.
 

yet sportscenter hasn’t said a word about this. 

[ctm]

31 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

They’re both public figures. You enjoy wide latitude of freedom of speech talking about public figures. This isn’t media not talking about it because they’re afraid of being sued; it’s media not going after one of their own. Russini and Vrabel wouldn’t have a chance in hell of proving actual malice if media were actually discussing this. 
 

Again, more times than not, the simplest answer is the right answer. 
 

you may not view silence as “actual support,” but I sure as hell do. It’s a “hey, I got you because im not going to talk about this and amplify it.”

 

aka public figure doctrine

[Jamalisms]

1 hour ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

They’re both public figures. You enjoy wide latitude of freedom of speech talking about public figures. This isn’t media not talking about it because they’re afraid of being sued; it’s media not going after one of their own. Russini and Vrabel wouldn’t have a chance in hell of proving actual malice if media were actually discussing this. 
 

Again, more times than not, the simplest answer is the right answer. 
 

you may not view silence as “actual support,” but I sure as hell do. It’s a “hey, I got you because im not going to talk about this and amplify it.”

 

Let me help you. 

 

Breer came out and said a specific thing she reported aligned with what he heard. Active support to tamp down on outrage about that reporting.

 

Someone said it was just a reporter lying on her behalf and I asked if that was common right now. 

 

None of your examples match that and it's not remotely common right now. 

 

You're welcome.

[headhunter]

I've never seen anybody this clueless in my life. 

[OILERMAN]

Even if it’s true that AJ Brown is unhappy with the Eagles if Russini is constantly reporting it, it does damage to the Eagles in terms of leverage. 
 

Also I saw one of the Eagle beat writers saying AJ and Vrabel talk often. 
 

Since Russini is romantically involved with the head coach of the team that benefits from the Eagles trading AJ Brown whether or not it’s actually true doesn’t change the fact it’s still inappropriate and likely  tampering  

[OILERMAN]

3 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Let me help you. 

 

 

Yes please help us!!!!

[Jamalisms]

If you were actually interested, I'd be happy to. 

 

But helping the lawyer learn the meaning of things is offered for free.

[ChesterCopperpot1]

4 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Let me help you. 

 

Breer came out and said a specific thing she reported aligned with what he heard. Active support to tamp down on outrage about that reporting.

 

Someone said it was just a reporter lying on her behalf and I asked if that was common right now. 

 

None of your examples match that and it's not remotely common right now. 

 

You're welcome.

You were wrong at the beginning of this thread and your le wrong now. 
 

classic jamal. 
 

this is clearly media not wanting to go after one of their own.

[Jamalisms]

8 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

this is clearly media not wanting to go after one of their own.

 

That's funny but I'll let it go. Fascinating you're a lawyer.

 

Are there other examples, beyond Breer, of them actively defending her retiring? You seeing that a lot right now?

 

You can just say no. It's only two letters and simple to admit if you're not afraid of having been wrong on the internet.

[headhunter]

Jamal should be halfway to China with the hole he's dug himself in 

[ChesterCopperpot1]

26 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

That's funny but I'll let it go. Fascinating you're a lawyer.

 

Are there other examples, beyond Breer, of them actively defending her retiring? You seeing that a lot right now?

 

You can just say no. It's only two letters and simple to admit if you're not afraid of having been wrong on the internet.

Refusing to talk about it or address it (I.e. silence) is a form of support for her. The fact that you done see that astonishes me. 
 

all these media members with huge platforms and they just ignore it. It’s not for fear of getting sued. The only logical reason for not touching on the subject is they don’t want to drag their friend through the mud. But giving preferential treatment to media bc you’re friends with them is wrong. 
 

and miss me with the Breer shit. He’s a NE guy and a Vrabel Stan. He probably had the same source as Russini (Vrabel). 
 

you’re clearly being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That’s fine but anyone with half a brain can see what you’re doing. You did it early on when you refused to accept the most logical conclusion as fact, and you’re doing it now with this. 

Edited Saturday at 06:16 PM by ChesterCopperpot1

[rns90]

4 hours ago, headhunter said:

I've never seen anybody this clueless in my life. 

Classic Jamal.  Wrong on an issue but instead of admitting it , doubles down on it .

[IsntLifeFunny]

[titanruss]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/apr/15/dianna-russini-nfl-resignation-mike-vrabel

 

Here's another "whatabout the men" article. Written to move the story away from her. The tone of the article is very much that "men are the problem here" and not the reporter that has been accused by mostly women -  multiple times - of sucking cock for stories. Meanwhile, there was also like 3-4 women reporters that came out in direct support of Russini just a day or two ago.  So yeah, plenty of non-insider reporters are openly backing her. 

 

I don't know how many times it has to be said to you @Jamalisms, there's very little she could sue over. No one with any clout has called her a whore or directly said it was a sex for stories swap - because there's no direct evidence of that kind of specific hush hush agreement happening. 

 

There has been radio silence from 98% of the insiders... clearly they don't want to fuck up a good thing or are protecting her.  She's not suing them without exposing herself to more damning evidence in discovery. Evidence she'll want to hide from future jobs, the public eye, and her husband - so she can keep a much larger portion of her estate in her inevitable divorce. ALSO evidence that could destroy the industry of insiders that spread lies for first dibs at truth. 

 

They are likely 10000x more scared of losing their "ins" than they are of being sued. 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 06:34 PM by titanruss