The Wall Street Journal Vince McMahon Thread.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

3 minutes ago, Log said:

Yeah, but (I think you’ll agree with me on this) it’s not a big reach to assume that other people did know about it even if we don’t know who specifically. 

I'm not meaning to step on Gregg's toes or speak for him here at all, but I would say the idea is less whether anyone knew or didn't, but more the idea that speculating on who they are would be fruitless at best, and harmful at worst. If I have that wrong @Greggulatorl please correct me immediately

Edited January 28 by Zakk_Sabbath

[piranesi]

26 minutes ago, Greggulator said:

Look — We all know it’s a gross company. But keep in mind that what came out is a complaint. There is a lot of really damning stuff in there about Vince and Laurinaitis. But assuming you know the identity of anyone else who may have known is a really big reach. 

The problem I see with this, at least for me is that I knew. I 100% knew, not names or dates. But deep down, I knew Vince was pimping women out probably against their will to talent, to promoters, to advertisers, whatever. I wouldn't doubt it was going on since Rock N Wrestling era at least. I knew. And did I know it also involved sadistic and humilating and torturous acts. Yeah. I probably knew. No one asked but if I was asked I would have to say "Yeah, I knew."

Maybe I have a darker mind than most. SHit I knew about Moolah for decades but I was like "Well that was the 1930s. You could buy women at the corner store then!"

I knew about Snuka's girllfriend. It's not like dozens of people haven't been chased out of that company by horrific abuse and then attacked by the company for leaving. It's not like the product itself didn't go past "a sketch" to real world humiliation of real people and train us all to chant along "Show your tits!" They knew. I knew. Ther Torch guys knew. The Observer guys knew.

Seeing the details of one case spelled out clincally made it hit so hard that all of that shakes out of the tree and now you see everything (or I see everythign I had been letting slide. Because it was an addictive product and I'm  not a great person. But now that it's all there in one big pile, I just hate it all. I hate it for what it convinced me to ignore or to say "hey, they knew what they were getting into. They want to be famous, this is the only way."

 

 

Edited January 28 by piranesi

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

24 minutes ago, Log said:

Yeah, but (I think you’ll agree with me on this) it’s not a big reach to assume that other people did know about it even if we don’t know who specifically. 

Did other people know? Sure. Absolutely.

Are people probably projecting who they think it is for whatever reason (personal dislike of that person, a desire to completely clean the company top to bottom, an assumption based on available information, et cetera, et cetera)? Yes. And that's sort of the problem. People are trying to connect dots and letting their own personal biases get in the way rather than wait for facts and judging based on them.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

Well said @Stefanie Sparkleface. I want to quickly add for clarity's sake: when I referred to the "Wait for the facts" crowd as insane in an earlier post today, I meant the folks burying their heads in the sand, saying it to mean "Wait for the facts on Vince" which is a position I absolutely cannot fathom. In the context you're using it here, I hard agree.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

41 minutes ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

Well said @Stefanie Sparkleface. I want to quickly add for clarity's sake: when I referred to the "Wait for the facts" crowd as insane in an earlier post today, I meant the folks burying their heads in the sand, saying it to mean "Wait for the facts on Vince" which is a position I absolutely cannot fathom. In the context you're using it here, I hard agree.

Yeah, loose accusations based on assumptions sit weird with me, especially considering my own past with abusers and how well they can cover their tracks if they want to. It's foolhardy to assume someone knew based on proximity to the abuser, or the abuser's boldness.

[Zakk_Sabbath]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:37 PM, Greggulator said:

“actual” lead attorney is a corporate attorney from Connecticut — he does things like “I represent this big company against this big company.” I am guessing they needed the Connecticut attorney since he’s in the Connecticut bar. It also helps if you have a Connecticut attorney who probably knows (or knows people who know) the judge and the lay of the land.  Callis is based in St. Louis. I forget how it works in terms of how you can represent people if you’re not in that state’s bar exam. But such an interesting mix.

Usually, you will see an attorney who specialize in workplace discrimination law handle a case like this. You don’t see corporate attorneys or class action firms take on cases like this. I am so curious as to how this woman picked them. 

Circling back around to this: having the Connecticut attorney is probably more to do with the fact they are more familiar with state procedure and filing deadlines (and importantly, as you mentioned, the judges). Missouri is one of the states reciprocal with the Connecticut bar (as long as the attorney has been actively practicing for two years, IIRC) so legally, there would've been nothing stopping the St. Louis lawyer from becoming admitted in Connecticut specifically to represent the victim in this case (to my knowledge) other than that the state's review might be a time-consuming process

Edited January 28 by Zakk_Sabbath

[Ace]

Levesque is absolutely shitting the bed on questions about this in the scrum. "I just want to focus on the positive things right now."

 

[Curt McGirt]

I forgot about that shit. Somebody post a transcript.

[Cobra Commander]

HHH would have gotten cooked no matter what he said out there, so

[EVA]

No great surprise that HHH is not covering himself in glory here. Should’ve cribbed from Press Conference Master Tony Khan and just said it’s an ongoing legal matter and he can’t comment. His tact tonight was pathetic.

[jaedmc]

I expected Hunter to be vague, but I was surprised at how much lamer he handled it.  Like he could've said "it's fluid we're still sorting things out, so I can't comment on specifics now." Instead he was like "guys this week was amazing."

[Casey]

2 minutes ago, Cobra Commander said:

HHH would have gotten cooked no matter what he said out there, so

“It’s an ongoing investigation and I can’t comment.”

That’s 100% better than “I want to focus on the positives. I didn’t read the lawsuit.”

Cody’s non-answer was better than the COO’s response.

[Greggulator]

5 hours ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

I'm not meaning to step on Gregg's toes or speak for him here at all, but I would say the idea is less whether anyone knew or didn't, but more the idea that speculating on who they are would be fruitless at best, and harmful at worst. If I have that wrong @Greggulatorl please correct me immediately

Exactly right. Did other people know? Yeah, probably. Do we know who? Do we know what they knew? Absolutely not. Trying to say (enter whatever name here) isn't going to lead to anywhere good. 

[John from Cincinnati]

Hunter took Tony’s second worst standard non-answer and put it where Tony normally puts his worst standard non-answer. And it came out worse! Bold.

[Cobra Commander]

Just now, Casey said:

“It’s an ongoing investigation and I can’t comment.”

That’s 100% better than “I want to focus on the positives. I didn’t read the lawsuit.”

Cody’s non-answer was better than the COO’s response.

The same people cooking HHH for what he said would have cooked him for No Commenting. There is no 100% better here because you can't multiply by 0 when every answer is a 0.

Most of the people asking questions in that room are doofs who wish wrestling magazines still existed. No news ever gets broken during wrestling PPV press conferences anyways.

The people who want to basically fire the entire WWE front office were not going to be satisifed and it sounds like HHH just sorta went with the Mark McGwire approach knowing that if he has to deal with anything, it's gonna be with suits behind doors.

[John from Cincinnati]

2 minutes ago, Cobra Commander said:

The same people cooking HHH for what he said would have cooked him for No Commenting.

Good thing there are more than those two options! 

[Cobra Commander]

at least we know there are some lines of distinction between Vince and HHH because Vince would have done an Over The Edge 99 press conference if he was in that spot.

HHH was probably telling himself that he made it through his heart literally failing, so say what he said and then move on because no legit media is covering WWE post-PPV press conferences anyways. The questioners aren't his problem right now, he has bigger potential problems.

[Casey]

I’m willing to bet a major media outlet will report on the COO of WWE basically dismissing the Vince stuff and wanting to focus on the positives of the weekend.

[Curt McGirt]

"I didn’t read the lawsuit" though. I. DIDN'T. READ. THE. LAWSUIT. 

Motherfucker, everybody interested in pro wrestling read that lawsuit or a breakdown of it. People NOT interested in wrestling whatsoever did, even if it was for their jobs. In this instance you are asking to get dragged. 

[EVA]

“I haven’t read the lawsuit” was a wild thing to say. Really wish somebody would’ve followed up on that.

[jaedmc]

I actually believe he didn't read it. And that's really the problem, isn't it?

[Cobra Commander]

Just now, Casey said:

I’m willing to bet a major media outlet will report on the COO of WWE basically dismissing the Vince stuff and wanting to focus on the positives of the weekend.

It would require (a) they pay attention to these things and (b) they work on a Saturday Night/Sunday. If the unofficial goal was "don't say anything that can directly get you fired".. he probably achieved that. Which was hardly a guaranteed outcome since this is HHH, of the "me and my friend named Mark" nature at one time.

If he would have played it like a Dana White, that would have been a worse idea than what he did.

[piranesi]

The correct answer to the question was “I’m announcing my retirement from this business and dedicating my very comfortably wea;thy remaining years to trying to atone for what I was a part of for the last 3 decades.”

[piranesi]

Im just saying it might help out a lot with his fragile heart if he relieved it of the weight of guilt of continuing to stay in the business. 
I just want what’s best for him.  And that would 100% be best for him. 

Edited January 28 by piranesi

[Cobra Commander]

3 minutes ago, piranesi said:

The correct answer to the question was “I’m announcing my retirement from this business and dedicating my very comfortably wea;thy remaining years to trying to atone for what I was a part of for the last 3 decades.”

Followed by a debate on if HHH should have done a Budd Dwyer or merely a ritual disembowelment.

HHH's spot for like a year post-Vince coup has basically been trying to protect his fiefdoms in the company because of what happened during his absence. That's probably not gonna be a solid long term spot once the Endeavor suits start looking for their guy because the vultures are gonna notice that the WWE doesn't just always make them money and they'll start cutting "fat" (which will coincidentally be the same things that got chopped when HHH was out).