Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
Just to be clear, I said "individuals", not eiither the institutions of the FBI or the Federal Attorney/Justice Departments.Chicat wrote:What are the motivations of the FBI and prosecutors?pc in NM wrote:A lot of people, and a variety of possible motivations....
There's no way on God's green earth Sean Miller is getting fired. Not for this. 0%.Beachcat97 wrote:So how are looking tonight? 60/40 he gets fired? 70/30?
Ok, hit me with what the motivations of individuals in those agencies might be. They have thousands of hours of wiretapped conversations. Why leak this particular one at this time?pc in NM wrote:Just to be clear, I said "individuals", not eiither the institutions of the FBI or the Federal Attorney/Justice Departments.Chicat wrote:What are the motivations of the FBI and prosecutors?pc in NM wrote:A lot of people, and a variety of possible motivations....
That's entirely possible but as a plan its likelihood is uncertain. And besides, it still doesn't give us a date to work with.U.P. Zona Fan wrote:They could have been tapping him, got nothing, and stopped, advised him, while at the same time tapping Dawkins, getting material, and now Dawkins is talking to Miller who knows he's already been tapped so the FBI uses Miller in the sting because they need more from Dawkins to build the case. No?
So you’ve got nothing. My guess is actually much better than yours.pc in NM wrote:And I said "possible" - your guess is as good as mine - there's been extensive reporting for decades on the variety of motivations of leakers.
This works for me.Alieberman wrote:My Miller Timeline:
Miller is ready to end his tenure at the UofA
The ESPN shitstorm breaks
The UofA stands firm in Miller's corner
The ESPN story proves to be complete Bullshit
Miller feels immense gratitude to the UofA and decides to stay, rebuilds his program and wins multiple National Championships
Hey '97.... zero chance?
I love itAlieberman wrote:My Miller Timeline:
Miller is ready to end his tenure at the UofA
The ESPN shitstorm breaks
The UofA stands firm in Miller's corner
The ESPN story proves to be complete Bullshit
Miller feels immense gratitude to the UofA and decides to stay, rebuilds his program and wins multiple National Championships
Hey '97.... zero chance?
100% no mother fucking doubt about itNYCat wrote:Miller is a witch
I was merely responding to the claim by Sheer about the ESPN reporter's "admissions".Chicat wrote:Just saw your edit PC...
So you’ve got nothing. My guess is actually much better than yours.pc in NM wrote:And I said "possible" - your guess is as good as mine - there's been extensive reporting for decades on the variety of motivations of leakers.
I want to continue to believe that is honest and accurateAs the head basketball coach at the University of Arizona, I recognize my responsibility is not only to establish a culture of success on the basketball court and in the classroom, but as important, to promote and reinforce a culture of compliance. To the best of my ability, I have worked to demonstrate this over the past 8 years and will continue to do so as we move forward.”
what a fuckin whirlwind of shit - Sean Miller should have all our support if this report was bogus, like it looks to be.Alieberman wrote:My Miller Timeline:
Miller is ready to end his tenure at the UofA
The ESPN shitstorm breaks
The UofA stands firm in Miller's corner
The ESPN story proves to be complete Bullshit
Miller feels immense gratitude to the UofA and decides to stay, rebuilds his program and wins multiple National Championships
Hey '97.... zero chance?
97cats wrote:what a fuckin whirlwind of shit - Sean Miller should have all our support if this report was bogus, like it looks to be.Alieberman wrote:My Miller Timeline:
Miller is ready to end his tenure at the UofA
The ESPN shitstorm breaks
The UofA stands firm in Miller's corner
The ESPN story proves to be complete Bullshit
Miller feels immense gratitude to the UofA and decides to stay, rebuilds his program and wins multiple National Championships
Hey '97.... zero chance?
let’s get that first one this year!
Olsondogg wrote:I haven’t tweeted or posted this much ever. I don’t think I can sleep tonight.
97cats wrote:what a fuckin whirlwind of shit - Sean Miller should have all our support if this report was bogus, like it looks to be.Alieberman wrote:My Miller Timeline:
Miller is ready to end his tenure at the UofA
The ESPN shitstorm breaks
The UofA stands firm in Miller's corner
The ESPN story proves to be complete Bullshit
Miller feels immense gratitude to the UofA and decides to stay, rebuilds his program and wins multiple National Championships
Hey '97.... zero chance?
let’s get that first one this year!
Alieberman wrote:Olsondogg wrote:I haven’t tweeted or posted this much ever. I don’t think I can sleep tonight.
You, JM, Scheer, and SalimsHeadband lit a fire under me tonight.
I'm ready to fight someone!!!!!!
By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
{paging killervibe, paging killervibe, your services are needed at Alieberman’s}Alieberman wrote:Olsondogg wrote:I haven’t tweeted or posted this much ever. I don’t think I can sleep tonight.
You, JM, Scheer, and SalimsHeadband lit a fire under me tonight.
I'm ready to fight someone!!!!!!
Tell them to BTFD or turn in their fan card.CalStateTempe wrote:From those in the know, did something change or is it just a general feeling of optimism heading into the week?
How do we change joe blow uninformed Arizona fan who has likely been duped hook line and sinker.
No one in Tucson should be giving miller shit. I hope he gets a rousing ovation on Thursday.
Ride or die...
So Book knew he was in deep shit 10 days before he was in deep shit?CatFanOneMil wrote:By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
If he is NOT being investigated then he does not know what the tapes are since they are sealed, but Miller would know what he said and would know if he incriminated himself.
NO ONE but the defendants and the FBI know what is on those tapes...if you are not being charged you have no way of knowing what was recorded only that YOU were recorded, this is federal law regarding ALL wiretaps...they must be sealed and all parties informed.
The timeline submitted by Dawkins is broken we know that much so whatever has been leaked from his team is inaccurate...
My point is that the day they broke the story Miller was probably informed that he has been recorded on a wiretap...that is the most logical reason the FBI went to his house the morning the story broke...
Miller as far as we can tell did not lawyer up that day...meaning in my opinion he knows he did nothing wrong.
IF (big if at this point) he talked to Dawkins at all about paying for Ayton, that alone is not conspiracy there needs to be a "next step" ie: getting bank info or giving bank info...just talking about doing something is not enough for conspiracy there must be a second active step showing you will act on it.
That second step never took place or Miller would have been indicted already, as it stands he has said and the University has repeated that he is NOT under investigation.
He would have known ALL of this the day the FBI broke the story (or if he was being charged at least 10 days before)
We know wiretaps exist because of the Book Richardson indictment. We know Miller has been spoken to by the FBI as a part of that investigation.pc in NM wrote:The motivations of those who were the sources fro that story are, for all practical purposes, irrelevant now.
Do wiretaps exist?
Did miller engage in those discussions?
Thank you. So Miller had to have been notified 10 days prior to release if he was subject to/of a tap but he would have had no notion when the tap had begun? And his only account of the wiretap data is his own recollection of his own utterance within an undefined time period to a specified counterparty? Have I got that right?CatFanOneMil wrote:By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
If he is NOT being investigated then he does not know what the tapes are since they are sealed, but Miller would know what he said and would know if he incriminated himself.
NO ONE but the defendants and the FBI know what is on those tapes...if you are not being charged you have no way of knowing what was recorded only that YOU were recorded, this is federal law regarding ALL wiretaps...they must be sealed and all parties informed.
The timeline submitted by Dawkins is broken we know that much so whatever has been leaked from his team is inaccurate...
My point is that the day they broke the story Miller was probably informed that he has been recorded on a wiretap...that is the most logical reason the FBI went to his house the morning the story broke...
Miller as far as we can tell did not lawyer up that day...meaning in my opinion he knows he did nothing wrong.
IF (big if at this point) he talked to Dawkins at all about paying for Ayton, that alone is not conspiracy there needs to be a "next step" ie: getting bank info or giving bank info...just talking about doing something is not enough for conspiracy there must be a second active step showing you will act on it.
That second step never took place or Miller would have been indicted already, as it stands he has said and the University has repeated that he is NOT under investigation.
He would have known ALL of this the day the FBI broke the story (or if he was being charged at least 10 days before)
I remember when I first read his post I thought it was real.UAEebs86 wrote:Waiting for Jerryd's Kids to show up.
I know Sean Miller;
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cos some fans believe anything they hear.
Olsondogg wrote:I will say 2 things I believe to be true.
1. We paid for recruits
2. There is no way Miller was saying what is alleged on wiretap. He isn’t that stupid.
It's the second part that I want to focus on. You would have to believe that Miller became stupid enough to do that, and somehow that didn't get reported back in September...Olsondogg wrote:So then, if Miller is on the tapes saying what is alleged he’s not only the dumbest coach in the world, he’s also even more stupid to fight it.
Don't forget your free ZO sign.Dosia wrote:Got my tickets for Thursday and I am ready to lose my voice.
Quite honestly, the only reason why he wouldn't fight it BACK THEN is if was playing a part on the other side. So Miller possibly said those things, but in a trap to get Dawkins. If true, would Miller make an enemy in Dawkins? And would sweet revenge be to leak that part of the phone call to ESPN in an attempt to ruin his career? Crazy to think this is a possibility, but that's how I see this unfolding.Olsondogg wrote:Just because I am a simple man who likes to simplify things...in order to believe the report about Miller from Friday, you have to consider the following that I posted earlier:
Olsondogg wrote:I will say 2 things I believe to be true.
1. We paid for recruits
2. There is no way Miller was saying what is alleged on wiretap. He isn’t that stupid.It's the second part that I want to focus on. You would have to believe that Miller became stupid enough to do that, and somehow that didn't get reported back in September...Olsondogg wrote:So then, if Miller is on the tapes saying what is alleged he’s not only the dumbest coach in the world, he’s also even more stupid to fight it.
Hopefully I wont need it.azgreg wrote:Don't forget your free ZO sign.Dosia wrote:Got my tickets for Thursday and I am ready to lose my voice.
Ok, I'll try to clear it up:dovecanyoncat wrote:Thank you. So Miller had to have been notified 10 days prior to release if he was subject to/of a tap but he would have had no notion when the tap had begun? And his only account of the wiretap data is his own recollection of his own utterance within an undefined time period to a specified counterparty? Have I got that right?CatFanOneMil wrote:By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
If he is NOT being investigated then he does not know what the tapes are since they are sealed, but Miller would know what he said and would know if he incriminated himself.
NO ONE but the defendants and the FBI know what is on those tapes...if you are not being charged you have no way of knowing what was recorded only that YOU were recorded, this is federal law regarding ALL wiretaps...they must be sealed and all parties informed.
The timeline submitted by Dawkins is broken we know that much so whatever has been leaked from his team is inaccurate...
My point is that the day they broke the story Miller was probably informed that he has been recorded on a wiretap...that is the most logical reason the FBI went to his house the morning the story broke...
Miller as far as we can tell did not lawyer up that day...meaning in my opinion he knows he did nothing wrong.
IF (big if at this point) he talked to Dawkins at all about paying for Ayton, that alone is not conspiracy there needs to be a "next step" ie: getting bank info or giving bank info...just talking about doing something is not enough for conspiracy there must be a second active step showing you will act on it.
That second step never took place or Miller would have been indicted already, as it stands he has said and the University has repeated that he is NOT under investigation.
He would have known ALL of this the day the FBI broke the story (or if he was being charged at least 10 days before)
But, if he isn't the object of investigation he has even less context to rely on in proclaiming his innocence/lack of culpability to the U of A?
I don't mean to be a dick, it's just that so much shit is illdefined right now and you have very a concise understanding of the legal levers at work.
Great summation. So it's widely known that Dawkins doesnt have the cache to handle a recruit like Ayton. Why do you think Miller was talking to him (plus Adidas, I think)? Also, is it possible Miller was granted immunity to catch bigger fish? And if so, does that line up with the actions that have transpired to date?CatFanOneMil wrote:Ok, I'll try to clear it up:dovecanyoncat wrote:Thank you. So Miller had to have been notified 10 days prior to release if he was subject to/of a tap but he would have had no notion when the tap had begun? And his only account of the wiretap data is his own recollection of his own utterance within an undefined time period to a specified counterparty? Have I got that right?CatFanOneMil wrote:By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
If he is NOT being investigated then he does not know what the tapes are since they are sealed, but Miller would know what he said and would know if he incriminated himself.
NO ONE but the defendants and the FBI know what is on those tapes...if you are not being charged you have no way of knowing what was recorded only that YOU were recorded, this is federal law regarding ALL wiretaps...they must be sealed and all parties informed.
The timeline submitted by Dawkins is broken we know that much so whatever has been leaked from his team is inaccurate...
My point is that the day they broke the story Miller was probably informed that he has been recorded on a wiretap...that is the most logical reason the FBI went to his house the morning the story broke...
Miller as far as we can tell did not lawyer up that day...meaning in my opinion he knows he did nothing wrong.
IF (big if at this point) he talked to Dawkins at all about paying for Ayton, that alone is not conspiracy there needs to be a "next step" ie: getting bank info or giving bank info...just talking about doing something is not enough for conspiracy there must be a second active step showing you will act on it.
That second step never took place or Miller would have been indicted already, as it stands he has said and the University has repeated that he is NOT under investigation.
He would have known ALL of this the day the FBI broke the story (or if he was being charged at least 10 days before)
But, if he isn't the object of investigation he has even less context to rely on in proclaiming his innocence/lack of culpability to the U of A?
I don't mean to be a dick, it's just that so much shit is illdefined right now and you have very a concise understanding of the legal levers at work.
Federal Wiretap Act makes recording of other parties illegal without consent, big trouble if you record or even repeat recorded info that was illegally collected...
The exclusions to these rules come in the form of Law Enforcement using wiretaps...by law BEFORE they can get permission to record someones phone they must FIRST exhaust all other known avenues of evidence collection and provide PROOF that they are out of options AND that they have evidence that crimes are being committed AND the evidence they collect will prove it...
IF a judge agrees to grant a wiretap they have a set amount of time to use it (state DA only get 10 days, Feds might get more but must provide proof it will require more)...at the end of that time they must either immediately remove the wiretap or renew it before a judge providing proof that they need more time and it is working.
They must provide the names of the individuals/businesses/locations and duration of the wiretaps.
Once the taps are removed (depending on the nature of the crime) they have 30 days to inform all parties involved that they were recorded on a Federal Wiretap (or state depending on the agency)...some cases it can be as long as 90 days...but I think the current law says 30.
Next the evidence is collected and sealed according to the rules of the Wiretap Act, in this case the acting federal judge would seal the evidence (think about it, this prevents rogue agents from manipulating recordings etc)...
Once the Prosecutors decide to submit evidence and press charges they must inform ALL parties being charged 10 days PRIOR to those charges being submitted, this is to inform defendants that they have been recorded and the evidence of those recordings is incriminating, at this point the defendants do not have access to the evidence just the fact that they are on a recorded call and their phone was tapped...at this point the tap is generally already removed.
Here's the point regarding Miller and a wiretap:
He has by law been informed if he talked to Dawkins on a wiretapped line and was recorded.
If he is being charged based on that wiretap he will by law will know this 10 days before the charges are actually filed.
He will not know the content of the wiretaps UNLESS he is charged and then the Feds by law have to hand over the sealed recordings.
Any sealed recording are against the law to disclose to anyone not being charged, or not prosecuting.
The very latest Miller would have known if he was included on the wiretap (and not being charged) would have been 30 days after the FBI arrested Book and Dawkins, that is the day the evidence was entered into court, the clock starts then...my best guess is he was told the day of, it's not like they just visited him for coffee and to talk about Pac 12 hoops.
As far as how long the wiretap existed and how many conversations he was involved with, only Miller would know that if he is not being charged, it is a long pile of evidence that was submitted to the court...it is sealed, even from him...up until he is charged.
So far he has not been charged, so he has no idea how long or whats in the recordings, other than his own memory...
The fact that he has not been charged with conspiracy tells me he might have possibly talked to Dawkins but nothing ever came of it...and unless he is charged nothing ever will because that evidence is sealed and not even the NCAA (a private organisation) will get to hear those tapes.
Of course someone involved with the case might make a motion to unseal the tapes, but that is highly unlikely to happen, wiretaps are immensely hard to get, even harder to keep and often involve secret handshake shit the FBI does not want out in the wild...the Prosecutors will never agree to unsealing those records.
Thank you CatFan. That was a ton of concise info and I appreciate the effort it took to compile.CatFanOneMil wrote:Ok, I'll try to clear it up:dovecanyoncat wrote:Thank you. So Miller had to have been notified 10 days prior to release if he was subject to/of a tap but he would have had no notion when the tap had begun? And his only account of the wiretap data is his own recollection of his own utterance within an undefined time period to a specified counterparty? Have I got that right?CatFanOneMil wrote:By law if his conversation is being submitted as evidence AND he is being investigated he must be informed 10 days prior to the submitting of said evidence...kinda the "no surprise" rule for defendants...dovecanyoncat wrote:Sorry if I'm a bonehead and missing something, so walk me through this. Don't we need to know the date the wiretap was removed, to which we add 30 days, in order to know the earliest possible date when Miller would have known he was being tapped? How does that square up with the timeline?CatFanOneMil wrote:I've said it before, my daughter a DA writes wiretaps, they must be renewed every 10 days before a judge because believe it or not the USA legal system still has laws in place to protect our privacy...
Everytime they come before a judge evidence must be presented to convince a judge to invade another persons privacy and continue the tap...in other words there must be a continuous flow of evidence or a judge does not renew it.
Once the wiretap is removed the prosecutors (including the FBI) have at MAXIMUM 30 days to inform ALL people who were on the wiretap, failure to inform vacates the evidence.
Sean Miller has known he was on a wiretap, if indeed he was since the day the FBI went public with the case...at that point they are submitting evidence to bring a case and the wiretap has been removed.
For Miller to suggest he will be vindicated when he LEGALLY has known if he was on a wiretap means he either has the biggest baddest balls in America or he knows he did nothing incriminating.
Pick one or both I don't care.
If he is NOT being investigated then he does not know what the tapes are since they are sealed, but Miller would know what he said and would know if he incriminated himself.
NO ONE but the defendants and the FBI know what is on those tapes...if you are not being charged you have no way of knowing what was recorded only that YOU were recorded, this is federal law regarding ALL wiretaps...they must be sealed and all parties informed.
The timeline submitted by Dawkins is broken we know that much so whatever has been leaked from his team is inaccurate...
My point is that the day they broke the story Miller was probably informed that he has been recorded on a wiretap...that is the most logical reason the FBI went to his house the morning the story broke...
Miller as far as we can tell did not lawyer up that day...meaning in my opinion he knows he did nothing wrong.
IF (big if at this point) he talked to Dawkins at all about paying for Ayton, that alone is not conspiracy there needs to be a "next step" ie: getting bank info or giving bank info...just talking about doing something is not enough for conspiracy there must be a second active step showing you will act on it.
That second step never took place or Miller would have been indicted already, as it stands he has said and the University has repeated that he is NOT under investigation.
He would have known ALL of this the day the FBI broke the story (or if he was being charged at least 10 days before)
But, if he isn't the object of investigation he has even less context to rely on in proclaiming his innocence/lack of culpability to the U of A?
I don't mean to be a dick, it's just that so much shit is illdefined right now and you have very a concise understanding of the legal levers at work.
Federal Wiretap Act makes recording of other parties illegal without consent, big trouble if you record or even repeat recorded info that was illegally collected...
The exclusions to these rules come in the form of Law Enforcement using wiretaps...by law BEFORE they can get permission to record someones phone they must FIRST exhaust all other known avenues of evidence collection and provide PROOF that they are out of options AND that they have evidence that crimes are being committed AND the evidence they collect will prove it...
IF a judge agrees to grant a wiretap they have a set amount of time to use it (state DA only get 10 days, Feds might get more but must provide proof it will require more)...at the end of that time they must either immediately remove the wiretap or renew it before a judge providing proof that they need more time and it is working.
They must provide the names of the individuals/businesses/locations and duration of the wiretaps.
Once the taps are removed (depending on the nature of the crime) they have 30 days to inform all parties involved that they were recorded on a Federal Wiretap (or state depending on the agency)...some cases it can be as long as 90 days...but I think the current law says 30.
Next the evidence is collected and sealed according to the rules of the Wiretap Act, in this case the acting federal judge would seal the evidence (think about it, this prevents rogue agents from manipulating recordings etc)...
Once the Prosecutors decide to submit evidence and press charges they must inform ALL parties being charged 10 days PRIOR to those charges being submitted, this is to inform defendants that they have been recorded and the evidence of those recordings is incriminating, at this point the defendants do not have access to the evidence just the fact that they are on a recorded call and their phone was tapped...at this point the tap is generally already removed.
Here's the point regarding Miller and a wiretap:
He has by law been informed if he talked to Dawkins on a wiretapped line and was recorded.
If he is being charged based on that wiretap he will by law will know this 10 days before the charges are actually filed.
He will not know the content of the wiretaps UNLESS he is charged and then the Feds by law have to hand over the sealed recordings.
Any sealed recording are against the law to disclose to anyone not being charged, or not prosecuting.
The very latest Miller would have known if he was included on the wiretap (and not being charged) would have been 30 days after the FBI arrested Book and Dawkins, that is the day the evidence was entered into court, the clock starts then...my best guess is he was told the day of, it's not like they just visited him for coffee and to talk about Pac 12 hoops.
As far as how long the wiretap existed and how many conversations he was involved with, only Miller would know that if he is not being charged, it is a long pile of evidence that was submitted to the court...it is sealed, even from him...up until he is charged.
So far he has not been charged, so he has no idea how long or whats in the recordings, other than his own memory...
The fact that he has not been charged with conspiracy tells me he might have possibly talked to Dawkins but nothing ever came of it...and unless he is charged nothing ever will because that evidence is sealed and not even the NCAA (a private organisation) will get to hear those tapes.
Of course someone involved with the case might make a motion to unseal the tapes, but that is highly unlikely to happen, wiretaps are immensely hard to get, even harder to keep and often involve secret handshake shit the FBI does not want out in the wild...the Prosecutors will never agree to unsealing those records.
