Among the issues that continue to trouble Specter are:
• Goodell's imposition of a penalty -- the loss of a first-round draft pick, a $500,000 fine to coach Bill Belichick and a $250,000 to the team -- before the Patriots had turned over evidence, including notes dating to 2002 and six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason, requested by the league. The Patriots were caught videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines in their Sept. 9 season opener against the New York Jets. The commissioner imposed his penalty on Sept. 13, four days before New England provided the tapes and notes.
"Did they know the scope of the wrongdoing before the penalty was imposed?" asked Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney. "The answer is no."
"[Goodell] issued the discipline as quickly as could to send a strong message to teams that this wouldn't be tolerated, and there'd be a severe penalty if you violated the rules," Aiello said. "The discipline included they had to turn over everything that had related to that taping procedure."
Specter heard that explanation from Goodell on Wednesday. On Thursday, Specter said, "The word absurd and ridiculous keep coming to my mind, because he [Goodell] says it with a straight face."
• Specter said it was unsettling to learn that the tapes, as well as notes, turned over by the Patriots in September had been destroyed in Foxboro rather than in the league's New York offices. Aiello said the documents and tapes were destroyed after they were reviewed by NFL officials Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson, and that the call to destroy the material came from Goodell, saying "There's no further use for it, so he said get rid of it."
Specter said the league's suggestion that the material, particularly the notes dating to the 2002 season, was destroyed because it might have afforded a competitive advantage is unbelievable.
"Everything has changed," he said. "Nobody could use those. They are scrap paper -- except evidence."
With the evidence destroyed, Specter said there is no way to tell what advantage the Patriots might have gained in the illegal taping practice.
• Specter is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 playoffs.
In a preseason opener in August of that year at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, the Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles played in what proved to be a preview of the 2005 Super Bowl, won by the Patriots 24-21. And in an Oct. 31 regular-season game in Pittsburgh, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20. Those two teams later met in the AFC title game, which New England won, 41-27.
Later Thursday, the Steelers released a statement that read: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which Commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the Commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and or discipline."
• Specter believes the NFL hasn't gone far enough in its offer of legal protection to former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh, who has told ESPN.com that he has potentially embarrassing information about the team's taping practices.
The league has offered to indemnify Walsh against exposure to a lawsuit from the Patriots, but the proposal stipulates that Walsh must tell the truth and return anything he took improperly. Under those conditions, the team could still file suit against Walsh even after he turns over evidence to the Patriots and league.
"Matt Walsh is an important guy, and they have made it so conditional," Specter said. "All they got to do is say, 'We're not going to sue you.' It is not a big deal."
Specter said he has spoken with Walsh's attorney three times in the last two days and understands that Walsh is "scared." He said the Judiciary Committee could afford Walsh immunity if Walsh is ever summoned to testify at a Senate hearing. He described both Walsh and his attorney as "cooperative."
• Specter said he was concerned to learn from Walsh's attorney that an NFL security representative, Dick Farley, had been investigating Walsh. Specter said: "I confronted them on that, and Goodell says, 'Yeah, he [Farley] works for us. Yeah, he is a security guy, but we didn't know he was investigating him.' "
Aiello said Thursday that it is an overstatement to suggest the league is investigating Walsh.
"The only thing we're doing is looking at public records and trying to verify his employment history in an effort to learn about him," Aiello said.