Dissident2

There's nothing to currently "settle" for, as there are no lawsuits. These women have mostly come forward to share their stories. They aren't currently suing the team, Dan Snyder or anyone else. The suits are going to start once the video situation gets going. Besides, the NFL will be basing its decision not on how many times this story has been on television, but on the investigation currently taking place. All this, "it's going to blow over, look how it's not in the news anymore" stuff is ridiculous. It's silly for anyone to think this situation is going to "rival" the current race issues, COVID issues, etc. Even the current legit football issues. Fans throughout the league think Snyder is a piece of garbage and would be fine to see him kicked to the curb, but they're not obsessing over it like we are. They're ready for football. And I wish I was one of them. Do you remember a huge, ongoing outcry for the removal of the Panthers former owner? I don't remember anything about that at all, in fact, other than it just happening one day. Then I looked at the reasons why and said, "OK, that makes sense." (Yes, I realize he wasn't actually removed, but chose to sell due in large part to pressure from the league.) Snyder's demise will be "death by a million paper cuts," and it's a long, long, LONG time coming. He will continue to be in the news periodically for all the wrong reasons over the coming months. The Post says they have more people coming forward, lawyers say they have more people coming forward, so who knows what stories are out there that we haven't seen/heard yet. And I totally disagree that the ESPN excerpts "added nothing." Seeing the women, hearing their emotions, seeing how confident and believable they were made a big difference for me. I believed their stories before, but now I feel a level of emotion about them that I didn't necessarily feel before. I still say the most interesting developments over the coming months will be related to those videos. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the stories didn't focus even more on those. Hopefully that's different in the full show on Sunday.

Exactly. Snyder saying that doesn't "diminish" anything, it only exacerbates his problem. It was a horrible statement. The "I take responsibility line" meant nothing, as right after that came ZERO empathy for victims, BLAMING one of the victims and calling her a liar, ABSOLVING himself of responsibility by saying he's been "too hands-off." It's laughable to think that statement does anything to diminish the claims from those women. Everything I've read about it from other writers has absolutely brutalized that statement and mocked it.

No, it's not. It's taking awhile because there's a LOT to unpack and get to the bottom of. Just be patient. They're not doing anything until the investigation is complete, and they probably are just STARTING to focus on the video aspect of this whole thing. To me, that's what the case for removal really hinges on. I watched the excerpts today, too. The four women came off incredibly well, and you could actually sense the anger and rage simmering with each one of them. One of the cheerleaders said she saw the videos, and they made her "want to throw up." Someone needs to flip on this douchebag, because one thing's for sure ... someone is going to be held accountable for these videos.

I was reminded of this article recently when people were wondering how the other owners feel about this guy. Still a good read. Quite frankly, they must hate this douche. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2574163-book-excerpt-daniel-snyder-and-the-unreal-power-of-nfl-owners “Everyone in the room was stunned. Owners and executives, sitting just several feet from one another, began texting each other, incredulous at what they were witnessing. In some of the texts, Allen was facetiously called Clarence Darrow, the legendary litigator known for his bombastic courtroom speeches. “Owners and executives say they had never seen anything like it. Nobody had ever gotten so personal or made such threats.”

That is an absolutely brilliant article. So glad someone captured all those feelings about his statements and see-through reactions to this stuff so well.

Sure, and he's already attempted to do that with the nonsensical, "I've been too hands-off" comment. Whether or not he's successful in that blame game remains to be seen. Most people with any sense of how that place operates know how ridiculous his "hands-off" comment was. Something a liar would say.

Russell, from accounts I've heard, was treated horribly by Redskins staff as a reporter. He's a good guy. Maybe annoying at times, I grant you, but he's a good guy. As far as the NFL taking over this investigation "not being a big deal" or being "window dressing," I don't think that's true. What Russell was probably referring to as far as the NFL working with Snyder in recent years was the NFL trying to get Lafemina entrenched in Washington to help them correct their culture problem. The fact that he was fired after just 8 months did NOT sit well with the league at all. Whether this investigation yields what we're all hoping for remains to be seen, but I think it is most definitely a big step in the right direction. Thom Loverro had a great comment the other day about Snyder, saying (paraphrasing), "Times like these are when you start using all the goodwill you've stored up in the bank. Snyder has nothing saved in the bank." That's true for the public, and it's true for the owners as well.

Number one, posters with ongoing "bits" ... just ... just be mindful of how old that can get really, really fast. Number two ... the "these cases usually culminate in days" line, I don't know where that comes from. Every case is different. If someone is caught SAYING something that can't be refuted, sure, that's an easy out. But this case is multi-faceted, and there's still an awful lot to learn. I said it before and I'll double down on it: if Snyder can be linked to those videos, he is done. There is nothing that's come out so far that is more potentially damaging than this. It's my understanding that lawyers don't even have the videos yet, that the Post won't give them out. So someone has to be able to access the videos, then prove that they came from the team's shoots. That shouldn't be too hard. The Post article already made it pretty obvious that they were made from team footage. So SOMEONE on the staff is screwed basically, if not many more than one. And Larry Michael, as the "senior VP of broadcasting," has the biggest target. Then the admittedly difficult part: to prove that Snyder is the one who ordered them to be made. But here's the thing ... that might not be able to be proven until the inevitable lawsuits happen, because that's when people involved in creating these things are going to feel the pressure, and they'll either take the fall or they'll flip. There were two people named in the story who were accused of actually making one of the videos. Those same two people of course deny it. But what happens when they get in a court room and are presented with the videos and have to testify under oath? That's where it will get interesting. So no, to think something like this has to be settled in "days" or that means "nothing will happen" is shortsighted. It's going to be awhile. And who knows what might come out during that time.

Not if they tie him to those videos. If they tie him to those videos, he's DONE. And you can put that in CAPS.

Yeah, you're right, I was paraphrasing (and not very well) in that section. Ironically, I didn't go back and read the article, while you did, lol. I could've sworn I read that somewhere, though. It may have been in a comment section or someone else's paraphrasing, I don't know. Either way, sloppy on my part. I think the point remains, though, that the producer/editor said, according to the employee who took the video, that it was being made for snyder, and then baker also says he was told the earlier one was being made for snyder. So despite the paraphrasing sucking, you still have two separate people saying they were told by someone it was made for Snyder. And then a few others who not only deny that but that the video even was put together or asked for at all, each of those somehow mentioned in the story as being part of the videos' creation.

No need to read it again, I'll summarize: One employee said he was personally told by Larry in 2008 - with two others present - that "we need to make this video for the owner today." According to that employee, he later saw the other two guys actually putting the video together. Those two denied any of this happened. Another employee caught a totally different editor two years later in the process of making the 2010 video. When the employee (doesn't say whether they were male or female) asked for an explanation, the editor said, "We were told we had to make this for the owner." That's according to the genderless former employee who actually grabbed the video. The editor said anonymously that he doesn't remember Dan being mentioned, but says he just remembers Larry asking for it and then asking for two DVDs labeled "For Executive Meeting." So you have two who say they were told it came from Dan. One says they heard it from an editor, the other from Larry himself. You have two (including Larry) going on the record saying this never happened. Of course, those two (including Larry) are named as being a part of the video's creation. Another guy says he just shot the footage and can't speak to what was done with it after he "turned it in," despite the on-record guy from 2008 identifying that person as helping to assemble the "good bit" video. So there you have it. There is definitely some lying happening here. If I was a betting man, I know where I'd put my money.

It's possible. But I can't see that as making a lot of sense. Number one, this apparently happened multiple times over multiple years. Sounds like it was almost an annual thing after the calendar shoot. You have two different employees from different times saying Larry said "we have to make this for Dan." You have another employee who just remembers Larry asking for it but then asking him to burn it onto a DVD saying "Executive Meeting." Two DVDs, in fact. Why would Larry ask for that if it was just for his own jollies? From what I understand, Larry controlled all the video stuff. If he wanted those clips so badly for himself, don't know why he would've come up with some elaborate scheme over different years to get that done, and why would he risk himself even further by lying to people and saying the order came from the head of the entire organization, his boss?? If wind of that got back to Dan, and it wasn't true, he'd have been screwed. Doesn't make sense he'd risk his whole career multiple times just for what appears to be glimpses of cheerleaders' breasts. Again, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. To me, what makes the most sense is easily what the Post suggests: Dan asked, Dan got. No questions. That said, still hard to prove at this point. What will be interesting will be if there are lawsuits (which there will be) and someone like Larry decides to flip rather than take the fall, or one of the two video people who went on record denying the request (who just happened to be two people another employee went on record saying he saw actually putting the piece together) decide to change their story. The plot "sickens"!

I agree that more sexual harassment stories aren't going to work at this point. But if there's any chance they can tie him to that video and asking for its creation ... that could be something that would move the chains, so to speak. I don't see any way the NFL could withstand the outcry over that. A longshot, but we'll see.

Great article by Thomas Boswell. Sorry if you have to pay to read. Some incredible lines in this one. "Toilet paper has to be folded into a V. Sure isn't a V for victory." And this, relating back to the notion that this is EASILY the worst culture in football, probably in all organized sports in America: In a half-century covering sports, I’ve never encountered any franchise in any sport that behaved so atrociously. After 21 years, Snyder owns this utterly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/08/28/daniel-snyder-washington-boycott/

I wonder what will happen with the videos. The Post seems to have it. According to Allred, they're not handing it over. I'm sure the other lawyers involved want it, too. If that ever gets shown publicly, and it's something that's as egregious and creepy as the story makes it out to be, that could cause a whole new level of uproar.

I really liked Captain Ron's response yesterday to a question asking him if he's seen anything noteworthy about Dan Snyder and how he has reacted to all these crises (including the racial issues). He set Ron up perfectly to say a bunch of nice things about Dan, and I was about to turn it off if that happened, but Ron responded, "Not really." Lol. He then used adjectives like "straight-forward," but nothing that was very praising of the guy. That gave me a glimmer of hope, too. I think some good people are in that building. But I think it means nothing ultimately if Snyder stays. They'll eventually find out who he is. Then they'll have their own crisis of conscience.

Lol, you didn't get my sarcasm there. I totally get why he said that and why it means absolutely nothing. I'm just saying, the words were there, and despite the intent in making that statement, it's true in a way he clearly doesn't realize: He is fully responsible. I just thought it was comically ironic that he said he "took full responsibility" — knowing that he was just saying that because of the fallout he got in the last statement for NOT saying it — and yet it being the one ultimately true thing he said: he is responsible. I gotta get some work done, too. Enjoy!

Dude, you keep taking sentence fragments and acting like they're the full summation of my argument. Again, for the billionth time, it's not "being a bad owner" or "being despised" that's going to get him out. It's the full ****heap of everything he's been a part of and, yes, responsible for, that needs to be viewed here. Lol. OK, so we're playing the "imagination" game now. I'm just going to go with facts. I put forth the challenge to you or anyone to name a single NFL franchise that's even come close to this level of ongoing national attention for all the wrong reasons, especially in relation to the work environment and sexual harassment. All you've got is "well, there could be." That line of logic leads to things like a lawyer saying, "Hey, just because my client was seen by 20 witnesses robbing this store doesn't mean there couldn't have been someone wearing a mask with his likeness Mission-Impossible-Style who was trying to frame him. Amiright, judge? Come on, it COULD have happened." Eventually, you have to go with the facts in front of you. There is no fact out there that would currently dispute that the WFT culture is the worst in the entire NFL. Not one. A multitude of facts to support that assertion, however. Uh ... YES. It DEFINITELY is. Because again, that speaks to an organization-wide culture. That shouldn't be hard to understand. Of course you're going to have instances of sexual harassment at big companies. But if it happens just a couple times in a company of hundreds in isolated instances, that's usually a sign that you've got a few bad people working there who need to be shown the door. When you've got this many? And not to mention, the Post said more than 100 people reached out to them for the latest story, lol. More than 100. That speaks to organization-wide culture, and that speaks clearly to rot at the top. As far as "downgrading sexual harassment," that's a ridiculous assertion. Are you going to look at someone differently who's killed 100 people vs. someone who's killed one? There's a reason those people get "elevated" to the level of serial killers or "monsters" and are studied far more by criminal psychiatrists. That has nothing to do with one's thoughts on the crime of murder in general or the sympathy you might feel toward a victim of that crime. Well, Snyder himself said he was responsible for all of it in his brilliant statement, so ... in this rare instance, I fully agree with him. (Besides, using your logic, how do we KNOW he wasn't there? How do we KNOW he didn't write those messages and pass them on to someone else? See how ridiculous that sounds?) Again, the "he wasn't there physically" approach is a short-sighted and lazy way to view this thing. When you've got this many instances of this type of harassment and horrible work environment, and you have so many now on-the-record stories of how this guy treats people in the office, decades of stories and anecdotes of how he treats people outside the office ... it doesn't take Brainiac to be able to put the connections together that the environment comes from the top here. There's no other reasonable explanation for it. I admit that "influencing the culture" isn't the same as committing the actual offenses. But, as the head of the operation, it does make you ultimately responsible when it's this far-reaching. All you have to do is a quick Google of Snyder and "Snyder must go," etc., and you'll find TONS of comments from people not a part of this fanbase that contradict that statement completely, many of them national media members. Do they care about the ORGANIZATION? No, they don't care about our horrible record and that we're viewed as a laughing stock everywhere. Of course not. But they care about the culture this organization now represents, the treatment of women, etc., etc. They can see that this level of behavior goes way beyond the pale. I've been reading comments from fans of other teams saying, "I don't want him to go, because that means the team might actually stop sucking, but ... he has to go." That particular one was from an Eagles fan, lol. You are so despised that even Eagles fans are starting to think you need to be kicked out based on your behavior. That comment is far from an anomaly. Back to fantasy land. This is not going to happen. It hasn't happened for 20 years under this guy with HOF coaches, HOF players, etc., etc. But let's say for a moment that it does ... I would still say YES, absolutely, we need to be having this discussion. You're a pretty ****ty human being if you stop talking about these sorts of indecencies just because your team wins some football games. So yeah, I can only speak for myself, but I would most definitely still be having this conversation. But again, I try to live in reality, so ... I don't think I'll ever get the chance to prove that under this ownership. I have no idea if this or other forthcoming stories will ultimately get him removed. I'd certainly admit the chances are less than 50/50 at this point. I'm simply making the argument of why this SHOULD be viewed far differently than the "it happens everywhere" line or the "he's just a bad owner, and that's not enough" line. He's a lot more than that. I'm sure anyone in the NFL with a brain sees that. Whether or not they'll do something about it that actually means anything is unknown at this point.

You keep saying this over and over. "Being a bad owner" is such a nothing, general statement in this case. It says nothing. It pretty much means nothing because it could mean anything. Does it mean he's bad at making football decisions? Won't spend money? Hires bad coaches? There are so many SPECIFICS in Snyder's case that point to him being far more than a "bad owner," but an owner who's EASILY veered into "detrimental to the league" territory, not to mention "despised by pretty much everyone" territory. As far as "we don't know this is the worst culture" ... please name me ONE other NFL team owner that has seen even REMOTELY the amount of withering NATIONAL press that ours receives over and over again. There's no one. Not even close. Please name one NFL team that has had ... SO FAR ... 42 women come forward to complain of sexual harassment and a horrific, degrading environment like the one that's been portrayed in story after story now. Sexism in other organizations? Of course. Like this one? You can imagine all you want, but I don't see any actual evidence of anything that comes close to this place. When was the last time you saw multiple national news people or sportscasters demand that an NFL owner "must go"? Happens to Snyder relentlessly. Just google the most recent issue, you'll find so many non-fan, unbiased takes basically scratching their heads as to why the NFL continues to put up with this cesspool. And this has been happening for years. You hear anyone outside of Dallas demanding Jerry Jones get canned year after year? Or Mara? Or anyone? And everyone keeps acting as if the owners are some coven of warlocks desperate to "keep their dark secrets." Maybe I'm naive, but while there are clearly some epic douchebags among that group, I can't imagine they're all cowering because they're afraid that forcing Snyder out is going to unravel all their own sordid tales of debauchery. Some, sure. Perhaps. But all? More than 3/4? I think it's a stretch to believe that 3/4 of the ownership or more are doing/running things anywhere close to the way Snyder has been for so long. Is this enough? No one knows. Yet. We could look back on this story as the true beginning of the end for him a year from now. Or maybe not. But this isn't a matter of being a "bad owner" anymore. No one's suggesting that's what will get him kicked out of the coven. This is a matter of a guy who's a HORRIFIC owner, a terrible human being, and, most importantly, a guy who CONSISTENTLY brings horrible press to a league of billionaires that does their utmost to avoid that very thing at all times and at all costs. This is a guy who makes the entire league look bad by his very existence, who cheapens their product and who actually inspires people to question not just the team he owns, but the ENTIRE NFL because of their inaction to his actions. THOSE are the kinds of things that COULD end up getting him out. Being a "bad owner" is the least of his problems at this point.

This is what I was pointing to regarding the argument that "this won't do it" and that "other owners do similar stuff," etc. It's a sound argument, but the difference here is what you're pointing to AND the lawsuits about the video. Two separate lawsuits, I think. Gloria Allred is already representing cheerleaders and is trying to get the video and "get to the truth" of who's behind it. This is going to go on for a LONG time, and it's going to continue to make the NFL look bad. It's different than a bad comment that's brought out that eventually gets forgotten. It's going to be an ongoing and public display of this crap. They cut Snyder loose, they take the focus away from themselves and they get ahead of this. I agree it's still a long shot, but it's far more of a possibility than where we were last month.

I was a "defender" in the first few years, but I started really changing after Marty was canned. I can't believe how I used to defend the guy during the first couple years of his ownership. Even defended the "pay to watch practice" deal. What can I say, that intense level of fandom blinded me. I miss having that intense level of fandom, man. I miss it so much. Snyder has absolutely doused that fire for me. The only way I could get ever hope to get it back at this point is for new ownership to take over. Each year this guy owns the team, my interest just drops more and more. I don't even know if I can do it at all this year, I really don't. If ever again. Eventually, you just can't cheer for something owned by someone who's this much at odds with your own value system.

And one of these "anonymous sources" seems to have actually provided the videos, which was the whole point of their participation in the story. So if the videos exist and they provided them, that's far better than just having some "anonymous source" talking about them.

Sally Jenkins from radio this morning: "I've talked to a coach in the league who doesn't want him to go anywhere, because it's two easy wins a year." He's "a joke" to almost all the other owners. She's just not sure they'd be "brave enough" to do what needs to be done. "If there's a change in ownership, I don't think it's going to come from a public muscle move from the other owners, because I don't think they want the food fight." But there you go, that's the head of our beloved team.

I personally hear you, and also am someone who has big issues with aspects of "cancel culture" and that "mob mentality" you talk about. To me, extremes on either side are the enemy. That said, you have something here that goes way beyond that. You have years and years of this, a mountain of circumstantial evidence that builds up more and more all the time. The results on the field speak for themselves, but it's the quality of human being this man has revealed himself to be over and over and over again that's pretty easy to see at this point. Even as recently as the statement he put out vs. the statement of Julie Donaldson and Jason Wright. The differences between those statements underscores everything. There's nothing "innocent" about him at this point. There's just SO much to back that up. The video thing is hearsay as far as him demanding it, but ... based on that story, it's clearly the most "Occam's Razor" choice. Two heavily produced videos in two separate years are not going to be made by Larry alone or some kid editor. If they wanted those shots for themselves, they would've just grabbed them. You've got two separate people from different years saying they were told by different people, one of them Larry, that the videos were ordered by Snyder. I personally believe it because it makes the most sense. Hopefully some more people flip, just like more people flipped based on the last story. Believe me, there's more coming.

Here's what seemed like happened to me based on interviews I've heard today and the article itself. The cheerleaders were being filmed WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE while doing the shoot. They were shooting risque photos/pictures where they might have been holding things over their breasts or been painted in body paint while nude, etc. So I guess there may have been times when they lowered or adjusted whatever was covering their breasts, etc. and the camera just kept rolling. Or sounds like the camera zoomed in to body parts that may have been covered in paint, etc. So they knew the cameras were there, but obviously didn't think any of those shots would ever be used by anyone, let alone passed around to our lecherous owner. Don't know where something like this stands as far as literal "crime." Should definitely be lawsuit-worthy, though.