A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[FLSkinz83]

17 minutes ago, skinsfan4128 said:

It's not that SIP is mocking him for being on a yacht. We're all mocking this asshole cause he's on a yacht AVOIDING answering to a subpoena. I know speaking for myself, I could give 2 ****s less what he does on his bath toy.

 

It's simply more of his stupid ass, cowardly bull**** that's the problem. 

 

HTTR!

 

He's doing what everyone would do in regards to the subpoena.    I get that everyone wants Dan out at all costs, but you can admit at the same time that this congressional hearing is a joke.   

[Skinsinparadise]

39 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

It's one thing to mock him for saying something dumb or whatever, but You're mocking a billionaire sitting on his yacht in the south of France.    We should all hope to be mocked.

 

But as you said, whatever floats your boat (or yacht).

 

I'd agree with you if there was zero context to him being on the Yacht this summer.  The context in this case is obvious.    It's not about him being on a Yacht in a vacuum.

 

I don't recall anyone mocking him for hanging on his Yacht in a vaccum  -- only mockery I can think of as to that subject over the years ironically came from Jay Gruden -- he loves using the line of he and the FO did all the draft prep and then Dan came off his Yacht and ignored that and made the draft pick. 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[FLSkinz83]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd agree with you if there was zero context to him being on the Yacht this summer.  The context in this case is obvious.    It's not about him being on a Yacht in a vacuum.

 

I don't recall anyone mocking him for hanging on his Yacht in a vaccum  -- only mockery I can think of as to that subject over the years ironically came from Jay Gruden -- he loves using the line of he and the FO did all the draft prep and then Dan came off his Yacht and ignored that and made the draft pick. 

 

The context is that he's on his yacht in order to avoid the subpoena, right?    Or am I missing something?   If it's just the subpoena, then he's doing what we would all be doing.

 

In regards to the Gruden comment, I think that was in relation to the Haskins pick.

[SoCalSkins]

Just now, FLSkinz83 said:

 

The context is that he's on his yacht in order to avoid the subpoena, right?    Or am I missing something?   If it's just the subpoena, then he's doing what we would all be doing.

 

In regards to the Gruden comment, I think that was in relation to the Haskins pick.

People represented by lawyers don’t avoid being served by subpoenas. They have their lawyer accept service on their behalf. Maybe the fact that you think it’s okay explains your massive defense of Dan.

[FLSkinz83]

3 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

People represented by lawyers don’t avoid being served by subpoenas. They have their lawyer accept service on their behalf. Maybe the fact that you think it’s okay explains your massive defense of Dan.

 

Three things...

 

1) Why was the initial request by congress for him to testify voluntarily?

 

2) If this was a serious hearing; then I might take the subpoena more seriously.

 

3) I'm not massively defending Dan, or even defending him at all.    It's the process that I'm critical of; which makes it seem like I'm defending Dan.

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

It's one thing to mock him for saying something dumb or whatever, but You're mocking a billionaire sitting on his yacht in the south of France.    We should all hope to be mocked.

 

But as you said, whatever floats your boat (or yacht).

 

 

that's an obviously fallacious framing of what he's being mocked for and you come off to me as being willfully ignorant or just doing the 'lazy-brain plus attitude' deal

 

calling people obsessed with this as you continue to post on it (including the ones before and several after the quote above and you're still 'going'), when it really shouldn't matter to you at all given your takes on the matter, shows a disingenuous nature...this is also a trait that shows up in more than a little of your posting and denials of agenda only fit the pattern...but basically in this instance it appears you just want to chide other posters/people motivated by a little slice of your own internal head noise

 

unfortunately none of this is atypical of your posted content in the short time you've been here

[skinsfan4128]

5 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Three things...

 

1) Why was the initial request by congress for him to testify voluntarily?

 

2) If this was a serious hearing; then I might take the subpoena more seriously.

 

3) I'm not massively defending Dan, or even defending him at all.    It's the process that I'm critical of; which makes it seem like I'm defending Dan.

1) It was, until Admiral Asshat decided to not comply to their request. 

 

2) It doesn't make a rat's ass if you think it's serious or not. A subpoena is a subpoena. It's not junk mail you can just throw in the garbage and ignore.

 

3) The above mentioned reasons that you are clearly choosing to ignore is why we think you have a man crush on Little Napoleon and wish you could be in your knickers sailing with him. 😉

 

HTTR!

[FLSkinz83]

12 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

that's an obviously fallacious framing of what he's being mocked for and you come off to me as being willfully ignorant or just doing the 'lazy-brain plus attitude' deal

 

calling people obsessed with this as you continue to post on it (including the ones before and several after the quote above and you're still 'going'), when it really shouldn't matter to you at all given your takes on the matter, shows a disingenuous nature...this is also a trait that shows up in more than a little of your posting and denials of agenda only fit the pattern...but basically in this instance it appears you just want to chide other posters/people motivated by a little slice of your own internal head noise

 

unfortunately none of this is atypical of your posted content in the short time you've been here

 

I should have been more clear in the original post and included the subpoena.     

 

As I've mentioned numerous times before when it seems like I'm defending Snyder, I don't care if Dan gets booted.  He lost me completely after the name change.

 

I don't like people from the outside constantly bashing this franchise, especially when it comes to what I consider a fake hearing.

 

I'm not really chiding anyone.  Just trying to understand the logic.

 

I'll stop here.  

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

Dan is acting like what Rich people do; when people go after them for whatever. Rich people think they are above the law and can get away with anything and use their money to do that.

 

Why should the government even look into the private matters of Dan? Simple, because Dan benefits from the government allowing the nfl to have an anti-trust exemption and the fact many nfl stadiums are financed with bonds/tax schemes that happen because the government allows those things.

 

Without those things, how much would an nfl team really be worth? Dan is able to generate large amounts of money due to him owning an nfl team. Unlike some owners, Dan’s wealth is mostly tied to his football team. Since the government allows the nfl to have conditions that allows the nfl to generate wealth; they have every right to look into nfl, when things go wrong.

 

If the nfl was like baseball; anyone honestly think Dan’s team would be making money? We would be the near bottom.

[spjunkies]

I bet daniel is on that boat wearing a captains hat looking like the complete doofus he truly is. 

[The Rook]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

I have been around boats and ships all my life and I got to say that is one fugly vessel.  The front of the vessel looks like it came from the ship plans of a ship from "the Great White Fleet" during the Spanish-American War.  What a waste of money.

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Voice_of_Reason]

10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Different things float different people's boat, considering all the followers that dude has gotten, I gather plenty are interested. 

 

I don't think its "fascination" -- its about mocking a dude who has earned every whit of the mockery. 

I love the yacht tracking.

 

And some might find that off brand….  

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Dan is acting like what Rich people do; when people go after them for whatever. Rich people think they are above the law and can get away with anything and use their money to do that.

 

Why should the government even look into the private matters of Dan? Simple, because Dan benefits from the government allowing the nfl to have an anti-trust exemption and the fact many nfl stadiums are financed with bonds/tax schemes that happen because the government allows those things.

 

Without those things, how much would an nfl team really be worth? Dan is able to generate large amounts of money due to him owning an nfl team. Unlike some owners, Dan’s wealth is mostly tied to his football team. Since the government allows the nfl to have conditions that allows the nfl to generate wealth; they have every right to look into nfl, when things go wrong.

 

If the nfl was like baseball; anyone honestly think Dan’s team would be making money? We would be the near bottom.

This is fair, but it's the wrong branch of government.  The legislative branch is not an investigative body, that's the judicial branch. If there is something untoward going on, it's the responsibility of the judicial branch to investigate, bring charges, and then execute a sentence, if there is a criminal matter.  Also, remember, NDAs do not hold up in a criminal investigation.  "Sorry, I can't testify against that guy charged with murder that I saw him commit because I signed an NDA" isn't going to fly.  Criminal investigations and charges wipe all of that out.

 

The only thing the Legislative Branch can do if they find something untoward, is literally refer it to somebody else to do something about.  Which is what they did with the financial scandal, they sent it to the FTC.  But that doesn't mean the FTC has to do anything with it.  If they found something criminal, they would have referred it to the judicial branch by now.

 

Now, if Congress REALLY wanted to get tough on this, to your point, because of tax exempt status, other public funds and support for the NFL, they would have called at the very least representatives from the Raiders, Cowboys, Texans and Browns to testify as well, and they would have hung legal implications of not showing up or making changes, such as the revocation of tax exempt status for the NFL.  If they did that, then every one of those seats would have had a butt in it.  And they could have gone after Dan, Jerrah, Al Davis' kid who's had to re-structure his organization twice in the last year because of sexual misconduct, the Texans who enabled Watson to hand out NDAs to his massage therapists, and the Haslams for signing Watson to a $230m fully guaranteed deal.  They could have gone after all of them.  And they could have been some serious teeth to it from a legislative perspective.  And maybe a deal could have been cut to force Dan out to cover the other folk's asses.  Maybe.  

 

But they didn't.  So here we are.  

 

And football ISN'T baseball.  If we were playing by Baseball's rules, Dan might have sold by now simply for financial reasons.  But it's not.  So there's not point in really discussing it.  

[Conn]

I’ve ignored it a couple times but you keep repeating it while speaking with authority VOR so I just want to clarify—the judicial branch is not responsible for investigating crimes or bringing charges. That’s the executive branch. The judicial branch interprets the law after the investigation has been done and charges brought. Obviously we’re both speaking from a super simplified macro POV but that’s something that kept popping out to me. 

[Peregrine]

12 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

He's doing what everyone would do in regards to the subpoena.    I get that everyone wants Dan out at all costs, but you can admit at the same time that this congressional hearing is a joke.   

What the...............

If you really and truly think thats what normally(I.E. 99.99999% of the time) happens when someone is given a subpoena, and are not just pure trolling for some kind of bizzaro internet trophy....then no one here, there, or anywhere will ever be able to help you in life.  Good luck.

[Voice_of_Reason]

10 hours ago, Conn said:

I’ve ignored it a couple times but you keep repeating it while speaking with authority VOR so I just want to clarify—the judicial branch is not responsible for investigating crimes or bringing charges. That’s the executive branch. The judicial branch interprets the law after the investigation has been done and charges brought. Obviously we’re both speaking from a super simplified macro POV but that’s something that kept popping out to me. 

Yeah, you're right, and then things get even more complicated when you figure that none of the "crimes" which occurred are even Federal.  Sexual harassment and workplace misconduct, even sexual assault, those are all state and local crimes which would be investigated by local and state jurisdictions and tried in state and local courts.  To say nothing of civil action, which is another beast entirely. 

 

You are correct that the investigative arms of the Federal Government would reside in the Justice Department, which is in the Executive Branch, and then it would be tried in the Judicial Branch, which operates the courts. 

 

I stand corrected.  What I was trying to get at (and being very simplistic about it) is if there is any action that could be taken, it would need to be a court action, and it would end up somewhere in the court system, which would be judicial.  But you're right, the investigation would not be the judiciary.  I should have probably re-thought how I was phrasing that and been more clear.  Also, I will admit sometimes 12th grade civics is a long time ago, and sometimes I get confused.   

 

That said, the overall point still holds: the legislative branch is not an investigative branch, and it's purpose is not to "hold people responsible" for anything. It's purpose is to craft legislation which will then be executed by the Executive Branch and interpreted by the Judicial Branch.   It's not in their charter.  And their charter is fairly well spelled out in Article 1 of the US Constitution.  

[FLSkinz83]

8 hours ago, Peregrine said:

What the...............

If you really and truly think thats what normally(I.E. 99.99999% of the time) happens when someone is given a subpoena, and are not just pure trolling for some kind of bizzaro internet trophy....then no one here, there, or anywhere will ever be able to help you in life.  Good luck.

 

I'm not trolling.   As I said, I would take the subpoena seriously if this hearing was serious.  I don't believe it is.    That's it.

 

10 days till training camp.  Thank goodness.   

[Cooleyfan1993]

51 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

10 days till training camp.  Thank goodness.   

8 (until players report) and 9 until first practice. But who’s counting 😁 

 

(well, not you, apparently ) 

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, you're right, and then things get even more complicated when you figure that none of the "crimes" which occurred are even Federal.  Sexual harassment and workplace misconduct, even sexual assault, those are all state and local crimes which would be investigated by local and state jurisdictions and tried in state and local courts.  To say nothing of civil action, which is another beast entirely. 

 

You are correct that the investigative arms of the Federal Government would reside in the Justice Department, which is in the Executive Branch, and then it would be tried in the Judicial Branch, which operates the courts. 

 

I stand corrected.  What I was trying to get at (and being very simplistic about it) is if there is any action that could be taken, it would need to be a court action, and it would end up somewhere in the court system, which would be judicial.  But you're right, the investigation would not be the judiciary.  I should have probably re-thought how I was phrasing that and been more clear.  Also, I will admit sometimes 12th grade civics is a long time ago, and sometimes I get confused.   

 

That said, the overall point still holds: the legislative branch is not an investigative branch, and it's purpose is not to "hold people responsible" for anything. It's purpose is to craft legislation which will then be executed by the Executive Branch and interpreted by the Judicial Branch.   It's not in their charter.  And their charter is fairly well spelled out in Article 1 of the US Constitution.  

 

They're not state or local when they cross state lines. Conspiracy in people in more than one state or internationally is federal, literally anything that ever enters a mailbox ever is federal, sending anything (inc e-mail) that is intended for someone known to be across a state line is federal, etc.

 

All three branches serve to oversee all three branches. I don't know where you're coming from. Congress made these laws, signed off by the executive (President), and not found unconstitutional by the courts. That includes the oversight committee. 

 

The judicial system decides if things are constitutional or in violation of the law as Congress intended. The courts are way more hands off than most people think.  The judiciary doesn't run the courts anymore than the refs run the games.  They go by the rules set up by Congress and approved by the executive (pres/gov). They do not make decisions on their own; they do them in accordance with those laws. The prosecution is always the executive branch and the defendant is not one of the three branches.  The judge just checks the rulebook.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document. It's reinterpreted and modified constantly; it even sets out that the judiciary is there to interpret it.

TL;DR - Yes this is federal. Yes Congress is within its bounds. Yes public school civics classes suck.

54 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

I'm not trolling.   As I said, I would take the subpoena seriously if this hearing was serious.  I don't believe it is.    That's it.

 

10 days till training camp.  Thank goodness.   

 

Your opinion on a subpoena couldn't be less relevant to the argument you're trying to participate in.

[formerly4skins]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That said, the overall point still holds: the legislative branch is not an investigative branch, and it's purpose is not to "hold people responsible" for anything. 

 

Honestly, the point does not hold. The House hold quite broad implied investigative rights:

 

"The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.”

 

The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

 

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

 

Now, I'll l give you that directly meting out punishment isn't their job. But, investigating such issues as institutional sexual misconduct in a workplace that benefits from the direct support of the federal government via antitrust legislation is most definitely in their job description. Hopefully it allows them to more effectively craft legislation with regards to the NFL in the future while referring any overt crimes to DOJ.

Edited July 18, 2022 by formerly4skins

[Wyvern]

This direction of this thread is headed into "Tailgate" territory. I don't go there often, but it's my understanding that's where all ES's  constitutional lawyers hang out.

[Darrell Green Fan]

22 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

He's doing what everyone would do in regards to the subpoena.    I get that everyone wants Dan out at all costs, but you can admit at the same time that this congressional hearing is a joke.   

 If you really believe "everyone" would go to these lengths to avoid a Congressional subpoena you have lost you moral compass because that is simply not true.  

[FLSkinz83]

14 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 If you really believe "everyone" would go to these lengths to avoid a Congressional subpoena you have lost you moral compass because that is simply not true.  

 

Just to be clear,   I'm not speaking about subpoena's generally.   Just this one.

 

9 days till training camp. Thank goodness  

[Mrshadow008]

1 hour ago, formerly4skins said:

 

Honestly, the point does not hold. The House hold quite broad implied investigative rights:

 

"The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.”

 

The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

 

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

 

Now, I'll l give you that directly meting out punishment isn't their job. But, investigating such issues as institutional sexual misconduct in a workplace that benefits from the direct support of the federal government via antitrust legislation is most definitely in their job description. Hopefully it allows them to more effectively craft legislation with regards to the NFL in the future while referring any overt crimes to DOJ.

The bolded part in the second part is what's important here. Supreme court ruled in 2019 that Congress's subpoena power while broad is not all powerful. It must serve a valid legislative puprose. It also cannot be used for exposure for the sake of exposure nor can it be used to punish those investigated. They've already issued the legislation that's 1. Its been made abundantly clear that the committee is using this as a chance to expose wrong doing by Dan Snyder. And to quote Carol Malroney her self "Since no one else is prepared to hold Mr. Snyder accountable this committee is prepared too." Another thing issued by the supreme court in 2019 was congress has to prove that there are no other sources they can go to for the information it needs. This is important considering the legislation is built off workplace misconduct. If thats the case why not subpoena Mark Davis? How about Jerry Jones? Congress's subpoena power is very broad for sure but this is almost the exact thing the courts ruled they cant do