The Kevin Sheehan Show - Racine To The Rescue?

Episode Date: November 10, 2022

Kevin with Thom and Howard Gutman today to discuss DC Attorney General Karl Racine's press conference on the lawsuit being brought against the Commanders, Dan Snyder, the NFL, and Roger Goodell.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it. But you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheyenne Show is Kevin. The show today brought to you by Shelley's back room. Shelly's is the best cigar bar in town. They've got great food, great drink. Always sports on lots of their big screens. Great location, 1331 F Street, Northwest. It's a neighborhoodish kind of place. Great guys. Tommy will be in there tonight. Tommy's going to jump on here in a moment. Lots of conversation about everything, and I'm sure about what happened today. Also, just a reminder for all of your sports betting needs, my bookie.ag, use my promo code, Kevin, D.C., and they'll match your first deposit, dollar for dollar, all the way up to a thousand bucks. Tonight's Thursday night game is Atlanta and Carolina.

The Panthers are at home. They're two and a half point underdogs. I think I'm going to play Carolina by the half point and take them plus three, but that is not. That is not an official smell test selection, the full smell test tomorrow. And there are a ton of games, including NFL games, more NFL games this weekend that I like. So for those of you that are listening to this, understand that we're getting it out late today because we waited for the Attorney General in D.C. Carl Racine to hold this press conference, which was thoroughly confusing to me in many ways.

seemed like it was a lot of stuff that I had heard before. I couldn't connect the dots on consumer protection, but what he did is he filed a civil lawsuit against the commanders, Daniel Snyder, the National Football League, and Roger Goodell for allegedly colluding to deceive fans and district residents about the league's investigation into the team's toxic workplace culture and allegations of sexual assault. So this follows a wild day yesterday, which included the team putting out that cowardly statement, you know, pushing Brian Robinson, Jr. out there in front of this whole thing, which if we have time, Tommy and I will get to that a little bit later on in the show. And then Jason Wright had a statement. It was just another train wreck of a day for the organization. But Tommy joins us now. Howard Geyer.

Gutman, long-time D.C. prominent attorney and the former ambassador to Belgium during the Obama years, both are on with me right now. So guys, Tommy and I, Howard, will sit back and listen. We're not going to play the whole Racine thing. We're going to assume that most of you have heard it or have read about it, but Howard usually does a pretty good job of summarizing it. So I'll let you go, have at it. And then Tommy and I will fire away some questions. So, Kevin, I listened to 15 minutes. I can't think of a time I was more incredulous about what I was listening to and hearing and realizing how much damage one man was doing to all the fans who wanted to get rid of

Dan Snyder. So what he did is, it turns out, first what Carl received in the AG of the, promised us a big announcement. Since the AG really only has consumer protection, I thought maybe he found financial fraud. I thought maybe he found, you know, they were withholding ticket money. And then that's something that you need to find out how many of those ticket holders were Disney ticket holders and protect them. Call Christine didn't find out anything. He barely watched the same TV that we watched. He knew less than anybody who watched TV. He knew less than anybody who's

listened to the Kevin Sheehan show and podcast. So he took a summary of a couple of the greatest kids, the things we know. Yes, they take pictures of cheerleaders. Yes, they encourage cheerleers throughout with boosters. The whole workplace atmosphere that should make anybody mad, upset. So let's be clear of one thing. What the Redskins did for years and what other teams do with their cheerleers for years was wrong, condemnable, a product of a bygone era, violate sexual harassment laws. It can be proven by the lawyers of the cheerleers, no one's defending that. But it had zero to do with consumer protection, zero to do with the Attorney General's Office of Washington, D.C., and stretching this law to try to make something that isn't a

standard workplace misconduct allegation into consumer protection does great harm to D.C. and great harm to our efforts to get rid of Dan Snyder, particularly with the overreaching of bringing in Goodell and the league. The only solace I took from this, the only solace I took is I suspect the incoming Attorney General will drop it immediately. And if he doesn't have the sense, because Hall Racine kind of put him in a bad position by saying, I'm going to have a press conference and dump this on you on the way out. I'm going to get my three minutes of fame in the spotlight. By the way, that's Horaceen had a decision. good career at Venable, a real law firm before this.

He's the guy who tried to turn ordinary sexual harassment allegations denied by the company into consumer protection by their office, which would mean, first of all, if I were Goodell, I could not sell tickets to any DECD resident. If you are an Oakland Raiders fan in the district and you buy a Raiders ticket in the district, he can sue the Raiders for what they do with their cheerleaders. You cannot now, if you are the NFL, sell a ticket in the district because he can sue every one of your clubs. Anyone who's been accused, Jerry Jones.

I would not take a Cowboys, who had a Cowboys ticket to be bought by a Washingtonian because they can sue you because Jerry Jones has the same thing, and he denies it. So that's consumer fraud in the district. Oh, my gosh. So that's number one. Number two, by the way, that's true of every other business.

If you're a business, you know how many sexual harassment cases are brought and denied by management? If they sell products in the district, the AG of the district can sue them because you thought that product was made by a company that didn't lie about sexual harassment, it would have been a closer case for a district. consumer protection, to say that the Redskins told you they were putting a good product on the field, but they let guards go without replacing them with Trey Turner. That would have been, that's more relevant to your ticket value. You don't buy a ticket thinking, I'm buying this ticket. I would pay less if I knew that the owners were really not good guys and how they treat their employees. I would pay less for my ticket.

I've been cheated. So he took what we all knew the facts, went to a microphone, grandstand a bow, and the way he said him, like there were great revelations, there were none, and then somehow, yes, everybody could say this, everyone has said this. Congress tried to protect, they, pretend they were doing oversight of the league on how general fact-finding for legislation for what we should do to protect people who work at ball clubs, but at least they had some semblance of jurisdiction. And you've said, you guys lied to our consumers. Well, you lied to consumers in every state. I cannot imagine that this survives a motion to dismiss. And I would hope it wouldn't survive the incoming AG. And if I were the mayor, I'd fire him tomorrow.

Okay. So what's next here? Because Nikki Javala just tweeted out that I guess when the questions came afterwards, and I did not hear the questions or the follow-up after the press conference portion of it before the questions, that Racine was asked about allegations of financial improprieties against the commanders, and he said, there will be more news on that next week. I mean, I always thought consumer protection is about, you know,

businesses ripping off customers, and that's what I was, and that's why I thought maybe it would be financial improprieties today. We'd learn about the deposits that didn't get returned, et cetera. But, you know, I'm sitting there listening to the, you know, the toxic workplace stuff and the sexual harassment stuff. And part of me is like, okay, maybe he's got something new here, but I just heard all of the things

that we've heard and that have been reported on and revealed over the last two years. I don't think I heard anything new to that end other than he was filing this case. Tommy, what was your reaction? I haven't talked to you about it. What was your reaction listening to this? Well, my reaction was it certainly did seem like new ground, okay, to be fair. For one thing, this was, in a way, this was what we all cried about, accountability. Somebody holding Dan Snyder and the commanders accountable, finally, for all these transgressions

and all these sins that have been committed and documented and discussed and talked about. Whether he's capable of holding them accountable, we don't really know. We'll find out pretty soon, I would imagine. We'll find out beginning of January when his, when Carl received successor takes over, and if the new attorney general decides we're not moving forward on that, then we'll know how far this thing got. And then after that, the next step, if he continues it, we'll be in court. If this is dismissed, if it's not dismissed, then there's something to it.

I mean, I would understand this is new, Okay? What's new about it, though? Other than what is he picking up the Beth Wilkinson investigation is essentially in trying to bring it? No, no, no. I didn't say he's break. I see the idea of reaching out as a consumer protection lawsuit over sexual harassment lies about sexual harassment investigations.

Like you said, it doesn't fit what you would normally think would be a consumer protection issue. So that's what I mean by going into new ground, by taking the consumer protection laws and adapting it to this. It doesn't seem to make sense on a lot of levels. I'll get you that. I'll grant you that. But like I told you weeks ago, there's been a real culture change, not just publicly, but in the courts and in the legislatures about the issue of a toxic workplace. the very the very toxic

workplace issue I think has now become more of more of a burden you know bordering on criminal to deal with than ever before

the Surgeon General a couple weeks ago issued a whole statement all paper about the impact of a toxic workplace on individuals on people who were involved in it

I mean that was like a that was a statement and tell you that this is a big deal now. And I think it's possible if you get a judge that decides that, you know, a toxic workplace, you know, should, you know, this should be examined, even if it's a consumer protection issue, then I think it could move forward. But Howard, their business isn't, their business isn't in Washington.

Their business is a Virginia-based business. Right. Right. Yes. So I don't understand. Yes. Actually, their business is according to the papers. They have their offices are in Baltimore, Maryland. Okay, we're Maryland. Right.

So toxic workplaces are a serious issue, and therefore it should be regulated by laws directed at employers in their states as to treatment of employees, and we have tons of them. But none of it has to do with a different jurisdiction, bringing it under their consumer protection laws because they're not, It's not an employer from the district. What they, you know, we only, the only thing that the commanders had left is the name Washington, and now they ought to change that, because they don't have officers in the district. They don't play in the district. All that happened is someone in the district bought a ticket, and the argument will have to be, they overpaid for the ticket, because when they bought the ticket,

they thought they were buying it from a nice company. they didn't know the truth was this ticket comes from a team that treats its employees badly and commits sexual harassment otherwise they wouldn't have bought the ticket. Now, there's lots of people to try to punish this, but unfortunately,

it wasn't the Democrats in Congress, and it certainly isn't the Attorney General in the district, and you lose, and you do two things. I wouldn't mind if it was having Dan a hard time, I do it on the radio every day, that's not what's bothering me, but there are consequences from this. First, you will weaken consumer protection law. Second, you will weaken sexual harassment law. Third, you lose all credibility for the things by accusing him.

You could bring this under a terrorism statute arguing that watching Dan Snyder can drive people crazy. You can bring it under any statute, but that doesn't mean there's any credibility to it. So you've weakened sexual harassment law, you've weakened consumer protection law, you've lost the credibility that the district should have. That's why we never get, the district never gets stated, because it's viewed as not having the credibility to act like the state. You rally the owners around Dan Snyder, because if they can do this to Dan Snyder, anybody who's in the district who's attended a Cowboys game, they can do it to them. and they even forced the NFL to have to take the position because they sued the NFL and Goodell. And the NFL and Goodell is like, I committed fraud to consumers

on the ticket price in D.C. Are you nuts? And I can't imagine the judge who won't ask the same question. The fraud is in the investigation. The workplace investigation that was done by Beth Wilkinson. that's where the fraud is. And the consumer, the consumer has to be... Well, what was the point of doing the investigation?

What was the point of doing the investigation? First, that point was there were a private organization that regulates its own, they throw out players all the time, they discipline owners all the time, they wanted to find the facts. That was the point. And what we found from it was that the commissioner said it was it was the most toxic environment I have ever seen. Where the dispute is was that the punishment didn't fit the crime, and I sure agreed with that.

I said he found it was the most toxic environment he'd ever seen, but they gave a $10 million fine that was not a fine. It was a regular charitable contribution, and they suspended them with the non-suspension. So I agree there wasn't accountability, but the accountability was supposed to come from the league. Yeah, but Tom is, hold on for one second. To Tommy's point about fraudulent investigation, what kind of culpability would there be for a private business conducting a fraudulent investigation in this thing? You know, one of the other things that was brought up today was that common interest agreement. Again, sort of old news between the league and Snyder. But would there be any culpability if the Beth Wilkinson investigation was a fraud?

They didn't have to do it at all. They didn't have to issue the results. And if you don't like what they said, it's not yours. What history would be, we bought our tickets because of what Goodell said, and had Goodell treated Dan Wright, we never would have paid for our tickets. And if that's true, if that's true, no corporation can afford to sell a product in the district. because you can allege any wrongdoing by any company you could say I wouldn't have bought from that company if I knew this about their conduct. Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola, what about the child labor laws? Well, there's lots of things, but it's not a D.C. consumer protection action. It can be a child labor law violation. It can be a shareholder derivative suit. There can be lots of things, but it's not a D.C. consume protection. And by overreaching, you make Dan sympathetic. by overreaching the United Dan and the lead. How can the owners say what Dan's done should cause him to be thrown out

if they've all done at least this part, which has been accused at times and denied it? That's a stretch. That's a real stretch. Which part, Tommy? The United... The idea that all the owners have done this, for one thing. That's a stretch.

You have no idea of all the owners have done it. Well, we don't know that all the owners have done it, but we know that there have been accurate. against many. Yes, there have. Yes. Many? I don't know.

The majority? Who cares if it's a majority or minority? If there's more than one. I suspect every club during its history has had at least one employment, employment, you know, unfair treatment lawsuit. Yeah, I'm sure there are history. If we go back to 1932, yeah, it probably has. But this is, I mean, we don't have an idea.

We don't have a clue what's going to happen out of this. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets dismissed in court. But if it doesn't get dismissed in court, what happens then? If it doesn't get dismissed in court, it will have to be that, I can't even think of it. That somehow somebody's entitled to a rebate on their tickets because of the value of a non-sexual, of a disclosure versus not. It is not a remedy for the consumer protection complaint that you disclose the best, Wilkinson report. That's not the remedy.

But it gives, it gives victims their day in court. They have their day in court. Oh, no, they didn't have them if they've had their day in court. That's Lisa Banks' problem. They can't, they have private causes of action. Go soon. No, not for

not for a lot of them. These time has run out for that. Okay. Well, if you wave, you're right. In a way, this is exactly in a way what we've been talking about ever since the congressional investigation started and Dan Snyder has been saying

oh no we're good now that's all in the past this is about accountability you may not like the way they're doing it and it may be futile but it still brings a level of accountability to the situation if this moves beyond the dismissal level

there will be depositions there will be subpoenas do you think that like me I like the general like like like Christine said, they won't be on a yacht. Well, that was a good line. But, you know, Howard, back to what you said, because one of the first things I thought of,

I'm like, my God, like he's putting Snyder back into kind of a common ground situation with the league and Goodell, because they're all being targeted with this thing. Now, whether or not, I personally, I think, and you and I have talked a lot about in the past, about turning him into a sympathetic figure. I think we're past that point now. I think it's almost impossible to turn him into a sympathetic figure. But I do worry about whether or not if this is, you know, as you describe it, which is, you know, for the lack of a better description, somewhat frivolous,

you know, whether or not he'll get his hind legs up and start digging his heels in and saying, you know, to hell with everybody. I'm changing my mind. I'm not selling this team until I clear my name. If you were going to hold a vote in March to throw them out, you have to table that vote now. You cannot have a vote in the league that says this own merits being thrown out without hurting your case pending in D.C. You're just making the case against you in D.C. now. It's sort of like once the case is brought, you tell all the people, you can't discuss these issues anymore.

You could throw them out for something else that isn't specific. to this and what Racine is going after. But I get your point. The whole idea is that they're not going to, I mean, voting him out is the last resort. Yes, agree. Getting him to walk out is the path that's being taken. And to me, this could go either way. You could argue that this could maybe galvanize some support for him, or it could be the other way.

where the older said, my God, another day, another thing I have to deal with because of this guy, another, you know, lawyer I have to hire because of this guy, you know, let's get rid of this guy. Right. Or as you. So it could go either way. Yeah, or. It could go either way. Let me just remind you of what you've said many times.

The passage of time does not make things better when it comes to Dan Snyder in this organization. And last week we got the best news we've gotten in 22 and a half years. And now, you know, this lawsuit puts Dan together with Goodell and the league. The other, absolutely. They have to. Unless Pash is going to say, you're right, we committed consumer protection fraud in the district. That's never going to happen. Covington Burling and Paul Weiss are going to brief this and say this is nonsense.

But the other thing, if Dan had agreed to sell, to appease Tanya and his family to put an end to this, there is no reason to sell anymore because selling it will not end this. If this doesn't get dismissed in court, if the next stage he wants to pursue it, then it doesn't matter if he's the current or former owner. If it won't matter, he's still going to have the headaches.

Why sell? Does this do anything with respect to, if he continues down the path of trying to sell this team, what does it do to a prospective owner? Does it make them pause? Do they have any sort of liability here? What does Jeff Bezos or Byron Allen or John Henry, who was in the New York Post this morning, is a guy that's now interested in making a bid on the team, the Red Sox owner.

What does it do to that part of the equation? That owner has to go in and talk to Deborah Katz and have a resolution of her civil case. They have to go into each of the AGs and have a resolution on behalf of the commanders. But they were going to have to do that anyway, right? They were going to have to do that even before today. So I'm asking specific to what Racine did today, does it add any more complexity? They have to resolve Racine, but that doesn't resolve it against Stan Snyder personally. So the commanders have a institution to my peace.

the NFL couldn't the NFL Roger Goodell seek to be uh seek to be you know dismissed separately from the motion they will

they will seek to dismiss from many many reasons it doesn't stay the cause of action at all under the consumer protection laws and it certainly doesn't stay a cause of action against Roger Goodell you would have to find now and that's the hardest one to get Tommy

because of the way they alleged it if it's true that Roger Goodell was complicit in lying about the existence of workplace misconduct. He's his libel as Dan Snyder to the people in the district who bought tickets because they wouldn't have paid so much had they known. That's the theory. So, and then that's two in every town. You're right.

Wouldn't, if they do have the deposits, you know, in customers and people were posting online, and I forget where I saw this earlier, that they had received checks from the team recently, including apparently one that bounced on past deposits returned on the season ticket agreements that they had. You know, that just seems to me like it's much more doable. I mean, I think it's peanuts and overall dollars, but still, if they ripped people off by not returning their deposits, That just seemed to me to be what we were going to hear today, and it sounds like what we might hear next week. Why didn't they go with that first?

And that's an important question, and the answer is this guy wanted to get in, to run down to the end zone, to spike the ball, and then to introduce other cohorts from spiking the ball. This was like a 15-yard penalty for celebrating in the end zone. That's what today was. I want a piece of the workplace misconduct scandal. I want to make the front page of the post.

Sally Jenkins is writing about me, my grandkids will see this, that's what it strikes me as, because otherwise you bring a lawsuit of the consumer protection against the person who did it, and the one that would be the most likely would be that they knowingly withheld people's deposits, and that would be a legal dispute. When did we have a legal obligation to return it? Is there a particular time when we do, or did we have to wait until they ask, it and that was a routine legal dispute, and that is properly consumer protection. He did not want this today. His restating the same facts we've heard forever and saying, and now I'm

going to take the depositions because someone elected me until January 2nd. He didn't want to lose that moment today. What is the time? That may be true. That may be true. But as long if you get where you want to go, who really cares what his motives are? Well, yeah. I mean, as long as he accomplishes, but how do you, hopefully accomplish what happens? What is he trying to accomplish though, Tommy? If the grandstanding was about being a part of, hold on, let me finish, about being a part of the group that ran Dan out of town finally. I mean, last week, Dan agreed, you know, or we're all pretty sure.

that he finally made the decision to sell the team. How did he further that today? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how he did. I'll tell you how one way he could have possibly is they have a conversation with Roger Duhl and the NFL lawyers where they say, look, you drop us from the lawsuit. You know, we'll give you the information you're looking for on Dan Snyder.

The details from the Beth Wilkinson and Beth. that were never revealed. Yeah, but so that he can do what? It's not a business that resides in D.C. I know that. I know that. I know that. And I don't quite get the consumer protection part of it,

except the idea that, you know, if there's customers of this company that live in the city, and, you know, Howard pointed out how nebulous that is, that, you know, that makes it make some fair game. It's a stretch. I'll grant you that. All right. Let's take a break and continue this conversation right after these words from a few of our sponsors. Don't forget to rate us and review us, especially on Apple and Spotify. So many of you have written some very nice reviews on Apple and given us five stars.

That's a huge help. Everybody loves Tommy and Howard many continue to write in their Apple reviews, how much they enjoy when you are on the show as well. So what have we missed? What haven't we asked you or what haven't you said so far about this day? Well, I think the most important one is we've been trying to figure out what change that led Dan to decide to sell. And it has to be, in some respect, wanting this to end. And if it's not going to end, he's a lot better defending it from a position as the head of the team than being out having none of the resources and having to defend this themselves.

Explain why that is. So if Dan is gone, if Dan is gone, they'll settle this against the commanders. They'll settle it against the lead. But Dan will still have a personal lawsuit brought by the AG against them, but he won't have any access to the team, to the staff, to the lawyers who are being hired by the team to defend the team. But with $7 billion, he can hire good lawyers. To the documents, to the witnesses he needs, and to the position,

it is so much easier to defend yourself as a sitting president than as an ex-president because you command a lot of power. You command a lot of access. Same thing. I would not tell Dan, I would not tell Dan go forward with a sale until this is over. In fact, that's what I would say with Dan. I was planning to sell it. It was going to be done by March.

Now this lawsuit came in. I've got to wait until it's resolved before I can go forward with selling it. That would really get people on Racine really quickly. That would actually be a master PR stroke, which they're not capable of making, as we know. Can you imagine, Tommy, if the statement today was, well, last week we decided we were going to sell the team, but now we're going to have to defend ourselves against this lawsuit. so it'll be months, if not a few years before we get around to selling the team. But be patient because we think we've got a chance on Monday night against Philadelphia

to get to 500. Yeah, but you know, by the time they issue that statement, the Virginia Attorney General will be revealing the details of their investigation. But Howard, that would be different, right, if it were the Virginia. That would be different. and there's not a prayer that Glenn Yonkin let that go forward. Well, then what about Maryland? Well, why did they initiate it in the first?

Why? Let me ask you, Howard. The Virginia Attorney General was under no obligation to conduct this investigation. I mean, they got a letter from the, you know, from the Congressional Committee about what was going on, and the Attorney General there said, we're going to investigate it. He was no under obligation to do that. that? Sure, but there are proper things to investigate here. If this would been, if this had been

a claim that they have knowingly, and they have documents showing that they knowingly withheld deposits from people who asked them back and lied about the status, that's their job. That's completely their job. If they didn't bring it, that would be a problem. But if you're saying, by the way, here's a revelation. There's been a workplace misconduct. It's been documented. We've had televised hearings from the Hill, and now we're going to say that that workplace misconduct by a Virginia and Maryland-based entity violated the consumer protection laws of the district because some of our citizens paid for tickets. They must have overpaid. Again, they more likely overpaid because they thought Brendan Shirt was going to be there and they got Tray Turner than they overpaid

because they thought Dan Snyder wasn't a misogynist. Well, I think in Virginia, and now also So the U.S. Attorney General of Eastern Virginia, who's conducting the criminal investigation possibly into Snyder and the commander. Right. I mean, this guy, it's going to wind up. If you think that all this is going to empower Dan Snyder, it's going to wind up like that scene in Monty Python and a Holy Grail, with a black knight has no arms and no legs left,

and he's telling the guy, he said, come on, I'll still fight you. Come on. Let's fight. Look, that's funny, and I'm not sure anybody's saying it's going to empower him. What I'm saying, and what I've said to you, Tom, and what I've said to you, Howard, since last Wednesday is let's just let him sell the team. Let's get this thing done by March and then let everybody come after him and hold press conferences and do this stuff. to me, how can it not muddy the waters or at least slow the process down? This explains a lot also of what happened yesterday.

It explains a lot about yesterday. So the commanders issued a statement, angry and about a novel theory. If you had told me yesterday that they were about to come out today with indictment for consumer protection because they didn't disclose, by the way, doing the workplace misconduct is not a problem. that's not what the consumer protection is. You can harass all you want. You just have to admit you're doing it to your ticket holders, to your ticket buyers,

because that's their theory. And if you told me that was their theory, I'd say that's nonsense. It gets dismissed. No reasonable attorney's going to do it. It's certainly not in the district. And so I would have been as angry yesterday and issued the statement that said,

they're doing a novel theory. I would have disclosed it for them. They're doing a novel theory that makes zero sense. I just would have left Brian Robinson out of it. Well, maybe they didn't know specifically what he was going to say today. Is that possible? No, when they said they knew it was a novel theory,

they went and they've argued and they said they cleared some things up. But if you, like when you ask me, what could he possibly bring? It wasn't the workplace misconduct. That is, there are lawsuits. EEOC demands. You make your EEOC demand. You say you were discriminated against them. basis of race or gender, and then there's a finding, and then you can go to court.

Lisa Banks and Depp, they have their recourse. Many of these women settle that case, and now they're like, oh, now we can get something more, and Debra Banks, Elisa Banks wants to make, and Debra Katz want to make, they want to make enough noise until they get a large check. What part? You have no idea how many people, how many of these women settle their cases? Well, if they didn't, they should be still proceeding on them. Isn't there a statute of limitations on some of these?

Well, I don't know whether they settled it or they got the statute of limitations, but there is judicial recourse for being mistreated in the workplace by a private employer. It's just not a consumer protection action by the agent. Yeah, but Tommy's saying, is there a statute of limitations? If this happened in, is there a statute of limitations or not on sexual harassment? Is it five years, 10 years, 15 years? Is there or isn't there? I don't know what it would be.

Yes, there is a statute of limitations. Okay. So that's, but by the way, that's for a real reason. If it, that's supposed to be because if you've had your rights violated like that, you have a period of acting rather than way after the fact saying me too. Now, I have no doubt that there was workplace misconduct, condemnable, toxic, horrendous. I just don't think we need to break the law, to break the legal, boundaries of different doctrines and jurisdictions to try to get it that ought to be left to

being remedied the way they want. And that's what their law firm does. They bring these cases all the time. Perception changes legal remedies all the time. Legal remedies evolve all the time. They're not set in stone. Sure. And the D.C. City Council can change the law. They can do that all they want, but for D.C. companies. Or a judge can change the law. A judge. A judge. A judge. can decide that this case can move forward. Not until the abortion decisions could the judges change the law. Now they've changed it, but otherwise you're supposed to follow the law. Do we know, let me ask you a question.

That's just as an aside, just for maybe a little bit. Michael Phillips from the Richmond Times dispatch pointed out this one part is in the D.C. Attorney General Report. And, you know, it's hard to keep track of all the sins that were committed by this idiot owner. But he pointed out that where prostitutes were brought to Snyder's vacation home in Aspen, Colorado in 2005. We've heard that before. We've heard that before. We've heard that before. We've heard that before.

We've read that part many times, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I wasn't sure if we had that, because that is in the report. No, this guy kept talking about a lot of these things that we've talked about so many times as if he were, as if he was revealing something. Like if he had investigated and found out about these things. things, but there wasn't one thing that he said. I mean, I'll read through, yeah, go ahead.

The victims would say to you, it may have been said before, it may have been said multiple times, but nobody's done anything about it yet. Right. Actually, the league would say the Beth Wilkinson investigation in all of the findings of the toxic workplace, that's a matter that's been resolved. We find him $10 million and we quasi-suspended him. That was our decision. As a private business, We investigated it, and it's a matter that's been resolved. Now, with respect to the women that came forward, in terms of them getting some sort of resolution, that's through the legal system, Tommy. It's not for the league to do.

Well, the legal system, however warped, you may think this is, this is the legal system proceeding, taking up their case. It may last off two, three weeks. Yes. And then, you know. Nobody's saying that this guy didn't have the right to call a press conference and do this. The issue is whether or not it was, you know, the juice was worth to squeeze here. Because listening to Howard and Howard hasn't been wrong about much since he's been on with me for the last year and a half, two years.

I kind of, that was my initial reaction is what am I learning here from this? What is it that we're doing here? But I don't, what do I know? Howard, what specifically happens now? I mean a nothing burger. What specifically happens next? What will the team, how will the team respond here? You know, many people, by the time they get to listening to this, may have already heard the response.

So, first of all, I'm surprised. If this were something that the office was all consistent about, I would have imagined that the attorney general elect would have been there and would have said he looked forward to taking over the case. and instead Racine did this, knowing he's leaving in January 2nd, and it comes to a new administration, and he even said, Racine said he'll probably want his own attorneys to handle it. So maybe they're all leaving the office, but to talk about getting dumped on by your predecessor, which I've got to believe because the new guy wasn't there. Normally, if you bring a blockbuster case with 30 days to go before you're gone,

Don't you think you've planned for what happens after? Our job is we just filed it and held the press conference. What happens thereafter? I was gone. So when he said the new team will probably take over, he'll probably want his own attorneys, doesn't sound to me like they're on the same page. But the next step after the filing would be you file motions to dismiss, challenging whether the complaint, if taken is true,

states a legal cause of action. Does it state a claim for consumer protection fraud in the district within the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of the district? And I assure you the lead, Goodell, and the commanders and Snyder's lawyers will all say, assuming the facts are all true. It's not a consumer protection complaint. Now, it sounds like from Nikki's tweet that before they even have their motions to dismiss this due, he's going to supplement the complaint, adding the legitimate stuff, namely some consumer fraud on giving back the deposits, which if they have been holding the deposits, they ought to get sued. They ought to have to return them, and they could pay interest, pay penalties if there's a punitive provision for that.

I'd penalize them for holding, wrongfully withholding the deposits. That depends on the deposit policy. But it sure looks like they all of a sudden began to read the fine print and say, let's start contacting people we think to have deposits. If you remember, Jason Friedman said they used to send those letters, but when they thought there were scale addresses. Right, right. And plus companies who purchased in blocks,

some of the people that had their names on the lease were no longer with the company itself. Let me just one last thought on this thing. If Racine today had actually had a toxic workplace bombshell, you know, that isn't a he said, she said. But he had interviewed somebody, as Beth Wilkinson interviewed people, as Mary Jo White have been interviewing people, that led them to some legitimate what we've been talking about for years, like smoking gun, like Dan did something to somebody that. was untoward, that is sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, et cetera. Not that he said, she said,

not the thing that was settled by the insurance company for $1.6 million. But if he had had something like that, I'm not saying that it would have been within his jurisdiction to do anything about it. And I kind of understand the whole idea of the consumer protection thing. At least that seems intuitive to me. But what would that have done today? If he had unveiled through their investigation, somebody and proof that Dan had committed some sort of event. Like there was legitimate proof of that. I guess I'm answering my own question. That would have been the press conference,

especially if that person was from D.C. Here's how a good prosecutor does what Tommy wants, and I don't disagree with it, which is accountability and justice. If, in fact, you don't have jurisdiction about this, but the guy testified under oath in the district, which he did. Congress, it wasn't, it was, um, uh, if there was, if there was, if it was, um, if it was, um, he, what do you ask? Yeah. He was asked 18 hours of questions.

If you have, they would ask the kinds of questions that said, did you personally do A being seen who would have denied it? Did you do anything wrong personally? And you found that he had, in fact, molested someone in a bathroom. Then you have charges you would announce that you're referring for criminal investigation for perjury. And you refer to the U.S. attorney in the district. The way you take actions that were beyond the statute of limitations or already settled, but you want to have them come back up again is you get the guy to testify,

either asked by a federal official where it would be another crime to lie to a federal official or under oath. And then there is no statute of limitations you lied last summer. That's how you resurrect. That's how you get accountability for things that are time lapse for things that are gone. So if he had anything new that he had actually found, all you do is combed through the transcript of what the House had asked him, and you find the inconsistency. You have a press conference that says on September, whatever, Dan Snyder answered this to this question. Our investigations now revealed that, in fact, the opposite occurred.

He committed perjury before the House in the District of Columbia. We are referring to the U.S. attorney for prosecution. I would have to think, though, given that he, you know, was not under subpoena, that he, you know, was, went before the House oversight and Reform Committee in exactly the environment that he was willing to do and his lawyers were willing to do after obviously lots of back and forth, that his attorneys wouldn't have let him answer something like that. I agree he didn't, but that's largely, Kevin, because we've never actually found anything that he actually said or hands laid on, as opposed to being the head of the ship, knowing this environment was going forth, laughing along with it, and not stopping it. But we never had the one we could nail down as the one allegation that got settled early,

the allegation now under the table, whatever they are. We haven't had that. We haven't had someone saying he was using the N-word. We haven't had that kind of stuff by him. But if they had found it, it would have contradicted what he had said at the Hilton. Kevin? Yes. I think you keep harping on the smoking gun.

And I think you're missing the point that the talk. workplace is the smoking gun. That's what they have. They have their smoking gun. I'm not missing that. It wasn't an accident that crazy Jim Ursaise used the words, toxic workplace. But Tommy, you act like toxic workplace is new, like Me Too is new. And I understand the Surgeon General got you started on this.

But we've been in this environment for several years now. It has reached a level in corporation boardrooms across America. where the level of tolerance for it has shrunk significantly. I think that level and that threshold was reached a few years back. I think you're late on that. I think you're hitting it now. Why? We went through a Me Too era.

That was a few years ago. That's not an era. Me too. It's not an era. Okay. Sorry for the description of the time piece. What I'm trying to drive home the point is that we just didn't learn about, all of these sexual harassment cases and it become a big thing. You're acting like we've just decided that this is a bad thing this year.

It's been years. And I'm telling you, it takes time for these things to work through the system. And it's worked through the system to the point where the level of toleration for it is much less now than it was when the quote, me too thing first began. I think that they have their smoking gun. I think the NFL believes they have their smoking gun if they want to force them out. Here's where I think Tom is right and where everyone made the mistake. When they got the best Wilkinson report, they should have told Dan, look, it's in your own good now.

We're suspending you for a year, really? Definitely. And we're fining you $50 million to go to the victims, and you're settling it $10 million fine and $40 million to the Debracats plaintiff. and we're putting this all behind us with a real punishment. Right. And Dan, and Dan so fought even looking like it, that you have people like Tommy and I agree completely with him who feel there still hasn't been accountability.

And then that causes the gymnastics in the House, which became Republicans rallying to Dan Snyder's defense, and then shenanigans in the district getting me to rally to his defense because it wasn't handled right the first time. I agree with that. I agree with that. I mean, I felt that way from the jump. If that's what Tommy's saying, I completely agree with that.

I think that they totally whiffed in the moment that Beth Wilkinson investigation was over to not severely punish him. And, you know, the reason that they didn't, and Tommy knows this, is he wasn't going to accept it. he was going to fight it. He did. He called people like Tommy and had his lawyers calling people like Tommy to say he didn't get fined. The organization got fined.

He wasn't the problem. It was others in the organization. He wasn't suspended. So they were going to have that issue. But to your point and to Tom's point, they should have said, too bad, fight us on this. But you're going to take this severe punishment. That's what it is. and people would have taken it more seriously.

But once it felt like a slap on the wrist, that's when release the report started. And I'm not saying it wouldn't have started anyway. And they should have Beth Wilkinson, you know, take her notes from the oral presentation and disclose what she learned in that investigation. I'm all for that. But I agree he should have been punished.

And I agree also, Tommy, that a lot of people, including Jim Ursay, because Mark Maskey reported this. Remember, like six months ago, that several owners feel like Goodell did not handle the punishment of Snyder the first go-round after the Beth Wilkinson investigation appropriately, and they wanted more. You know, I agree with you on that.

And with a severe punishment, it might have gone away, but the ironic thing that we keep forgetting about is it had went away. Yes. And then the emails popped up. True. John Gruden, Bruce Allen emails popped up in leaks to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. And that just blew it all up again. And that is still to be played out in court.

The NFL still has not gotten that lawsuit dismissed. Okay. But you know what, guys? I mean, I know you said that I'm missing the big picture on this and that the toxic workplace issue is the smoking gun. Fine. I just think that it's not the current smoking gun. We've been talking about their toxic workplace and about, you know, sexual harassment. Harvey Weinstein's in jail for crying out loud.

And that happened several years ago for a while now. You know what I'm specifically talking about with respect to smoking gun. But the big picture right now, from my standpoint, as a guy that used to be a hardcore fan of the team, is that one week ago, he said he was going to sell for all intents and purposes, explore all options. but I think we all understood that he was going to sell. And now what I'm wondering, and I have no idea what the answer is, is what happened today? You know, what happened with the Eastern District of Virginia,

the lawsuit that came out the day after he announced this. I just want... Oh, that's not a lawsuit. I know. It's a criminal investigation. I just want him to proceed without a lot of people getting in the way for now selling the team and going to closing in March and having the money wired into his account and some new owner taking over.

And then all of this stuff can happen. Maybe I'm worrying to a point in which it's not worth it. But when I sat there and listened to that guy today, I just thought, why can't we do this five months from now? Well, let me tell you this. A little bit of news here. This is from Nikki Javala, in Washington Post. She tweeted out a statement from John Brownlee and Stewartman.

Oh, God, I want to hear this one. Over two years ago, Dan and Tanya Snyder acknowledged that an unacceptable workplace culture had existed within their organization for several years, several decades, it should be. And they have apologized many times for allowing that to happen. We agree with AG Racine on one thing. The public needs to know the truth. although the lawsuit repeats a lot of innuendo, half-truth and lies, we welcome this opportunity to defend the organization for the first time in a court of law and establish once and for all what is fact and what is fiction.

So what do you make of that statement, Howard? Well, that is a big statement to get your head around because they can get this case dismissed and maybe it's simply that they have a badly pled case. They know it gets dismissed, and then they claim that's acquittal and innocence. If they're thinking they're going to say, forget the fact that this isn't properly stated, we just want to get some form to wrestle on the merits. I can't imagine that. The next step is going to be a motion to dismiss that this doesn't state it.

I would agree. And what will happen is if the DCAG loses, and he loses on a legal what you call technicality, but it's the law. It's not that he doesn't have jurisdiction to bring this case this way that doesn't stay a cause of action. They will claim vindication.

Yeah, they'll claim victory. And the other thing that comes that I think about, as Tommy just read that statement, and I just pulled it up, is, okay, here we go. They're going to be focused on this lawsuit and defending themselves. And I know that they can do two things at once,

understood that hopefully they can multitask and all the while have the team up for sale and start accepting bids. But I'd like to see where he comes down on selling the team right now. There'll be a certain price where none of it will matter to him. None of the other stuff will matter if he gets his price. I hope you're right. I hope it is about money because he's going to get offered a lot of it. I have no idea what to expect now. All right. Howard, you're great. That was awesome.

That was... Great beat on with you, Howard. Tom, I really enjoy it. Let's grab a beer, a cup of coffee sometime. We'll all do it together. Sounds good to me. All right. Tommy, stick around. We got other things to talk about, including what happened last night, as Dan stood behind Brian Robinson, Jr., a 23-year-old rookie running back.

We'll get to that and more right after these words from a few of our sponsors. What did you make of the conversation with Howard before we get on to what happened yesterday and last night? Well, one of the things that I said that I think is really the truth here is we don't know what's going to happen. This is, we don't quite, a lot of us don't quite understand the concept of basically the Turner General has said the team committed fraud and hid information and, you know, created this whole fraudulent. and investigation while making money and protecting their profits in the result. And some of those profits were made from Washington consumers. It's not something I fully understand, and I'll be real curious to see what happens when the new Attorney General for the district takes over.

I think Howard was right bringing up it. It seemed a bit unusual for the successor. not to be up there with him, unless he just wanted his moment in the sun by himself, you know? Well, he did seem to enjoy it. Yes. So, I mean, I don't know if he'd want to share the stage with anybody, you know? Yeah, even if the other guy is going to follow through on this, it would be pretty embarrassing if the other guy takes over and drops the suit.

I find it hard to believe that there hasn't been some conversations that have taken place and, you know, this guy just may have wanted the whole stage to himself. But we'll find out. Yeah. I mean, you know. And then we'll find out what a judge does. The judge dismisses it, which a lot of people reasonably think could happen. Because, again, we've never really quite dealt with anything like this before.

And on some level, it doesn't make sense. You know, it doesn't make sense on some level. I understand that. Yeah, I'm really, you know, enlistening. Listening to Howard and then listening to some of what you said, I mean, like I'd like to do what we usually do, which is, damn it, we got to have a position and we got to make a prediction here. But I really, I sat there in my car. I didn't watch it. I sat there in my car and listened to it because I didn't know it was going to be on TV. So I went into my car to listen to it on radio. By the way, as a quick aside, when's the last time? you went to McDonald's? Actually, I'll be going this afternoon.

I usually get like a small order of fries to eat on the way in. Oh, really? Yeah, to go teach my class. Okay. I can't tell you the last, it's been six months. It's not that I'm not a fast food guy because I love Chick-fil-A, and I love five guys and places like that. But, you know, like fast, fast-food joints, I'm trying to think.

other than Chick-fil-A, I don't know, Roy Rogers, definitely in the last six months. You know, I think I told you, like, I was out in Rockville like six months ago, and how can't you go into Roy Rogers when you pass it? Absolutely. But I can't remember the last time for McDonald's other than breakfast, because I really do think the McDonald's breakfast is very good. So I decided to get in the car. I was hungry, and I wanted to listen to this thing on the radio,

and I got into the line at McDonald's, and I got myself a number one Big Mac with no pickles. I'm not a big pickles guy. And I'll tell you what, Tommy, I'm not sure there's ever been a fast food sandwich as good as a Big Mac. The Big Mac is so good. So good.

That special sauce is outstanding. I got a fries with it, and I was almost going to get a shake. I didn't do a shake. Because it's not that I don't eat, or do you drink milkshakes. eat ice cream because there's so much ice cream in my house every night. But usually not like in the middle of the day.

So I just got, you know, I just got a bottled water. But man, that Big Mac was good. Anyway, let's get to what happened, you know, yesterday. Just with the team responding to the attorney general who announced this, you know, 1 p.m. press conference today. And they put out this statement, I'm assuming almost everybody saw it, less than three months ago, a 23-year-old player on our team was shot multiple times in broad daylight. despite the out-of-control violent crime in D.C.

Today, the Washington commanders learned for the first time on Twitter that the D.C. Attorney General will be holding a press conference to make a major announcement related to the organization tomorrow. The commanders have fully cooperated with the AG's investigation for nearly a year. As recently as Monday, a lawyer for the team met with the AG who did not suggest at that time that he intended to take any action and, in fact, revealed fundamental misunderstandings of the underlying facts. It is unfortunate that in his final days and office,

Mr. Racine appears more interested in making splashy headlines based on offbeat legal theories, which we just went through with Howard, rather than doing the hard work of making the streets safe for our citizens, including bringing to justice the people who shot one of our players. That was followed up by Brian Robinson Jr.'s agent making the following statement. and he said that, where is it? Up until an hour ago, the commanders handled the Brian Robinson situation with so much care, sincerity in class, and I was so grateful for all of it.

Although I know there are some great humans in that building, whoever is hiding behind this statement is not one of them. And then we got the statement from Jason Wright, which is always their move. They always have to have a statement that follows the statement because they never get the original statement right, as we know. And Jason Wright's statement said, I just spoke to Chief Conti.

He's the chief of police in D.C., conveying how much we support the work of the MPD, as well as public safety leaders and elected officials working to reduce gun violence and crime across the region. The earlier statement expressed our external counsel's ongoing frustration. So the earlier statement expressed our external counsel's ongoing frustration with the AG's office as they have been nothing. but earnest and transparent in their communications with his team.

The lawyer's legitimate frustrations with the AG should have been separate and apart from referencing the terrible crime that affected our player. So obviously this was quite the shit show last night. I did not see what you tweeted out, and we haven't talked about this. So I just want your reaction to the events of yesterday as we go out of order today. I tweeted out following the Jason Wright statement. I tweeted out Amateur Hour. If Jason Wright didn't know about the statement,

it illustrates the lack of control he has over to chaos of the command. You think he's got any control? Well, he's a teen president. So what? You know, if he did know, it illustrates how tone-depth he is and why he's working for Skipper Dan the sailing man. Some people push back saying, you know, if the owner did this, how can Jason Wright have anything to do with this?

Let me, just like going back to the Jack Del Rio shitstorm. Okay? At Jason Wright at some point, should have gotten everybody in that building together long time ago and say nobody puts nothing out like this. without it going through me. Nobody. Well, you do think, and I think we're in agreement on this. We haven't talked about it, but I would assume you do think that the original statement was a Dan statement, right?

That this was Dan and the lawyers, you know, what are we going to do? This guy's pissed us off. He's going to have some press conference tomorrow. Right. And again, any lawyer that Dan Snyder hires, if I were the team president, I'd have a conversation with him the minute they were hired, say, look, you don't post anything, anything at all, on social media without it going through me. Okay? And if that's not good enough for Dan Snyder, then you've got to quit your job.

Then you have to quit. You have to, because the owner makes you look like an ass every time. Okay? And you're damaging yourself with this. You are the team president. You have control. You should have control. all the messages that are coming out of that building. And you should demand control. You should

order control. And if you don't, then, then, you know, you're a clerk. You know what? You're right. You're a clerk. You know what? You're 100% right. I agree. I think, No, I mean, I'm, as you're sitting here saying it, because I wasn't about to defend Jason Wright, I was just going to say good luck. You know, I mean, Dan does what he wants to do. He's been doing this for years. You know, good luck if you're the general manager or if you're the coach and you want to draft somebody other than Dwayne Haskins. Good luck with that.

Good luck with, you know, hey, I don't want Donovan McNabb unless it's for a fourth rounder and we don't pay any of the upcoming salary. Good luck with that. I mean, you know, because it's, it's, you know, it's a cause that you, you know, you can't, it's a situation you can't win in. So he, you know, part of me is like I, I thought last night, poor Ron Rivera, who's coming back from his, you know, burying his mother out in northern California, he's going to get back to another one of these days where, you know, we just, you know, we wipe off five and we put zero again.

And he's going to get asked about it. And I haven't seen how he's answered any of this today. I'm sure he's already done that. I can look it up here in a second. But, you know, at the same time, everybody that in this, you know, era, maybe that's the theme of the show era, the, they should know what they're getting into when they come to work here. And I know the money is hard to turn down. The opportunity for, you know, to become the first black team president of a team is hard to turn down.

Ron, you know, had full control, or at least assumed that he was going to have full control of the football operation versus maybe just being a coach somewhere else. But, you know, you know what you're getting yourself into when you come here. It's well documented for now a decade plus. You know, when Mike came in in 2010, you knew it then. That was like the first coach, hey, you're entering a total shit show, just so you know. But at the same time, the last two years have been different, and the last year in particular has been really, it's been one thing after another.

I mean, as much as we like to laugh about the last 22 years and what a disaster it's been, the last two years have been incredible. It's every... It's like the wild mouse, the roller coaster rides. I mean, that never stops. Teacups. Yeah, you never get off, though.

You never get a chance to get off. You get sick, too, if you've got motion issues. I just, I did think last night when I read that, God, I mean, the depths to which they will stoop, he will stoop. Because you knew it was him from the jump. You know, this was a Dan production. This was Dan and that lawyer that's been, I think he's a lawyer, but he's been going around, as kind of a marketing guy and a PR guy for Dan Brownling for the last, you know, couple of weeks. Kevin, he's a big-time lawyer.

You know, the movie, Dope Sick, the series, dope-sick? Yeah, we love that series. What are you kidding me? We talked about it for five weeks on this show. He's the Attorney General. He's the Attorney General who stood up to the Sacklers. What? Yes, the same guy.

He's the guy that fought the Sackler family. and the Sackler family fought Rudy Giuliani to push forward with the opiate investigation they were doing. That's John Brownlee. The guy that was played by the guy that was working for the, was it the FDA or like the Department of Justice? I can picture the guy right now. I can picture the guy right now. There were two people. There were two lawyers who worked together.

Well, the guy above them. Well, Rosario Dawson was a part of that team. But who's the guy that I'm thinking of? I'm pulling it up right now because we love that show. You acted like we haven't talked about this show, because you asked me, do you know the show Dobs? We talked about it. I'm the one that told you to watch it.

Right. Peter Sarsgaard, that's the guy in the movie. So you're saying he played John Brownlee? Yeah. Because his name on the show is Rick Mount Castle. Let me see here. No, I don't think he's Rick Mount Castle. Oh, here he is.

Jake McDorman played John Brownlee on the show. Yes. Wow. This guy fought the bad guys. Yeah. And now look at him. This was the hero, one of the heroes of the Dolphick story. Wow. Same John Brownlee.

Yeah. Anyway, obviously it seemed like a Brownlee Snyder, you know, concoction here. I mean, I first thought it could have been this director of communications, but I was told that she was not involved in any of this and then tried to talk everybody out of it, but they said no. It's so cowardly, and it's so also. there's never been any governor for him. There's never been any ability to say, hold on for a second. What's after we do this, what will happen next?

He constantly shoots and then wonders after the fact, oh, maybe we should not have fired in that direction. I still think about the worst thing that I think the organization is. never did. You and I were doing a show together at the time. I just, still to this day, it makes me so angry when they leaked that stuff about Scott McLuhan to the post. That was so evil. It was so evil. It was so evil. It was so horrible and it was so awful to somebody who really did and was struggling with an issue because it certainly wasn't their organization that would, you know, step up like men and say, we need to get you help. We're going to help you. We're going to be here to support you. No.

They leaked stuff to make themselves look like they were smart and okay and justified for firing him. But anyway, the agent responded. Robinson Jr., I'm sure, got asked about it today. I don't know. I mean, what else? I'm getting tired of this conversation. What do you want to say about yesterday? Nothing else.

I'm done. Because you have to go, not because you're done. Well, because what else is saying? We think we just discussed yesterday. Didn't we? No. Weren't you there for that discussion? No, we didn't do this yesterday.

You were not on the show yesterday. Well, what are we talking about? We're discussing yesterday. Oh, we're discussing yesterday. I thought he said we discussed this yesterday. No. We are discussing yesterday right now. Right.

We just did. All right. I know you were there. I was talking to you. Do you have a prediction on the game Sunday? Oh, yeah. I think they're going to give it the old college try. I think Taylor is going to bounce back and they're going to lose 29-24.

29-24. They cover. Okay, I'm done if you're done. I don't know what else to say. We'll be back tomorrow with some football talk. I think Howard was great today. I don't know if he was right, but I think he was really entertaining. We'll find out certainly in the coming days if he was right.

All right. Back tomorrow. Thanks, Tommy. All right, boss. See you.