DawgTalkers.net Forums Active Threads

Me too. Probably my favorite QB likely to see the '27 draft.

I'll be watching Sellers pretty closely to see how he responds after a rough season. Hopefully he bounces back.

I dunno, I think it's fair to call a system that resulted in Trump, Biden, Trump again the last three Presidential elections as broken. It may be working as intended by those now in power mechanically, but it's a travesty. It's broken before we even get to the act of voting.

Can't say I blame you.

You were a smartass, I was flat-out rude. No excuse for that.

My apologies, I let frustration get the best of me.

Irish, I'd keep two lists going. As you stated, a list of the top 4, but I'd keep a list of QBs outside the top 4.

I'm assuming the Browns win 7-9 games. The Browns may not be able to draft one of the top guys.

My gut says Berry wants LaNorris Sellers.

If you recall, both Jackson and Mahomes had question marks about their ability to transition to the NFL. Thus, neither was drafted first.

That is not to say Sellers is as talented as these two guys. Sellers has some unique talent that, with the right surroundings, could potentially be a great QB.

Bryce is a goood WR. He set all kins of records at YSU. Well worth a PS spot.

deleted

One was on purpose. The other was simply ineptitude.

Billionaire Leon Black sues House Oversight Committee over Epstein probe subpoenas

A lawyer for the former Wall Street private equity investor argued that the committee was overstepping its authority.

Leon Black, a former Wall Street private equity investor, on Thursday sued the House Oversight Committee, seeking to stop the panel from enforcing its subpoenas against him in an ongoing probe of the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility. This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black. We were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit in response to an abuse of Congressional power,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement.

Black had been set to appear before the committee Thursday morning.

The lawsuit comes after Black voluntarily sat for a closed-door transcribed interview with the Oversight Committee in late June but left the hearing early.

Lawmakers have for months sought more information on the financial web that allowed Epstein to fund his sex trafficking operation and whether Black was at all involved or aware of any illegal activity. They specifically have sought information about any nondisclosure agreements Black signed with women.

Black has denied any wrongdoing, involvement in or awareness of Epstein’s illegal activity.

In Thursday’s statement, she said that Black was “misled” about the intentions of the committee’s chair, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky.

“Mr. Black has cooperated with the Committee by voluntarily appearing to answer questions in a transcribed interview. Despite being misled about the intent of that interview, he then fully complied with the Committee’s subpoena related to Epstein,” Estrich said.

She added, “To imply misconduct because of the existence of a confidentiality agreement is entirely unjustified. Confidentiality agreements are routinely used in business.”

Estrich went on to wholly deny any allegations against Black, saying, “We want to reiterate that Mr. Black had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019. Mr. Black never abused a woman. He never was with an underage woman. He never engaged in sex trafficking. He never paid Epstein for access to women. He was never blackmailed by Epstein.”

Black’s name appears more than 300 times in files released by the Justice Department late last year and early this year related to Epstein. His name appears often in emails from Epstein’s assistant, directing the financier to call Black. More than 100 of the mentions of Black are in emails from Epstein’s assistant, who wrote, “Leon Black returned your call.”

In a statement, Comer reacted to Black’s failure to appear before the committee Thursday, saying, “It’s a shame Leon Black is hiding behind litigation rather than provide answers to the American people.”

He added, “Mr. Black’s testimony is crucial to our investigation as he was one of Mr. Epstein’s fee paying clients and has several non-disclosure agreements. Our deposition is moving forward this morning for the record and there will be an empty chair for Mr. Black. I will speak with our members about next steps.”

Black’s career and his reputation have been marred for years due to his relationship with Epstein, a convicted child sex offender who died in 2019.

In 2022, Black was sued over allegations that he raped a woman in Epstein’s New York City mansion in 2002. That case was later dropped with prejudice after both parties reached an agreement to do so and Black denied the allegations against him. A separate but ongoing lawsuit, filed in 2023, accused Black of raping a 16-year-old girl at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2002. A lawyer for Black denied the allegations, calling them “frivolous and sanctionable.” In April, a judge overseeing the case wrote that the plaintiff and her attorney “engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case,” but allowed the case to proceed.

Black in 2021 stepped down from the hedge fund he co-founded, Apollo Global Management, after the firm conducted an independent review looking into his ties to Epstein. The review found that Black was not involved in Epstein’s criminal activities.

Earlier this year, he was set to be deposed in a lawsuit filed by survivors of Epstein and his associates alleging that Bank of America facilitated and profited from Epstein’s illegal sex trafficking activity. Bank of America later settled that lawsuit for more than $70 million and did not admit any liability in that case.

“While we stand by our prior statements made in the filings in this case, including that Bank of America did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes, this resolution allows us to put this matter behind us and provides further closure for the plaintiffs,” a Bank of America spokesperson told NBC News at the time.

In a statement reacting to news of the lawsuit Thursday, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said, “By refusing to testify today, Leon Black is now defying two Congressional subpoenas. Black gave Jeffrey Epstein over $180 million over six years. He funded Epstein’s abuse and trafficking of women. Multiple women have also accused Black of sexual assault. His connections to Epstein and his unwillingness to cooperate are unacceptable.”

Garcia also called to hold Black in contempt of Congress.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...sight-epstein-probe-subpoenas-rcna595887

I don't know where to put this, so I'll post it here. People are always knocking, critiquing, putting us down, laughing at us etc. and deservedly so for all the blunders and mismanagement we've incurred. However, if there is at least one other franchise that is as bad it's the LA Clippers. I've been reading about their latest escapade, and I have to say it sounds a lot like us. I honestly think we've turned the corner and believe things are looking up but the Clippers are in a mess and have lost 1st round picks for the next 5 years not to mention a large sum of money. Sound familiar?

You said methods, not systems. I misquoted.

Is it any wonder why you don't have any friends?

Someone must have forgotten their hormone pills this morning.

They are sent out to registered voters. They met all legal requirements when they registered to vote. Claiming the fact that someone is registered to vote doesn't want a ballot is ridiculous.


Once again they met all legal requirements when they registered to vote.I can pay cash for a pair of shoes. Just stop the nonsense already.


No, people are pointing out that you're making it purposefully harder for people to . And that much s true.


That's just some nonsense you created in your own mind. You are actively trying to make it harder to vote. You have certainly been told it's racist to continue closing polling locations in impoverished black neighborhoods mainly across the south where it's targeted at the poorest of people with the least likelihood of having transportation in order to travel to vote.

Of course you ignored all of that and now wish to write your own narrative.


You must have missed it. This is the first time in this thread you actually posted your opinion.

I understand that when someone actually adds context to help explain something that seems to trouble you.

So since you once again have no legitimate rebuttal you resort to your usual nothingness and blame me for it. It's the trumpian game plan.

The problem is you know you didn't actually post an opinion. Instead you posted a one sentence statement reply indicating you bolster some already debunked nonsense with zero context.


You seemed confused or needing an explanation about my use of #triggered #snowflake so I explained it to you. As a result of that you seem to be #triggered yet once again.


Aw, how special. You think the people who share your politics includes everyone. It doesn't. I have plenty of friends. They're just not right wing #triggered extremists who either ignore or make excuses for trump's behavior. We leave that up to you and your kind. But then once again you blame us for that since you're unwilling to step up to the plated. You choose to blame me for that................


But since that's probably the only BS you have left in your bag of tricks what else can you do?

You said he was making a fact-based discussion, why don't you go ahead and point out the "facts" he presented that are factual?


So I'll help you out, since you want some guidelines. First: read the posts, don't just come here to grandstand because it makes you feel better about yourself.

When you do read the posts, you'll see that the very "facts" he asked me to respond to were entirely fabricated based on averages from the past. Do you understand that or would you also like a refresher on reading comprehension?

While you're responding, decide whether you want to go back to civil conversation or insult each other. I'm good either way but prefer we act like adults. I didn't arbitrate which facts matter; I called out b.s.

I have an argument of broken election systems?

Nope. Never said that. You're implying that because I have a differing opinion and everyone must be typecast for each opinion.

But if you want a broken election system and compromised elections... keep mailing out tens of millions of ballots unsolicited.

My whole point is that it makes no sense whatsoever.


You know how many hoops you have to jump through to get married, to get a license, to buy a house, to get a job? Hell, you jump through waaay more hoops to buy a pair of shoes.

But "the powers that be" have painted some picture that it is sooo hard for some people to vote... and if we don't make it the easiest thing in the world, well, then we're racist and cheating people out of the privilege of voting.


Fine, then make them make one click of a button to REQUEST a ballot be mailed to them.

Is this really that hard? Is it really that hard to understand how someone may have that opinion?

Since you seem to be the arbiter of which facts matter, perhaps you could help the rest of us out with some guidelines?

You're not talking to me, but 'triggered snowflake' is a bit much, IMO. Your opinion is the sole thing that props up your argument of 'broken election systems' which has been debunked time and time again, however.

Browns sign Coats to PS

https://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/browns-sign-cb-michael-coats-jr-to-the-practice-squad

When I said "I've got an idea" the following opinion was a dead-giveaway.

Yeah, I can't even read the rest of that mess... Jelly donuts, reacher, dixie chicks, blah, blah, blah.

EVERY TIME I unclick ignore. I have no idea why I'm so slow to learn.


You can have back your one-man echo chamber. One of your pets will come along soon and you can talk about "crickets".

What opinion did you share and what did you base your opinion on? You made a general statement without any context. But in general, this is the exact same thing trumpians claim about every democrat that complains about anything trump does. Haven't you been paying attention?

It's either call them triggered snowflakes or claim they have TDS because they can't defend his actions. Or what responsibe people like yourself used to call deflection.

They'll call us #triggered #snowflakes and then whine about Jimmy Kimmel and trump even lobbies to have him taken off the air. They'll then boycott Jelly Roll for telling some trump jokes as a guest host of Kimmel's show. They'll curse and scream about Alan Ritchson who they loved as Reacher until he said negative things about trump. They did as far back as boycotting The Dixie Chicks.

Maybe if you actually tried laying out why you think our current election methods aren't working besides "Because we don't believe it" you would have grounds to dispute what I posted. Just postiing a singe statement about "How you feel" about something is not an opinion.

I'm all for hearing your opinion. But some blanket statement with no context or grounds is, as you know yourself, not an actual opinion.

I'm a triggered snowflake because I have an opinion?

Do you ever wonder why you don't have any friends?

The current election methods are working and aren't broken. Just making some #triggered #snowflake claims to the contrary despite all evidence gathered showing it's not broken and working just fine now doesn't matter. "But we don't feel like that's true" isn't a valid reason to upend the current election process.

Nobody seemed to have an issue with it until trump opened his mouth.

A judge blocks Trump’s new bid to curb birthright citizenship, citing Supreme Court precedent

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to limit birthright citizenship, granting a preliminary injunction against an executive order that the administration said would target “birth tourism.”

U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman in Maryland on Wednesday issued the injunction until a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrant families and advocacy groups is resolved.

“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth,’” Boardman, appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed under current law for anyone who is born on U.S. soil, with a few exceptions. The law stretches back to 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War.

But Trump has long wanted to end birthright citizenship, issuing a previous executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The Supreme Court struck down that attempt in June.

In August, the president tried again with a narrowed executive order that appeared to restrict automatic citizenship for specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations or to anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

The order defined birth tourism as someone who enters the United States on a “nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.” Birth tourism is already considered fraud and grounds to restrict a visa if someone seeks one specifically to obtain U.S. citizenship for a child.

The order sought to deny citizenship to children born to adults who “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship,” and some families said they feared their children could be denied citizenship simply because they purchased airfare to come to the U.S. and got pregnant after they arrived.

Families and organizations who sued over the birthright citizenship restrictions told the court that the executive branch has taken a broad view of who qualifies as an alien enemy, sometimes relying on speculation or misinformation to make that determination.

Others said they feared their children would be denied citizenship because a member of the parents’ extended family was connected to a gang in their home country, even though the parents were not gang members.

Uncertainty surrounding the order left them with confusion and fear, the families said.

They were joined in the lawsuit by We Are CASA, the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

The administration’s attorneys argued that the request to block the order was premature and said the federal agencies tasked with enforcing it would use “appropriate measures” to do so, relying on official guidance that hasn’t been issued yet.

The judge rejected that argument.

“No matter what the guidance says, the 2026 Executive Order commands agencies to deny citizenship documents to several broad categories of children,” Boardman wrote.

“The White House must recognize it will not succeed in stripping children of their right to citizenship, evading binding court decisions or placing the president’s anti-immigrant agenda above the Constitution,” Shana Khader, legal director at We Are CASA, said in a prepared statement.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://apnews.com/article/birthrig...blocked-69de0a404602a6e648b35f6a852c833d

The SCOTUS just ruled on this but King Trump thinks of he writes a royal decree that somehow overrides the SCOTUS ruling.