Lively v. Baldoni 12 - The Emoji Heard Round the World

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:27 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 12, and that is part two. Make sure you track where you are, everyone. Use the buddy system.

0:00:36 Lydia: Got my buddy.

0:00:37 Thomas: Yeah. Oh, that's so nice. Is it me? Oh, That's so seven of Wayfair v. New York Times? Or have I gotten into paragraphs eight through 14, which is today's episode? They'll be like, oh, we're on this one. And then you'll know. And also tell your friends about this show, please. A win -win for everybody. I'm Thomas. That's Lydia. How you doing,

0:00:39 Lydia: Yeah, it's you. Yeah. Hi. I'm doing pretty well.

0:01:11 Thomas: Hey, buddy.

0:01:11 Lydia: Yeah I know. We're buddies. I like it.

0:01:15 Thomas: Just then I had to keep track of where I was myself. So really, I feel like, you you want to You want to pull your weight in this buddy system a little more? Just saying, it's the buddy system, not the I remember things system, because that's not a good system.

0:01:19 Lydia: Oh I'm not doing a very good job. Well you take it or leave it. Is who I am as a buddy.

0:01:31 Thomas: You drive a hard bargain. Anyway, gavel gavel 12. This is part two. I don't even think I finished saying that. This is Part 2 of our 11 total episodes on this complaint.

0:01:41 Thomas: Oh, boy. You know, we're two elevenths of the way there. That's an easy fraction.

0:01:48 Lydia: I You find ways to bring it in no matter what.

0:01:51 Thomas: And as we teased last time, we are going to get to the emoji heard around the world. We are finally going to gets to that. You are going know what it is. Always, we going to call it like we see it. And this may be something that the Baldoni team has a point on. So, get to that after the break. Hey, if you want to support the show and be way ahead of probably where you currently are in terms of the content, go to patreon.com/gavelpod. to those who support the Show so much. We appreciate you. I hope you enjoy the stuff. There's a lot behind that paywall. I don't even want to talk about, but there's a lot.

0:02:15 Lydia: I know. Beyond this case, too. But I mean, like with this case with this case there's there's a real juicy bit of a deep dive

0:02:24 Thomas: With this one. But we don't talk about it here. We just tap our noses or whatever. Whatever and but you and your buddy system everybody out there you'll you'll know and then you could talk to your buddy about it that's why the buddy system tell everyone all after this break which you can avoid patreon.com/gavelpod we two paragraphs 8 through 14 not so this next one they include, I don't know how to evaluate it because there's no timestamp.

0:02:47 Lydia: It's true we yeah, the only thing we do know is that it's before August 27th.

0:03:01 Thomas: Before August 27th when that's the next thing in the text thread where it says remove Jen Abel do not use from the conversation added Jen Abel new number to the conversation. So they removed the whole phone number that Stephanie Jones had on on August 27th, which is kind of funny. On when the articles went up, it's it's likely that this was August 14th. It. So this is Jen Abel linking a Hollywood reporter thing saying, it ends with us. Sony chief praises Blake Lively for advancing the conversation around domestic violence. And

0:03:31 Lydia: Justin Baldoni PR without JB, but it also includes other folks from the agency group team. So I'm guessing the blue in this is Melissa Nathan Yeah, because this is different also than the other ones, right? Is like literally a screenshot includes like the time that she screenshotted it that her Notification sound was off, you know, like we can see her Wi -Fi her battery With

0:03:49 Thomas: Says they messaged me five minutes before this went up okay tag team it says says exclusive blake lively was really impatient on it ends with us set as drama rumors swirl tension was so obvious and then jamie heath replies so glad blake was praised let her get a win it would be nice to have a sony executive praise justin yeah

0:03:53 Lydia: The Hollywood Reporter. Yep When I read this, I was like, wow, that's really sarcastic. And I think they're trying to say, no, look, we're being kind and we're so glad that Blake was praised. I don't read it like that at all. And maybe I'm cynical, but so glad Blake was praise, especially because it's specific about advancing the conversation around domestic violence, which had been their whole push for Justin Baldoni's press. So for me, this just read very sarcastic,

0:04:38 Thomas: I would say so glad blake wasn't praised I agree but let her gets a win I'm trying to like that let her her get a win.

0:04:44 Lydia: It's dismissive. It's like, you know, like, her press has been so bad, whatever, let her win. Is not celebratory, I'll

0:04:50 Thomas: I don't know totally what to make of this, but So glad Blake was praised. Let her get a win. Would be nice to have a Sony executive praise Justin from Jamie Heath. I don't know what to make of this. I actually, I'm not sure. Think it's incontrovertible, especially in the face of all the evidence we have the other way. Think that's that's what's important. I can hunt for anomalies, but you key, to trying trying to know the truth is keeping the big picture in mind at all times. And so this is something to consider. I don't, don'T know exactly how Jamie Heath meant this. At this point they're worried about like their negative, like another possibility. Like afraid that their plan worked a little too well and they're going to get in trouble for it. You that could be something like there. Did spiral really quickly in of people going after Blake. It might be that they reached a point where they're like, whew, wow, this really this really escalated. I it could be that, like, for some reason, Heath was feeling in that moment that it would be be nice for her to get a win for some reason. I don't know.

0:05:46 Lydia: I'm just too cynical about that but um do want to like though that the incontrovertible point is about that blake was engaging in a smear campaign against justin Baldoni none of none of this is

0:05:57 Thomas: And we've seen nothing of that so far. There's some, there might be some later, but yeah, good to keep in mind. None of this is that. I pulled it up just to remind you that that whole text exchange that we know existed morning, not in love with the document they sent. Not sure I'm feeling the protection I felt on the call to which Abel said, this is the first time I've personally gone through scenario planning with them. So I think let's let them discuss the thinking behind the document and the actual process and protocol of how they implement these things. That's the most important part of this is how quickly they can shut things down and place stories in your favor. Honest on this call and let's give real feedback to each point. It of course, there were the texts, of course. But, you know, when we send over documents, we can't send over the work we will or could do, because that could get us in a lot of trouble.

0:06:42 Thomas: Again, I just wanted to note, like, you have to remember all the evidence. And I mean that. Consider all the evidence. Consider the evidence in his favor. Absolutely. And that Heath text is interesting. Like I could see an interpretation of that. That's like, maybe Heath wasn't wanting her to get piled up. Like I get to see a genuine interpretation of that. I don't, I genuinely don't know like that. That's one where I can't, I try to fit it into like, would I be saying in that situation? And I genuinely, I genuinely don't get it. I don' t think I have enough information to like know precisely what he's saying there. I see, see your interpretation. I think it's plausible. I see see. It. The other way is kind of plausible, but look at these texts where there's not much room for interpretation. Think about what this means. You know, when we send over documents, we can't send over the work we will or could do because that could get us in a lot of trouble. Like, what's the, yeah, what's the good interpretation of, I can't put what we're going to do in writing because that Could get us In trouble. August 2nd, before like any, you know, we, and it goes on, we Can't write it down to him. We Can't Write, We Will Destroy Her. We Will Go Do This. We Will Do This, We Can'T Write, And It Goes On. He has to look at it as an information document for us to be armed with. That's all. Imagine if a document saying all the things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands. And I didn't read the first part, you that was Jen Abel starting this, which said he wants to feel like she can be buried, dot, dot. Wants to be buried. He wants you to feel, like, she can buried. Then further, you can bury anyone, but I can't write that to him. Will. I'll be very tough. So they're saying like when they're speaking and not writing, you not a whole lot of ambiguity in that stuff, you know, and so on one hand, we've got like messages that, kind you of could indicate a number of things like there's all kinds of interpretations. There's okay. Up Baldoni, you know, Friedman want us to think this means they didn't do anything wrong. So they didn'T they didnT do anything wrong. They're not employing any bot accounts. They'RE not doing a retaliatory campaign. And the evidence is how can we say somehow that we are not doing any of this? It looks like we're trying to take her down. I see an interpretation of that. That's like, yeah, he doesn't want to be doing that. And Melissa Nathan saying they are doing all of this themselves. And it's really obvious things I'm more worried about is that we ARE planting these stories, which is not true, obviously, which Justin said, which I don't know how you'd obviously know that since in the bid, it talked about planting stories, but okay.

0:07:28 Lydia: Kind of career is this yeah yeah then how do you fit that kind of text message response from justin with the messages you just read where Jen Abel indicated he wants to feel like, we're burying her. He He must feel really, really protected. Like they make sense together.

0:09:11 Thomas: Because another interpretation that makes sense of all this. And this one on in your brain, you emulator here and see what, What think if at some point spoke to lawyers and kind of is aware that this could get him trouble, which I think the fact that he's saying, like, how can we say we're not doing that and all that would indicate that he is worried about it. Otherwise, you know, he'd just be like, awesome, awesome, you know, but if is concerned about getting in trouble and during, let's say during this meeting they had where they spoke in words and didn't write it down. They're like, yeah, this can't be tied to me at all, which we already know is an emphasis because quote, all of this will be most importantly, untraceable. These are things we know they want. Imagine this, imagine that Justin has had this conversation with these vendors, essentially, these like third parties that he's contracting with these contract workers, in person saying or whatever like over

0:09:16 Lydia: Over

0:10:03 Thomas: The phone whatever it is not not in writing saying this can't be tied to me none of this can be tied TO ME or I'll get in big trouble and and they're like yeah no untraceable this is totally fine don't worry we have a plan no one will know and then in the group text he's saying hey how can we say that somehow that we're not doing any of this looks like we're trying to take her down and then they reassure him no it doesn't it's all that they're doing it themselves you know like that's also could be them auditioning their arguments for why it's not them like they're involved in this shared fiction which is we're not doing any of this because we've all agreed that we can't I can't be responsible for any of that

0:10:03 Lydia: The phone. Yeah. It's plausible. Yeah,

0:10:40 Thomas: Me that that's entirely consistent with what's going on and it and it makes sense to me because it sounds a little conspiratorial but that's because I actually think we have pretty good evidence of a conspiracy here when we have all this will be untraceable. He wants to feel like she can be buried. These are all things we have like proof of those. Those aren't in dispute. There's no allegations that those are fake. Is. There In fact, they are acknowledged as real. And so we have All That Evans that they want to do something like that, that they're wary of putting it in writing. Put yourself in that place, if you hired people and you said, hey, put yourself In the place of the villain that that Justin might be, I'm not saying for certain, but, but Blake's interpretation, put yourself in that, in say, I'm hiring these people to do something untraceable. Know, that's going to take down Blake and it can't be tied to me. And then I start seeing stuff and I start seeing people say, Hey, looks like Justin is using bots. I start seen people on the internet being like, is what's going on? Justin is trying to take her down. I text in the thing that's in writing that, you Know, we're all kind of aware of, we don't want to maybe put our crimes in writing or whatever, so to speak. How can we say that we are not doing any of this? Then they pitch in their about that. Like it could fit the going on a could also be that Jen and Melissa and they don't want them to know, But I don't know. I'm kind of leaning toward that last interpretation because of all the evidence we've seen.

0:11:52 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. I think that that's reasonable. I'm trying to recall. I don't know if we know exactly when Baldoni engaged Brian Friedman, but I believe we do know that it was a recommendation from Melissa. So, you he was involved as early as this, then it could have been like upon, you have to take like

0:12:11 Thomas: Because I think, again, in the bid was all this will be most importantly untraceable. The more I say this, the more it fits to me because, again, imagine you've hired some people to do some stuff that's supposed to be untrACEable. And then you see a bunch of chatter on the internet saying, Justin has hired bot accounts or all that. Might text those people what you're kind of intending is, hey, one of the things I paid you for is this, to not be traced back to me.

0:12:34 Thomas: I'm seeing people say, and, of course, and think about their incentive there. Think about then the incentive there. Think about how we have it in writing. We Baldoni wants to hire them to do a thing that's pretty sinister and is untraceable. And then he complains. The client who's paying them says, hey, how can we say we're not doing this? You think you're getting the God's honest unfiltered truth out of Melissa Nathan and Abel Jen in that moment? Or are they going to be saying what their client needs to hear? Oh, no, this is all her. It's entirely her. Look at this. Got a bot thing. And also, it's you really organic. Like they're her apart. Honestly, Like that fits way more than other interpretation so far with what we know. And most the important thing, even could be wrong. I could be right. I could not be wrong on that. Here's what I'm not wrong on. No reason for us to suspect that Melissa Nathan and Jen Abel are speaking the scouts honor God honest truth when they're talking to their client who's paying them to do a sinister thing that they've said we could get in a lot of trouble for if we put in right yeah this also want to remind folks, the only reason we have these texts is because we had one person's phone. We had Jen and I say, we, I don't know what I'm saying. We, but like the public has access to messages from one person. Because Stephanie Stephanie Jones had had Jen Abel's phone. When you get to Discovery, you get so much more than that. And we'll see. I mean, there'll be a lot more. There'll be side conversations. There will be, you know, who knows? We have one person's phone, and this is tons of evidence. Knows what's going to be in other people's phones? There's a lot that seen. And keep in mind, And if you're Baldoni and Friedman, you do have access to, you pretty much all that stuff at that time. This is going to be basically your best in terms of how you can counter that narrative.

0:12:33 Lydia: People are saying, yeah, yeah. Right. Oh They'd be looking through everything that they can to include whatever potential things they can make that case.

0:14:20 Thomas: Let's move on here to paragraph eight, and this is something that you and I have talked about for hours of unusable audio. Is really hard because it's audio and this very visual, so we're going do our best. Why don't you read us the paragraph first, and then we'll get into the screenshots and stuff.

0:14:35 Lydia: Righty. The article is predicated on Lively's CRD complaint, which references text exchanges between Nathan and Abel as purported evidence that Nathan planted a negative story in the Daily Mail titled, quote, is Blake Lively set to be canceled?

0:14:49 Thomas: Would already say the article is not predicated on Lively's CRD complaint because the article said they reviewed thousands of messages. So it's predicated the same information that the CRD is based on. But if they turned over all the information to the New York Times, which it seems like they did, I don't think anyone's arguing they like held anything back. I've never seen that argument. Again, this is another attempt to state kind things conveniently. Like it's all based on this CRD complaint and you're just taking lively's word for it.

0:15:14 Lydia: A single source. Yeah. Yeah, Lively's portrayal is categorically false, misleading and devoid of factual basis, yet knowingly endorsed by The Times, which claimed to have reviewed, quote, thousands of pages of text messages and emails.

0:15:26 Thomas: There you go.

0:15:27 Lydia: Quote smear campaign hinges on an August 16th text exchange in which Nathan allegedly shared a link to this article with Abel.

0:15:34 Thomas: Doesn't.

0:15:34 Lydia: The text exchange shows Abel responding, quote, wow, followed by, quote. You really outdid yourself with this one, to which Nathan allegedly replied, quote That's why you hired me, right? I'm the best. Messages constitute the entirety of the purported evidence underlying the allegation of a smear campaign orchestrated on behalf of Baldoni.

0:15:51 Thomas: Don't. Even close. We've got a whole lot of other stuff. Only works if you have a mental disease and forget all the evidence we've already seen, because there's way more evidence than this. And

0:16:04 Lydia: Can you imagine The New York Times writing an article if they just sent this one screenshot?

0:16:08 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. This is the one thing that was the smear campaign. Everything else was like just, oh, grocery lists and airport talk.

0:16:16 Lydia: And they're like, pause on the upcoming Trump administration. Let's save some ink for this.

0:16:20 Thomas: This is silly. Already know there's so much more evidence than just this one exchange. Like we've gone over it. There's a ton.

0:16:29 Lydia: Why don't I try and explain what this screenshot looks like? So.

0:16:33 Thomas: Boy. OK, is so hard to do in audio. So I'm going to try and make sure we can keep this all straight. This So Baldoni complaining about the New York Times article, because, again, this is Baldoni v. New York times, essentially, and some other parties and all that. But like they are complaining about The New York Time's article. They're saying it is defamation, et cetera, et they are complaining about how this text exchange was presented in the article. And sometimes they blur the lines because they also say they're complaining about Blake Lively presented it in the CRD complaint, but that's actually not really relevant at all to the claims of defamation or libel because. What matters is what's in the New York Times article. You know, they try to make this claim that like, well, because Blake Lively presented stuff in a skewed way in her complaint and then that misled the New New York times or they knowingly accepted that with, but that that, all doesn't very strong to me.

0:17:20 Lydia: Lively is she's not a named party in this lawsuit. The New York Times is. So whatever she's doing in her complaint, it's the New York times and how they chose to use that and the thousands of pages of text messages and other documents that they reviewed.

0:17:33 Thomas: Here's how the New very quick, actually. And it's all in text. There aren't any screenshots of this. It says, on August 16th, Ms. Nathan shared the headline, Is Blake Lively Set to be Cancelled? With references to hard to watch videos and a tone deaf promotional Q &A. Quote, wow, you really outdid yourself with this piece, Ms Abel responded. That's why you hired me, right? Ms. those three sentences, that's the entirety of this thing. And now we're going to get the screenshots, which Baldoni's side claim shows, you more context.

0:18:09 Lydia: They helpfully delineate between what was included in the article versus what was excluded in the particle by using arrows and color coding. So there are things that are marked with green arrows to indicate included. And then there are red arrows and marked excluded. So

0:18:27 Thomas: Thing I want to note real quick, in the very paragraph talking about how they've misrepresented the text, they actually. Typoed it and said the wrong thing. They said, you really outdid yourself with this one. In the screenshot they're providing, their own screenshot, we can see says, you outdid with this piece. You know, again, it's like, I wouldn't really care too much about that, except you're nitpicking this to death and you can't even represent the text correctly in the paragraph directly above the screenshot that it's talking about, but okay.

0:18:54 Lydia: So we have a screenshot from Nathan's phone where she's texting Jen and Abel. And it starts with a cutoff of the shared article, Could Blake Lively Be Cancelled? Then Jen Abel responds, Wow, you really outdid yourself with this piece. Upside down smiley face emoji.

0:19:10 Thomas: Emoji heard around the world. That's it, everybody.

0:19:13 Lydia: Yes, there it is. And it's circled in red.

0:19:16 Thomas: Is circled in red. And I poke fun. And it's funny, except I do take this very seriously, actually, because I do think there is a chance that this is being misrepresented by The New York Times and by Blake Lively. I think to we're we're we think is most reasonable. But I actually do take this seriously. I do think that there's a chance this emoji made the difference. Now, that's the emoji that million times. Is it. You really outdid yourself with this piece. Upside down, smiley face emoji.

0:19:42 Lydia: And And then the last text that is included, which is Melissa Nathan responding, saying, That's why you hired me, right? I'm the best.

0:19:49 Thomas: Now we got to talk about what's excluded because surely that's going to be incredibly damning.

0:19:56 Lydia: The following is from Melissa Nathan to Jennifer Abel, where she writes, heading to the airport and there is a drive through the jungle where there's going to be no reception for around 24 hours. Joking, 45 minutes. Able responds, I'm sorry, you being offline for 45 minutes, was not included in the scope. Unacceptable. Nathan sends her a picture that we can't see. It's cut off and there is a haha react to the picture that we'll have to assume is funny.

0:20:25 Thomas: And that's all with a red arrow says not excluded. Help but think, like, what world would the New York Times have included that in their fucking article? What are you talking about? Headed to the airport and a drive through the jungle. What? That has nothing to do with anything except that they are so keen on this ha -ha react to the picture that has nothing Well, I guess, okay, we'll their explanation for it.

0:20:51 Lydia: That. Yeah, right.

0:20:53 Thomas: But that's what they're saying is excluded is airport talk.

0:20:56 Lydia: So continuing on with their narrative here. The Times, however, was aware that these text messages were unscrupulously altered and selectively edited, enabling both Lively and her team and the Times to propagate a false, quote, smear campaign narrative designed to destroy plaintiffs. Specifically, in the immediately preceding text exchange on August 16th, Nathan forwarded a screenshot of a message from a reporter informing her for the first time of the Daily Mail article. In response, Nathan wrote, quote, damn, this is not fair because it's also not me. Followed by, quote. Everything now looks like it's me. Conclusively refuting her involvement in the creation or dissemination of the article.

0:21:35 Thomas: Okay, there's so much wrong with this already. So we're going to start there. So in this is stuff that was not included in the New York Times article and was not I don't think in Blake Lively's complaint either. So fair. But first off, you got to notice and asserted without evidence, you know, and again, we're in a complaint phase, so it doesn't mean there couldn't be evidence. But right now, when you say informing her for the first time, there's there's nowhere that that's supported by the screenshot. We don't know that this is the first we have no idea. Just them saying it. And maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But just note it like people read these things and sort of unconsciously add that to their way, they're perceiving stuff. And then it turns out that's made up, like it isn't the first time, you're just allowed to say those things in a complaint, then it's going to affect how you're looking at it because we don't know that. Here's the thing. The fact that this is a screenshot of Melissa Nathan talking to a reporter. Are dealing with PR and crisis PR people. You have already heard me talk about not really giving much credience to anything they say, but least of all, when they're talking to a fucking reporter. The whole game of PR or crisis PR is seeding stories and planting stories, and both sides would agree to that because they both allege each other did that. That's the whole thing, the last thing you're going to do is tell a reporter, oh yeah, I seeded that story. I planted that story reporters don't want to be getting planted stories that are fake. Like they want don't want to be unwittingly a part of someone's PR campaign. I think sometimes they might be wittingly a part of someone PR campaign and they don't really care like because just the business but it would be in Melissa Nathan's interest for would want to maintain your credibility and authenticity of the stories you're talking about with this reporter in case you need to seed another thing with this report. So you don't want to give this reporter the that like you're just planting seeding stories everywhere. Cause I think that's going to reduce your credibility. I'm not saying I know that for certain, but I'm saying like, those are all things that could very easily in if for a given statement from Melissa Nathan to a reporter, if it's a mistruth told to further Melissa Nathan's client's interests or the truth, I'm

0:23:39 Lydia: She's doing her job.

0:23:40 Thomas: I'm going to guess that she's probably not telling the truth all the time to a fucking reporter. It's PR. It is not just PR. Even regular PR is lies. Crisis PR is nothing but lies. It only lies. So this this language of it's telling her about the article for the first time. Nathan wrote, damn, this is not fair because it's also not me. Conclusively refuting her involvement in the. No, that's I want to make clear is you can believe this if you want. This is not any different than the complaint just saying she didn't do it because she's talking to a reporter. This isn't we haven't gotten some inside glimpse to her like private thoughts. We've gotten a screenshot from a reporter now as as the rest goes. Interesting in how to read this. So that's the screenshot where it said, maybe not to you. And by the way, in the screenshot, go ahead and talk about this.

0:24:32 Lydia: So in the screenshot, this is all preceding the earlier text with Jennifer Abel. And so they're marked excluded. There is also a red circle around those texts from Melissa Nathan. Damn, this unfair because it's also not me, not me being underlined. Now looks like it's me, maybe not to you. And then the way that the the unsent a message. Melissa Nathan unsent. A message that we will not see on.

0:25:00 Thomas: That the red circle conveniently covers the part. So it kind of looks like you sent a message, which I feel like is quite deliberate because was that message?

0:25:08 Lydia: It could very well be like she sent something she meant to send to her sister or something where she was like, hey, are you coming over for dinner? Like it could be anything. But we don't know.

0:25:12 Thomas: Knows? Be a, yeah, a misspelling. Could be, who knows? But we don't know. It says you unsent a message and the highlight just happens to cover it. And so we know we don'T have complete information as to that. And

0:25:27 Lydia: We don't following that screenshot, we get a cool thanks from Melissa to Jen and then that sharing of the article.

0:25:34 Thomas: Is probably about before this because it doesn't really make sense. So if Melissa sent the screenshot. Then sent cool thanks. Like, it's probably.

0:25:42 Lydia: Abel sent her something in the meantime. Yeah, before she got the screenshot. Yeah Yeah. And And then the article, which is included in Blake Lively's complaint, but not included in The New York Times article because they focused on the text messages that followed.

0:25:55 Thomas: You think we were done with this fucking emoji, we've got more paragraphs on this. So why don't you continue on?

0:26:00 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. So this is important from their perspective on the exclusion of this emoji. Evidence of the Times' complicity arises from its apparent endorsement of the criminal alteration. Alteration, folks.

0:26:13 Thomas: Criminal alteration. She's looking at hard time for this.

0:26:17 Lydia: I'm waiting to see the charges filed for this crime that she committed and the NYPD to knock on her door. Yeah.

0:26:23 Thomas: Can assume the FBI is investigating. Yeah,

0:26:26 Lydia: These text messages by Lively. Nathan forwarded a screenshot of the article link, Abel responded with, quote, you really outdid yourself with this piece. Upside down smiley face emoji. Adding an upside down smile face emoji to indicate the sarcastic nature of her message. The upside down smiley face emoji is commonly used to convey irony, sarcasm, joking, or a sense of goofiness or silliness.

0:26:48 Thomas: Think you should read 11. then that pretty much, I think, is is bulk of of the emoji discussion, which it's so stupid, but it is actually really important. So we're going to make sure we cover all of it.

0:26:58 Lydia: And then we'll discuss. Yeah. Yeah Alright. Her CRD complaint, Lively deliberately excluded not only the preceding screenshot of the text exchange, disproving Nathan's involvement in the story in that. Also the upside down smiley face emoji, which fundamentally alters the sarcastic tone of Abel's message and misleads the reader into interpreting her response as serious. Omitted context is critical as it demonstrates that each subsequent message in the exchange was similarly intended as sarcasm, including Nathan's statement, quote, that's why you hired me, right? I'm the best. Further review of the text message exchange, also excluded from both Lively's CRD complaint and the Times article, unequivocally shows that Abel and Nathan were engaging in a sarcastic and joking manner as evidenced by the use of the ha -ha tap -back reaction.

0:27:09 Thomas: Yeah, it doesn't. But yeah. What? That's on the picture about the airport crap like has nothing to do because.

0:27:50 Lydia: Like it could be airplane windows. Can't really tell.

0:27:52 Thomas: Because I sent a picture in an airplane, they didn't show us what it is, because that would probably mess up their point because we'd see like, oh, oh, it's a ha ha based on something not at all related to the fucking emoji.

0:28:02 Lydia: Irrelevant.

0:28:02 Thomas: Now that kind of tells us why they were doing this all excluded thing, which is absurd. They're heading to the airport and the whatever. No reason anyone would include that, except they're trying to shoehorn in four messages down a ha ha react to a picture that, by the way, is like later like this conversation might have been after this. It not related. We don't you know there's there's no way to know.

0:28:11 Lydia: The ha ha. We have no way of knowing.

0:28:25 Thomas: Is nothing like the haha react is absolutely nothing.

0:28:28 Lydia: I think it also undermines their point about the upside down smiley face emoji like that. All that is. Unnecessary, from my opinion. And we'll talk about it some more. Let me finish this paragraph. Read in full, the exchange reveals Nathan and Abel engaging in facetious juvenile banter, not conspiring against Lively. The Times relied on Lively's CRD complaint and, based solely on this exchange, duped readers into believing that Baldoni orchestrated a, quote, smear campaign, purportedly using Nathan and the Times, like Lively, misrepresented these communications to support its salacious and unfounded, quote, smear campaign narrative. This calculated distortion underscores the article's lack of credibility and its reliance on sensationalism over substantive

0:29:15 Thomas: So if I was, again, found with the murder weapon and it was a bloody murder weapon. Then at trial, like the evidence they had was like a picture of me walking toward there. Could just be like, the only thing they have is the picture of walking. That's it. Is it a crime to walk? It a, that's all they have. This entire murder narrative is based on this picture that just shows a guy walking. I'm sorry. I thought this was America. I am allowed to walk in a direction. I guess you could do that, but then you'd just be like, well, but that the murder weapon and the knife and the bloody knife. Like that's not, you can say that that's they based it on, but it's not like, know it's, not there's a bunch of other stuff that we've already read you. This is just lying. Like, I don't know how else to say it. Think objectively speaking, this is a tactic that is dishonest and wrong. This isn't the only thing that on this exchange. Then times and lively duped everyone. Just just this exchange is the only one. Are you talking about? No, it's not.

0:30:12 Lydia: I think they really could have leaned in a little bit more on the upside down smiley face emoji. I people online leaned in with that. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I do Think excluding it does change the tone of it. However, I do not think it was done purposefully. Think it's just an artifact of how extraction data extraction works.

0:30:32 Thomas: Because you can based tell, on the formatting in the CRD complaint. They They didn't use screenshots. They used how the discovery software gives you the stuff and it generates like a fake speech bubble that's not actually from the text. So again, the New York Times just has the quotes, uh, think it's entirely plausible that the upside down smiley face didn't come over the whatever software tool they use to extract the text data. I I think that's something that happens. Um, but here's the thing that aside for one, that's not the only evidence at all. So, would all depend on the fact that they would even need to do this. Like, aha, the way we're going to pull off this lie is we've got our one bit of evidence and we're gonna get rid of an emoji and that's our whole case. It's not the whole case at all. So already like think that takes weight away from the fact from the idea that this is some deliberate misrepresentation. It seems perfectly plausible to me that. Didn't come through in the software. Secondly, going I back and forth because I really one thing I wonder is if The New York Times does have access to all these texts. Think there is a plausible reading of being sarcasm. So so Nathan sends over the link after that screenshot, by then Jen Abel says, wow, you really outdid yourself with this piece. Upside Upside down smiley face. Why you hired me, right? I'm the best. Does very plausibly read to me as sarcasm, like as in she didn't really do the piece. Then that's why she responds. Yeah, that's where you hired think that's probably what I lean toward right now. I don't think it's 100%, but I think the interpretation I lean towards. And what I think is that it's likely the New York Times didn't have that emoji, maybe. Lively, because if she got it all from that same software that transfers over these text data and it doesn't bring emojis, maybe, then maybe that's why they would have included this. Because otherwise, I get why Blake Lively would have I don't get why the New York Times would have, because with the emoji, I do this is sarcasm. I want to note a couple of things. Fact that she's saying that's why you hired me right on the best does at least imply that the thing she was hired to do was plant stories. Like if your sarcasm doesn't work otherwise, if this is the gardener and she's like, wow, you really outdid yourself with this piece you planted. Be like, what? I the joke works because she didn't plant that piece, but only because she also there to plant pieces. Like, I don't, I don'T know what, what why that would make sense. Am I wrong? Like that's going to be in her duties, you

0:32:49 Lydia: I was part of the quotes and scenario planning like those are all conversations that they had about her scope of work.

0:32:56 Thomas: So. At least tells us that that's part of what she's doing. Otherwise, the joke is incomprehensible. Like even be having that conversation. I consider the reporter's screenshot, the more. I I'm probably right now as speaking and I've gone back and forth. Also an interpretation in again, the crisis PR people, if as you've listened to past episodes, their job is lying. That's their entire job. A world in which she's kind of flaunting the fact that she's gaslighting this reporter into telling her she didn't plant this. She's sharing it with Jen, because otherwise, like, what's the point of sharing that with Jen? I guess it's like, hey, FYI, a reporter thinks I did this, but I didn't.

0:33:35 Lydia: Mean, it's also cut off at the top of what she's sharing. So maybe there's a haha react to that and we don't know about it.

0:33:42 Thomas: Don't know. Yeah. And another interpretation I can see is here's me gaslighting this reporter by saying I didn't plant this. Then she shares the article and then Jen Abel is kind of participating in that. Sarcastic gaslighting by sending the upside down smiley face emoji. Think that's actually more likely. I think it's possible, but I'm willing to go ahead and say that Baldoni's side might be right about this exchange. That is because she didn't plant this. Jen Abel is saying, you really outdid yourself. And Melissa is saying like, that's why you hired me. I'm the best. I pretty certain that works if Melissa Nathan didn't the story. Is. I So I'm going to go ahead and score one for the Baldoni side when it comes to this emoji. Now, what does that change?

0:34:26 Lydia: Hmm.

0:34:27 Thomas: Certainly something that, again, I think it was a mistake for the New York Times to include that. Nothing even close to libel because, again if reviewed text messages that were in the form that Lively got them and form very plausibly. Again, when we're talking about legal discovery software, who knows how old that shit is and what it's designed for. It maybe doesn't bring over an emoji like from our Googling. Like some of it does, some of that doesn't. I can see a world in which it didn't. Then New York Times, I think, can pretty easily be like. Is what it is. I this is also a matter of interpretation. So I think it would be pretty tough to argue actual malice about this. Like mean, I am the opinion that this is probably sarcasm and she didn't plant it. I'm that's not 100 percent. And I think very easily you can make the argument. That's just that's The joking and the fact that they're sort of maliciously joking about what they're doing. That's an interpretation. And I think that takes us so far away from actual malice. You might think the New York Times has the wrong interpretation of something that's that's miles away from actually.

0:35:36 Lydia: I just like level set what we're talking about here, too? Because so this is still in The New York Times article. You really outdid yourself with this piece, Miss Abel responded. That's why you hired me. Right. Miss Nathan replied. I'm the best. This is according to the Wayfarer parties. This was a 4000 word bombshell story. Piece of it constitutes 23 words of the 4000 word. Bombshell story, if this was the only thing. That was their evidence. Would be crazy making what else they're writing in this story. So I just want to keep that perspective that the argument is over 23 words out of the, I mean, arguably one emoji that's not included of this 23 word exchange of a 4 ,000 word story.

0:36:16 Thomas: And it cuts and both ways to be like it's a 4000 word bombshell but also this is the only evidence of the the thing. Could also look at that actual article and it is incredibly anti Blake. Mean it was planted? No, because I think I think what we are seeing and I think not in Blake Lively's interest to say this exactly, but I think it's likely true based Jen Abel or Melissa Nathan or whoever didn't need to seed all that much. Like, I think they probably, they definitely planted some stories with Melissa Nathan's sister. That seems very clear. But even they might've only done, I don'tt know, a handful. And then like were so whipped up in all this that these that articles get clicks and then then the then the I know what to call them, journalistic outlets, then the than the Daily Mail and all those websites from there just have a profit motive to publish this kind of thing. That's consistent with this idea that like Nathan. Planted a few things, but then... kind of amazed at how much it's taking off, you know, and you really outdid yourself with this one. Joke does work in that context where it's like, wow, look at all you did. You did so much, even though she might have only done, in she did nothing somehow. They hired her to do nothing and she didn't do anything.

0:37:24 Thomas: And even though gave quotes about doing this exact thing, don't find that plausible, but I do find it plausible that maybe she only planted a few stories and then saw this absolute deluge of hate and was like, exactly.

0:37:35 Lydia: Don't have to do much work. Yeah yeah.

0:37:38 Thomas: On now to try to make the argument that all of this negative press was just Blake's own actions. I in a. Complaint against the New York Times for defamation. I don't really know why that matters. New Y ork Times, because they are the New york Times, was quite careful with how they wrote the thing. They didn't say, we, the NY Times, believe that there is a smear campaign. Here's the evidence. Look at all these negative stories. That would be fine because it's an opinion based on evidence like that still isn't actual malice about a famous sign close. They didn't even do that. Like they said, well, the complaint says this and they quoted texts that talk about the smear campaign, you know, and like them planning to do this. That's the evidence they use. And so I think it is relevant ultimately how much of this was. And I think it's going to be a very difficult question. We can speak with lawyers about it, but it will be relevant to a damages calculation between Blake and Baldoni parties as to how much of this might have happened anyway versus how much it was of planting stories and any of this other retaliatory stuff. That's a very tough question and one that I think we'll see it. If this continues on, we'll

0:38:49 Thomas: Would be, I think, at the damages stage, most likely, because I don't think Baldoni is going to be able to show that they didn't do anything. I think that's I doubt that because we have so much evidence of them planning it and we only have one person's phone. Like there's going to plenty of evidence of other stuff they did. Already from the evidence we have, we know that they were working with Sarah Nathan or whatever. Terms in of the New York Times, I don't think this is relevant at all.

0:39:13 Lydia: It's not. This is really them seizing on like, oh, now we have to disprove the smear campaign. No you don't. You don't have to even go there in this complaint when you're talking about the New York Times. Like that, that wouldn't matter in this case. So

0:39:28 Thomas: Why don't you tell us about this next screenshot they include.

0:39:31 Lydia: So the next screenshot is Melissa Nathans conversation with one or more folks from and

0:39:38 Thomas: Her priest while under a lie detector and truth serum? Or is it with reporters?

0:39:44 Lydia: Like the most reputable reporters. Right. TMZ Yeah. So Melissa Nathan sends them an article where of Daily Daily Mail where it says reporter says Blake Lively's little bump taunt felt like a bullet. TMZ responds. LMAO or as I have learned, you say it.

0:39:46 Thomas: TM fucking Z. Lamal. Yeah. Well, I use the full English pronunciation. I pronounce it like my grandfather pronounced it.

0:40:08 Lydia: Say, They we interviewed her too. Let me find that interview fucked her. Melissa Nathan responds, when? LOL. Also, what the fuck? Why am I in this too? Then TMZ, one many, responds, you're a starlet. Fuck this week. How was the stunt? Winky face.

0:40:25 Thomas: Was the stunt?

0:40:25 Lydia: No idea.

0:40:27 Thomas: Interesting.

0:40:27 Lydia: Then a cutoff text message on on on 16th. That, 4 .37 p .m. starts with a Z. But I don't know what... Zoink.

0:40:31 Thomas: Why zzzz. There's her talking to a TMZ reporter about the Daily Mail article. Don't know that TMZ is responsible for that or if like I don' know why exactly.

0:40:47 Lydia: I think they're just, yeah, chatting.

0:40:49 Thomas: This is probably one TMZ report. That's a source for or for, you contact. In terms of evidence that they didn't do anything, that Melissa Nathan didn't do anything, this is a zero because this is just TMZ saying that interview fucked her. Yeah. Okay. Interview from, you that mysteriously resurfaced once the hate campaign was already started against her. I mean, kinda. I also think the, why the fuck am I in this too, or whatever is interesting. That feels like from Nathan's perspective. It comes to the job, I think she would want to be not in these articles. I think that because the article we went to it and it just says amidst the speculation, Justin hired crisis publicist Melissa Nathan to represent him, a woman who previously worked with Johnny Depp during his defamation trial against ex -wife Amber Heard. Could read that a few ways, none of which I think matters. The fuck am I in this too? Could be that, you modesty bullshit. Be or it could be her kind of wanting to signal or, um, she's, she's making a point because it says in this too, like maybe she'd made this point. Maybe she's trying to not be in future TMZ articles about this

0:41:51 Thomas: Because she wants to distance herself from the idea that she's planting stories. I could see that very much being what she's kind of subtly doing there a little bit. Um, don't know. Either way, doesn't see how this has any bearing on anything. You wouldn't even provide this in court. Like if your evidence was whether or not the damage was done by Blake Lively or by, you know, like you could have this TMZ reporter testify as an expert that. This Kirstie Flaw interview fucked her, I guess. But like that, I mean, it's barely relevant. It's far from conclusive evidence. And here's another thing. Is Melissa Nathan and TMZ. So the New York Times didn't have this. If you want to prove it's I can't even say statement because we haven't even gotten to this. No statement that. Baldoni is even pointing to. We'll get to that later. Get if you want to try to show in your complaint that the contention of the article that there is a smear campaign, let's say, was not true. Can sort of understand including this, although I don't. It's weak evidence to me. It doesn't really do anything. You know what I mean? Like it's not it's kind of like, OK, a different unrelated person said their opinion was the interview fucked her. But that doesn't.

0:42:54 Lydia: This like very irrelevant, honestly, because they cite so many different articles about Blake Lively dragged for marketing, making light of domestic violence, you know, like they already have sourced that within their complaint. So in their own thing.

0:43:06 Thomas: Like in their own thing, they reference articles that talk about and you bring that up just to refresh people's memories. That was specifically their strategy in their fucking strategy document that we know about was, hey, let's have Baldoni emphasize domestic violence and let's slam Blake Lively for being tone deaf for not emphasizing domestic violence, even though that was consistent with the marketing plan. So in your own complaint, we're seeing articles that are part of your playbook. Then we get one text from a TMZ guy saying, boy, that interview fucked her. That has nothing to do with anything.

0:43:36 Lydia: No, it's completely irrelevant.

0:43:38 Thomas: It's very weak. I mean, it's it's I mean whatever. It's something like you could find. But but in terms of actual malice, New York Times didn't have this text because it's Melissa Nathan. So this is nothing. Almost is almost a zero when it comes to this complaint. They sort of, I guess, forget that they're. Like we got to go to this planning document because now they're starting to talk about how Lively brought this on by doing the very things that were in there. Smear plan to try to make her look bad for which strikes me as a like a bit of a weird gambit. Thing wasn't in the scenario plan. Because I think that was a little early on, but part of this, our team can also explore planting stories about the weaponization of feminism and how people in Blake Lively's circle like Taylor Swift have been accused of utilizing these tactics to bully into getting what they want. So planting stories is a thing that is in their scenario planning document, which, again, we know Baldoni said wasn't good enough, like this document wasn't harsh enough and that he needed something harsher. And they said, hey, we can't just put in writing all the bad shit we're going to do. That wouldn't be good. Very reasonable to be suspicious that that might be going on. Think the thing we're looking for is actually in the messages where Baldoni decided to pivot and start doing on domestic violence and all that angle. A lot of this, and I want to be fair, a lot

0:44:59 Thomas: Lively's complaint. So we'll take this for what it is. Amount of this is demonstrated in text and seems very plausible, but we'll note where it's demonstrated in because it says at that point, this is after the release, they needed to kind of explain why he'd be separate from the cast and from Blake. They said he shifted his focus away from a message of female triumph to instead capitalize on female trauma. The film's premiere, Mr. Baldoni changed his Instagram profile, canceled lighthearted social media posts, and instructed his team to look for survivor reactions and support, all in an effort to quickly shift his own public narrative to focus solely on survivors and domestic violence organizations. Ms. Abel cautioned Mr. Baldoni insisted on a TikTok and that his promotional activities for the film should seek to amplify what he described as survivor content. There is a says, hey, just landed. What is the TikTok strategy? I'd like you guys to start posting me only talking about domestic violence and clips and why this movie is so important. And here's again, we're and a good opportunity to remind folks of all the evidence that is beyond just that one exchange, because here's this one I forgot about. Jen Abel to Jamie Heath. Thanks for the call. Confidentially, I'm out to dinner with a friend of 12 plus years who writes for People Magazine, Fox News, InTouch, Us Weekly, and she is fully briefed of the situation and is armed and ready to take this story of Blake weaponizing feminism to any of her outlets the minute we give her the green light.

0:46:25 Thomas: She hates Blake, has heard this story before, and will do anything for us just FYI. Yeah. Yep. Evidence there. You know what's interesting? I'm now noticing maybe with, you instantly my thought was, well, I guess they will try to say that they never pulled the trigger on that or, I think that's going to be the defense with a lot of this. And we've talked about it. They didn't actually do this as well planning. Fair enough. There Like they may be some of that. That's true. There may be something where they plan to do something and didn't. And I think, you still in Blake's complaint.

0:46:59 Lydia: Is in Blake's? Yeah.

0:47:01 Thomas: Sorry. On or around August 2nd, Miss Abel connected the contributor with Miss Nathan. Subsequently, Miss Nathan engaged directly with media sources on behalf of Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer regarding Mr. Baldoni, Miss Lively and the film. I think that's telling us we don't have those texts. And the reason we don'T have them is it was passed off to Miss Nathan and hey, might be true. We can find out in Discover. We won't. But, you know, maybe we'll find out eventually somehow that they get Nathan's phone. And it turns out Nathan was like, hey, we never need to do any of this. You know, could be like I'm open to that. But like, I also do not think it's at all unreasonable of Blake Lively to think that that's not what happened. Again, just catching back up with this stuff to remind you how much evidence there is beyond just that one exchange with the fucking emoji.

0:47:23 Lydia: Mean, yeah, they might include it in Emotion. Who knows? Absolutely.

0:47:46 Thomas: Finally, I'm to the point that I was trying to look at here where we talk about this strategy kind of coming into effect. It says, again, we're back to Lively's complaint, paragraph 166. On any occasion, any member of the Wayfarer social, quote, manipulation team could text the link to a positive story about Mr. Baldoni or a negative story about Miss Lively and ask that someone boost the story to the public or, quote. Engage in the comments to fuel the desired. Narrative. On August 18th, Mr. Baldoni circulated a TikTok video in which the poster criticized Miss Lively for not speaking about domestic violence in press interviews. A member of Miss Nathan's team responded that she would, quote, let digital know. Hard not to just go back over the entire Blake Lively complaint remind everyone how much fucking evidence there was. For example, on August 13th, various text messages were exchanged between Miss Abel and the journalist Sarah Nathan, who is explained above as Miss Nathan's sister. These messages consisted of drafts of a story outlining Miss Lively's role in making final cuts to the film after Sarah Nathan circulated. Draft language related to Miss Lively's involvement in the different cuts of the film, Miss Abel sent Sarah Nathan revisions to the draft, which

0:48:50 Thomas: Sarah Nathan offered to, quote, amend. They are working with Sarah Nathan to plant stories. I mean, it'll be up to, I guess, a jury to decide how much of that constitutes retaliation. And yeah, like, you know, it's I but think that's not that like positive stuff about Baldoni. That contributing toward the narrative about Blake Lively's sinister motives, like she she needed to do the final cut and all that crap. So that strikes me as pretty clear.

0:49:00 Lydia: Planting. Yeah, right. I And mean, Jennifer Abel does not work for Sarah Nathan's publication as an editor on the side. Like like her involvement in that can only be attributed to crafting the story in the best interest of Justin Baldoni, a .k .a. planting.

0:49:21 Thomas: Needless to say. Yep. Trying I think we can get back to Baldoni's complaint. And the point of all that was that seemed to be a pretty deliberate strategy. Might be, again, something to hash out legally that I don't know if Baldoni is able to say, well, we saw that maybe organically there was a tick tock saying Blake Lively is not talking about domestic violence. I could believe that that like there are a lot of people who just, you that came up. And then if Baldoni says to his team, this is our new focus, essentially, I'm going to focus on that. Interesting question. I think that if I'm being fair, I think it would be rough to say Baldoni can't shift his PR efforts for him based on information that he thinks this is going to do better because Blake Lively. Complain about sexual harassment. You know what I mean? Like, I don't, I think if it was just that, like, if it were just that Baldoni shifted his strategy to emphasize domestic violence and all that, I would be hard to say that's retaliation. Like, if I were a juror, I'd be like, nah, I

0:50:29 Lydia: This isn't necessarily related to retaliation, but I would be curious about the agreement between these folks and Sony, because if this is like the marketing, the agreed upon marketing plan to go after it in X, Y and Z ways and for Baldoni to paint it a different way. I that's his prerogative and stuff. And he does have that ability, but it was not in line with the marketing plan. So I'd be curious.

0:50:52 Thomas: I think that that wouldn't really have any bearing on the retaliation claims. I mean, I suppose it could end up being evidence, I guess, that this was a delivered effort. I has bearing on it in that way. But anything else would just be like a contract dispute between Sony and Baldoni or something. It wouldn't be interesting.

0:51:10 Lydia: Yeah, it's just interesting.

0:51:11 Thomas: If it turns out... it's more about circulating this TikTok that says, wow, Blake Lively is so insensitive this. Then that goes from a more passive, I don't even want to say passive, a more self -focused thing, which I think if consistent it's just Baldoni promoting himself or protecting himself. Against bad PR in ways that don't actively involve Blake, then, yeah, like I think that it's fair for him to do that. Like that's not going to be retaliation. Where you step over into, hey, let's have Jed Wallace, you this video, which is negative on Blake Lively. I feel like that is all the way over on the other side of the line now. Like you can't just that that's that's an active. You're doing that's a that's I mean I'm not the lawyer but that strikes me as something you are doing to try to harm Blake's reputation and not merely protect your own I

0:52:00 Lydia: Now this I there's not necessarily like like commentary on this piece, but I do think it's culturally like significant, you know, like societally significant that. Now you're going to have the co -stars of this movie, a man and a woman, where the man gets to be that knight in shining armor talking about domestic violence and lifting up stories of survivors, etc., etc. And throughout society who is absorbing this information, now they are seeing a man approach PR. For the film in in that like heroic kind of way and the woman it like further emphasizes like silliness of her promotion of of the movie and her like tone deafness right like it just kind of exacerbates I the perception that a lot of people were having like if you had the entire team participating in the strategy as sony asked for it to be done then it wouldn't be that like blake is you know like tone deaf and she's doing all this etc etc you'd be like

0:52:56 Thomas: Mean it might still be just because they pick on women but

0:52:57 Lydia: Because they yeah but but colored even more so because you have now a man stepping into the space and lifting up voices for oftentimes women that are survivors of domestic violence. Like, know. I think it's something that adds fuel to the fire, maybe.

0:53:15 Thomas: Think think that's it's more a on possibly Baldoni's fake like feminism I don't know if legally that's anything but yeah for

0:53:21 Lydia: That's why I prefaced it by saying I don'T think it'S, you legal thing. It'S just culturally I wanted to talk about it.

0:53:33 Thomas: That's where we're leaving it for time. Was your favorite part of that one? Did you forget to study? Just to pick one? You picked, let's see, roll the wheel. You picked emoji. That's the emoji one. I think key emoji one, so. Mean, there's a few about it, but mean look, your probability was pretty, not to bring math into to this again.

0:53:37 Lydia: Would say paragraph, I what is it? Dang. Right. Well, there you go. Because we did so few paragraphs.

0:53:56 Thomas: Yeah. It was eight through 14 and a bunch of them were about the emoji, but yeah. I don't think we need to repeat the emoji stuff stuff. Cause that, I mean, I think people remember that. For one, I'm still torn about it. Write in, write in about what you think on the emoji thing. Cause I'm curious about that. I'm curious about what folks think.

0:54:15 Thomas: Well, we would have to do that. Write in with your own poll.

0:54:14 Lydia: I'd love a poll and then I'll collect the polls I'll pull the polls

0:54:26 Thomas: Make a little poll like, like Phoebe would make, like where she makes a poll that she only, Only she took. And then we'll add that up and be like five thirty eight and we'll collect all the pulls and we're different weights for them. No. Yeah. Let's know what you think about the emoji. But I also think like the key to this is just how much they leave out and don't defend and how much they do that trick of. And this is the only thing that this whole thing is based on, except not even close. You know, I think that's the key to this one. Can't just look at one of a hundred pieces of evidence and be like their whole case. It's this one thing and it falls apart. But I say that I guess you kind of can if people fall for it. So up to us for people to not fall for It. So, hey, tell a buddy and have that buddy tell another buddy. But they can't just tell one buddy because then that would be a three buddy problem. And the three buddy program is famous. To tell another so there's four and there's two sets of two buddies. Buddy This math. This is how it works. So what I'm saying is after you've told your friend, which you already did, have them tell two more friends so that everyone's got

0:55:31 Thomas: A buddy. Sorry for trying to get listeners for our show that is our job. Jeez. Geez. Is there any other buddies? Anyone need a buddy?

0:55:30 Lydia: Pyramid scheme

0:55:41 Thomas: Anyone? Yeah.

0:55:40 Lydia: No. That's messed up.

0:55:42 Thomas: Anyone doesn't? Hey, teacher. I don't have a buddy. Did anybody end up with that one? Well, so much for listening, everyone. Thanks most of all to our patrons. Are our buddies and we'll see you for gavel gavel 13. knows how many paragraphs we'll get to in that one.

0:55:52 Lydia: That's true. Stay tuned.

0:55:58 Thomas: Do because I have a spreadsheet, but you don't. No one else does. Because I'll take it to my grave. My grave of next episode.

0:56:03 Lydia: Or you'll share it at the beginning of the next episode.

0:56:06 Thomas: Well, I'm going to come out of my grave like a vampire and then I'll tell you.

0:56:09 Lydia: Zombie?

0:56:11 Thomas: Zombies aren't, no, the vampire is the one where they like actually come out.

0:56:14 Lydia: They're not in graves. They're in coffins, but they're not underground.

0:56:16 Thomas: Well they're coffins. Oh, you

0:56:19 Lydia: Zombies?

0:56:19 Thomas: Got me on a technicality.

0:56:20 Lydia: Zombies they're they're the ones where their arms like shoot up out of the ground

0:56:24 Thomas: Man, you're right. You don't say I'll Take It To My Coffin. Damn, you Got Me. I'll Take It to My Grave. I thought I was going to get out of this with vampire law.

0:56:28 Lydia: All I'm gonna george costanza this and thank you no

0:56:36 Thomas: Well, I guess I'm just a dumb zombie then. This message thing? I don' t even know what this is.

0:57:03 Lydia: One with TMZ.

0:57:04 Thomas: TMZ. LaMau. We invited her. Let me find that. Yeah, LaMou. I said LaMu.

0:57:08 Lydia: LMAO. Yeah, have a lot of systems buddy system chunk system system.

0:57:19 Thomas: To be confused all