Lively v. Baldoni 13 - He Said That She Said That She Said She Was Sexually Assaulted

Transcript

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

0:00:26 Thomas: And welcome to Gavel Gavel. This is episode 13. I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is Lydia Smith. You ready for I am so optimistic as to how many paragraphs we're going to get to today. Just graph after graph. Just paragraphs. Paragraph, paragraph.

0:00:43 Lydia: I'm really excited for this reveal. What do we have in store?

0:00:45 Thomas: Did I ask how you're doing today already? I'm, oh.

0:00:48 Lydia: But it doesn't matter. All right.

0:00:50 Thomas: I think it matters. Don't say that.

0:00:51 Lydia: Okay. I'm doing all right. I've done all right?

0:00:51 Thomas: It matters. Matters. Cares? No, we don't have that kind of relationship, actually. That was just a joke. I do care. I'm glad you're doing all right. No one asked me, but it's fine. To know, I'm still feeling sore from the grave thing, from the grave coffin fiasco of the previous episode.

0:01:08 Lydia: You know? Know?

0:01:09 Thomas: That's one of my worst moments as a as a podcaster nothing worse has ever happened to me um so we are on and again get your buddy system to help you keep track this is part three of wayfair review new york times is gavel gavel 13 make sure you've heard parts 11 and 12 and every other thing we've ever done. And is starting in with the text, the confusing screenshots and weird crap of texts. And so the pace may slowen.

0:01:19 Lydia: Nothing worse. Nothing worse. Slowing?

0:01:45 Thomas: Pace is slowing a little bit. Not going to get through as much, but we will at least hate doing it. Why don't we get on to, we left off at paragraph 15. We're going to start with paragraph 15 of the complaint and we're going get to it. Take a short break, which you can avoid at gavel pod, where all the cool folks are and all the goodies, all the good stuff um not no worries listen to this ad and then we'll see you right after that so So those paragraphs and some of this stuff is about like, you know, there's a movie about domestic violence and they're they're wearing florals and blah, blah, It's like, yeah, OK, well, that was again, that wasn't the marketing plan. So but once you read this part that you you identified as interesting.

0:02:37 Lydia: Then we get to this screenshot, which is a group chat with the tag team.

0:02:41 Thomas: Date. Very importantly, no day.

0:02:43 Lydia: No date. Agency group, Melissa Nathan's company. And so from a tag team member, it says, we didn't tell Jed to go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. That happened organically. People saw the actual movie and were like, wait, this is a movie about domestic violence that they wore florals to.

0:03:03 Thomas: Think. She means to like T .O., but she said to as in T. O.

0:03:06 Lydia: Zoe sent me this on Saturday and goes, quote, this is a crazy way to market this movie. And it's a link to a TikTok. We don't know what the TikTok is. Then we get an Instagram screenshot where says, grab your friends, wear your florals. That's been underlined. Like, come on. We had nothing to do with that. So a of things here. We didn't tell Jed to go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. So they did tell Jed. To go after something.

0:03:31 Lydia: That indicates that they have a working relationship.

0:03:31 Thomas: That would imply that there's a thing that they tell Jed to go after and this wasn't one of it.

0:03:37 Lydia: This contradicts what you just said about Baldoni reaching out to the team, the PR team, and highlighting what you said about like highlighting Blake's promo, her press tour stuff. And then the PR Team responding, you know, we'll tell Digital, a .k .a. Jed.

0:03:43 Thomas: I just said. We'll tell digital. Yeah, that's interesting.

0:03:54 Lydia: I could see they're it that telling Baldoni what he wants to hear and they had no intention of doing that. I could say that they did do it and now this is covering butt kind of thing.

0:04:03 Thomas: It's just lying. We also I'm trying to see if based on the posts we can estimate the date of this because for one.

0:04:08 Lydia: Know. It says three days ago,

0:04:10 Thomas: I once again want to note that this is Melissa Nathan. The New York Times would not have had this. Wouldn't have had This. I don't know when this was from, but because we have no dates, if this is sort of after the fact, and this is just someone saying, wow, we're so innocent of the things we did. Cause like, what is this conversation even? Like, why is this is this in response to? It doesn't seem like kind of defensive.

0:04:34 Thomas: And then you're providing it as evidence in a complaint that, look, we're totally innocent. Here's this natural conversation we had where we were like, we are innocent, I tell you. So, there is a screenshot. We don't when that would have been taken. If the screenshot was taken contemporaneous with these messages, then we could find out when this was, which might be interesting.

0:04:53 Thomas: We could at least have that a possibility.

0:04:54 Lydia: Let's 9th. Then this would have been August 12th is when they took the screenshot.

0:04:59 Thomas: That post was August 9th?

0:05:01 Lydia: Side note, they should have redacted Zoe's name, but they didn't.

0:05:04 Thomas: Zoe?

0:05:05 Lydia: Works for the agency group. I think I looked her up on LinkedIn.

0:05:09 Thomas: Zoe sent me this? Oh yeah.

0:05:10 Lydia: Yeah. Did when Baldoni send his thing to

0:05:13 Thomas: August 18th, circulated a TikTok video in which the poster criticized Miss Lively for not speaking about domestic violence in press interviews. A member of Nathan's team responded that she would let digital know.

0:05:23 Lydia: Interesting. OK, so then that screenshot is contemporaneous to the text messages with tag team, then that was six days before Baldoni sent that comment. So those two things could exist.

0:05:35 Thomas: It seems kind of crazy, though. Why are they having this conversation? We're to believe that this is the tag team. Nathan. That's the crisis PR team just talking amongst themselves. Saying we didn't tell Jed to go after the idea. First off, why are they telling themselves that? Like who?

0:05:51 Lydia: Hmm.

0:05:51 Thomas: Is it just one part of the team telling another part of team?

0:05:53 Lydia: Telling Melissa Nathan. Yeah, mm

0:05:55 Thomas: OK, I think if you were way over on Blake's side, you might say this is very convenient. And these messages might be kind of bullshit that happened after the fact to try to, you your tracks. don'T know that I fully necessarily. That right now? I think it's a possibility. As evidence of that, what is this fucking conversation? We didn't tell Jed to go, like, why are they even saying that? Within their tag team, what prompted this response of, we didn't go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. That happened organically because people saw the actual movie and were like, wait, this is a movie about domestic violence. Would be interested in why this conversation happened. I guess I could, I'm trying to think of possibilities. Like if they're just reveling in the idea that they didn't have to do anything, I guess if, if tag team is like, yeah, well, this was what a weird job, huh? We didn't tell Jed to go after the idea willing to believe that again, because like lot of this was a viral hate storm on Blake Lively for reasons that I don't think are legitimate. But like of that, it's entirely possible that they didn't think of that idea. And some people on the Internet did. As you said, the fact that they're differentiating not telling Jed to go after the idea that a promo was inappropriate means there is stuff they are telling Jed.

0:07:11 Thomas: What what is that? We'll see. I guess we'll find out. I think the most cynical reading of this could be this is way later. That screenshot was something she had saved a while ago, which that honestly, based on us going through this, like you'd save screenshots all the time. Could entirely be that she saved that screenshot back then. This was later like that would be the most cynical version of this, that this was kind of done after. Not like after the lawsuit. I think that'd be kind of crazy. But they got worried, you know, like after either after the cell phone thing happened and they're like, shit, now Stephanie Jones is going to know or Blake Lively, you Jones and Jen Abel are definitely enemies, like now we got to be worried about all these conversations. It could have been after that. And they're covering the tracks there. Or maybe not. Maybe this was back contemporaneous with the screenshot, which would put it at what was it?

0:07:56 Lydia: That was contemporaneous, then this conversation was happening August 12 because that was August 9 and it says three days ago in the screenshot.

0:08:05 Thomas: So that's possible. Again, I just why is this conversation happening? Might also goes along with the idea that once the hate storm got out of control, maybe only then they started worrying about this liability. Like, oh, shit. Fact that, you know, again, contractually. Baldoni is not supposed to be doing this. He signed an agreement, by the way, forget, remember all that where Blake Lively had a bunch of complaints and they signed a document saying we won't do this stuff. Document also included an agreement not to go after each other kind of thing, or actually just not to after Blake.

0:08:35 Thomas: I don't think it even included the other way. Yeah. And so it might be that once this got out of control and once people started talking about him having hired Melissa Nathan, and speculation about bots and about like, is Baldoni responsible for this?

0:08:36 Lydia: I think it was just one sided. Yeah.

0:08:49 Thomas: Then they get spooked and start talking like, well, we didn't do this. We didn't maybe that's what happened. But that doesn't mean they didn't start it.

0:08:57 Lydia: Right, right. I mean, this is a point in time. Conversation where they're saying we didn't tell Jed to go after the idea that her promo was inappropriate. And as as you said, then like later on, Baldoni requests that they, you go after their sends that and they said they're going to send it to digital.

0:09:11 Thomas: Baldoni sends the TikTok and they said they'd send a digital.

0:09:15 Lydia: Treating this one point in time conversation as they never. Like later engaged with Jed Wallace to go after her promo or they like they never engaged in any sort of smear campaign tactics or anything like that. This one conversation does not speak for the entirety of their contractual work. It just doesn't. There was time that happened after this, too, where things were being posted about Blake.

0:09:37 Thomas: Right, let's take on paragraph 14 here.

0:09:40 Lydia: Right. From being the product of a calculated smear campaign by plaintiffs. Just a note for everybody. Smear campaign consistently has had quote marks around it. It doesn't here. Don't know why.

0:09:50 Thomas: They admitted it. We got them.

0:09:52 Lydia: Backlash against Lively was the inevitable fallout of her own tone deaf messaging and self -promotional tactics amplified by her inability to read the room in addressing such a serious subject. Mm

0:10:03 Thomas: Now we get more screenshots of things that New York Times wouldn't have had. Again, unless they're Baldoni is claiming he sent the New York times this, like, that comment period, possibly, but I know if that's true. Didn't the New they sent it. But either way, these are not from phone. So they wouldn't have had these. So in terms of relevance to the New York Times claims here, like the defamation claims and that stuff, this doesn't really seem relevant at all. Other than, again, if they're trying to establish like, oh, it wasn't a smear campaign, here's more evidence. The evidence is just the people alleged to have done a smea campaign saying they didn't do a smear campaign, which doesn't know, again, it's like, here, here's evidence I didn't do it. I didn'T do it,

0:10:43 Lydia: So we have a series of text messages between Justin Baldoni and Melissa Nathan centered around, well, I guess kicked off by by an that Perez Hilton wrote. I I want to chat real fast because Perez Hinton is a client client of Brian Friedman's. And I think it's funny kind of how Melissa Nathan reacts to Justin's question of sharing this Press Hilton article where he says, this is not us, correct? Assuming the guy we brought in would never do this, dot, dot. Nathan says, none of us would ever do this. Also, no one pays any attention to this person past 2005. He is not relevant. He does not create a news headline. He doesn't get picked up. He's just now a troll. There is not one outlet that would cover anything he said or take it seriously. I just think that's an interesting little insight into the entertainment world.

0:11:30 Thomas: Yeah. Trashing on Perez Hilton. Uh, that guy sucks. I'm always a fan of that. And it's a, yeah, Friedman's client, but I am, I just find myself confused about these texts. It's the same as the last ones where again, we're getting texts that, the uh, New York times wouldn't have had, uh Lively wouldn't've had cause they're just Melissa Nathan, uh others. And they all just they seem so preemptive and defensive. Like it doesn't that's what doesn't make any sense to me is like even in the world in which Baldoni is telling the truth and there wasn't a smear campaign. I don't know why ALL THE DEFENSIVE MESSAGES ABOUT THERE POSSIBLY BEING A SMEAR CAMPAIGN LIKE WE DIDN'T DO THIS RIGHT DO WE NOT WE DIDNT DO THIS do we not do it like why are they like in especially this is August 18th. Don't really understand it. The was hope this isn't true, because if so, reminding you of all the legal ways this would be bad. And then the defense, because I just don't understand the defensiveness. Like Justin Baldoni's view of things, like why are they all worried about this on August 18th 19th and even earlier? Don't get it. Like, this is not us. He's so worried. This is not as this is right. Why are you so worried that it's you for one? And also, I mean, the fact that you say like you're not even aware of what the guy did. I mean earlier we had the one where you said we didn't tell Jed to go after the idea their promo was inappropriate. That happened organically again. Then the fact that he's like, this is not us. Assuming the guy we brought in would never do this. It just seems a little weird. It seems like she's playing to an audience. Of us would ever do this. Also, no one even pays any attention to this person past 2005. He's not relevant. He does not create it. Like, why is it? Why does any of that even matter? Like the the

0:13:04 Thomas: Thing he's asking is if they did it not about the reach that Perez Hilton might have. Like I don't even really get how that like what is this? I just find

0:13:12 Lydia: Could have just been none of us would ever do this. And then the last bit of that same message says it's organic. She's blown herself up by her own actions like that could have been the text. But all of that, like, yeah, stuff about Perez Hilton is strange.

0:13:27 Thomas: This weird. I this doesn't fit in you know, and I'm trying to like really put myself into the time place that things are in to try to evaluate what seems right. About it being them. If in world in which none of this is happening, none like of the smear campaign stuff, you be like, whoa, did we do this? Nope. Just bad press that Blake Lively is getting, I guess. It be like, sounds like some people don't like Blake Live. It's all this weird, like over -explaining. No, it's organic. She did it herself. You know, like, why does that matter?

0:13:56 Lydia: Hmm.

0:13:57 Thomas: In in their worldview in August 18, it something about it is so weird. And then there's more. Like, this is why it's so weird, so it goes on. We don't, I don't think we have a date on this. I mean, we could assume it's right after this, but I don' don't think we can because we don't know. We don't have a date. It's unearthed Blake Lively interview show her using a slur for trans people. And then I this is still Nathan then saying. Just ran and underlined. Obviously, none of us knew about this either. Once media goes in, they go in. And the best thing we can do right now is be quiet. Let's just get through this week together. Then just move on and back to regular planning with Instagram posts and thoughtful ideas and messages. The content creators are on fire. And Justin, she has handed it all Justin, she has handed it to them all on a plate. Concentrate on the success of the movie, your family, and your next project. I have this weird feeling that she's going to reach out to you for a conversation in the next couple of weeks, or he will.

0:14:03 Lydia: And it goes on. Guessing Ryan.

0:14:56 Thomas: Isn't that weird?

0:14:57 Lydia: It is weird. I don't think that reach out happened.

0:15:01 Thomas: Not, but what even isn't? I'm just really trying to get myself, Like because that's so again, it's so artificial. Justin, she has handed it all to them on a plate. Like why? Again, why? Why so much? It's protesting too much.

0:15:14 Lydia: I feel like This end bit where she says, you know, I have this weird feeling she's going to reach out to you for a conversation the next couple of weeks, you which to me would then lead to an interpretation that Blake would interpret that this is being fueled by Justin Baldoni.

0:15:32 Thomas: Here's what I think. I think is it Wesley Sloan? It must be. Leslie Sloane must be like, hey, what the F are you doing?

0:15:38 Lydia: It could be.

0:15:39 Thomas: And then maybe they got like some point in any of those conversations, maybe Leslie Sloan was like, hey, remember this thing you signed? Hey, remember your legal obligation? You know, like at some point, because otherwise this defensiveness makes no sense to me. Here we go to August 24th. Now this is like days later and this would be post phone change. It's another somebody sent Blake Lively fearing for her career amid it ends with us backlash and then tag team. It just I guess somebody within the tag team says, God, I'm so over this. I'm sure Leslie thinks we place this one as well. Nathan. Yep. And same. That tells me I guess it must be Leslie, like maybe from maybe early on. And she is a PR person. She is savvy. She she probably recognizes a planted story when she sees one. Maybe for the past couple of weeks here, she's been on them and he's been like, defensive and trying we already know they don't want to put stuff in writing. We way Justin's asking could also be interpreted as like, know, like I, can't be getting caught with this stuff like here get the biggest self -own so far. This blows my mind.

0:16:41 Lydia: So we're on paragraph 15. The article also deliberately ignores that Lively's publicist, Leslie Sloan, of Vision PR, once backed by Harvey Weinstein, seeded stories critical of Baldoni, including that Baldoni was a sexual predator ahead of the film's release. Did so even while Nathan attempted to cooperate in good faith.

0:17:01 Thomas: So right away, what That's the paragraph, that's the narrative you're hearing. It ignores that Leslie Sloan planted stories. First off, again, New York Times wouldn't have these necessarily. I mean, I guess Blake could have given them, but I don't know that she did. Secondly, what are you expecting? You would expect like some sort of message saying, hey, I got this Leslie Sloan who's trying to plant a story or something, you know, like something that actually backs up that paragraph. Seeded stories critical of Baldoni, including that Baldoni was a sexual predator. And here's what we actually get. We and this is so like sleazy because And here is where some stuff is redacted, was redactED in that correction because of reporter privilege, but we're not a court of law. So I don't give a shit about that. This reporter is a slime ball. What we see instead is messages between Leslie Sloan and some journalist who is James something from Daily Mail. Already that tells you that James something From the Daily mail is like sending these screenshots to Baldoni's camp, right? Because it's from his phone, is interesting. To this. So we, it just starts in, we don't get the beginning of it, but it says Leslie Sloan. Yes, please. As thus, I think it's this, as this info is all wrong. Didn't require script runs, nothing to do with this. She produced the film and got as typos, but produce a film and had a cut, I think. WTF is going on. The whole cast doesn't like Justin. Nothing to do with Blake. Which this journalist says, like I said, though, the reporting is that there were issues between her and Justin as well as others and that Justin found it difficult to work with her. Of these reporters known is close with Steph Jones because they used to always get Tom Brady, Giselle shit. And Steph reps him, I believe. I told them she is awful and not to rely on anything she says. Need to keep going. So then Leslie said, I'm I'm telling you, she's a liar, which I'm guessing Steph Jones.

0:18:51 Lydia: Steph.

0:18:52 Thomas: Yeah. Melissa Nathan. Are panicking as the whole cast hates him. Then James says, so they want to run something based on this reporting, and it down, but need something to shut down with. Know she's a liar. I just need to get my editor on board because she has three reporters feeding her bullshit, two from LA. Leslie, I promise she is lying. This will not look good for your site. The entire cast I will have go on record. James, can you give me anything at all on the issue is then if it's not her and it's him? Leslie, no, I'm in a plane and this needs to hold. Sounds good. I'd like to clear this shit up.

0:19:28 Lydia: Then he sends it to Melissa. Screenshots his conversation with Leslie, sends it over to Melissa, we don't know when.

0:19:37 Thomas: We don't know when either of these things are, unfortunately.

0:19:39 Lydia: Yeah and says after the screenshots, he says she said the whole cast. Hates Justin. This has nothing to do with Blake. And now she's saying that Blake was sexually assaulted. Why yeah,

0:19:50 Thomas: No proof of that, though, by the way, no proof that anywhere. She wasn't sexually assaulted. She still never claimed she's sexually assaulted, so that is a very weird. Quote that don't know where that came from, but it seems to cause quite a bit of trouble because now Baldoni thinks that Leslie is saying Blake was sexually assaulted. So I can't imagine that helped things. This James guy sucks.

0:20:10 Lydia: All these people suck. Why would she say anything about that then? She knows she's full of shit. She told me that the whole issue was that everybody hates Justin, nothing about Blake and Justin. She said it has nothing

0:20:26 Thomas: This is it. Two faced asshole. I mean, again, like you say, all of them are, I guess, two faced assholes to some degree. But this reporter, I just can't stand people like this. I would never last a second in any of these jobs because this reporter is talking to Leslie Sloan being like, oh, yeah, we all I want to shut it down. Yeah, definitely. I need. Yeah. Totally. Oh, yeah. She's a liar. Yeah she's the worst. And then turning around and being like OK, so she says blah, blah, and she's a remember, this was the alleged evidence that Leslie Sloan was planting stories, including that Blake was sexually assaulted. But instead, what we have is a reporter, James, clearly reaching out to Leslie Sloane with reporting that's already there and is pro -Justin and saying, hey, you think about this? He says, like I said, the reporting is that and then he says so they want to run something based on this reporting. Now, they, I guess, could to refer the editors or to the whatever, you know, higher ups or something. Yeah, the point is this article already existed and he's getting some sort of comment from Leslie Sloan. That's the opposite of what the allegation is. More like. Other side has planted a story or seeded a story and it's anti -Blake. And this James reaches out to Leslie to get comment. And Leslie's like, what is this? Happening? This is wrong. Then there's some stuff that was redacted or taken out in the when it was revised a couple of days after filing because this asshole Two -Face reporter complained about having his stuff in there. We have the original because we're not a court. So I don't think there's any like privilege against us having stuff.

0:21:59 Lydia: We'll hear about it if there is.

0:22:00 Thomas: Yeah. And it's already out there. It's not like we got it. Yeah, we got the fact that Brian's in on it, though. Like, maybe that's why they took it out.

0:22:09 Lydia: So it says in the notice of Arata, it says the complaint contained language and images on pages 14 through 16 and 20 subject to the reporter's privilege. The privilege and image have been omitted per request in the corrected version of the complaint attached here to as exhibit A. I don't think Brian Friedman could assert the request.

0:22:28 Thomas: Yeah. I still don't get it because I don' t know what the report. Like what? Privilege that is and why do have some privilege to not be in someone else's like like the reporter is not a party. And and know, like I don't know whose privilege it would be, because like let's take, for example, attorney client privilege. The client posts a conversation. Attorney can't say that's privileged. The client then waived the privilege. This is like, I mean, maybe this reporter privilege is something that reporters have. It's like if they if the people he was talking to, if the reporter was talking wave the privilege by posting it, I this.

0:22:59 Lydia: What

0:23:07 Thomas: So et al. put it in their complaint. If this were a like if there's if this Were attorney -client privilege doing that would have waived the privilege anyway But I guess if this is some privilege where it's not based on the client the client having it but would be based on The reporter having it, but

0:23:07 Lydia: Do you mean posting it? Yeah. What I can tell, I mean, we can save further discussion of this probably with a lawyer, but reporters' privilege protects journalists from being compelled to reveal confidential sources and information in legal proceedings. Yeah, I guess he's asserting that Leslie Sloan is a source and how he pursues some of his stories.

0:23:42 Thomas: No because this stuff they take out as conversations with Friedman though, so it's like I mean, I guess you could say the thing they're talking about

0:23:49 Lydia: 14 through 16, isn't it? Oh, 14 is, page stuff with Leslie.

0:23:54 Thomas: That's still in the complaint. It is stuff on page 14 is

0:23:55 Lydia: In the correct, well, oh, is it that they just redacted his name? Is that all?

0:24:00 Thomas: A good question. Yes, it is that they just redacted his name, but they're not being James is not being compelled. That's the weird. What I don't understand. I'm I sure James is probably like, hey, don't want my dirty laundry a little bit out there. And they probably voluntarily like complied with it.

0:24:04 Lydia: So yeah, so I guess, legally compelled to sources or information, yeah.

0:24:22 Lydia: Yeah. And they're they're saying it was because of reporters privilege, which probably doesn't apply.

0:24:26 Thomas: But that yeah, I can't think of how that would make sense in this context, because it's a conversation like know, because if I'm a source, it's yeah, we'll have to ask somebody about that. But what stuff that has been taken out is a conversation with Brian Friedman, which is interesting for the lawyer. To be in the conversation in the complaint. Which is why my conspiracy theory is like, maybe that's why they took it out, but that's okay. It's also clearly, this than being contemporaneous of like August or whatever, this screenshot says yesterday. Given unless this conversation happened to take place back then and then they screenshotted it back then

0:24:30 Lydia: Interesting.

0:25:02 Thomas: For some reason and then didn't use it for four months. I think this was like Brian Friedman and Melissa being like, hey, and honestly, I don't blame them. I mean in their mind right now, it seems like they might genuinely believe that Sloan is kind of accusing them without cause. And they also have had this James person talking shit on Sloan before. Probably think, okay, we need to respond to this lawsuit or we need file this lawsuit against the New York Times. Get some stuff from James about how shitty Sloan is. Then this is what he said.

0:25:03 Lydia: The time. Yeah right.

0:25:33 Thomas: What he sent was, you can see that Leslie bashes Melissa and tries to get me to say that Melissa was planting stories and bad -mouthing Blake. Just read some of this. James says it'll be easier. To just scroll through his. Screen while it's recording, but obviously we don't have that because we don' t have a video file on the complaint. But what James says is in that is Leslie bashing Melissa, trying to get him to say that Melissa was planting stories and bad -mouthing Blake, which again, I don't really see that. How is that evidence against New York Times or even Blake Lively? Because at this point, Leslie clearly thinks that Melissa is planting stories. And so Leslie is asking a reporter, has she been planting stories, which is the same thing really that they're doing with the report. Like there's this isn't there's nothing bad about this other than this whole thing. All of this is shitty and gross, but like there'S nothing like again, if Blake and if Sloan thinks that Melissa is planting stories. Why can't Sloan ask a reporter? Hey, is Melissa planting stories?

0:25:33 Lydia: I right.

0:26:31 Thomas: Wrong with that? I don't get it. Goes off on calling Steph Jones a liar. Never once did she mention anything about the sexual harassment. Well, why would she? She's not supposed to be planting stories. I that would be more evidence that she was planting stories like before just a second ago. Problem was that she did say allegedly that Blake was sexually Which isn't true. I don't think Sloan said that. Now it's a problem that she didn't mention anything about the sexual harassment.

0:26:43 Lydia: Would feel like it would be more of a tactic if she had assaulted. Yeah.

0:27:02 Thomas: This seems like James, again, who knows who's in the right in this weird, like. Shit talking two -faced reaction interaction like I'll say this I like at least leslie sloan is pretty clear like she's like don't like that person fuck that person like I actually have a lot more respect for that than what this james is doing which is being oh really two -faced and and all that but it seems like james really doesn't like sloane uh or maybe likes friedman or melissa or somebody like something where

0:27:30 Lydia: We get a heck of a lot more information about that that's incredibly irrelevant to this complaint. He goes on to say, also on the last conversation that I had with Leslie, we talked for a while. And during the conversation, Leslie asked me who it is that Melissa reps, who is with Tag PR, what happened with that. Take, I don't know what that means. What happened with That whole situation, maybe. We're not sure exactly what he means there.

0:27:51 Thomas: Is this oh many typos. Feel

0:27:57 Lydia: It's been really challenging.

0:27:57 Thomas: So validated in how bad my texts are too. This is not a criticism at all.

0:28:02 Lydia: No one ever corrects like their messages.

0:28:04 Thomas: Don't bother.

0:28:05 Lydia: No, because at least I would do that. I send the messages with the asterisks right after because, you know, I'm going to be reading my texts right after I send them.

0:28:13 Thomas: Do that if I'm talking to somebody who's like not a close close friend or, you it's somebody where I'm like, yeah, they get it. Fine. But if it is like, if I am talking in a professional situation like this, I definitely would correct it.

0:28:23 Lydia: Like you'd absolutely. Yeah. He says she also told me that Melissa is not a real PR agency and that they don't have any good clients. She told me she did not like Melissa on multiple occasions. She also told us to blank who does not work with us anymore. I don't. Yeah, the structure of that sentence.

0:28:39 Thomas: Don't understand what that could be. She told us to. It's talk to maybe or something like like maybe she's like, oh, yeah, Melissa sucks. Talk to blank who works with you. And then she doesn't work with this person doesn't walk with them anymore. Anyway, not important.

0:28:53 Lydia: I also asked about Steph Jones, who she was, what she did, where she works, who works with her. She had called her a liar, too, in the text messages. And it's just so funny because it's like this wall of text about all the things that Leslie's saying about other people. And this is just gossip. This is like it's literally just a, this PR person doesn't like this PRperson. It's not legally relevant at all. And he just wants to stir the pot almost.

0:29:17 Thomas: Well, it well, this is very clearly this has been requested. You can see sort of in the previous thing. Cut off. But with dates, anything you have is helpful. Thank you. So this is Friedman or Melissa. This is Melissa asking for help. We have no idea why James is helping could be because James doesn't like Sloan could be, because James likes them could be. Because James is going to get something from them. They could have, you know, who knows what it is, but look, Sloan, at least is very clear that she doesn't. Two who honestly are pretty shitty, Melissa and Steph Jones, who like we have strong evidence, very much suck and are liars.

0:29:27 Lydia: From Melissa.

0:29:53 Thomas: So it's like, OK, I don't know who the Sloan is. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE HOW MUCH TO WHAT DEGREE SHE SUCKS. But everything I've seen so far seems like maybe she's a traditional PR person who comes with the traditional amount of suckage, which is still, you know, still sucks.

0:29:47 Lydia: Yeah, mm -hmm.

0:30:07 Thomas: It seems seems like she's reacting as though this is real dirty pool. This is like Melissa and Steph Jones are doing stuff that's untoward. And I get it. I mean, I also I see where. Baldoni is coming from if they, I guess, really think they've done nothing wrong. But it's just hard because we have so many like direct examples of Melissa Nathan being willing to lie and say whatever, you know, like and she's a crisis PR person, which means she's just lying all the time. I know. I but the point is this of this is clear evidence of Baldoni's side never having any smear campaign it's not I mean you could say it's some evidence of certain things but again we're talking to journalists we're telling these are conversations these are not you nathan and her priest or something like this is you know she's still talking to analysts and other people that are like professional relationships and she has a reputation to maintain yeah so

0:31:09 Lydia: Journalists associated with tabloids also not journalists not yeah and get the misinformation about sexual assault coming back in here James messages in this thread many times she gives us information and then her client gets mad and then she comes back and says that she never gave it to us and it's a lie I had many conversations with her about Blake and never once did she say anything about sexual assault I had a three -way call with her and Melissa and she never said anything about it then either I hope this helps in some way If nothing else, it shows she doesn't like Melissa and she tried numerous times to get me to say that Melissa was planting stories or that Melissa is bad mouthing Blake after I told her countless times it was not the case. She kept going.

0:31:48 Thomas: It sounds like she doesn't trust this reporter when he's she doesn'T trust this Reporter who checks notes we see was lying in real time like in the earlier screenshots when literally he's lying to her face.

0:32:01 Lydia: Yeah, also, I'm sorry, but like if. Blake had been sexually assaulted, it would be, I think, so egregious for your publicist to then tell a tabloid reporter that you were sexually assaulted. Like, that's gross.

0:32:16 Thomas: So the opposite of what you were saying a minute ago. It would have been bad, according to you, if Leslie Sloan had talked to a reporter about the sexual harassment allegations. That would be not what you wanted, right? It's like she can't win either way.

0:32:31 Lydia: Folks, the way that these screenshots are done, I want to emphasize how hard we're working over here because it's... It's columns of screenshots next to each other, but it's not necessarily continuous. So like certain messages are then repeated in the next screenshot. So you have to figure out, OK, where did I leave off? And yeah, it's it's messy. The time they're illegible. We're doing our best here.

0:32:38 Thomas: Sloppy. Here's another thing that's interesting. This conversation between TMZ and Melissa Nathan, we get the TMZ reporter telling Melissa Nathan. Oh, here is what we are hearing. It's their talking points. Team could be seeding stories not through Melissa Nathan. Be through other people. Listen to this. Are told, so again, TMZ talking to Melissa Nathan again, texts that the New York Times wouldn't have had anyway. It doesn't matter. We're told cast and crew find Justin nice guy. Don't take as harsh of sides behind the scenes as is being reported. At this point, we're told it's being milked for publicity. Justin's over it. It really was creative difference between Blake and Justin, but wasn't nearly as bad as reported. Blake, huge ego, etc. et cetera. Is the reporting. Those all Baldoni talking points. TMZ is telling Melissa about that. Again, it really could be that just they had somebody else plant that or they've, you know, they found. Cast a crew to be their mouthpiece. And again, maybe that cast or crew, whoever that source is, maybe they genuinely believe that. I don't know. But

0:34:07 Lydia: Yeah,

0:34:07 Thomas: Still, this doesn't prove anything.

0:34:07 Lydia: They might like him perfectly fine, yeah. Then we get some nonsense that's irrelevant about Melissa Nathan being in a hurricane in Puerto Rico at the time, and that she just ate a Poke Bowl, everybody.

0:34:14 Thomas: Hurricane. What's interesting. That. Right after that, part like of the conversation. Melissa asked, do you have sources? So again, Melissa is asking TMZ. And with how these people work, it's entirely possible Melissa knows who the sources are already and was part of seeding them or asking, do you have sources BL Camp keeps thinking it's us placing and we are doing F all? Again, this isn't evidence because Melissa Nathan is talking to TMZ. Not. And fast proof, Melissa Nathan might be lying to TMZ because everybody's lying to everybody. Yes, on production. They've had a producer working overtime and spoke to to people in production in post. Says, wait till I tell you the whole story. Then reporter says, we are legit saying source says it's all Blake's ego. Then Melissa says, you have no idea. You think you do. You do not. In my whole career, I've never come across this situation. And then the reporter says, but why aren't people saying the real story if known? That's kind of like, yeah, why? Why aren't they? That's kind weird.

0:35:20 Lydia: Is weird.

0:35:20 Thomas: Get some more text where this is Leslie and James, the reporter. We've already kind of talked about this. Where she's saying, hey, I know you're friends with Melissa. And James says, yeah. We are. So, by the way, that's interesting. Leslie says, I am not paid to take people down. I'm honest. And says she hasn't done anything literally anti -Blake. And Sloan says, KK.

0:35:40 Lydia: She hasn't done anything literally anti -Blake.

0:35:44 Thomas: Yeah, I think it meant literally anything anti -Blake, but it's OK. And James said she told me the same thing that she told you, which is she said that Blake's backlash is organic. Leslie Sloan, it's not. She did nothing but help get a movie make tons of money. Justin makes tons. James says, eh, she was kind of off promoting it as if it was Barbie. It's just based on the things that she said directly. So, OK, buying into that whole thing, which, you know, a lot of people do buy into that idea, which I think is ridiculous. But I also understand, again, this all makes sense from Sloan's perspective. Isn't even evidence of the thing they're claiming. This isn't anyone planting stories. This is Leslie thinking that they planted a story and maybe Leslie's wrong, but this isn't her planting anything.

0:36:23 Lydia: Still on paragraph 15 of the narrative where they're trying to assert that Leslie was seeding stories. And all of those text messages that we read you are supposedly the receipts for that.

0:36:34 Thomas: This is great because there's more. Now we get an email that's a statement for TMZ. This is August 14th and says, hello, I'm a reporter at TMZ and I'm reaching out to get a statement regarding some information. We are being told there are at least three HR complaints filed against Justin Baldoni on the set of It Ends With Us. Wanted to see if the complaints were investigated and what the results are. This here's solid Baldoni's side, Melissa Nathan, tag team, et cetera, are just liars. Reporter asks about HR complaints. Now, I will say that I will. Here's what I will evidence of someone on Blake's side planting a story or seeding the story, whatever, whatever you want to use. At the very least, finally, for the first time, a reporter reaching out to Baldoni side saying, hey, and I'll just read it. A source close to the set says they don't know of an investigation, but there was an intervention. Quote, we heard there were multiple HR complaints from crew and cast, starting with the first day of production. Wayfair is the studio. It's unclear if Wayfairy Studios performed an investigation into the claims against themselves. Separately, we there was an intervention with Justin Baldoni midway through production based on a pattern of inappropriate behavior by him toward the cast and crew. Does this at all prove that... Blake side is behind it. No, but it's at least I they've at least put something in that could be considered possible evidence. Like you could say, like on information, I believe we think she planted this. Isn't any more evidence than just it existing. Like, take it for what it's worth. What tag team said. Record, the only complaint which not confirmed if it was an official HR complaint was a guy up for a gig on the crew complained

0:38:22 Thomas: Were no other complaints. Especially no other documented HR complaints. Was not an intervention on set or with members of the crew. Would be false to allude to. And Ryan had Justin and his team over for a meeting where Blake expressed all the things she was upset upset about. Was not Justin versus the team behind the film. It was his team versus Blake and Ryan. More of a contentious meeting. The way it reads now reads as if it was a proper intervention with cast and crew. Not true. Says, thanks. I just sent in. I'll keep you posted. What is the email for Wayfair? I need to legal. Legal reach out. Then we turn back over to Blake Lively's complaint, which we've already gone through. We can remind you all that there is text proof of the team of tag team of Baldoni's side talking about these complaints. And remind you, it said, oh, there's definitely not complaints and especially not documented complaints. So at first I was thinking, oh do they try to get by on some slimy thing like because these weren't official complaints? Because also remember thing that was tough about this situation is there really wasn't anyone to complain to. Blake went to Sony and Sony was like, well, we don't we're not really responsible for the set. Then it was like. Well, great. So I have to go to the people who are doing the harassing to complain about it. So like, you might not have ended up filling filling out official HR complaints. And by the way, hers would have been one. And there were, you

0:39:52 Thomas: Filled out on official HR, papers you or whatever. I don't know if that's what the lie they're trying to get away with. But given that that statement said no complaints and especially no written HR complaints kind of thing. Is just lies. This absolutely bald faced lies, because behind the scenes, what they were actually saying was, hey, is from someone on the team to among Melissa and Jen. Thanks. Guys, read the TMZ thing and read the HR complaints. Our understanding is that two were already already exposed as a lie because you're saying our understanding is not that that's imaginary.

0:40:26 Thomas: Yeah, our understanding the sexy comment. Is the additional one from blank read the thing with Jamie in her apartment in NYC? Just wanted to clarify. And I love how they're not sure because who knows, maybe there's other stuff that was a problem.

0:40:24 Lydia: That were some and not none. Yeah yeah

0:40:41 Thomas: Then Abel says back probably to the same people, including Melissa and Nathan, I think we need to position it as the claims that are already out there about the kiss and the weight comment.

0:40:40 Lydia: Yeah hmm

0:40:51 Thomas: They're actively talking about deceiving people about what these complaints were. This is and I'm going to go again. We're back on Blake Lively's complaint. To this. The day from this, from when they gave the those statements to the reporter on August 15th. Nathan texted Ms. Abel that, quote, DM Daily Mail hounded me re -HR complaints. She stated that DM is not running any content about it, continuing, quote. Jen, this went so well, I am fucking dying. I have to call you later in a bit and tell you how this went. It was genius. So, OK, we have the four majors standing down on HR complaint. Think we are fine on that bit.

0:40:51 Lydia: Yeah Daily they knocked it out in a day. Lying.

0:41:35 Thomas: We know there were, at the very least, there were complaints. Who knows if they were filled out properly or something, but I think there were. And as far as the law is concerned, especially California law, that doesn't matter. But yeah, again, there going back to that text. Here's what tag team fucking said. There are no Other Complaints, especially no other documented HR complaints. That's a lie. There's no getting around that. That's an egregious lie. You are lying about your client having complaints against him and among others, Heath and the studio as well.

0:42:07 Lydia: Were one of these reporters, how would you feel like with all this stuff coming out? Would you be like a livid that you're being lied to or would you even care? Like, I don't know.

0:42:18 Thomas: Don't know how much anyone pays attention to me. I have no idea. Here's the other thing. Like, want to get into it now, but what sucks is that most of these reporters, because we're not talking about, you know, New York Times reporters or, you we're talking about tabloid fucking reporters. So they just care about getting clicks. So we've even seen them talk about like, yeah, this wasn't very good, but you know it's just so much attention. We got to run it kind of thing. So I don' even know if they give a shit because the overwhelming energy is for anti - Blake content anyway. So they might be fine to just like get these statements. They don't care if it's a lie. And then they get to run anti -Blake stuff and they get a bunch of clicks. I don't know. We get, I don'T even know what the purpose of this is, but we get a Leslie Sloan, Melissa Nathan thing from August 8th. And now this answers my question. This answers all my questions before where I was like, boy, this seems really defensive. This is weird. It sounds like Leslie Sloane was onto this pretty early.

0:43:10 Thomas: Else was and tipped her off. Who knows? But like August 8th, going back in time. This totally explains, I think, why they were so, I don't know, pre -buttle. They were like doing pre -Buttle on this stuff, you Melissa Nathan is assuring Baldoni that they're not doing it. Leslie Sloan, Melissa Nathan, says. To I land in less than two hours. Melissa says, thank you. Have a safe flight. Just also, I am not doing one thing without speaking to you. I'm not answering one email about this situation. Told everyone to not do one thing, plant seed or even speak to one reporter, even on background. Now, here's what here's the interesting quote for me. Now I am involved. There will be no shock surprises to you me that before August 8th, there was a shock surprise. That's almost Melissa kind of acknowledging that something happened. Now, is she, I guess, putting Steph Jones under the bus there? I don't know. Leslie Sloan says, me either. She always bothers me. It's me neither.

0:44:07 Lydia: I think what's important here is actually what's following that, because like that we don't we don'T have a date on when that conversation happened. But then on August 8th, Leslie Leslie reaches out to Melissa.

0:44:15 Thomas: You're right. So that's before August eight. You're right, I used that timestamp, but that's sometime before August eighth. Yeah.

0:44:19 Lydia: Before August 8 is that truce. Right. And then on Aug. 8, Leslie says, tried you and then no response. Hi, I need to chat. So it sounds like Leslie's getting pissed Thursday, August 8.

0:44:32 Thomas: Seems like it. Totally. You're right. So that that answers the question of why they're so defensive already. Again, this isn't like so now we finally get back to narrative to assert the plaintiffs orchestrated a premeditated smear campaign is to disregard objective evidence that unequivocally contradicts No, this is the party denying it to the other party, essentially. Again, if I am saying, Lydia, you're smearing me. Then you're like, no, no. Here's my evidence that I'm not smearing you. It's a text in which I told you I'm smear you. That's like, okay, fine. But that's just the same as you saying it. That is not objective proof. It might be true. Maybe it's true, but that doesn't prove anything. You would need actual better proof than that.

0:45:14 Lydia: What the language that they said irrefutable at the beginning?

0:45:19 Thomas: Objective, irrefutable, all this stuff. I think we need to just keep reading because this is where they start trying to get back to the... They remember the lawsuit they're doing right now. They're like, oh, yeah, it's the New York Times.

0:45:31 Lydia: A cursory investigation by the Times would have exposed the baseless nature of Lively's allegations and the lack of factual support for her narrative. Most troubling, however, is the Times' deliberate omission of a critical player in this manufactured controversy, Stephanie Jones. Baldoni's and Wayfair's trusted public relations representative, Jones not only had intimate access to the communications strategy and crisis management surrounding the film, but also played a pivotal role in leaking private communications cited in the article. Betrayal, driven by a quid pro quo arrangement with Lively, appears aimed at shielding herself while aligning with Livery to curry favor and secure future opportunities.

0:46:11 Thomas: Will give them credit that it is true the article didn't even mention Jones, but I'm not sure what they would have said.

0:46:18 Lydia: Don't know what they would have said either. Like, what does that have to do with the.

0:46:20 Thomas: I don't think there's any evidence that Stephanie Jones was part of the smear campaign. Might be. But New York Times didn't have that evidence. And so I don'T really.

0:46:28 Lydia: Well, and from our understanding in dissecting the Jones lawsuit is that like the didn't want to work with Melissa Nathan. And so was, as far as we know, kept out of the loop of all the crisis comm stuff at

0:46:39 Thomas: But who knows. Again that was Jones's own. So like who knows if Jones was like she could have been partially guilty at some point. You know I DON'T know.

0:46:46 Lydia: Point, maybe. But then Jamie was like, stand down, Stephanie. Get out of here.

0:46:48 Thomas: And she was like yeah I DON't even. Let's cut let's Jones out of this. So yeah I mean there just isn't really that we know of there isn't evidence. Jones being part of a smear campaign now we get something here uh it says recall for comment I can't try to figure out what this even is August 8th

0:46:58 Lydia: Does this. Does this support what they're trying to do here, which is implicate Stephanie Jones and kind make it seem like she's responsible for this? So it's Daily from Mail, August 8th. Hi, I'm a reporter for Daily Mail. And I'm currently working on a story surrounding the recent rumors that there was a feud between It Ends With Us co -stars Blake Lively and Justa Baldoni. This is to Jen Abel and Stephanie Jones. Stephanie Jones writes. Writes to Jennifer Abel left word for blank. She's been very nice in past. So we'll get this fixed. Then Jennifer Able wrote team, please ignore. Thanks.

0:47:35 Thomas: Like ignore what Stephanie Jones's thing or where's the 1116? I think we're missing something, right? Because sent from blank, blank, so we

0:47:39 Lydia: Don't know. They cut out a message that we don't see.

0:47:46 Thomas: We just get Jennifer Abel saying team, please ignore. Thanks. We don't

0:47:57 Lydia: Then Stephanie Jones ends it with blank has been nice and fix things for us in past. I can give her a call that this is nothing burger.

0:48:04 Thomas: Again would be like normal PR so this is again this would also maybe even be in the interest of the shared goals of the movie you know because not trying to get story like like a collective at Blake and Baldoni and the movie when they're in that kind of truce that they were in allegedly for a time. Trying to stir up stuff about there being a feud that's coming because of the feuding and the people noticing it on tick tock and whatever all the stuff we talked about.

0:48:33 Lydia: And Instagram and everything. Yeah mm

0:48:35 Thomas: So if the Daily Mail says, hey, working on a story surrounding the rumors, there's a feud. And Steph Jones says, blank, who probably maybe works for Daily Mail. I don't know. Has been nice and fixed things for us in the past. I can give her a call that this is a nothing burger. So that's Stephanie Jones saying we we Can get some of the Daily mail and convince them that there isn't a feud like this is nothing.

0:48:54 Lydia: Yeah, like don't even bother publishing the story. Yeah then

0:48:56 Thomas: That's not a smear campaign. That what is that supposed, so what, what was the, okay, the what did the narrative tell us that was? Baldoni and Wayfarer's trusted PR representative, Jones not only had intimate access to the communication strategy and crisis management surrounding the film, but played a pivotal role in leaking private communications cited in the article. Okay, we know that. Her betrayal, driven by a quid pro quo arrangement with Lively, appears aimed at shielding herself while aligning with Livery to curry favor and secure future opportunities.

0:49:23 Lydia: Now here is an email thread that has nothing to do with anything.

0:49:25 Thomas: Nothing to do with anything. Literally nothing to do. Here is an email that is Stephanie Jones doing what seems like very normal PR.

0:49:32 Lydia: 16 here is to introduce the Stephanie Jones character. Right. And like to kind of create a villain like here. And then and then. Yeah。 And then you get this thing where it's like, what do you want for dinner tonight? Tacos or burgers? And you're like, OK, so now I know how she writes her emails like.

0:49:37 Thomas: Is this huge gotcha. Yeah. Okay. Sure. This complaint has so much of that where they think they can just write and they might be right because everyone's really dumb. They think they could just write anything in the narrative and then put evidence and no one will review the evidence. Uh don't know if anyone kept track of how many paragraphs that was um be like 30 40 right like it like all of the paragraphs of the world um no it was two it was uh roughly two paragraphs hmm

0:50:14 Lydia: It felt or how many? Yeah, yeah. I would like to know. Okay. Because there's, there's the paragraph question, but there's also the the page question right because like we right and

0:50:24 Thomas: I didn't track that so yeah maybe that's an optimistic mystic way to look at it.

0:50:31 Lydia: Exactly because because what we went through with these text messages messages and the number of pages of just screenshots that make no sense some are dated some are not some repeat uh some don't they go across they go down we don't know which direction honestly what we win through I'm okay that it was just two paragraphs because Because the rest of it was, meaty.

0:50:51 Thomas: I'm glad you're fine with it. I hope, uh, hope everyone else is as well, but we I really did get the biggest cell phone in this one. Cause I mean sexual assaulted thing is so So bad. And then saying, hey, actually Leslie Sloan who was planting damaging stories. Then your own complaint, your own texts show not that it's just so bad. It's so bad, yeah, um. It did it again with Stephanie Jones. Jones. Like we, like, even with that, it was like, Hey, look at this. It's Stephanie Jones conveniently left out of the New York times. And then what do they have? Nothing. They don't have anything to answer your page question.

0:51:14 Lydia: Includes your attorney as part of the evidence. Yes.

0:51:31 Thomas: And that is a good question. I don't know if you were actually looking that up, That but makes me feel better as I scroll back through this and review because holy shit. Yeah, that was a lot. We went from pages 14 to 22, 23. So that's much better than two paragraphs.

0:51:44 Lydia: Paragraphs. Yeah.

0:51:45 Thomas: It was a lot.

0:51:46 Lydia: It's an audio medium, you know, it's complicated.

0:51:49 Thomas: We have to explain that stuff and you hard to do. It just asserts baseless thing after baseless things. They It slap a screenshot or a whatever half the time there, which doesn't support what they're saying. And a certain number of people, a lot of them fall for that. And so it really drives me nuts. It's one of the main motivating things of doing this. You can't just say, oh yeah, it was actually Stephanie Jones who planted it. Here's evidence. You want to see the evidence? It's just her saying, well, this person's been nice and fixed things for us in the past. I can give them a call and tell them there's a nothing burger. It. Oh, I left word for whoever whoever that was. She's been very nice in the past, so this will get fixed. Was their evidence of that.

0:52:29 Lydia: It's so crazy.

0:52:30 Thomas: It. We're still just getting started technically if we're if this is part three of well we'll call it a cool nine when it comes to going through the complaint without a lawyer so that feels like a nice good number like we're a third of the way done folks good job with like we did more than they did it's okay it's fine yeah

0:52:44 Lydia: Work, everybody. Doesn't matter. We're all in this together.

0:52:49 Thomas: It's a group project we we could probably talk to the a teacher like do they get through the same grade as them like we did it like whatever we'll talk it's fine we'll tackle it uh a third of the way done and means we only let me check the math we only have seven thirds to go based on the time dilation that happens when you try to read this fucking complaint okay uh so much for listening everyone thanks for supporting especially the patrons at patreon .com slash gavel pod do the best and gonna going to get more into... There's more text. There's more text we going to get through a lot more paragraphs next time, I promise. A lot more than two.

0:53:20 Lydia: Three.

0:53:21 Thomas: Than three, I bet, if I were to guess. So we'll see you then, everyone. Like, here, here's evidence I didn't do it. I didn'T do it, wow, this is real dirty pool. What's that phrase? Dirty something. Dirty pool. Is that a phrase?

0:53:55 Lydia: Asking the wrong person.

0:53:58 Thomas: It's like under underhanded unsportsmanlike contact. Yeah. Solid examples of just irrefutable proof that

0:54:07 Lydia: Sloan?