Lively v. Baldoni 19 - He's Trying the Pumping Text a 3rd Time and We're in Literal Hell

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 19. This part 9 of Wayfair v New York Times. It's episode 19 of Wayfarer. We're so close.

0:00:31 Lydia: Oh, yeah.

0:00:40 Lydia: You're out of breath.

0:00:42 Thomas: Out of sanity. It has rough. It is going to be rough. It's gonna get more rough this, the home stretch, the home stretch, yeah.

0:00:43 Lydia: Yeah, that's fair. It sucks because like we even say like the end of it that we'll be, you know, stronger for it or, you know.

0:00:56 Thomas: No, I'm much weaker. I'm a much weaker man right now. Frail.

0:00:59 Lydia: We don't have a choice. We don't a choice, folks. Got to do it. While your

0:01:03 Thomas: I wither at this light Gonna say what paragraph we're on, but doesn't work, because they, they abandoned the whole concept of paragraphs and just started posting text screenshots forever. Messy side-by-sides where they don't even tell you what point they're making. You have to figure it out yourself. Maybe the point is, fuck you. There is no point. But we'll have to do our best to figure that out as a, you know, I want to do that. I want represent all sides as best I can and we'll get into it. So we're kind of mid weird text pile. I don't know. Weird, uh, column to column.

0:01:17 Lydia: No. Yep. Yep, the text dump.

0:01:34 Thomas: Exactly. And that's where we will pick back up after the break. So you If you want to help us out with our, um, uh, that with, with our mental health that we need. And if you want it, you can get ahead of where you likely are now if you're a normie. You want to avoid the ad, go to patreon .com slash gavel pod. Where the cool kids are.

0:01:55 Lydia: Yeah, they're cool.

0:01:55 Thomas: Right. This break, we will get back into this text dump. So what's this next part here? Pretty much.

0:02:00 Lydia: Mm Illegible is what it is.

0:02:14 Thomas: This is important. Important, um,

0:02:15 Lydia: Yeah, this is the Hailey Bieber.

0:02:16 Thomas: Now we're, yeah, now we're getting the side-by-side, and mind you, it's not a side-by-side of The New York Times, the other party in this thing, the, you know, the defendants in this thing. It's a side-by-side with the CRD complaint, which The New York Times did not publish, uh, just linked to. Um, is not the same as publishing something. Um, Uh, let's see, let's see if they have a good point here. It underlines with reassurance that Ms. Lively would be, quote, destroyed and, quote, buried, Wayfarer and Mr. Baldoni directed Ms. Nathan and her team to actively engage in their retaliatory social manipulation campaign. And that's an important thing. That's the crux. And I noted, I, this and something that I think about that may be a problem. When we read Blake Lively's complaint, I noted that we didn't get, to my memory, we get, like, a smoking gun in terms of the, like, that's it, pull the trigger, do it. Um,

0:02:31 Lydia: Nope.

0:03:03 Lydia: Yeah,

0:03:03 Thomas: Was some stuff that was close. Yeah.

0:03:05 Lydia: The dogs.

0:03:05 Thomas: Yeah, switch to retaliation mode, you know, like They did have this sentence and they didn't, they, it, um, again, you know, you don't, it's a complaint, you don't have all this stuff. Um, I did note that, and it is something that may be a problem for them, it may be a problem for Blake, but get that underlined here, and then we get the side-by-side, which might be what they're thinking they're referencing, or they're just trying to disprove it. So we get, is what we would need, which was the about the, what's her name, thing

0:03:10 Lydia: Dogs from Justin Baldoni regarding Hailey Bieber and the backlash that she was receiving with the feud with Selena Gomez. Copy paste into Word. Yeah,

0:03:39 Thomas: I just have to say, what the fuck is this format? We've gone from screenshot to now, God God knows what this, it does look like that. It almost looks like each individual message is copy-pasted.

0:03:47 Lydia: Yep. Yeah, that they screenshotted each individual one and then plopped it into Word and then, and

0:03:54 Thomas: Yeah, nothing screams confidence and trust more than what the fuck is this format? It looks like you painted stuff in like I don't even don' I t know what this is.

0:04:02 Lydia: Again, it's been messed with so much that that it's, like, even zooming in, there are elements of this that are, that you cannot read them. You cannot at all.

0:04:11 Thomas: Yeah, it is hard to trust this, but for now we can go with it. Is what we would need. Yes, I literally spoke to Melissa about on the brake, about what we discussed last night for social and digital focus on Reddit, TikTok, IG is link in bio celebrity kind .com celebrity. Celebrity kind. It says she wants to interview me. Is saying that? I don't know what this is. Oh, that would be Justin.

0:04:26 Lydia: A link.

0:04:38 Thomas: And then whoever says, want to have her email me, Justin says she is emailing, I said I would make it happen. Where's this going?

0:04:38 Lydia: And then we get a screenshot of a contact name or something. It says, like. Martin Beauty or something? What does that say?

0:04:55 Thomas: Tracy Martin with a Y, beauty. Don't know what this is supposed to be. Then we get an included one, which is high team so far, extremely limited pickup on daily mail at page six. We'll continue to keep an eye out, send pieces as needed. So we've read this before. Also started to see a shift on social due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative towards shining a spotlight on Blake and Ryan. Again, we'll continueto send links and screenshots, but wanted to send an update in the meantime. OK, so that's included. Now we get the big reveal of what was excluded. Excluded. Jen Abel. Thanks Katie. We were seeing the same thing.

0:05:18 Lydia: Hmm. Oh, quick note. Is Katie Case, I believe her name is. And she received a subpoena and retained counsel. That is not Brian Friedman.

0:05:38 Thomas: Probably a good idea. Interesting. Point. Thanks for throwing that in. Jen, thanks Katie. We were saying the same. And this is excluded by the way. Thanks. Katie. I'd like to have a quick zoom today. If we we can arrange without Justin, is that possible for all. Abel, old number. I can join just running around, so might not be on camera. Me know when. Matthew Mitchell, happy to jump on too, likely off camera. No one needs to see this today. Katie Case with 6 p .m. Eastern. Where is this going?

0:05:40 Lydia: Yeah, yeah.

0:06:05 Thomas: With 6 p。m. Eastern time call work, I could also circulate a dial in if that's easier.

0:06:09 Lydia: Would say this was all excluded because it's all irrelevant. Event.

0:06:12 Thomas: For good reason. I'm sure we'll eventually get to the included. Gen evil should be fine on my end, but then we get yet another different format of screenshot, a new topic, because what was that a last thing supposed to prove? No

0:06:26 Lydia: It's compared to what's on the left here, the retaliation complaint campaign.

0:06:30 Thomas: No, I know. But, but, so yeah, is that my question is, is that one its own thing, or is it continuing where

0:06:37 Lydia: Think it's its own thing, because I think this is the group chat that they have that's without JB. Right. We see that like tag PR without JB, because right right here they're talking about I'd like to, you a quick Zoom today without Justin. It'd be kind of weird for Justin to be in that conversation. I think it is a separate conversation. The one previous to that we know was a Justin included conversation because this is what we would need was a message from him. Are So all distinct, like side by sides that they're trying to do between the CRD complaint, which again is not relevant to the New York Times and their article and full full of the messages that were used in the CRD complaint, but with no narrative surrounding it explaining why it matters or what we're looking at. We're just supposed to look at the side by side and spot the difference ourselves and then call it out as a problem.

0:06:52 Thomas: Yep, yeah.

0:07:28 Thomas: Getting lost because I don't know if he's making different points. I don't know if Baldoni is making different points, like, OK, now I'm debunking this. Now I'm debugging this. Or if it's just continuing, like, I can't even tell. Like, I actually can't tell what they mean with these latest ones.

0:07:43 Lydia: I mean, I think it's like if you look at the paragraph numbers on the left, right, 15, 16 for that previous one, and they're saying, OK, here's where that conversation happened and here's where they excluded additional information about having an interview with somebody. Now we move to paragraph 18 and 19, and the text message that's from the data extraction here, here's that happened in that thread that were not included in the CRD complaint. Complaint, yes

0:08:10 Thomas: They all are nothing. And then so you think the 1819 one is a new topic.

0:08:12 Lydia: Yes. No.

0:08:15 Thomas: OK, so then we need to finish out the last one because I kept reading thinking, surely this I'm continuing because it's going to make this fucking shit makes sense, but it doesn't. So let's, so the, okay. So then I know. So 16, I guess.

0:08:23 Lydia: No, there No Exactly, it's Like an appendix dump Right, like Yeah, there

0:08:30 Thomas: Yeah. I, okay, I can't even, I can't figure out what 15, 16 is supposed to be. Yeah, so the underlying thing that we're supposed to think is like debunked is with reassurance of Miss Livelywood to be destroyed and buried, Wayfarer and Baldoni directed Miss Nathan and her team to actively engage in their retaliatory social manipulation campaign. I went through this because I I thought I was continuing the thought, everyone. Sorry, because this is insane. I can't understand it.

0:08:31 Lydia: There's No Narrative To Help The Reader With This At all. Yeah No Yeah. Yep.

0:08:52 Thomas: It goes back to that and says, this is what we would need. I literally spoke to Melissa about this on the break, about what we discussed last night for social and digital, folks on Reddit, TikTok, IG, and then it says excluded link in bio. She wants to interview me, want to have her email me. She is emailing. I said it would make it happen.

0:09:07 Thomas: What is that? I missing something? What does that prove?

0:09:06 Lydia: It Nothing.

0:09:13 Thomas: I can think of, like, what they're trying to do, but I can't figure it out on this one.

0:09:17 Lydia: Here's the only thing I could I think is, know, you Wayfair and Mr. Baldoni directed Miss Nathan and her team to actively engage in their retaliatory social manipulation campaign. Pain. Is saying like, no, here's evidence evidence of Baldoni saying, hey, someone wants to interview me. And let's make it happen. Like the direction is is to these more like positive opportunities that have nothing to do with going after Blake. Like the stretch version of that is that maybe whoever that person is also like was involved with that Haley Bieber, Selena Gomez piece that he said, this is what we would need. And this is additional context to that.

0:09:17 Thomas: Uh -huh, like Oh Because We can't tell who that is, right? It just says celebritykind .com. She wants to interview me, huh?

0:09:56 Lydia: Can't figure it out. I tried looking it up and can't find it. Would be my stretch.

0:10:02 Thomas: Still doesn't seem Like it does anything. Yeah I genuinely I'm at a Loss. Yeah, I think you could be onto something there, but I also, I also have no idea that they needed to explain this. They did not explain it. And I normally, again, I pride myself on trying to be able to think think of what point they're making. And, and I'm at a loss. I don't have anything here. I think it's possible what you're saying is true, but that also wouldn't be good. That would be, this is what we need. To me, this just reads as a different interaction. Action, this, what we would need

0:10:04 Lydia: No, my best effort.

0:10:31 Lydia: There another date there. So

0:10:31 Thomas: Yeah So it is, yeah, it probably is most likely, and

0:10:36 Lydia: At least some time had passed prior, the prior message. Message

0:10:39 Thomas: So just to once again emphasize, we're getting these red excluded arrows, like, these, there's some gotcha here that they didn't include. Link in bio, she wants to interview me, want to have her email me, she's emailing, I said I would make it happen. What, why would that, that be included? What is that? Nothing.

0:10:52 Lydia: Also, I think I made this point too, like, would they have been happier if they included the thousand of, you know, documents or Whatever As like a full searchable PDF, you know, every single Message that Jennifer Abel sent on her phone, like, would not be happy about that. So

0:11:00 Thomas: Yeah Yeah Not, no But that's, I mean, that's setting up a bit of a, a, of false dichotomy, I think. I, I think. Yeah

0:11:13 Lydia: Don't know if you want to get around the cherry-picking, uh, accusations, like, okay, here we go. Yeah

0:11:17 Thomas: There's, but there's legal problems to doing that, like they Can't, that There's A reason they're not doing that. Um, the point is that is incomprehensible to me. There's nothing that would do. Is why I genuinely started, continued reading, thinking there'd be an explanation, but I think you're right that there isn't. This is just a new thing.

0:11:19 Lydia: No Of course I'm

0:11:32 Thomas: So new topic, everyone. It's the retaliation campaign relied just publicists and crisis managers spinning stories. They also retained subcontractors, including a Texas -based contractor named Jed Wallace, who weaponized a digital digital army around the country from Newark to Los Angles to create, seed and promote content that appeared to be authentic on social media platforms and internet chat forums. So this is what is red penned, red underlined Baldoni wants us to focus on. Format So is that's from Lively's Complaint, it's red underline. And then on the right side is the some sort of explanation for it. That's been the format that they're trying to do. So that's where we switched to yet another another weird format of screenshot that looks weird. It was just that stuff we already read where it's like, thanks. We're seeing the same thing. Thanks. Let's have a zoom.

0:11:31 Lydia: It's A separate Item Honestly And then it also says, we've also started to see a shift on social due largely to Jed and his team's efforts to shift the narrative. Imperative, which is the piece That was included and confirms it, and there is nothing that was excluded that seems to disprove

0:12:23 Thomas: Confirming. Nope. Just says all excluded as though we're supposed to think that's something. Thanks, Kayla. I have a quick zoom. And then they talk about arranging a fucking zoom call. What is that? And then it goes on and I don't know. Now I don'T know. Are we on a new topic again? In. What

0:12:29 Lydia: Yeah Are We are, yeah This is a conversation with Jen and, uh, Melissa

0:12:48 Thomas: This? Because now we get on the left, we get nothing's read underlined. So now I have no fucking idea what they're going for. They just have 19 and 20, paragraphs 19 and 20, and it's about Jed Wallace and some other stuff. Stuff. Stuff. It's just including that one text, which is the majority of socials are so pro -Justin, and I don't even agree with half of them.

0:12:48 Lydia: Yeah But What was excluded were two messages prior to that where Melissa Nathan says, no requests though, I think people are bored. Yeah

0:13:14 Thomas: The first one is, that's why I was worried about LA Times, I think that would be. Requests, though. I think people are bored. And then the majority of socials are so pro-Justin, as we already read. Then, oh, I agree. I'm just anxious, per usual. LA Times reached out to Justin's old assistant. Okay. It's been too... This is all excluded. You're okay. It's been too much. Press too chaotic. I told you People Magazine messaged me. They messaged me again to say they're getting radio silence on everything. Was the request he sent through. Nothing to me. And then Roger Friedman from Showbiz 411 called me, but I'm leaving it Roger Okay

0:13:18 Lydia: And then Melissa Says Lol, Roger, yes

0:13:49 Thomas: Now this is still continuing, so okay The red underline is the Mr. Baldoni doesn't realize how lucky he is right now. Um, in fairness, again, this is another part where this is not bad, this one part, but They have, we've so much all excluded that is nothing. Keep on giving nothing, nothing, not one thing from those pieces. Mean, that was just a lot of work, just talking everyone off the fucking ledge for those two pieces. Literally, I feel like I've been hit by a truck. Then after the weekend, this is back and forth. I don't know. The weekend people are going to move completely past. It's boring Nothing came out for anyone. Bet you have it, that constant anxiety. OMG, yes, you will die. I don't know if it's the same stuff, but now we're on the included, which is he doesn't realize how lucky he is right now. We need to press on him just how fucking lucky.

0:13:52 Lydia: Oh Well, I'll say there's a bunch of texts excluded because they've numbered these, um, The thread in this one, which is nice. It's nice to have labels. Thank you for doing that. In specific instance, the

0:14:36 Thomas: Yeah. They duplicate the 21 on the left side. They duplicate. That whole paragraph in those two messages is just copied again. So like the Left-side, which Blake complaint, they just duplicate, complicate twice for this one. Okay

0:14:46 Lydia: 25, 26, yeah Yeah. Yeah, because Maybe it would look weird

0:14:57 Thomas: Uh So you're right, they skip from 10 to 25. Whispering in the ear, the sexual connotations, like, Jesus fucking Christ, other members feeling uncomfortable watching it. I mean, there's just so much. To be fair, if we can trust these screenshots, next message is, doesn't matter if it's not true. I think that's significant that might, might be one of the best pieces of evidence they have in their corner.

0:15:21 Thomas: Now, do the usual, did the New York Times include any of this? Because in the New Year's, they included, he doesn't realize how lucky he is right now. Miss Nathan texted Miss April. That's it. Do include the, so are we in the clear now. Did we survive? We survived. All press is so overwhelming. Have confused people. So much mixed messaging. It is actually really funny if you think about it. Wow, that is bad.

0:15:16 Lydia: Yeah Yeah I Remember when we listened to, um, individual from Red Banyan saying That's That's Strategy That's PR strategy, confuse them so no one knows what the truth is anymore. Mm

0:15:49 Thomas: Yeah, that's what they do. That is the only thing from that literal exchange that is in the New York Times. So he know just how fucking lucky he is. I don't really think that misleads us in any serious way. In fairness, I, it's a decent response to Blake Lively's complaint to say you didn't include the part where it says doesn't matter if it's not true, you know, hey, that might be the one single best piece of evidence I've seen out of Baldoni's side. All right. Blake Latively didn't conclude that in her complaint. that'S a totally normal thing for a complaint to do. Would be one thing if The New York Times had published all of that same stuff. Would be maybe a legitimate criticism, but they just published, he doesn't realize how lucky he is and need to press on him how lucky like don't really see that as that misleading, but

0:16:16 Lydia: Hmm Right Well Yeah, like they don't include where they're talking to each other about the allegations. Yeah, mm

0:16:44 Thomas: I think New York times is safe here. It seems to me, um, just included that one thing. And this is where, Oh, okay. This is where we get those texts. I was just talking about that. Now don't remember if you had ever heard of or if they're just right here. So I may have done a call forward. Doesn't matter if it's not true. Again, credit. Good That's evidence. On that one. Then the response is, I know, I don't think they get that. They think the truth wins. Melissa, no, it doesn't. Laughing emoji. Jen, and I'm like, we're dealing with a psychopath path who literally called you a sexual predator. Let's all be happy with difficult. Then Melissa says, I have it on text message, by the way, Jen says, unbelievable.

0:16:56 Lydia: -hm Melissa

0:17:26 Thomas: Think that is what I said a moment ago. And now it's funny as we see another iteration of the story, because Because now, instead of having said that sexually assaulted her, which was the first iteration, because keep in mind, that would be Sloane.

0:17:24 Lydia: Uh, exclamation react. Yeah

0:17:41 Thomas: Now it's, no, we're dealing with a psychopath who you have to assume they're saying Blake. I don't think they're calling Sloane a psychopath. Now they're say Blake is a psychopath that called you a sexual predator. That's a new iteration of this, like, story that they're telling each other. And this is them justifying what they're doing and egging each other on, and maybe they believe it, maybe they genuinely believe it, but it's definitely definitely not established. It's not proven it to be entirely from a reporter saying that Sloan said that and providing no proof. Um, yeah, I, this is them reinforcing to each other that they're the good guys.

0:17:40 Lydia: Yeah, yeah I Agree, a Questions: I have it on text message, by the way. What does that mean? And

0:18:17 Thomas: Think that's her saying she has the proof of it, from the reporter.

0:18:20 Lydia: Then later it says Leslie can't possibly believe that. Yeah

0:18:24 Thomas: It says, well, we might as well read it. I have it on text message, by the way. Jen I says, unbelievable. Unbelievable. Be really happy with difficult. And he told him we took out misogynist and told him who is that?

0:18:25 Lydia: I Know, um, thing I could think of is James that told Jamie. There's

0:18:37 Thomas: Maybe. And then Leslie can't possibly believe that. So that's further proof that they're talking about Blake when they say psychopath, psychopath because they're saying like now, like Leslie can't really believe that Blake was sexually assaulted or whatever. Right. I think that's what that means.

0:18:51 Lydia: Part of me that that's thinking that maybe that means that the psychopath is Leslie dealing With a psychopath who literally called you a sexual predator. Leslie can't possibly believe dat is like the way that I'm That. Yeah

0:18:55 Thomas: Really? Oh, I mean, it's possible they're calling her a psychopath. I, think I it's impossible. I think to them, it'S kind of one in the same a little bit like they're just counting them as one.

0:19:11 Lydia: It's the team, the Team.

0:19:13 Thomas: Yeah. Don't I mean, I guess I don'T think they think Leslie's a psychopath. I think that that that doesn't strike me as what they think. But I don' t know.

0:19:20 Lydia: Again, like this just it's isn't, not clarifying. These messages are not clarifying anything for me.

0:19:25 Thomas: No, not at all.

0:19:26 Lydia: Of any sort of claim, especially not against the New York Times. For me, is this just muddying the waters. It just feels like PR tactics within this complaint now.

0:19:32 Thomas: Yeah. Right. I promise we're actually, almost, well, we're almost done with this confusing format. Let's give it a day to calm and let's call Jamie together tomorrow and we can explain to him a few things together. Jamie's underlined for some reason and socialists are really, really ramping in his favor. She must be furious. It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate a woman and they like cut that off and by the way, it says excluded, but that wasn't excluded. Hmm, not Right, yeah, sloppy. Finally we get back to some narrative finally

0:19:48 Lydia: I don't know why.

0:19:58 Lydia: Nope. Sloppy. My God. I could have done with headings, like even just labels, like lettering system, something to help track what in the world we were supposed to do with all of those screenshots of varying formats.

0:20:11 Thomas: Give me something I don't know in the, and then we get 105. In the article, the Times writes, Lively's, finally, excludes, includes excerpts from thousands of pages of text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena. These and other documents were reviewed by the New York Times. However, the Times failed to review and/or investigate the plethora of communications demonstrating the plaintiffs had zero intention of smearing Lively and every intention of simply promoting the film. In his message, what, that supposed to be the stuff coming that's not talking about what we already read. Okay.

0:20:42 Lydia: The step, oh yes, yes, no No, it has a colon following it, so, and here is the proof of, um, plethora of communications. Yeah.

0:20:46 Thomas: Yeah I under the heading of here's all the stuff that they ignored, and they just had the intention of promoting the film. In this message, what do we get up

0:21:02 Lydia: Do get some time stamps here. Okay. So we get a singular message, August 11th, from Justin to we don't know who, where it says, "Good morning, team. So I was thinking about the response to this weekend. Know, this is right after the film had its premiere. And I feel like what we should do is make sure to emphasize the voices of the survivors. It's going to be a lot of buzz how much money the movie made. But I want to be the one that always direct the back to the survivors, I want to bethe one thatalways directs it back tothe survivors. So I would love to come up with some sort of video or carousel of messages from survivors and the response to the film. Responses there, but, you know, this is Justin directing his team of some sort.

0:21:03 Thomas: Yeah. Okay yeah it doesn't include it yeah okay fair enough. Is

0:21:40 Lydia: We get a other screenshots side by side, but they are from different conversations. Conversations one is from, I think, to Justin, because, like, this it feels very PR, but then they say Jen later on in the conversation so that's why I think it's Melissa, but it's a cut off message and it starts at whoever tried to do it, they they failed and getting a linking abuse of story. Don't know. Wayfarer is a big studio now, propelled into a tier upwards, protecting you and the brand is something you need to do. I wonder if that's trying to get him to get Brian to,

0:21:49 Thomas: Okay but sure. Doesn't just tell us what the fuck it is to well, I also also think it's just justifying their work, you know, well, we need to protect you, you know, we, yeah

0:22:24 Lydia: Uh, and then we get into, you want to see a headline and it's a Hollywood reporter article, um, Harvey Harvey Weinstein helping to fund Leslie Sloan when she started her own PR firm, Vision PR, PR, PR, years ago. Melissa writes, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Then Justin responds, do you believe Leslie? Can you spin the crisis PR thing so it's actually factual? There have been lies put out up against powerful people, just protecting myself, tag reps a lot of people, and that headline was just to smear more. I'm guessing because of the Johnny Depp connection.

0:22:56 Thomas: So this is the reaction, yeah, to that. I

0:22:58 Lydia: So do we say Blake and Ryan hire Harvey Weinstein publicist? Don't feel like that shows that he is simply promoting the film and its message.

0:23:05 Thomas: That doesn't look good yeah it yeah, almost not that at all, almost the opposite of that

0:23:13 Lydia: Like they probably didn't want to include this one.

0:23:14 Thomas: No no, that's a conversation I'm going to have with Jen and Jamie today, and then it cuts off, although maybe then we get, I, God, this is so stupid. Now we get a new, we're back to Microsoft Word or something and I'm going down because I don't, I don't know. This is so bad, this is so fucking stupid. I'm sorry, this is dumb, it's sloppy and shitty and dumb and you should feel bad for writing it this way. Take the time to make clear what the fuck you're talking about. I have no idea. I was going down because we're in columns. I thought maybe

0:23:17 Lydia: Yeah. And that's where that one cuts off.

0:23:29 Lydia: You going down or over?

0:23:51 Lydia: Don't know. I thought we were in tables. So I was going across.

0:23:55 Thomas: Just used to when you print four things to a page. Yeah. We could go across, I guess. I don't, to be honest with you, I don'T know that it matters.

0:23:58 Lydia: That's true. Hope it matters either. So so that conversation with Justin, we don't have any timestamps, date stamps on that at all. Then the one to the right, if we go across, it's the PR thread with tag. This one includes Justin. This is August 18th. Justin writes, hey tag team, I've been seeing some IG comments on random posts defending me by people who are private with no followers and they feel like bots. Can you please confirm we are not doing any of that? I really don't want bots defending me as it feeds into their potential narrative. And we've talked about this one before. We've read this specific text message. Can fully, fully confirm we do not have bots. This is not also what we do. Bots look fake to anyone. The other team is doing something very specific in terms of what they do. Okay, um, know, Jamie and Jed connected on this, so stay out of it, Justin.

0:24:35 Thomas: Not ominous at all. Yeah.

0:24:49 Lydia: That's my commentary. Bots and fan accounts also run pretty organically by now with all the AI platforms and Google Analytics itself. There is no bot army, that's, that's a myth these days. Okay, but

0:24:58 Thomas: She's saying Blake has one, but there is no bot army. Oh, that

0:25:01 Lydia: But I, and I think here, too, is that bots and fan accounts also run pretty organically by now with all the AI platforms and Google Analytics. Bot armies, as they used to exist, no longer exist. What now exists is something that I don't want to call a bot army because it's being informed by AI, right? So it's not just like, no, sorry, this is me commenting on kind this skirting around probably what's going on here.

0:25:20 Thomas: Was not you reading, you were just Oh, yeah. Yeah. I will give her credit that this is her saying this is not us and this is not a bot or this is non-art bot, like, it because he's saying, hey, this is a, you just a bot account that's not us, right? And she's saying, no, we do something better than bots.

0:25:38 Lydia: Because we partner with people who are more sophisticated than bots because now they're leaning on AI. That's honestly what is happening there, I think. She closes it out with any digital team these days is far more intelligent utilize something so obvious, for Blake's team. But Jed Ed Wallace is far more intelligent, so he's not utilizing things that obvious.

0:25:41 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Except apparently Blake's team that they think she hired. Yeah. She's an idiot. I think you're right. I think a huge vindication to you because I do think this Justin one comes after that. OK, please monitor. I just have to point out we're in a totally different format. Were screenshots and now we're not screenshots. So what things did they exclude? What? This is a mess. Yes, a black bar in the middle of one of them.

0:26:09 Lydia: Yeah.

0:26:18 Lydia: A black it, they screenshotted it incorrectly or something and then copy pasted it into work. It's very challenging. Yeah.

0:26:29 Thomas: Don't know what they're hiding. What are you hiding? I don' t know. Next one looks like yet another different format slightly, or it's just like because, know, in Microsoft Word, it's different zoom levels each time they import one of their images or something.

0:26:32 Lydia: Yeah.

0:26:41 Lydia: Yeah. And degrades the quality of the image.

0:26:44 Thomas: Please monitor. Things I'm more worried about is that we are planting these stories, which is not true, obviously. Abel chiming in here. Okay, we've already read all this. Um, I think the part below maybe we haven't. We, yeah. Actually, actually, maybe read this message. I don't think we've seen this before. Okay.

0:26:56 Lydia: Okay. Never want the action of the minority to dictate what we do on our end. We have to always look at the big picture, which is still enormously on your side. I do see a want and need from fans to move on. Are now commenting that they are bored with the many articles still coming out about this drama. When we move on, they, they do too. So we need to find ways to keep elevating not just the DV reaction, but also the other things in your life, like family, being back home and Wayfarer. That's not tone deaf in my opinion, but sends the message that you are focusing on what really matters, and that's what will help with the Blake narrative too. My point of view, POV, the

0:27:34 Thomas: Fine, that's Jen, so she's not the one who's as, as responsible for the, yeah.

0:27:38 Lydia: Crisis response.

0:27:39 Thomas: The crisis. Stuff, so. Okay, that's sort of more her approach, maybe, maybe.

0:27:39 Lydia: Yep. Uh. We have, um, Justin and question mark. We don't know whose phone this is coming from. I think I 19. Melissa Nathan, good morning, sharing with you a perfect example of why we don't use bots. We talked about this. One.

0:27:55 Thomas: We've done this, yeah, yeah. Okay, so this is that one that's like the Zionist thing. How can we say somehow we're not doing any of this? Uh, doesn't. Okay, so that we already did. And again, there's no explanation here, just, just a bunch. Here, here, have all this. It's screenshots of fucking, and not even screenshots, it's screenshots slash copy and paste it into, to Word stuff and just make it an argument. It does feel like that, but now we get, I think, a new thing that's not related.

0:28:17 Lydia: It's like, in discovery when they just dump a bunch of like paper. That's what this feels like. Also go back

0:28:26 Thomas: Yeah.

0:28:26 Lydia: In time.

0:28:27 Thomas: Go back in time. Now we're on Melissa Nathan. Go ahead. Yeah.

0:28:28 Lydia: 13. 13 from Melissa Nathan completely unsolicited story from TMZ. Has a huge ego. JB was liked by many cast and crew, and this is her ego being bruised, etc. responds, the post has a similar tip, not from any of us, obv. Totally not from us. Jen, these are clearly people on set coming out to defend JB, which is good, and we just let them do their thing. The reporter told me her rep is working overtime. Don't know who this conversation is with.

0:28:56 Thomas: And who it's for.

0:28:58 Lydia: Jamie? Me this. Maybe, maybe PR team, no, JB, I don't know. Yes.

0:28:58 Thomas: Yeah. Like, I Don't know, we don't know, and this reads as pretty fake to me. I don t I don, not from us, not from us, definitely not from us, yeah.

0:29:08 Lydia: Also Also point out completely unsolicited story from TMZ. So again, like clarifying there that this is unsolicitted, does that imply that other ones were solicited? Yeah.

0:29:17 Thomas: Does Is it to, it just feels really like, and check out this thing they ignored. Hey, we definitely didn't do anything wrong. I know, you know how we didn't do anything wrong. I was just thinking about that the other day, how we didn't doing anything wrong. I know we didn' t do anything wrong, like, I just feels a little fake. I don't know. I, okay, sure.

0:29:34 Lydia: Yeah. We.

0:29:40 Thomas: It's also, it's not conclusive. Even if you wanted to take them at their word, which I am skeptical about, but even if he did, that's talking about an article, right? I mean, that doesn't prove that you didn't do anything. It just might indicate that you Didn't do this one article. It.

0:29:44 Lydia: Hmm. Then. We get a timestamp that's outside of the screenshot, like, normally the timestamp would show up underneath the contact name, like, within the thread of the messages.

0:30:02 Thomas: In hell. I'm in actual hell. It's I

0:30:07 Lydia: But but it's not.

0:30:07 Thomas: Don't think that timestamp is related to the thing we're seeing now. Like I think that's left over from the above and then we don't see what that is and they're now pasting another thing.

0:30:12 Lydia: Oh, maybe. Okay. They could have just cropped that out.

0:30:20 Thomas: Is so fucking it's killing

0:30:21 Lydia: Are you doing?

0:30:21 Thomas: Me. We're in hell we're in hell. We are almost sort of done. Come on. Could do it.

0:30:26 Lydia: Yeah. We talked about this one, I think, as well. This is from Melissa is to Justin. So this is about, you know, a link to, yeah, yeah.

0:30:33 Thomas: Hey, Hey, you know how we didn't do anything wrong. We're so great. We did nothing wrong. Okay.

0:30:38 Lydia: Concentrate on the success of the movie, your family, your next project. I have this weird feeling she's going to reach out to you for a conversation in the next couple of weeks, or he will. Guessing Ryan Reynolds. And that did not happen. So

0:30:49 Thomas: And there's more. And again, said I this before, and I think the explanation is that Leslie Sloan has really hounded them about this, but it just, I still find it weird that they're all talking to each other about this. I guess it's that Justin expressed that like, hey, how can we say we're not doing this? So then from then on, they're kind of like trying to emphasize that they didn't do any of this stuff constantly. But it just comes across weird to me. But we've been through that.

0:31:11 Lydia: We get continuing conversation here.

0:31:13 Thomas: To the bot one again. The same thing. We just what we get this.

0:31:17 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, they repeated the.

0:31:20 Thomas: Come on. You're killing me. This is a practical joke. We get now a screenshot of the thing we already saw, but a screenshot instead of a whatever the other one was like a weird copy paste.

0:31:32 Lydia: Next to a conversation between somebody and Justin.

0:31:38 Thomas: I lied. That's literally the same screenshot twice. Looking up. Yep. Same exact time and battery. Just did the same one two times. Hey, if we put it again later, it's more evidence.

0:31:40 Lydia: My gosh. Yeah, yeah. Counts as another one.

0:31:51 Thomas: But we get a little bit more from a different screenshot. That is a totally different phone, I think.

0:31:58 Lydia: Talking with Justin.

0:32:00 Thomas: Because, yeah, this is a different phone.

0:32:00 Lydia: Not sure who this is. It could be Melissa, maybe.

0:32:04 Thomas: Is an example of someone trolling Blake on all my posts, but it doesn't seem like a real account yet. It could also be an actual troll. They exist too, but yes, a hundred percent. This is not anyone from your team whatsoever. Okay. Fair enough. Yeah. Whatever. 27th of August. That's much later, but that's the next thing.

0:32:17 Lydia: Yeah, that's the following.

0:32:19 Thomas: Yeah, okay. So we don't know what that is.

0:32:19 Lydia: Yeah. Then we get get another we screenshot from that PR thread with tag. And this is the one that Justin Baldoni is included in. And I'm think this is Melissa. Melissa chiming in in the chat. She says, let's discuss this at some point. We need to be careful not to put out any stories that look so placed. Definitely opened to as a group on different ideas, especially as it links into new projects, to clear it all up. Responds, Definitely don't want to play stories, and yet just want to change the narrative. I and never spoke disparagingly of the cast, and so it's apparent the feud only works one way. And would love to start to move towards the future of what's next. Not sure when the time would be right, but announcing that I'm directing (in parentheses Pac-Man) I think would be a good move sometime soon. Uh, I believe to be Melissa: we totally agree, and as I think you can see, the majority of the press and social wise agrees with you as well.

0:33:12 Thomas: All right. I don't know. We're still there. Now we get narrative.

0:33:15 Lydia: God. I thought that was it. Dang. It by

0:33:16 Thomas: No, we're still, there are documented communications overlooked by Lively and the Times that expressly refute Lively's erroneous accusation. Okay. And by way of example, so bad. So that all we just read you was supposedly the, the solid proof that they didn't do a, yeah.

0:33:26 Lydia: Way of example they weren't going after Blake, that they were focused on promoting the film's message and et cetera, et cetera.

0:33:37 Thomas: I mean, that was a real mixed bag. I mean that's, that's almost nothing. Some of it was counter, some of it it was good evidence. Yeah.

0:33:39 Lydia: Yeah. Like one thing. One thing was good. Yeah.

0:33:45 Thomas: But some of it was also counter to what they're saying, so that's a whole load of shit, and it was horribly written, disorganized, and I have no confidence in the content because it's a mess, like just a jumble of different presentations of texts.

0:33:47 Lydia: Mm -hmm.

0:33:56 Lydia: It's chaos.

0:34:04 Thomas: So now we go the next one, which is the, now that, now we're, I guess, refuting Lively's erroneous accusation.

0:34:09 Lydia: The accusation that they're citing here is from the complaint regarding when she was breastfeeding and entered her private spaces. While she was topless, exposed, and vulnerable with her newborn. Yep. And then we get the exact, the exact same message where we've talked about it so many times.

0:34:18 Thomas: We're doing this again. Sorry, is this the third time we're doing this. I think this is the third time. I hate this so much.

0:34:30 Lydia: Yeah. Your time. Here. I'll meet you in hair and makeup.

0:34:34 Thomas: God, I hate this. We're in hell.

0:34:37 Lydia: I'm just seeing this. And then presumably they met at that point when she was done pumping and she walked over to hair and makeup.

0:34:47 Thomas: This is exactly what we already saw. There's nothing new here. The third time, they're repeating the thing that wasn't a good argument to begin with. In fact, it's a bad argument. It makes me trust them less because they're clearly trying to trick us with this. I'm just pumping in my trailer thing that sucked. Then suck the second time and now sucks a third time, which is a repeat of the, okay. Awful. Terrible. One Oh seven. Um, We, I think we, I Think, hold on, hold On. I think We're done with pictures of text messages. Thank God we can go back to just reading shit. Okay, here we go. We're We're almost done, guys. We're Almost Done.

0:34:51 Lydia: Yep.

0:35:22 Lydia: The Times admits that it had access to, quote, thousands of relevant text messages and emails, its skewed reporting makes painfully painfully obvious that it failed to substantiate the false accusations hurled by Lively. The objective evidence refutes any allegation that plaintiffs engaged in a smear campaign to, unquote, bury Lively and, unquote. Destroy her reputation. Lively's wound was entirely self -inflicted. That plaintiffs retained crisis public relations to defend against Lively unrelenting assault does not change this fact.

0:35:53 Thomas: So that's just a conclusory paragraph that's the same shit we've read 100 times. We're on section D. Stephanie Jones discloses confidential communication. All right, hey, we get to change up to something different.

0:36:04 Lydia: Interested in how this might intersect with defamation claims with the New York Times.

0:36:08 Thomas: Yeah, okay, sure. Yeah, maybe. I don't know.

0:36:12 Lydia: Neither Lively CRD complaint nor the article make any mention of embattled publicist Stephanie Jones. Jones, former publicist to Wayfair, now insists, as part of a separate lawsuit filed in New York, that she was swept up in plaintiff's so -called smear campaign. And yet, on on August 14th, 2024, sent an email to Heath detailing her, quote, recommended strategy.

0:36:33 Thomas: Right? Okay, so based on that introduction, I'm expecting this to be like Jones saying, I ordered the code red. Yeah, you're goddamn right. Right, I heard the code red. Handle the truth, you know, that kind of thing.

0:36:39 Lydia: Her down. Yeah. This was the strategy that they're citing here. First one, flood the zone with positives. We need to ensure that we promote positive narratives that media outlets cannot ignore. Most stories are heavily biased towards Blake's perspective, leaving Justin unrepresented. It's crucial that we fight for every inch of every story, which requires far more effort than typical crisis PR want to put forth in our experience working with specialized crisis teams. The

0:37:10 Thomas: So far, that was completely the opposite of what they've said.

0:37:13 Lydia: Yeah, let's look at the second one. Her second recommendation, alternate stories. We should mobilize a robust network of supporters and third party advocates ready to counter these narratives on deep background, as well as some on the record, making it clear that the claims being made are untrue and unfounded. Don't see anything that's take Blake down.

0:37:14 Thomas: Okay. Okay. Fuck off. I'm so sick of this. It's such an insult to all of us. Can't just say, and furthermore, check out this that proves everything we're saying. And it's nothing.

0:37:42 Lydia: Jones's fault.

0:37:43 Thomas: It's nothing now.

0:37:43 Lydia: Yeah. And then they close they out that particular paragraph saying Wayfair later terminated Jones for, among other things, having allegedly leaked information to the Daily Mail despite specific instruction from Wayfarer not to.

0:37:57 Thomas: Now, that reminds me of all the bullshit things. That was one of the most bullshit to me, where Jones was like, this doesn't sound right. This doesn't make any sense. Who did you talk to?

0:38:06 Lydia: Like, I can give her a call.

0:38:08 Thomas: How about I give them a call? That doesn't sounds like specific person I'm naming or specific person I'm aiming to. That doesn' t sound right, and Jamie's saying, don't you dare check what I just said. Don't.

0:38:17 Lydia: Told you not to get involved.

0:38:19 Thomas: In fact, I will kill you if you do. Like so obviously bullshit. Shit. That was back in the Stephanie Jones episodes.

0:38:21 Lydia: Yeah. God, I'm so glad I don't work with these people. Oh my

0:38:27 Thomas: They're the worst. Amazing how bad they are that they're making Stephanie Jones look good. Cause she sucks. Like she sucks, but like they're, she's the better part of this. So, uh, might as well continue. We're close. We're so close.

0:38:27 Lydia: God. Yeah sympathetic character. Yeah. Well, and we can hear what they think about Stephanie Jones. Is notorious for exacting her revenge on any client brave enough to escape her grasp.

0:38:44 Thomas: Right. A client brave enough to escape.

0:38:52 Lydia: Yeah. And then they cite the Business Insider article, we've talked about a lot, which Jones believes that, well, that we know Jennifer Abel was involved in.

0:38:59 Thomas: Which who cares? Involved in.

0:39:03 Lydia: And yes, we do know.

0:39:03 Thomas: At least, yeah. And but we don't really know how true it is. Like, yeah, Jones might suck totally, she probably does suck, actually. I

0:39:08 Lydia: Yeah. Is equally notorious for her alleged maltreatment of current and former employees alike. Wayfair and Able are no exception. Is hardly coincidence that all of the communications on which Lively and the Times now rely were purportedly produced by Jones's company, Jonesworks LLC, to subpoena.

0:39:23 Thomas: I couldn't agree more with you. I could not agree more with that. It is not a coincidence. It's almost like that's the evidence they had access to.

0:39:28 Lydia: Ist hardly coincidence. Yeah, yeah. Pursuant into a subpoena.

0:39:37 Thomas: Footnote. You want to read the footnote? Okay.

0:39:39 Lydia: The footnote specifically related to the subpoENA. Lively's CRD complaint states that she obtained the communication set forth therein, quote, through legal process, including a civil subpoONA. Lively'S legal representatives have since doubled down. The subPOENA disclosed and referenced in the complaint was served on Jones Works LLC. The internal documents referred to in the complain were produced subject to that subPOONA. We expect that further details regarding the subpoena process will be disclosed during discovery.

0:40:06 Thomas: What's the gotcha there? But we'll keep it in mind for future episodes. Yeah. They doubled down on the very plain statement that it's a subpoena.

0:40:09 Lydia: Doubled down. They've double down. Yeah,

0:40:14 Thomas: Okay. Oh, and then continue. On Maybe that ties to this here. They

0:40:14 Lydia: Uh, The propriety of this alleged subpoenas is unverified and at a minimum highly questionable given Jones's involvement and the means by which Jones first obtained these confidential communications.

0:40:28 Thomas: Say in the complaint that not only verified every single text that we saw, added more to them. So again, what is this argument? This argument is, you shouldn't have been able to see that we were doing bad stuff. That's you, you shouldn't have been able to see that. Okay, why? And also, how does that make you look better? That doesn't make you look better. You've confirmed every single thing. There's not a single thing, a single text where it was like, "That was made up, didn't even exist." All of them were confirmed, all of them. The only thing they had to point to was one emoji. That's it, that's all they had. One fucking emoji and a cup, a handful of various and sundry other things.

0:40:35 Lydia: -hmm. Yeah.

0:41:04 Lydia: It doesn't matter if it's not true. Yeah,

0:41:06 Thomas: Yeah, like a handful of other things, but those aren't doctored. First off, most of that had nothing to do with the New York Times, so none. They can say that the emoji, hang their fucking hat on that the New York Times didn't have an emoji that it seems like they just didn't have, which, again, not actual malice. That's the opposite of that. If they never had it like, no reason they should have known there was a missing emoji. You can't say they were reckless to the point where it's actual, like it's just not even close. Really weakens things because it's one thing to say that the New York Times presented this without an emoji that changes its meaning. Because it's at least relevant. I don't blame them for pointing that out.

0:41:07 Lydia: Yeah. Venture to say 99 % of it.

0:41:28 Lydia: Yeah yeah yeah

0:41:48 Thomas: Don't blame for pointing it out.

0:41:48 Lydia: I think we agree with that like

0:41:50 Thomas: Yeah. Once you take away the New York Times part of that, because it's not defamation, it's not even close, not even closer. We're going to talk to a lawyer, but we don't need to. That's not close. It's fucking not even closed. We will talk to the lawyer. Don't worry. You You don't have to take my word for it. You take that out of the equation, then you're just saying, hey, in Blake Lively's complaint about us, the things that make us look bad.

0:42:13 Thomas: Yeah, that's a fucking legal complaint. That's every legal complaint ever filed, ever. And by all means, they have the right to tell their side of the story, by all means. But it becomes way different because the narrative online about this is this grand conspiracy involving defamation in the New York Times and the liars and the blah blah. If what it reduces down to, once you'd reduce the fraction of bullshit, once you cancel out the terms of bullshit, is Blake Lively in her complaint complaint against us only said things that made us look bad and didn't include stuff that might have made us to look a little better. Not saying anything. You are just saying how complaints work. That's it.

0:41:50 Lydia: Yeah mm -hmm yeah mm right that's just the legal process.

0:42:47 Thomas: Your complaint is the same fucking thing. And it's going to be the same thing. That is nothing. There is nothing here. In terms of the New York Times thing, mind you, I mean specifically the New York Times. In terms of and Justin Baldoni wanting to counter the claims about the retaliatory campaign, by all means, put out your evidence that will, I suppose, be in a later lawsuit. We're not covering here, but like put out Your evidence, make your case, make Your case that it wasn't retaliatory, that you only were responsive by all Means make Your Case. You have every right to do that. Crying that this is some sort of conspiracy involving defamation and all that shit. There's nothing to that. There is just nothing to That at

0:43:23 Lydia: Agreed. It continues on to kind of talk about how Jonesworks had Jennifer Abel's phone, um, Abel, a former employee of Jonesworks, forced to relinquish her electronic devices when confronted by a Jonesworks security guard and attorney upon her separation from the company six weeks after she had put in notice and shared her plan to start her own business business. It's leaving out a lot of a lot of information as you all have heard when we covered the Jones lawsuit. Jones, on the heels of a damning Business Insider article and hemorrhaging clients, insisted that Able turnover her electronic devices to allow Jones works to, quote, "delete all confidential and proprietary information there from," though I doubt that's what it was. It was this this like asset is, belongs Yeah.

0:43:43 Thomas: Leaving out a lot there. Yeah. Yep. Yep.

0:44:02 Thomas: It's a work phone. It's mine. Yeah.

0:44:08 Lydia: Jones initially agreed to release Abel's personal cell phone number, she reneged.

0:44:12 Thomas: Doesn't matter.

0:44:13 Lydia: Four months later, Abel's text messages are now the subject of Lively CRD complaint and the article. "Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Jones invited the subject subpoena to circumvent her confidentiality obligations to Wayfarer and inflict the most unethical form of revenge."

0:44:29 Thomas: Okay. Well, that would be on her. That's nothing to do with the New York Times. Nothing to do. Nothing to deal with Blake Lively. Would be under. Her. Honestly, I kind of agree with that last part. It might be that that was why she was probably so insistent that, hey, you need to subpoena me. So I have protection against this confidentiality stuff. Sure. I think that's right. I mean, Jones I is taking revenge.

0:44:33 Lydia: Yeah.

0:44:43 Lydia: A questionable character.

0:44:49 Thomas: Yeah. But honestly ,I think I would do the same thing. Like, I think it's like no honor among thieves a little bit kind of thing. Like, oh, that's an idiom. I don't know if you know.

0:44:51 Lydia: Mm -hmm. Yeah, yeah. Heard that.

0:44:58 Thomas: Oh, you've heard that one. Okay. Well, a broken clock.

0:45:01 Lydia: I've heard that one too.

0:45:02 Thomas: Blind squirrel.

0:45:03 Lydia: I don't know that one. Nuts?

0:45:07 Thomas: Squirrel catches a nut every now and then or whatever. Something like that. Even a blind squirrel catches, finds a nut, finds something.

0:45:10 Lydia: Okay. I've never heard that one.

0:45:15 Thomas: Now I'm embarrassing myself because I know. I know the gist of it. The important words are squirrel and blind maybe Nuts. I think it's that, uh, There's blind squirrel is going after something, noun of some kind. Anyway, um, have seen through Jones's complaint damning evidence against Abel, very, I To saying that Baldoni might be able to get out of some stuff than I am saying that Jen is. Like, really. Because I could see Baldoni being able to wiggle out of a lot of stuff based on, you quite being able to prove it up and, oh, maybe it was these entities that did it and it wasn't him. Or maybe they actually weren't really. You know, I could say that. I could actually see that happening. I don't know, but, like, I can see it. Jen Abel is just fucked. Like, I just don't see how she's getting out of all this stuff.

0:45:16 Lydia: Barely know it. And nuts. Acorn?

0:45:38 Lydia: Yeah, yeah.

0:46:06 Thomas: I started with that is Jen, much as Jones might suck, maybe maybe maybe in Jen's mind, Jones was so abusive and horrible that Jones deserved it. OK, maybe. Like from Jones's perspective, Jen Abel really fucked her like a lot, like badly and took Wayfair and Wayfairy like fire. And this weird interaction where Jamie Heath is clearly lying to her, like just couldn't be more clear. Was going through Jones's mind? Like, why is this happening to me? Why are they why are they lying to try to fire me?

0:46:33 Lydia: Being gaslit by my client. Yeah.

0:46:35 Thomas: It's just weird. It's weird. And then you find all this stuff. And honestly, I don't even think Jones did anything wrong in this instance. Lively off, which it seems like she probably did, and said, hey, you got to subpoena me, though, fucking fine. Like, what is the problem there? Even if there were a problem, it's not Blake Lively's at all. And it's certainly not the fucking New York Times' problem. Nothing to do with it. This is just, you're sad you got caught. Boo -hoo, you'RE sad you GOT caught.

0:46:38 Lydia: No, no.

0:47:08 Thomas: So close. Okay, and we're, we're on section E, which just, I think, goes back to the beginning again. The Times publishes a false and defamatory article based on Lively's administrative complaint.

0:47:17 Lydia: Well they have to remind us who the new york times is because they've spent 70 pages is not talking about the New York Times.

0:47:17 Thomas: Yeah. Like... Oh. And this... Is... The, the equivalent of... where was I? Oh. Yes, oh, and some of this writing is so stupid, you should read it, because we're We're so close to done. It's so dumb.

0:47:26 Lydia: It OK. New York Times is one of the most widely read newspapers in the United States and once upon a time served as a primary newspaper record publishing, quote, all the news that's fit to print the Times was considered a paragon of journalistic integrity and excellence, the gold standard for journalism in the United States, and a highly respected news outlet internationally.

0:47:43 Thomas: Still their slogan. Whatever.

0:47:54 Thomas: Says new outlet.

0:47:55 Lydia: Yeah, I know. I'm trying to be kind.

0:47:56 Thomas: I know that's funny though. I

0:47:58 Lydia: Generations, the paper's historical influence on the socio -political and cultural life of the country and its institutions could not be overstated.

0:48:06 Thomas: Had my 14 year old son write this part of it to try to fill out more pages. Webster's dictionary defines newspaper. It's just fucking

0:48:12 Lydia: It's a report, you know. Kill two birds with one stone.

0:48:17 Thomas: God. So stupid.

0:48:20 Lydia: Americans long relied on The Times as a source of accurate and balanced news reporting. Viewpoint -based commentary was expressly excluded from news stories. For years, Americans grew to expect that The Times would, as legendary Times executive editor A .M. Rosenthal said, quote, tell it straight, or in other words, simply report the news without embellishing or driving it. For much of its storied history, whether it was the Civil Rights Movement,

0:48:24 Thomas: Okay. OK, we do. This is a book report on The New York Times by a kid.

0:48:46 Lydia: Vietnam War, Watergate, or other political and cultural issues through its objective, investigative reporting and the diverse views presented on its op -ed pages. The Times strove to inform America through high journalistic standards, accuracy, and fairness. The publication has won far more Pulitzer Prizes than any other media company in U .S. history, with its first being awarded more than 100 years ago. If the New York Times, like, just copy -pasted this and put it on their website?

0:49:03 Thomas: Goal is for you to kill yourself before you finish reading the complaint. That's their goal.

0:49:22 Lydia: Like, here's our about section.

0:49:21 Thomas: I know they wouldn't, because this is a bad book report by a 10 year old, I would be I would be embarrassed to turn this in in high school.

0:49:26 Lydia: Yeah. Oh, yeah, no, reads this reads like seventh a grade. Agreed.

0:49:33 Thomas: It's like a C -plus high school paper where you're like, OK, well, you tried. You're one of the you know, you're one of the pot smoking kids, but you tried in this instance.

0:49:41 Lydia: Over the last 20 years, Times reporters have ever more frequently veered spectacularly from their own journalistic guidelines. As a result, it has become commonplace to find New York Times stories containing egregious factual errors or infected with bias. Such lapses have contributed to public distrust of the Times and a landscape where partisan actors can cry fake news with some justification. The New York Times still wields a powerful and influential megaphone in the media and greater society.

It is therefore under a solemn obligation to do the work necessary to get its reporting right. Reporters at the Times well know, getting it wrong can lead to disastrous outcomes for story subjects, including financial, professional, and reputational ruin. And New New York Times sets the narrative in tone for other news organizations, amplifying the impact of its mistakes. Quick note, remember TMZ was the one that broke this story and the following magazines that then report on it reference TMZ as their source, not the New York Times. Instant case is emblematic of the Times having, quote, lost its way as the facts here make plain that the Times failed to follow its own journalistic standards, rushed to judgment, and and with careless disregard, published a story accusing plaintiffs of waging a, quote, smear campaign against Lively, causing a feeding frenzy based on a demonstrably false premise.

0:50:31 Thomas: OK, Yep. Good reminder. Reference TMZ.

0:51:01 Thomas: Just need to point to a false statement of fact that was public or communicated to third party, um, that, if, if it's a celebrity, then needs to be, be actual malice and then damages. That's it. You don't actually need to do a disappointed dad lecture about how it's fall, as fall from grace as well. This just, it's so fucking stupid. It does not belong in a complaint. It's just, this is nothing. Your little book report on the, it just so, it's fucking sophomoric amateur hour crap. And we're almost, we're so close, we're so close, okay?

0:51:07 Lydia: -huh. Yeah.

0:51:34 Thomas: But we now, we get to, like, and it's funny because they've spent so little time on this part, because now we're at the whole 9:43 p.m. you be requested by his response, and I don't know if there's anything new here, but we're still close, you might as well, two more paragraphs, everyone, I

0:51:41 Lydia: All Standard Time. Yeah, Right. All right. .43 p .m. on December 20th, 2024, TUI requested plaintiffs' response to its reporting regarding a crisis communication operation conducted on behalf of Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, and Wayfair Studios to protect their reputations and harm Blake Lively's, as described in a legal complaint filed today. Wrote in part, quote, We are seeking your response to the claims of retaliation through this PR campaign, and we would welcome the opportunity to talk with you on the record. Please offer any on the record comment as well as any other information you think we should know. Additionally, please notify us of any inaccuracies.

0:52:21 Thomas: This is bold and underlined, everyone. Ready? Before

0:52:23 Lydia: Need to hear back from you tomorrow by noon Eastern at 2 .16 a .m. Eastern Standard Time. So, you roughly four and a half hours later, legal representatives responded as follows. And we already read this.

0:52:30 Thomas: That yeah well we're not gonna we already read this it's the statement

0:52:37 Lydia: It's the statement that The New York Times included in full in their article at 1011 on December 21st, 2024. The Times published the article. Thank you. And notwithstanding that, The Times was made aware of the egregiously defamatory allegations contained therein. It proceeded with publication without further inquiry. Indeed, in its rush to publish a one -sided, unsubstantiated story on behalf of Lively, the Times got it dramatically wrong. The aftershocks have been disastrous for plaintiffs, and they now, reluctantly and knowing the damage cannot be fully undone, suit to hold the Times accountable for its egregious misfire.

0:52:44 Thomas: Am I wish we could just, like, out everything but the last two paragraphs that are actually related to the case, it's nothing. I, and I love, too, because stupid, they point about the con in fact contract and they broke their end of the, like, we see it, we, we can read, man. We need to hear back from you tomorrow by noon. And then you say, well, responded at 2 .16 a .m., so nine hours and 44 minutes before noon, and then they published 10, 11 a .am. the issue here? There's nothing out of the ordinary there. Like, Like literally everything went as it was represented.

0:53:19 Lydia: Yeah, that would be, yeah, Yeah, that would be the complaint by noon.

0:53:53 Lydia: Again, they invited, you notify us of any inaccuracies. They have, like, you know, the general statement where they're saying all of this is false. But if there were specific things that they could have called out there, even if it weren't by the noon deadline, we've talked about this before, the New York Times would have updated their article and they would have explicitly called it out, you underneath the title, like these news organizations do update you, this know is a corrected version to account for yada yada yada, a previous version stated yada ya da ya da, right? This is just, it, yeah, it's, um, I feel, I, we to call our lawyer, yeah dear god, it did

0:54:21 Thomas: Garbage. Did it though. We're at the causes of action and will go over those with a lawyer. Yeah. Oh my God. Can't believe how dumb this was. Oh my gosh. Yeah. That felt so much longer than 90 fucking pages. Just goes to show. I mean, when you, when so much harder to dispel bullshit than it is to put it out there. It really is. Like we had, I had a lot to say about Blake Lively's complaint. I, I picked the spots where I thought it might've been off. I think, I think I stand by a lot of that. I think at very least, I there's mean, you more case to prove for a lot of it, but it wasn't this man. It wasn't fucking hours of like, so acting goes dates back to the, you Know, it's like, what? Come on.

The New York times shit, a book report about how far it's It's like, shut up. This sucked. And then just here's a million text messages in different formats, in different ways, in different whatever. It's just this complaint fucking sucks. It just sucks. There are a couple of good points that could have made this seven pages and decent points. Like, okay. Sorry, I take it back. There should be no complaint against the New York Times for defamation. That's silly.

0:54:43 Lydia: Hmm. Mm hmm, yeah.

0:55:35 Thomas: You could try.

0:55:42 Lydia: Communicate a story a little bit better. Right now I walking away confused, frustrated, angry. Yeah.

0:55:50 Thomas: Here's the thing. They are relying on people not reading it. That's what they're relying on. Or if people are reading it, they're reading it really badly. Because no smart person who actually reads and has any attention to detail would be convinced by 98 .3 % of this.

0:55:52 Lydia: Yeah. Mm. And I want to put a call out: if you are someone who considers yourself to be a smart person and you feel like there were compelling points in this complaint that maybe we, you feel we got wrong, like, please reach out. I, I would love to continue to examine this.

0:56:16 Thomas: Yeah. 100%.

0:56:18 Lydia: There are things that you feel we're not being fair about, like we are open to all of that and are willing to engage in those conversations. So, yeah, I mean, our emails are always open.

0:56:27 Thomas: Yeah. Cause I think any there conflict between two human beings, like gonna be points on each side that are right. Like there just is like, she's going to be wrong about some stuff. Pointed out some candidates. And that's a guarantee. Even if I largely after reading these, the complaints we've read, I think she's far and away telling the truth more than he is. I think he's, um, much well, I don't need to summarize again, but he's misrepresenting and leaving out so much stuff. Like there's so much stuff he didn't even respond to that is like, okay, I guess that allegation goes unchallenged kind of thing. Yeah, he's going to be right about some stuff. She's got to get some stuff wrong. That's Nobody's batting 1000 in a legal complaint. This is not even close. It's not how they work. Yeah, I'm, I don't know. I'm open to that. Um

0:56:41 Lydia: Mm hmm. Mm hm. In the same way, there's, there's so much information to you across all of these complaints that if, if you feel like like we missed a connection or, or something like that, like, please reach out. And we are happy to be accountable.

0:57:09 Thomas: Maybe we missed something but pains me to say, but we actually haven't quite completed the complaint, but we've completed the like fact section. Know, We're we're close. We're close, and the next thing we have to do is call Lawyer Anne, and That's right, we're going to get into the law. That's right. Oh, oh, you forgot there's law involved in this complaint. Not a lot, but there is law. It's not all narrative and texts. We're going to go through the cause of action. We're going to go through actual stuff with, again, with an actual attorney. Can you imagine? You know, I think this whole bullshit showed the merit of our, which is, we're going to save the legal bills by this fact bullshit ourselves and then calling the lawyer when it's the law stuff. Stuff. So otherwise our bills for the past, you know, nine episodes would have been astronomical because worth any lawyer's time to go through those, all that with us at 'cause that's just so much. But, you know, we will go over the law stuff with lawyer in the next episodes. I'm so excited for that. And

0:57:24 Lydia: Open that lawyer portal.

0:57:49 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, lawyer that helped with your defamation claims.

0:58:19 Thomas: That's a good point. Yeah. A relevant little, experience. Uh, so can't wait. That'll be next episode. That'd be GG20. So see you cool kids then. Thank you so much for listening. Thanks most of all to the patrons. You soon.

0:58:51 Thomas: Dump. KNOW THIS IS SO BAD THIS IS so fucking stupid I'm sorry this is dumb it's sloppy and shitty and dumb and you should feel bad for writing it this way take if we put it again later, it's more evidence. Words are squirrel and Boo -hoo, you'RE sad you GOT caught. Sophomoric amateur hour crap. And