GG76: The Biggest Dershbag on Earth, Part 2

Transcript

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

0:00:01 Clip: All rise. Court is now in session. Court is reconvened. I may be seated. Maintain order. The federal rise is based on the jury's arc and to its verdicts.

0:00:26 Thomas: Gavel in, gavel heads. I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia. How are you doing?

0:00:30 Lydia: Hello, hello. Recovering from douche overdose, but you're going to be giving me more? Yeah.

0:00:34 Thomas: It's a real medical condition, everybody.

0:00:37 Lydia: Doctor's orders, I think I'm allowed to leave. I don't think I'M supposed to expose myself to more of this.

0:00:41 Thomas: This is related to Dershowitz. Oh, wait, how have I not thought of?

0:00:44 Lydia: Douche -a -wits. Have we never done that before?

0:00:46 Thomas: No, Alan Dershouitz. There's too many ways to make fun of this guy's name. I marvel at it. I marvel at how no one in his life is ever like, Hey man, just, just cut it out. Just like, yeah, but that's how that kind of person is. Like, the only people who will talk to him are probably people who are like, ah, it's just, look, I just nod along until I can get out of the conversation.

0:00:58 Lydia: Yeah. It doesn't have to be like this. Yeah. Mostly for networking, I'm sure.

0:01:14 Thomas: Yeah, God. Well, this guy fucking sucks. And there's so much more douche -o -its to talk about today, assuming you've taken your iodine tablets to be able to.

0:01:19 Lydia: What if I haven't? Do I get to leave?

0:01:25 Thomas: You might die. Yeah, you're going to have a work. No, well, you should. I'm saying you should leave. It's medically, it is a medical thing.

0:01:26 Lydia: Oh, I still have to Be Exposed to It. Yeah. Okay.

0:01:33 Thomas: You'll have to come back. We'll take, we'll pause. The audience won't know. We'll pause. We'll get you rehabilitated. You'll be walking on that little thing they always show with the two, like, it's almost like a gymnastics thing, you know? There's two ,like, bars, and you have to, you'll be able to walk again eventually. And then, and only then, can you be exposed to the level of douchiness and narcissism that is douchewitz.

0:01:53 Lydia: And for the audience, it's going to feel like it all happens simultaneously. Like they won't know the rehabilitation that I go through, physical therapy, you know? Yeah.

0:01:59 Thomas: We're going through a whole montage over here. Yeah. What song do you want for your montage, actually? Because you can't go, it's too played out to do Rocky anymore. Well, you're not doing that. No, you need something. What'd you do? Wow. Okay. I was not expecting that.

0:02:05 Lydia: Yeah, I don't want that. I want like Linkin Park. I wanna like blast music as loud as possible and scream while I'm having to do this.

0:02:20 Thomas: A good montage though. Do you need the part where it's like, you know, you're like, I don't know. You're not sure if it's going well at first, you know, like, like look, you understand the concept of drama and dramatic tension, right? I mean, the part, the early parts of the montage, it's gotta be like, oh, he can't lift up the, you know, wagon and pull the horse or whatever the hell that's what

0:02:24 Lydia: I don't need that. That that would be the part by the beginning of the song the lincoln park

0:02:48 Thomas: That's, that's the Lincoln part.

0:02:48 Lydia: Song crawling in my skin yeah yep that's what it would be everybody

0:02:54 Thomas: Just that two seconds oh are

0:02:56 Lydia: Yeah it's a little intro for about 10 seconds because

0:02:58 Thomas: You talking about the piano thing Oh God, I hated that so much I've always you know jesus said only one person you what is wrong with you yeah just for lincoln park we're finding out a lot I think you know what you know everyone I think it's the douche levels talking this is not normal lydia there's something's happened it's exactly the same thing

0:03:00 Lydia: That's yeah Oh, I love it. Take me back to middle school.

0:03:08 Lydia: Just for music. Just for music and screaming.

0:03:16 Lydia: It could be. It could be at least I'm not saying like Limp Biscuit like that's that's it's not the same thing. Oh dear God. Sound off Cavalheads. Is it the same band? No. Fred Durst. Oh God. Okay.

0:03:28 Thomas: I went to the worst I had a middle school with shit -kicking conservatives and they listened to that and ba -wa -da -ba and yeah Kid Rock and was all what Korn, Linkin Park, Kid Rock, and whatever the one you said no the other was Limbus yeah that's all one thing that's one band

0:03:38 Lydia: Kid Rock. Yeah. Yeah, I hate all that. Well, okay. But Linkin Park is different. Linkin Park Limp Bizkit it's not it's not

0:03:50 Thomas: Kid Rock is a little different in that it's one guy so I'll actually set him aside because I could tell the difference. The other ones I can't tell. There's one band. It's terrible. God, I wish I could tell you how bad the associations in my brain are with that. It might as well be like that music killed my parents or something. And then you're like, oh, I miss it. I'm pining for the days.

0:03:50 Lydia: But anyway man oh no but here's the thing here's a thing though cuz like Linkin Park and Evanescence I would put them in the same group yeah I would I would Linkin Park is not like Limp Bizkit not at all

0:04:13 Thomas: What? What is happening? What a weird. OK, you know, I'm not saying you're wrong. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

0:04:21 Lydia: Maybe do you remember what Linkin Park is

0:04:25 Thomas: It's trauma. I'm not saying you're wrong. I might just have a weird evidence. What are you talking about? Huh?

0:04:32 Lydia: Yeah it's the same thing it's it's like it's a it's in the rap element the melody

0:04:37 Thomas: Anyway, it's terrible montage music. You could do that for like the end when you kill the guy or something, you know, montage music, it'S got to be like, it' s got to have a build.

0:04:42 Lydia: Element okay all right that's fair Fleetwood

0:04:48 Thomas: Oh, interesting.

0:04:49 Lydia: Mac maybe it's very different than Linkin Park

0:04:49 Thomas: Yeah, now you're totally, this is, you're a nightmare for like sound editors or whatever, like whoever picks the stuff, they're just like, I can't work with her anymore. She's going too crazy. Anyway, once we get that all worked out medically, we're going to get back to Dushiewicz. We've got a lot to talk about. When we last left off, he was very upset, of course, about one sentence of his possibly being not included in something. He's going to argue with literally everybody about it because he's fucking Alan Dushzewicz. And that still won't be enough. Spoilers. And it goes all the way to the top. This thing goes all The Way to the Top. But also this one's interesting for this one.

0:04:55 Lydia: Park yep yep yeah it really does

0:05:26 Thomas: We're not trying to dig too much into the law. We figured like it's pretty basic, like we all have been through the First Amendment, Sullivan stuff enough times. But the thing that is interesting is in this episode, we're going to look at these, the 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court decision. And there's a budding little movement of jurists trying to get rid of Sullivan, of New York Times v. Sullivan. So this is an interesting example of it and something to keep an eye on.

0:05:52 Thomas: We'll see how much support it has and if it grows or not. But it's interesting. It's more interesting than I would have thought to see how Much of that there is in this stupid Dushwitz case. So why don't we take our usual break and you can support the show patreon .com slash gavel pod you already listened to this you already debunked lydia's insane claims about lincoln park you already did that you already and you already commented they're ahead of us they're in the future get with the times support the Show lose the ads thanks so much back at it after this break

0:06:29 Ad: [Ad break 1 — ad music]

0:06:29 Thomas: So similar to the I'm being canceled and then you print it in every newspaper and every tv show you You know, like that kind of thing. They're not letting me speak like similar to that. This asshole gets to go on like every show and say like, you misquoted me. Like, here he is on Wolf Blitzer.

0:06:47 Clip: But I never said never suggested and it was a total distortion not misunderstanding distortion of my point that I want I think a president can do anything if he thinks his election is national I never set it it's nonsense and your network should never have said that I said it repeatedly but we were only playing the clips from what you actually said on the floor Yeah, you played a clip that you selected, not the context. Those were your words, but I want to bring in Jeffrey Toobin.

0:07:16 Clip: There were some other words of mine that you left out. I wantto bring in Jeffery Toobn, your former law student at Harvard Law School. Isn't the controversy here about the issue of intent that you, I mean, it clearly quid pro quo is more appropriate in foreign policy under many circumstances. Circumstances. But the issue, it seems like the House managers are making, is that if there is a corrupt intent, then it can be impeachable. And it is frequently the issue in the law that we look and have juries determine whether people's, what their intent is. You know, is it a manslaughter or is it murder? But there's an enormous difference between the criminal law and impeachment. In the criminal law, you're right. There are cases that say, if you have a corrupt motive, you take a bribe, the example they always give, the congressman gave the example, you take a bribe. You take a brib to bribe electors. You take bribe to make people vote. Doesn't matter whether they would have voted the other way. We're talking doing something entirely lawful and turning lawful conduct into impeachable conduct as the result, not of intent, but of motive, of the reason why he may have done

0:07:14 Lydia: I say

0:08:27 Thomas: Isn't that intent? Wait, how's that different than intent?

0:08:27 Clip: And I think all of you had a responsibility.

0:08:32 Thomas: Where he's like, not of intent, but, you know, the like reason that he did. Yeah, OK. OK, so I want to include that because it's a little more of the legal argument. Like, it's so stupid. But then again, I love this. This fucking privileged asshole. And by the way, I just want to reveal that to my brain, these old ass white crusty narcissists are so the same. I accidentally named the session Rudy instead of Dershowitz. Like they're just the same, man. Yeah, it'S all one universe. Verse. All right. One more clip of Dershowitz with Cuomo.

0:08:57 Lydia: Yeah one it's funny I pictured John Eastman's like nose hair while we're talking about Alan Dershowitz They're all the same. They're all the same.

0:09:12 Clip: Is it your position that a president can do whatever they want to secure their re-election as long as they think it is in the good of the people? Chris, you know that that's not my position. I started my talk in front of the Senate by saying that Nixon was properly impeached. Nixon committed five crimes, and he did it because he wanted to be re-elected, because he thought it would be in the national interest. Of course not. I never said that. I never implied it. I never suggested it. CNN, MSNBC, and many of the other networks deliberately and willfully distorted my words. Let me tell you what I said. What I said was... Hold on, Professor. Let's establish a record. Establish the record for people, just so they know point by point. And they're gonna know when they watch us that you sound bite. Every public official that I I know, believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you're right, you're elected, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Now, as somebody who has admired you and leaned on you for a long time, it sounds like you're saying he, as long as he thinks it's in the pubic interest, he can do whatever he wants in the name of his re-election? That's because you deliberately selected that clip and didn't put it in context.

0:10:02 Thomas: Except he is. Yeah. Okay. We've heard this.

0:10:44 Clip: The context was a question generally about a quid pro quo.

0:10:53 Clip: Both Congressman Nadler and Congressman Schiff had said that if there is even one element of self-interest in a decision in a qud pro quo context, if the president or any politician IN ADDITION TO SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

0:11:08 Thomas: Blah, blah, blah. This is maybe neither here nor there, but it's weird that he even said that Nixon should have been impeached because like everything Nixon did, like he said, there's five crimes Nixon did. I actually don't even know what that is really. Nixon did things that were within his power as president, like it's the same thing we've been talking about with the stupid Supreme Court decision that makes President Trump a king. Like just because he could do something legally if he wasn't doing it for the wrong reasons doesn't mean it's fine. I don't have a perfect memory for Watergate, but I didn't think that it's not like Nixon like knifed a guy like he did. Everything he did, I thought, was just trying to use his power in the way that he theoretically could to interfere with the investigation but maybe is Dershowitz saying like well you know maybe those things would be like crimes because they're interfering with it but like by the time you get to that the thing that Trump did was a crime like unlawful and withholding the aid so it's it's just a pile of shit and it's just Dershouitz gets to allege that they're defaming him and he gets to go on every single show where they defamed him and to have his say. And it's like, all right, man, come on. Alan Dershowitz was not satisfied to simply get to, you know, go on every single fucking show where he thought someone defamed Him and like have his Say, which to me is like, that's kind of enough. Like if you, you Know,

0:12:31 Lydia: Not if you're a narcissist, you know.

0:12:32 Thomas: Yeah. So he sues for 300, this is obviously the lawsuit we've already been reading this lawsuit is for 300 million dollars 50 million in compensatory and 250 million in punitive and uh his main accusation again is that the crop clip it's not a mistake it's a deliberate scheme as you read to defund the audience

0:12:51 Lydia: I find that dollar amount offensive.

0:12:56 Thomas: Yeah as you red in paragraph 12 the the aftermath of that barrage of defamatory programming was its ripple effect throughout the the entire media industry

0:13:07 Lydia: Mm -mm. Mm -hum. It's spread like a disease. Sure.

0:13:11 Thomas: From other news outlets yes cnn's deliberately false narrative spread like a disease with each other forum replaying solely that portion of the tape mimicking it's god it's so funny so why don't we why don'T we keep

0:13:24 Lydia: The damage to Professor Dershowitz's reputation does not have to be imagined. He was openly mocked by most of the top national talk show hosts, and the comments below CNN's videos show a general public that has concluded that Professor Dershowitz had lost his mind. All of these impressions were the direct result of CNN intentionally misleading its viewers and hiding the truth from their eyes and ears. Okay. A few egregious examples are those of Joe Lockhart and John Berman stating the following after airing only the chosen snippet of the video and Paul Begala in written form after omitting the part of the argument that said that illegal acts were impeachable.

0:13:29 Thomas: Going yeah so we read basically go went through all these those are the quotes we kind of already did and now and now we're 14 14 this is again in his own

0:14:02 Lydia: Yep. Professor Professor Dershowitz was one of the most revered and celebrated legal minds of the past half century. Oh my God, I'm rolling my eyes, you guys. His reputation relating to his expertise in criminal and constitutional matters was one that lawyers would only dream about attaining in their lifetimes. God. However, Professor DERSHOWITZ appears to have made one mistake. Yep. The one. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Just less correct. He chose to defend the president of of the United States and defend the

0:14:11 Thomas: Complaint sure dude so dumb okay dude it wasn't a mistake he was just less correct about it

0:14:39 Lydia: U .S. Constitution at a moment in time where CNN has decided that doing so is not permitted. The most whiny sentence.

0:14:48 Thomas: Such a little piece of shit yeah he made one mistake chose to defend the president united states and defend the use of constitution at the time when cnn decided that doing so is not permitted really is that what

0:15:01 Lydia: Yep. For this, CNN set out to punish him and destroy his credibility and reputation and unfortunately succeeded. Unbelievable. Yeah, due to the overwhelming vastness of its broadcast, CNN caused substantial damage to Professor Dershowitz by irreparably harming his reputation. The defamatory statements CNN published were made by each person knowing that what they were stating was false, and in the alternative, those making the statements acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements.

0:15:10 Thomas: Happened this is good stuff we might as well finish it off we're almost done this is great

0:15:33 Lydia: The defamatory statements made by Each Commentator were made in the course and scope of their employment relationship and or agency relationship with CNN,

0:15:33 Thomas: All right trying to get seen again

0:15:39 Lydia: Thus making CNN vicariously liable, yada yada. CNN's decision to omit the part of plaintiff's argument in which he prefaced his upcoming remarks with the fact that it did not apply to illegal acts was done intentionally and deliberately with knowledge and malice to facilitate its ability to falsely claim that plaintiff said the opposite of what he actually said.

0:15:57 Thomas: I know that like guess you kind of have to say that for this but for one it's an exercise in narcissism to even be doing this fucking thing but for two the amount of thinking people are thinking of you in this you know like everything in dershowitz's mind is about dershowicz like everything see that what they did is they got together and they're like I know how we'll make this guy look look dumb don't include that first quote it's just like if anything maybe you could say like oh they accidentally left something off or whatever like it's it's so fucking it's just psychotic to just oh

0:16:29 Lydia: It really, really is. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damage, including but not limited to damage to his reputation, embarrassment, pain, humiliation, mental anguish, and has sustained past and future loss of earnings. CNN knew that its statements were false at the time the statements were made or had serious doubts about their truth and nonetheless made and or published the statements with an intent to indulge ill will, hostility, and an intent of harm, thus giving rise to the right to recover punitive damages in order to deter CNN from engaging in this conduct in the future and hopefully restore integrity to both CNN and the media as a whole. Yep, this is what did it.

0:16:40 Thomas: God yeah the last paragraph is good oh such a fucking

0:17:09 Lydia: This moment is what what did it, and this is the moment that we'll rectify it. You're right, Dersh. You are the center of the universe, apparently. Unbelievable.

0:17:19 Thomas: Asshole unreal now here's what I will say though in 2021 the case survives survives a motion to dismiss. I do find that surprising. And who knows like who those judges were.

0:17:32 Lydia: Dershes nephew. Just kidding.

0:17:34 Thomas: Not great for CNN, but I thought we'd maybe read from that a little bit to see what's going on there. Why don't you start on the defamation law part? Because it is Florida and I don't think we're familiar with that. So let's read what this judge says the defamation standard in Florida is.

0:17:50 Lydia: The parties agree that Florida law applies to this dispute. In Florida, a defamation claim has, quote, five elements, publication, falsity, actor must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or at least negligently on a matter concerning a private person, actual damages, and statement must be defamatory. And the citation here is Jews for Jesus Inc.

0:18:15 Thomas: Hmm. Interesting.

0:18:15 Lydia: Versus Rapp, a Florida case from 2008. CNN argues that its broadcast concerning Dershowitz's statements are protected from liability by the fair report privilege. The fair report privileged is a qualified privilege given to news media, quote, to accurately report on the information they receive from government officials. If the report of a public official proceeding is accurate or a fair abridgment, and action cannot be constitutionally maintained either for defamation or for invasion of the right of privacy. The privilege extends to the publication of the contents of official documents as long as the account is reasonably accurate and fair. Next, CNN argues that its commentators offered opinions and therefore it cannot be liable for defamation. In Florida, a claim of defamation requires a false statement of fact. Statements of pure opinion are not actionable. Quote, Quote, the distinction between fact and opinion is not always easy to perceive. Quote. Thus, the law recognizes that some comments may be pure expressions of opinion, whereas others may be mixed expressions of opinion. Yeah.

0:19:04 Thomas: Yeah. I am very curious how he's going to end up prevailing on this.

0:19:14 Lydia: A mixed opinion is one, quote, based upon facts regarding a person or his conduct that are neither stated in the publication nor assumed to exist by a party exposed to the communication. Quote Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications.

0:19:36 Thomas: Hmm. Okay. Oh, that's the classic, like, well, it's my opinion that you're a rapist or whatever. You know, that doesn't work. It is my opinion. The Dershowitz is. Yeah.

0:19:49 Lydia: Whether a challenge statement is one of fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the court. Quote, in assessing whether an allegedly libelous statement is opinion, the court must construe the statement in its totality, examining not merely a particular phrase or sentence, but all of the words used in the publication.

0:20:07 Thomas: So that's, you know, that's going to be the key there. It's like all, he just has to survive emotion is missed. So if everything's construed in his favor, the judge needs to say, well there is still a controversy basically.

0:20:18 Lydia: Finally, CNN challenges the sufficiency of Dershowitz's pleading of actual malice. Actual malice, quote, should not be confused with the concept of malice as an evil intent or a motive arising from spite or ill will. Rather, actual malice refers to, quote. Publication of a statement with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. To avoid dismissal of a defamation claim, a public figure must plead facts sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference of actual malice. The pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly apply to a public figure's allegations of actual Malice. I have very much like it's Pride Month glasses on. So when I saw Iqball, I thought it was LGBTQ. Yeah. Lowercase L. Yeah, exactly. And the Q is just a backwards G. Yeah yeah.

0:20:45 Thomas: Iqbal. Yeah, Iq bal and Twombly. My favorite folk band. Yeah yeah and it's a yeah Yeah. Cause it's like a lowercase L. Yeah. It is a hard, it's a weird, Iqbal is not a, yeah, but Iqba and Twombly, classic, like Hall and Oates, Iquba and Simon, Garfunkel, all the greats. Yeah, all right. Now we're on the analysis. Let's see the fair report privilege part.

0:21:07 Lydia: Oh yeah. Yep. Love that band. Yeah okay.

0:21:13 Thomas: Let'S see how that goes.

0:21:15 Lydia: CNN argues that it's airing of verbatim statements that Dershowitz made on the floor of the United United States Senate is unquestionably protected by the fair report privilege. Quote, the fair report privilege is news media's qualified privilege to report accurately on information received from government officials. Clearly, a public broadcast concerning the impeachment trial of the president of the United States triggers the fair rapport privilege. The next issue is whether the fair port privilege applies to CNN's broadcasts. The fair report privilege applies, quote, if the report of a public official proceeding is an accurate or affair abridgment. CNN argues that it played a verbatim clip of Dershowitz's actual words spoken during a high -level government proceeding and, therefore, the fair report privilege applies. Dershouitz does not dispute that the privilege would probably apply if CNN had merely played the truncated clip without further comment, but that is not Dershouse's claim. The one -count complaint alleges that the trunciated clip was part of, quote, a deliberate scheme to defraud prod CNN's audience. That enabled Lockhart, Berman, and Begala to present Dershowitz's comments in a defamatory manner. Thus, for purposes of applying the fair report privilege, the court must consider the broadcasts and the clip as a whole and not as separate claims. And the question is whether CNN's broadcasts presented an accurate or fair abridgment of Dershouitz's comments to the Senate. To answer this, we must look to the source documents. Right. Yeah.

0:22:32 Thomas: All right. So that's going to go through basically everything we already covered. That's like what he said. And then you can skip all the way down to the Dershowitz alleges. And there's some stuff I think that we didn't include, but you know, know, you basically get the point.

0:22:45 Lydia: Dershouse alleges he never said a president could commit illegal acts if he he thought it would help his re -election, and his reintroduction was in the public interest. And he alleges that CNN, through its employee commentators, distorted the meaning of what he said to the Senate in the coverage on CNN .com and the two broadcasts. Dershowitz contends that by omitting the phrase, quote, the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal, CNN presented Dershouitz's comments in a misleading context, which enabled the commentators to, in parentheses, falsely, assert that Dershouse believed a president could could extract a quid pro quo for any reason, including an illegal reason, if he believed it would help his re -election. Dershowitz alleges that if the entire clip had been played, no panel guest would have been able to credibly make that statement. Thus, Dershouitz argues, CNN presented an official proceeding in a misleading manner and the fair report privilege does not apply. The court agrees.

0:23:39 Thomas: See, there you go.

0:23:41 Lydia: CNN presented an abridgment of Dershouse's answer to Senator Cruz's question. The abridgement is not accurate to the extent that it omitted a crucial qualification. That an illegal motive for a quid pro quo would be corrupt. As a result, the commentator's statements that Dershowitz believes a president can do anything, even commit crimes, if it would help his re -election, are not based upon a fair and accurate summary of Dershouitz's statement to the Senate.

0:24:03 Thomas: So there's a few more little details kind of related to the fair report privilege. Like they have the right to be able to say, like report what parts of something they want, but the court doesn't really go for it. It also argues it was ambiguous. This is actually, maybe CNN argues that Dershowitz's response, that paragraph. I feel like there is a good argument that's like, it's not entirely clear what the hell Dershouitz is talking

0:24:27 Lydia: Right. CNN argues that DERSHOWITZ's response to Senator Cruz's statement was ambiguous and that CNN was reasonable in its belief that DERSHOWITZZ argued, quote, that presidents cannot be impeached for actions taken to win an election if the president believes his own victory would be in the public interest regardless of the legality of those actions. That is an argument that CNN may present to a jury. But because the broadcast did not present a fair and accurate abridgment of Dershowitz's remarks, CNN cannot avail itself of the fair report privilege.

0:24:53 Thomas: Hmm. Interesting. So it kind of sidesteps that and says you'd have to basically, again, yeah, you'd have to go to trial.

0:24:58 Lydia: At this stage, yeah. Yeah, exactly. Finally, CNN argues that the media has no obligation to present additional information that would present a subject in a better light. This, too, is correct. In L 'Oreal v. Telemundo of Florida, LLC, the fair -report privilege applied to a report that the plaintiff was arrested during a raid conducted as part of a long -term undercover narcotics investigation. The Telemundo report was one about the undercover raid and arrests. The plaintiff sued Telemudo for defamation and alleged it omitted information that would have clarified that he was arrested on a traffic -related warrant.

0:25:28 Thomas: That's kind of interesting.

0:25:30 Lydia: The court stated that, quote, regardless of the charges against the other individuals, the fact that L 'Oreal was arrested On a Bench Warrant alone does not rebut or undermine Telemuno's accurate reporting about the operation's arrest or change the gist of the story.

0:25:41 Thomas: It's always interesting going through like the precedential cases where it's like this determines it because, you know, you could see why that was an important case because like, eh, that's kindof misleading, but apparently not enough. Yeah. Kind of surprising. So I don't know. I mean, this is, uh, it's just interesting. Like ultimately we're We're going to just kind of go along with what these documents say, because this is not meant to be a legal breakdown. It's just kind OF a retelling of what happened here. But I wouldn't have necessarily seen this coming that they that he would survive the motion to dismiss.

0:25:52 Lydia: Yeah. By contrast, the CNN broadcast segments set forth in Dershowitz's complaint were focused specifically on Dershouitz's comments to the Senate and, as presented on air, changed the gist of what Dershouse said. For the fair report privilege to apply, a defendant must have, quote, presented a fair and accurate report of the source documents. The CNN broadcasts do not meet that standard.

0:26:32 Lydia: Yeah, I can kind of understand the logic behind it, you know, like reading through this. It doesn't seem like an insane opinion to me, but I don't know.

0:26:40 Thomas: Yeah. So the fact versus opinion is the next section. And it kind OF already previewed that in that, you know, it kind of set up that just because you say something is an opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean it is. And so what the court gets to here is like, hey, once again, you probably have to go to trial because it's plausible that this is like a mixed statement of opinion fact and the jury, whatever, trial would have to untangle that. Now, the actual malice, though, the way he's going to get around this, and again, Dershowitz is a lawyer. As long as you kind of allege stuff that would be malice, then I think you're pretty much going to get away with it.

0:27:14 Lydia: Mm hmm at this stage.

0:27:17 Thomas: Which, yeah, which just goes to show how bad stupid Baldoni's complaint was, that he couldn't even do that. Because, like, just to pick a sentence. And finally, Dershowitz alleges that commentators made their statements with knowledge or reckless disregard that they were false. These allegations for the purpose of surviving emotion dismissed plausibly plead a factual basis from which actual malice can be inferred. So I do feel like it's a little generous, but, you know, he alleged that they knew the reports were false and that the world revolves around fucking Alan Dershowitz and they did it all about him and all that.

0:27:47 Lydia: I will say where Dershowitz's stupid complaint succeeded where Baldoni's complaint failed miserably is the specificity Right. So the next sentence in that paragraph from the court the complaint alleges that CNN knew its reports were false It explains the reasons CNN and its employees knew the reports were falls It explains to the nature of the alleged falsehoods and it alleges who made the false statements And those are all things that Baldoni, because Brian Friedman is a lazy piece of crap, did not do. Like, they just kind of threw everything in the complaint.

0:28:14 Thomas: Yeah, you're right. I was defaming this lawsuit by comparing it to Baldoni's stupid lawsuit.

0:28:20 Lydia: At the very least, I mean, they had one sense that they were talking about, but at the very least they pursued it with specificity.

0:28:27 Thomas: Now, it's little interesting because they also said like, hey, we played the whole thing earlier in the day that I'm really surprised by. So go to next the fact that cnn played that weird

0:28:36 Lydia: Next, the fact that CNN played Dershowitz's entire statement earlier in the day does not preclude Dershouitz from alleging that later broadcasts of the truncated clip and the related commentary were done with actual malice. Viewers who watched the earlier broadcasts may well have been able to put the truncated clip and the commentator's statements into context. But for those viewers who did not see the earlier podcasts, Dershowitz's complaint about the later broadcasts at least reaches the required level of plausibility to sustain his defamation claim. The earlier broadcast and their effect on the issue of actual malice may be an issue for a jury to consider, but they have no bearing on the sufficiency of the pleadings.

0:29:13 Thomas: I don't know I feel like if you played the whole thing before it's kind of weird I feel Like this was a very generous decision but I'm not a lawyer so who

0:29:21 Lydia: The last paragraph of this section, in the present case, the court has before it only the allegations of the complaint, which must be taken as true, and the substance of the broadcasts. Dershowitz has adequately pleaded actual malice to survive the motion to dismiss. Whether the evidence adduced will ultimately satisfy Dersrowitz's burden of proving actual malICE by clear and convincing evidence remains to be seen, but he has alleged enough to go forward.

0:29:23 Thomas: Knows yeah

0:29:44 Lydia: So I think it's the art of crafting a good complaint can really help you clear some of these hurdles if you do it well.

0:29:43 Thomas: Yeah yeah

0:29:58 Ad: [Ad break 2 — ad music]

0:29:58 Thomas: So he did survive that motion dismissed very interesting but ultimately yeah cnn prevails on a motion for summary judgment now they prevail even though the judge there in in front of is a Trump appointed douchey seeming judge to me. So they had to go through discovery and everything. And there's some interesting things in discovery. And also the producers and anchors were deposed and all that. And basically, if he got past the motion is missed by saying there's a scheme and blah, blah, and they're, you know, they're whatever. Basically, the court's like, well, there's no scheme. Yes, it might get you through a motion is missed, I guess. But if your allegation is insane, like they were scheming to defame him in a way that would actually qualify as actual malice.

0:30:01 Lydia: Yeah then what happened yeah yeah yeah now that I get to consider all of this I don't see anything there yeah

0:30:46 Thomas: Pretty stupid. But there's an email where someone referred to him as Dershow Nuts. Email from anchor John Berman to a producer. Subject line, Dershow Nuts, need this for all panels. Dershewitz obviously tried to use that to argue animus.

0:30:51 Lydia: Oh my god that's

0:31:03 Thomas: And the judge said personal animosity does not establish actual malICE. Also, Berman testified that he didn't bear any ill will about it, I guess. Here's another interesting thing. Remember that column that when we read it, or at least the quotes, it does seem like, okay, that is kind of talking as though, yes, Begala, as though Dershowitz never had his qualifying statement. That's kind of interesting because in deposition, Begal is like, yeah, he wasn't really quoting Dershouitz anyway. He was sort of describing what he thought the logic would justify. Yeah.

0:31:03 Lydia: Good the bagala one right yeah yeah exactly well like like I said the extrapolation of that right

0:31:36 Thomas: Yeah, now there are a bunch of quotes in this that, like, it really seems like this judge is douchey and trying to grant as much as he can, probably anti -CNN or whatever. The evidence shows CNN's foolishness, apathy, and inability to string together a series of common legal principles, but that does not establish actual malice under the Sullivan standard.

0:31:57 Thomas: So, yeah, I mean, it's frustrating. For example, I mean this is how sympathetic this judge was. Dershowitz complains that he was defamed by the the way CNN covered his arguments, the blurring of the distinction between news and commentary fosters sympathy for Dershowitz's position. Dershowitz's complaint raises important issues, and this court determined at the motion to dismiss stage that Dershouitz should have the opportunity to develop evidence that would show that CNN's reporting met the New York Times v. Sullivan standard of actual malice. After full discovery, extensive briefing, and oral argument, the court concludes that he has not. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered, etc., etc. So even with like the most favorable, feels like pretty favorable judge, even that judge was like, yeah, not quite.

0:32:36 Lydia: There you go. Yeah. Yeah, Federalist Society guy. He's right there with them, but he's like, can't sign my name to that.

0:32:51 Thomas: But do you think Dershowitz stopped there?

0:32:54 Lydia: Oh, no, absolutely not. No, no.

0:32:54 Thomas: No, of course he didn't because we already know that. He appeals up to the 11th circuit. So basically this decision is going to come down to, you can't prove actual amounts. I mean, it's what you would think. It's Sullivan standards. You're not going to be able to actually prove it. What's interesting is the 11th circuit does a de novo review. So they actually take it on as though, like, unlike the Supreme court, they're reviewing the motion for summary judgment and they do it as though the first court didn't even do it. Like they just kind of do it their own, you know, like they, they take a total, they are not. Yeah. They are not looking like, Oh, did this court? Yeah.

0:33:23 Lydia: They look at the full picture. They're not looking at a particular appealable element. Yeah?

0:33:28 Thomas: Did this judge like mess up? They are now looking at that. They are looking at, they just do a de nova review, like totally as though it's the first So there's some interesting stuff in here, interesting tidbits that we get from this analysis. Why don't we read a little bit of this? Let's say on probably page eight. Yeah, the Dershowitz who no one disputes. Maybe start there and we read some of this.

0:33:49 Lydia: Dershowitz, who no one disputes is a public figure, has presented no evidence that CNN's commentators or producers acted with actual malice. To begin, CNN has offered unrefuted evidence that its commentators believed in the truth of their statements about Dershowitz. All of the journalists testified that they believed their statements were fair and accurate, and Dershouitz did not counter that evidence. Instead, he repeated a boilerplate objection that the testimony was, quote, scripted and self -serving. Probably so, but that does not render it non -probative, and in the absence of contrary evidence, questioning the witness's credibility is not enough to create a factual dispute. View. Dershowitz next points to a series of internal emails and phone calls at CNN, arguing that these show the network and its commentators collaborating to deceive their viewers and damage his reputation. For one, right after Dershouitz's statement, a CNN correspondent emailed then -CNN president Jeff Zucker that Dershouse had, quote, gone crazy. Yep, Zucker replied, him and Lindsey Graham. And later that afternoon, Zucker held a conference call with several producers, executives and, quote news gatherers.

0:34:51 Thomas: Love

0:34:51 Lydia: One producer summarized that, quote quote, very brief meetings take away as, quote, Trump legal team making argument that a president is king and can do whatever he wants. Another producer echoed that characterization. Oh, yeah. And what happened this year with the Supreme Court and immunity, you know, unbelievable. Mm hmm. These communications suggest not conspiracy, but sincerity, however, misplaced. Yeah.

0:35:00 Thomas: This yeah but also what's funny about this is it sort of shows the opposite of what Dershowitz wants it to show so read the next paragraph yeah they actually believe he's full of shit again you have to prove you don't have to proof that everything they're saying is like true you have proof that it was knowing falsity with actual malice and so if you point to a bunch of stuff they're like they don't like me yeah okay why Why?

0:35:34 Lydia: They don't like you. Yep.

0:35:36 Thomas: Yeah. Do they not like you because you're saying stupid shit and trying to make Trump a king?

0:35:40 Lydia: Don't we continue? To start, it appears that none of the commentators who Dershowitz says defamed him participated in Zucker's conference call.

0:35:41 Thomas: Yeah, yeah. It's good. That's also important.

0:35:49 Lydia: Yeah, he just like cell phoned a little bit there. And though Dershouitz argues that the emails reveal, quote, marching orders about how the story should be spun, the emails themselves do not support that contention. They contain characterizations of Dershewitz's remarks, but no directives or orders. If anything, the communications tend to support CNN's position that the relevant speakers believed in the truth of their reporting.

0:36:10 Lydia: What's more, the commentators all testified that they reached their conclusions about the newsworthiness and interpretation of Dershowitz's statement independently of any direction from Zucker or other leaders at CNN. Again, Dershouitz disputes this testimony as, quote, scripted and self -serving, but without any evidence, his objection cannot move the needle. And at least two commentators, Joe Lockhart and Paul Begala, tweeted critically about Dershowitz's statement while he was still speaking, or shortly after he concluded, refuting any contention that their opinions were formed a few hours later at Zucker's direction.

0:36:40 Thomas: That's interesting. It's scripted and self -serving. I love that there's a legal standard for this where it's like, you can't just say you don't believe them. Like you have to, you have point to like a real issue of fact. So there's little bit more. This is great. Cause so ultimately there's a lot of stuff. This was a long decision because of some concurrences that we're not going to like read in detail but I want to tell you about but I do think I keep reading this is fun I'm enjoying it keep reading a little bit

0:37:06 Lydia: Dershouitz also contends that the similarity between the reporting of CNN's commentators is evidence that they, quote, colluded with each other and CNN staff to smear Dershewitz, whom they all hated for sticking to his principles and defending Trump. Okay.

0:37:12 Thomas: Or maybe they just all think you're an idiot oh what a narcissist yeah yeah and again these judges are not this is

0:37:23 Lydia: Dershowitz's assessment of the CNN commentator's feelings about him may well be accurate, but it is also irrelevant. As we have explained, the question is not whether they disliked Dershouitz, Trump, or both, it is whether they knew their statements were false. Again, all of the commentators testify that they believed their statements Were true, and Dershowitz offers no evidence to contradict that testimony. The fact that the CNN commentators all presented similar interpretations of Dershowitz's statements, as did many other news outlets at the time, speaks to ideological lockstep, not deliberate misrepresentation. Groupthink, however unwelcome, is not the same thing as actual malice. Okay, and whatever.

0:38:00 Thomas: Florida I think that they're likely full of shit in different ways and it's entirely possible uh again not the point of the show but I would imagine that if we were to get like a real lawyer to talk about that first motion dismiss like maybe that was even a bullshit thing the surviving the motion dismiss you know it's possible it sucks that the judiciary up and down has been corrupted so much by maga that's like you know I would love to just kind of read this and sort of take the judges at face value that what they're saying is actually stuff they believe I don't even know you know

0:38:31 Lydia: Yeah, yeah, and that they're a law robot.

0:38:33 Thomas: Well not even that just like at least it's like good faith but who fucking knows because like you said it's not ideological lockstep he said a dumb thing that everyone has the same reaction to which is that sounds like you're making trump a king basically goes to show a fucking narcissist dude with unlimited goddamn resources apparently causes so much trouble because he has so much time and money to make these dumb arguments about everyone keep in mind the point where I said he can't just well it's not just me. I guess the judges are saying he can't just say, ah, that's self -serving, not credible or whatever. He's seen discovery. So the reason that's not sufficient is you need to actually point to discovery of a text being like, anyway, I don't believe the thing I'm about to say.

0:39:16 Thomas: You know, you can't, you just do, you care. Just say like, ah I don' believe him. You know, he had nothing here. It was bullshit. He shouldn't have even been doing this. So I like this language. Why don't you read this paragraph? I just like that a final effort and it's out of circuit cases then okay this is kind of interesting so after that the court says a better comparator if you want to read that

0:39:22 Lydia: In a final effort, Dershowitz points to two out -of -circuit cases that he says are highly analogous, but neither comparison holds water.

0:39:42 Lydia: A better comparator than the ones Dershouitz proposes is this court's recent decision and Project Veritas v. Cable News Network, CNN. Anchors for CNN, also the defendant there, incorrectly reported that an investigative journalistic organization had been suspended from Twitter for spreading misinformation when the real violation was that it had allegedly posted private information. But there, unlike here, the plaintiff ordered ample evidence of actual malice, showing that the anchors had plenty of reasons to doubt what they reported.

0:39:50 Thomas: Interesting now look at that footnote this is how trumpy these fucking judges are look at the footnote whoever's writing this is like taking the time to dig into like fucking the arguments about whether twitter should have banned project veritas because the foot note note on the allegedly posted private information is,

0:40:29 Lydia: That too was flimsy because the private information was a house number in the background of a video.

0:40:30 Thomas: I mean, it is private information. Like if you doxx somebody, I don't know, but it's just kind of funny. Like this court is taking on like an unrelated, well, I guess in this case they would have been talking about it, but they're taking on how legitimate the banning was. Like that doesn't even matter. This is really interesting because they go on to talk glowingly about this case. You should keep reading because it's kind of interesting for a paragraph here. Because like you just said, the plaintiff offered ample evidence of actual malice so I'm curious what what that was about here I

0:41:01 Lydia: To start, four days earlier, an article published on CNN's website had discussed the true cause for the suspension. And one CNN anchor, who later echoed the misinformation claim, had already reported that sharing of private information led to the suspension. By relying on these contradictions in its complaint, the plaintiff had, quote, shouldered its heavy burden of alleging actual malice. Here in contrast, Dershowitz has offered no contradiction or other evidence that CNN's commentators doubted the truth of what they reported.

0:41:29 Thomas: Still think that's so fucking bullshit like they're almost bragging about like how project veritas clearly these people hate cnn which I'm not a big fan either but not in this way you know like because there was an article on the website that said the right thing and then because one of the anchors had also like private information versus misinformation if you're speaking loosely about like why they had been banned whatever it's probably a mistake but it's just funny to see them bragging about that yeah

0:41:55 Lydia: Your brain makes shortcuts and Project Veritas are liars who lie. Even if you correctly read off of your cue cards and stuff the first time, I wouldn't be surprised if your brain tries to you know do some of those shortcuts and stuff the next time you talk about it and you say misinformation instead of private information I would not be surprised because that's also accurate maybe not with regard to why they were banned from twitter but the activity that they engaged in is absolutely misinformation yeah

0:42:31 Ad: [Ad break 3 — ad music]

0:42:31 Thomas: So then there are these two concurrences this is too much law but it is interesting because it does kind of set up what just happened which is the supreme court thing because there's this judge that's like well my hands are tied it's this Judge Lagoa my hands are tied because of Sullivan but you know yeah

0:42:48 Lydia: The harm sullivan has caused in our first amendment jurisprudence

0:42:52 Thomas: All this is to say I agree with the district court that the only thing standing between Dershowitz and justice is Sullivan Sullivan and its progeny are policy -driven decisions dressed up as constitutional law, and they find little if any support in our history. This whole circuit top to bottom seems pretty anti -Sullivan, you know, but they are bound by precedent. In a footnote, it says, as the district court observed in the summary judgment order below, Sullivan is a great example of how bad facts can contribute to the making of an unnecessary law and why judges and justices should not be in the business of policy writing god yikes so this judge writes like pages like far longer than the decision

0:42:54 Lydia: Okay nuts yeah yeah yeah

0:43:33 Thomas: Pages of why Sullivan is bad this has been teed up for a while like people there was a reason people have been worried about this clearly this is a issue that many MAGA judges care about and we know that Justice Thomas cares about it boy this is pages and pages and pages then this maybe one sane judge Wilson did a concurrence where they're like okay concurring but But that fucking guy, I concur with the majority, but write separately to express my reservations about suggestions that the Supreme Court should reconsider New York Times for Sullivan. It was really funny. Like they're having this little rap battle about Sullivan, like in the pages of a concurrent, like they're all agreed. We're all agree here.

0:44:15 Thomas: There's this unnecessary, like the first guy anyway. And maybe you could argue Wilson is only responding. I don't know. Like, I doubt Wilson would have said any of this if it weren't for Lagoa writing 30 fucking pages on why Sullivan should go away. There's no reason for any of these. It just goes to show how much these issues, I think, are being teed up for the Supreme Court, you know?

0:44:25 Lydia: Yeah I think that's

0:44:34 Thomas: Or every one of these judges is probably always auditioning. Well, I say every one. Every one of the MAGA judges is, probably, on the circuit court auditioning for a Supreme Court appointment at some point.

0:44:33 Lydia: True yeah yeah I Think that's

0:44:45 Thomas: Somewhat. This is crazy. This one decision on Dershowitz's stupid case is like 10 pages, including like a bunch of the statements that Dershouitz made. You know, it's like, and then 40 pages of this battle back and forth between these two justices, which I think is so funny. Do you think Dershouse was done now? We already know the answer, obviously. He submits a petition for writ of certiorari. How many pages is this? Guess.

0:45:05 Lydia: Yep no

0:45:17 Thomas: There you go. 149 fucking pages. By the way, jay seculo council of record yeah he's got like a thousand fucking lawyers on this yeah one two three four five six seven eight and then also the american center for law and justice so eight attorneys jay secular being the council of records oh and jordan secular as well wow they're a team this is 150 page fucking petition for cert like it's so long god I'm obviously not going through through this but it's

0:45:12 Lydia: 52 171 oh yeah that's a normal person oh my god Yeah. Hey,

0:45:49 Thomas: Like it just keeps he just never will stop he'll never fucking stop

0:45:53 Lydia: Remember that time six years ago when they left out half of a sentence?

0:45:58 Thomas: My one sentence yeah and

0:46:01 Lydia: Remember, guys?

0:46:01 Thomas: Because of that he wants to overturn or modify Sullivan like I guarantee you talk to Dershowitz in any time before like 2015 maybe maybe I'm wrong about when his transformation started I guarantee if you ask him like hey should Sullivan go away he'd be like no like there's no no way. But now that someone has left out a sentence, he said, Sullivan and its progeny lack constitutional foundation and should be reconsidered.

0:46:06 Lydia: So self -important. Yeah. Yeah, crazy.

0:46:28 Thomas: Oh boy. In the alternative, the clear and convincing evidence standard and placing the burden of showing malice on the plaintiff should be reconsidered. You know, who knows if any of this is reasonable, but it's just, it goes on and on and there's so much. Now we finally get to what launched all this or let's be talking about this. The Supreme Court, this we can read in full because it's almost almost nothing. It's like one page.

0:46:50 Thomas: Why don't you go ahead? We can enjoy a good thing happening. Take us through it.

0:46:54 Lydia: The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

0:47:03 Thomas: Gorsuch, Thomas and Gorsuch. Wow. Not even Alito.

0:47:04 Lydia: Yeah, I know. Interesting combination. Alan Dershowitz sued Respondent, a major news network, alleging that it defamed him. Because Dershowitz is a public person, our precedents required him to prove not only the elements of common law defamation, but also that the network acted with, quote, actual malice. Predictably, Dershouitz did not prevail under that exacting standard which this court created in New York Times v. Sullivan. Dershouse now asks this court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents. The, quote actual malace standard for public figures, quote bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the constitution. He cites a bunch of different things they're all from the dissenting opinions of court cases by the way just want to call that out including the well I guess not dissenting for lagoa but the concurrence but within the concurrence calling out sullivan

0:47:43 Thomas: Yeah, well, the concurrences. Yeah yeah. So there you go. All the legwork that we just kind of described and

0:47:58 Lydia: Yep instead the founding generation believed that if anything public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed okay I and others he cites himself yep I and Others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual malice standard for public figures and cites, again, Gorsuch now from a dissent, I would have granted certiorari to do so in this case.

0:48:06 Thomas: He cites himself. Yeah so he cites, I mean fair enough, and Goresuch is also dissenting here. Here. So he's like, I and others, including this guy here, who's also done this exact thing before in a different thing.

0:48:31 Lydia: So they're eager to do this.

0:48:33 Thomas: You got two.

0:48:34 Lydia: But I do wonder if others might be convinced, depending on the case, depending on the cause. You don't think so? You don'T think Alito would know?

0:48:37 Thomas: I don't think so. Well, I was just going to say as no, I think he would have, what is he holding back for? Yeah. He would have just done it here too. They do that or they did the fucking birthright citizenship case

0:48:45 Lydia: Oh, that like he would have just done it here, too? Yeah. Yeah, that's true.

0:48:51 Thomas: Was five, four. It's insane. Absolutely insane. This court's insane, but even still, what I was going to Say is that shows the staying power and how much New York Times v. Sullivan is actually supported in the mainstream legal anything that only two of this insane idiot court would even sign on to this. So there you go. The saga Mr. Dersh goes to Washington ends not with a bang, but with a whimper or whatever.

0:49:18 Thomas: I just love the, I know this is always how it is. Sometimes it's something bad, but when it's Something Like This, I can appreciate the difference, the sheer scale difference of the 150 -page bullshit petition for cert and the like, it should have just been one line if it weren't for Justice Thomas would have been like, no, thanks. Ah, good times.

0:49:34 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Denied.

0:49:38 Thomas: Can you imagine turning one sentence, one sentence that they left out into a six and a half year legal battle? This probably was tens of millions. It might've been, I don't know, six

0:49:42 Lydia: No. Just six and a half here. I know. Yeah.

0:49:49 Thomas: And half years, like six and a half years actively litigated pretty much that whole time. So there you go. This guy fucking, that's how petty this guy is. This explains the pierogi incident the everything incident like this fucking narcissist like he turned this one sentence into this like literally it's got to be in the tens of millions has to be

0:50:12 Lydia: -hmm. It's crazy. It's just unbelievable. Right?

0:50:15 Thomas: All probably because he imagined himself being the face of like he's going to be the new name that everyone says oh well now dershowitz v whatever cnn you know that's that's when they

0:50:26 Lydia: It's what he wants his legacy to be.

0:50:26 Thomas: They took on Sullivan. Yeah. Ah, this guy sucks so much. Well, thank you, Gavallinos, for listening to that. It was just interesting to read some of that and relive the impeachment and stuff and like the stupid, stupid thing the Dershowitz did. And it's nice that it's finally over. What?

0:50:44 Lydia: Until he can find his next thing to complain about.

0:51:07 Lydia: Dun -dun -dum -duh -dud -dah -doh -dung. That'd be good.

0:51:11 Thomas: Or maybe they just all think you're an idiot.