A (0:00)

Well, well, well. Blake Lively, you are the biggest bully in Hollywood, and everyone knows it. Blake Lively is taking shots at me and my friends on the docket with her. Her proof. She's provided proof of a smear campaign against her. We're gonna get into that proof. We also have Britney Spears and her DUI drama that continues to unfold because now she has friends that are speaking out on her behalf. And then Savannah Guthrie getting lots of media attention now that she's back. But where was all this media attention? We were trying to find the lady. Where is the lady? This is no filter with Zack Peter your go to source for all the latest pop culture and reality TVT Surf fresh all week long. Now let's dive in. What's up, guys? Welcome on in. Welcome on in. Welcome on in. Everybody in the club let's get it, get it, get it let's get it, get it, get it. What do we want to start with? Blake? Britney, Justin Timberlake. Savannah. Should we just get right into the. The Savannah of it all? The. The Nancy Guthrie. The Nancy Bennet Ramsey? Because that to me. I know. Yesterday we saw Savannah return to the today show, which. Great, right? She's back. Guess who's back Back, back, back again. Shady's back. Tell a friend, Friend, friend Guess who's back. Guess who's back. Guess who's back. Vanna's back. Van is back. Than us back. So I was. Listen, I was cool. I was cool, common, collected when we were going on this whole, you know, trip to the today show, and I was like, listen, I get it at this point. Savannah returning. Actually, I should. I should put this disclaimer out there. Well, yeah. Remember, entertainment purposes only. I'm not here to incriminate anybody. I'm not here to defame anybody. But I do have some questions, and this is my opinion, so. And I also want to say Savannah going back to New York, I'm not bothered by. I know a lot of people are like, why is she going back to New York? Her mom's still missing. It's been over a month. But, like, yeah, it's. It's been over a month. Her life has been turned upside down for nearly a month. She has young kids that miss their mother. Right. They also have a mom. And so I do completely empathize with Savannah Guthrie and how challenging this must be for her family and the fact that, like, at some point, there's nothing that you can do from Arizona because if you could have done it, you could have done it 30 days ago. And you still did it. So at this point, it's fair to, to be like, okay, she's ready to just go home, be with her family. I'm sure she wants to be in her own bed again. Like living with your sister and your brother in law and your brother for who knows how long. I don't know how long Cameron was there. I think Cameron may have dipped out early, but she was at least living with Tommaso and Annie the entire time that she was in Arizona. They were staying in that, what was it, an Airbnb that they had rented. So, I mean, I get it. I get you wanting to come home. I get you needing to be with your family again, like your immediate, your. Your kids and your husband. The Today show. I was like, okay. She wants to address her colleagues. They've been very supportive of her. They've had her back. They've been, you know, talking about her mother. They've been, from what we've heard, exchanging emails and cards. Okay, fine, I got that. But then when we saw that it was done right in the windows with the paparazzi outside, I'm like, they don't have any other place that they could have held this meeting. Like, we, we held it right in front of the windows where everybody can see exactly what's happening. Which to me just felt a little, A little, I don't want to say forced, but it just felt a little, you know, showy. And I didn't want to believe that it was showy. I did, you know, I, I saw a lot of people being like, well, it. This looks obvious. And so here, look at. Well, I mean, and granted, she looks visibly distraught. Right. I'm not here to judge her grief. I'm not here to judge her grieving process. She looks distraught right back on set. Savannah Guthrie returned to the Today show studio Thursday for the first time since her mother, Nancy Guthrie went missing. A spokesperson said that she thanked colleagues during this during the visit, but remains focused on supporting her family and efforts to bring her mother home. I believe that. Right. And you know, she looks visibly astray. These photos are very clear. I don't know how paparazzi got these photos. I don't know how they shot them through the window, especially because it looked like it was raining outside maybe. Or there were like some specs based off of other photos that we've seen. Let's see, do we have. Yeah, see, this is the video here. The anchors talk about Savannah return. And so of course they're going to milk this for everything that they. Everything. See it was raining. Okay. So the windows were wet from what I saw in other photos. Like, that was the interesting part. And I think, see, how are they getting those clear of photos if they're only able to shoot from outside the window? And the window is very clearly full of raindrops? It's just strange. Okay, so whatever. Not trying to judge, then you keep going, and then it's like, boom. The Today show confirms that Savannah Guthrie is planning to return to the show. Oh, okay. It's a little strange that we're out here just, you know, preemptively letting people know, don't worry. She's coming back to work. Okay. So I'm thinking, well, maybe that's just the Today show. Right? Like, the. The Today show organized this. This photo op right in the windows. Like, it probably wasn't Savannah. Like, I don't know. Like, I was like, maybe the Today show is just kind of taking advantage of the situation, which also feels kind of icky because I don't watch the Today Show. But were they covering Nancy Guthrie to this extent when she went missing? You know, when time is at the essence, when you should want all of this coverage. But then I saw this in Variety. It says, I wanted you. I wanted you to know that I'm still standing and I still have hope, and I'm still me. I have every intention of coming back. I don't know how to come back, but I don't know how not to. You're my family, and I would like to try. This is an official statement published in Variety from Savannah Guthrie as she addresses the Today show staff. Okay. Why is the transcript of this seemingly private or intimate encounter like we saw? We. I think we talked about it yesterday. Was. Was it being filmed? We know that they were on the film. They were on the. The Today show set on, like, the actual set with the cameras around them. We saw that cameras were on, but it's uncertain if camera. Cameras were rolling or if they were capturing any footage of this. I would assume they would have released that by now. Right? They all. All the anchors went on the air, and they've all. Jenna and everyone came out, and they're all talking about what it was like seeing Savannah. So they're clearly using it for, you know, to drive the story on the show. But to me, I'm just like, this is a lot of coverage, and this is a lot of media attention for just her return to the Today Show. And I get it. She's the name, right? She's the celebrity. She's the One of prominence. But for me, I'm just kind of like, huh. I don't. I'm confused. Wait, what does this do? Didn't mean to do that. I just saw the little button. I was like, oh, what does the little button do? But so, yeah, like, for me, that's the part that's so strange, because I'm just like, where was all of these resources? Why weren't we utilizing them back in early February when time is of the essence, when there's an old lady that's missing and her life is on the line, that's when you would think that you would be doing every interview and every press conference and issuing every statement to the press. Now. Now we're releasing statements to the press. Now the Today show is investing in this. Like, it's just. We didn't see any of this. When Nancy was going missing, who was the one that was driving this story? The Internet sleuths, the. The people on TikTok, the YouTube streamers? We were the ones that was keeping this story alive. We were the ones that were digging into leads. We were the ones that wanted to bring this woman home. And I'm to say that the family didn't want to bring her home. I'm just saying the behavior is very interesting. Why not utilize all of these resources at the beginning of this investigation when, again, time is of the essence? I've always said she has the Today show, she has NBC. She has so many resources that she could have utilized. And then the crazy part was, is not only did we not activate every resource that we possibly could, but. But then the resources that we did activate still weren't even substantial enough. Right. FBI couldn't solve the case. Why? Because they were being, you know, reportedly blocked by Sheriff Nanos. We have no press conference. Like, I. I feel like I've been a broken record saying these things over and over and over again, but it's like, you know, it just makes me question things. And I. I feel like America. I mean, we had Nancy fatigue. We had Guthrie fatigue, like, halfway through February, and then we kept getting pulled back case again and again and again. And now it's just like, I don't. I don't know. I don't know where we go from here. I don't. It's just bananas. It's Sheriff Banana nose to me that we don't have anything. You know, Elizabeth says, I'm content to give the family grace and assume there are reasons. Yes, but my cup of overflow. Elizabeth, I feel like there was an abundance of grace early on, and there was an abundance of empathy early on, and there was an abundance of desire to help solve this case. And then the more and more wackadoodle it became, I just. My. My grace is kind of is wearing thin right now, you know, I'm sorry, but it is. Savannah's husband is playing a big role in how this is all presented to us. That's his job. He's definitely steering the ship for her. Yeah. And that's what's interesting, too. You find out Savannah Guthrie. What does Savannah Guthrie's husband do for a living? Let's find out what his official title is. Okay, so he is a political consultant, advisor, communications consultant, businessman. Okay, got it. And then I think she had a previous husband. Peter Orchard. I didn't even know she was married before. Okay, so Michael Feldsman, a prominent American public relations consultant, FGC Global partner and former Democratic political advisor who served as traveling chief of staff for vice president Al Gore. He is widely recognized as the husband of today's show anchor Savannah Guthrie. He worked for the Clinton Gore White House, served as an advisor to Al Gore, founding partner of the Glover park group. He is currently a partner of the North American co chair at FGS Global, based in New York City. Married to Savannah Guthrie. They got married in 2014. They have two kids together. Got it. He's just. He is not the Michael Feldman news radio host, Host of the show. What do you know? That is not him. It's a different Michael Feldman. Okay. I mean, we've known him as the cleaner for the. For the Clintons. Right. Did he really cleaner? Is he really the cleaner for the Clintons? Did he. Do we have confirmation they actually worked for the Clintons, or was it just in Al Gore? He was a senior advisor and key liaison between the Clinton Gore White House and Congress. Rather than in a custodial or clean. Oh, no, I didn't mean cleaner is in a custodial role. He later co founded the strategic communications firm FGS Global. There's no evidence to suggest he was a cleaner for the Clintons. He was a top staffer and congressional liaison for the Clinton administration. He co founded Glover park, which is now part of the fgs. Got it. He is a prominent political consultant and communications expert based in Washington, D.C. got it, got it, Got it. All checks out. So, yes, Gwen, to your point, this is somebody that is very media savvy, that's very PR savvy, that's very good at cleaning up a PR mess. Right. If there's a disaster, you Call in somebody like Michael Feldman to come and clean it up. He's like a crisis PR person, so you would think he understands the optics of this stuff. You would think he would understand and help advise his wife, who's also had an extensive career on television. The. Too many questions. I mean, and also, these are people that have insane resources, and yet we still can't find the lady. Danny, Gossip Girl says congratulations on your podcast. On your podcast deal with Podcast One. Thank you. Yes. I had steak and champagne last night to celebrate. I was very happy. I was very excited. Yeah. Thank you, guys. I appreciate you. It was an exciting announcement that I am now part of the Podcast One family. They have a number of different hosts. Stassi Schroeder's there. Adam Carolla is there. Yeah, a lot of. A lot. A lot of stars that have shows with Podcast one now. And I'm one of the newest ones to sign over, which I'm very excited about. So definitely continue to listen, subscribe. Hit the like button here on YouTube, guys, if you're watching this right now. And be sure to subscribe on Apple podcasts, subscribe on Spotify, all the places, all the things. Do it, do it, do it, get it, get it, get it. Let's go. Okay. That said, let's pivot. Should we. I mean, I don't think I have anything more to add about Savannah or Nancy or any. Like, there are no answers. There's nothing. I think the latest update as of this morning was Brian Enten was like, oh, I think there was like an Internet power outage. An Internet outage at the time that Nancy got taken. So, like, the neighbor mysteriously has no footage of it. Also super suspect, right? The neighbor had a wifi issue and so suddenly the camera didn't record the time Nancy was stolen. I. I don't know. It's weird. It's weird. Sounds like something a cleaner would know how to get rid of or sounds like something someone corrupt on the investigation might be able to get rid of. Don't know. Don't know, don't know. But what I do know is that I like to stay hydrated. I never like to be left thirsty between non stop work and travel and trying to stay active. I can feel when water just isn't cutting it right and I need a little extra boost. And that's when I reach for Drip Drop to help me rebound faster, stay sharp no matter what life throws at me. I got Drip Drop in my pocket, ready to go. Drip Drop is doctor formulated proven fast hydration that Helps your body and your mind work better. Which is exactly what 2026 U needs. Think support for the busy days long workouts and everything in between. Drip Drop uses science based formulas for rapid hydration so you feel results fast while you're getting three times the electrolytes of leading sports drinks. Drip Drop is trusted by firefighters, medical professionals and over 90% of top college and pro sports teams because it's engineered to hydrate you faster and more effectively than water alone. Perfect if your new Year's resolutions were to have better habits. And habits that actually stick. Right? Because we want to actually get get through it. I know it's March, but we're still in that that quarter. One hump. And you want to stay strong with your goals. Drip Drop has just dropped zero sugar plus. What? It's my favorite. It's a breakthrough formula with advanced blend of six key electrolytes and 15 essential vitamins and nutrients and no sugar or artificial sweeteners. It's delicious. Complete package, right? They have 16 original flavors and eight zero sugar plus options. They easily and seamlessly fit into my schedule whether I'm waking up in the morning and want to get hydrated. Maybe I had a little too much to drink last night or maybe I did a lot of sweating at the gym and so I need a little post workout bump. Right? Or even a little midday slump needs to be fixed. A little hydration can help get me back on track. Right now, Drip Drop is offering podcast listeners 20% off your first order. Go to dripdrop.com and use promo code nofilter. That's dripdrop.com promo code no filter. For 20% off. Stock up now@drip drop.com. use the promo code no filter. Love it. Okay, let's see. So. Oh, should we talk about Blake? Oh, Blake, Blake, Blake, Blake, Blake, Blake. Let's see. Blake Lively. Blake. The mean girl. Never liked her. So this is what's interesting about Blake. So Blake is going after you. She's not necessarily going after me directly, but she's using my content to prove or in what she believes proves this smear campaign. Okay. So I do have to give credit and credit is due where credit is due. And so I do have to give credit to without a crystal ball because she is the one that brought this story to the forefront. This was, I mean, remember back in January, there were a million different pages that were filed to the docket. And this was one of the the pieces of evidence. It's an expert report from a professor named Ashley Humphries. So Ashley Put together this report for Blake that, in their opinion or in her expert opinion, proves that this was the smear campaign. Therefore, based off of this expert opinion, this is why Blake Lively is entitled to her $100 million payout. Right? She's like, I need all of my millions because these people said things about me. And some. Some of them, in my opinion, aren't even bad things. Like, some of them were just like, huh. Why? That wasn't even anything crazy. So here, I'll pull up the din. Neh dinna. There are so many items on this. We do also have a deposition or a transcript of a deposition. I guess we can. Let's read through this and see what. We'll start with the deposition, and then we'll get into the other key pieces that they share. But I am curious about what she says in this deposition. Okay. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Dr. Humphries. Dr. Humphries says good morning. My name is Mitchell Schuster, and I'm an attorney with the firm. Got it. Have you been deposed before? She says yes. Do you. Did you do that? She says, yes. Oh, this is, I guess, something. Sorry. The transcripts are just bits of them. So sometimes as you're scrolling through the pages, they're not always. There are pieces that may be missing because these are only snippets or excerpts that they use to prove their case. So it's not the entire deposition transcript, only the parts that the parties feel relevant to include. So the attorney asks Humphreys, so you said introducing new negative associations. And you're referring to Mr. Friedman's statements about her line in a government document. And then you go on to say and or strengthen existing negative associations. Was there existing negative associations with her in the public sphere? Humphrey says yes. What were the existing negative associations about Blake Lively that were strengthened by Mr. Friedman? So it sounds like the argument being made here is that, sure, there was public perception about Blake Lively that wasn't fair. Favorable, but then Friedman came in, and Friedman made it worse. Okay, got it. Professor Humphrey says I would need to go point. I would need to go point you to the impact analysis. But at a high level, I believe it's the association that she was a bully and some other associations that are congruent with the alleged retaliation campaign. What is the alleged retaliation campaign? This is what's so crazy, because all they've been able to pull up is this place planning document where they're planning. Where they have. It's basically a contingency with. And there are three different options. One of the Three which could have been activated. None of which we believe were activated, because there's no proof that either of those three options were actually activated. And so here they're saying that Mr. Friedman. Brian Friedman. That when he made statements about Blake Lively, that only strengthened the media's negative association. Okay, and then I guess she refers to her impact analysis. And then the attorney asks her, was Mr. Friedman. Do you recall. Mr. Friedman. Withdrawn. Do you recall reading that Mr. Friedman referred to Blake Lively as a bully? And she says, yes, I believe that is one of the statements. Although we could go back to. We could go check to confirm. Okay. Do you know if Blake Lively ever. And then that gets cut off. And then she answered. She. Here's another answer phrase. It says. So what I can tell you, based on Dr. Masalin's findings, is that the phrase tone deaf experienced a dramatic uptick in the month of August, and I believe again in December. Maybe because her actions were fucking tone deaf. Like, are we this stupid in this day and age? Like, we all feel found the marketing of her tone deaf? Just because we all used that word doesn't mean that it was influenced in any way. It means, hey, maybe. Okay, it's like this. Let's say a celebrity. Or let's say Britney Spears, right? She got her dui. We'll get into the Britney stuff in a bit. But she got her dui, right? And then suddenly you're like, oh. And then her court hearing is on May 4th, right? So that. Then you look at the social buzz, and you're like, well, it's really interesting because on March 5, when it was reported that Britney Spears got a DUI, a lot of people were talking about Britney Spears and they were using the terms erratic. It's like, well, yeah. Cause the bitch is fucking erratic. Have you seen her dancing videos? Have you seen her raccoon makeup? She looks crazy. So, yeah. And they're like, oh. But we looked at the data, and then the term erratic came up again on. On May 4th. And it's like, well, what happened on May 4th? Oh, that's right. On May 4th was her court hearing. So, yeah, it brought up the DUI news again, and people had a collective opinion. So what happened in August of 2024 and what happened in December of 2024? What could potentially have been tone deaf? Oh, maybe the fact that she was saying, grab your friends, wear your florals. She was promoting her little alcohol brand while she was promoting a movie about dv, which. I'm sorry, that's tone deaf. Okay. Fucking Tone deaf. It's insane that we even have to break this down. And then what happened in December? Oh, that's right. She decided to sue Beldoni. And that's why people were like, tone deaf. She is tone deaf. Because we remembered the promotion of the movie, and it was tone deaf. It was a term that was used to describe her. And why are we all calling her a bully? Because the more that this goes on, the more we're seeing she's bullying people. Is this the smear? Are we in the smear campaign? This is it, guys. We're in the smear campaign right now. It's the smear campaign. We're in it right now. Oh, we use the buzzwords. Don't you dare say tone deaf. Don't you dare call Blake a bully. Okay, so let's get back to Professor Humphreys and Dr. Maislin's findings. Okay. Mr. Schuster says. Okay. Do you have any opinion as to whether a third party uses the word tone deaf. Is participating in. Wait. Do you have an. Do you have any opinion as to whether a third party who uses the word tone deaf is participating in a smear campaign? We get an objection. And then she answers the question. She says, I can tell you at the aggregate level, the term tone deaf increased dramatically during that period because we were talking about it because it was being reported on, and because, guess what? We thought her behavior was. Let me check my handy dandy notebook. Tone deaf. Jesus Christ. Sorry, I didn't mean. I'm trying to be better about not using the Lord's name in vain. Okay. Then Mr. Schuster asks her, do you know the person who used the term tone deaf? And then Dr. Humphries responds, or, sorry, Professor Humphreys responds, which person? The one in the post you were just talking about. So if someone used the term tone deaf, and they have, and I can't find the exact post right now, and that person. What proof of any do you have? Not, Dr. Mason. What proof, if any, do you have that the poster was. Was participating in the retaliatory retaliation campaign allegedly initiated by the defendants? We get another objection. And then she answers the question by saying, so I testified previously. I do not offer an opinion. I. On the retaliatory campaign itself. Oh, probably because you don't believe it. I can tell you that the dramatic increase in the term tone deaf occurred in that period as cited in Dr. Maeselin's report. And I can tell you from my impact analysis that that association caused reputational harm. Yes, but you have to. Then I'm not denying that. That all of our coverage may have hurt Blake's feelings. Right. It may have, you know, made her. It hurt her ego. That's the damage. Her ego. Right. But it's just. Okay, she's saying. Based off of her analysis. Right. Cause all she was able to do was check the impact of these terms that were being used that are believed to have been linked to a retaliatory campaign that they still can't prove. Question is, okay, but if the tone death was caused by Blake Lively, isn't the reputational harm her problem? And then the witness says, professor Humphrey says, I don't. I don't offer an opinion on that matter. Got it. So you just offer an opinion based off of how much reputational damage there was, but not necessarily at whose hand. Got it. Are you aware that Ms. Lively was the reason for an assistant director who worked on the film? A simple favor for quitting her job. That statements. Looks like we get another little cut. All right, so that excerpt is done. Then we. It picks up. It says, one is my analysis. One is the alleged retaliation campaign. Okay. The plantation associate. Oh, now we're getting into plantation Princess. Okay. It says, the plantation association is not relevant to my assessment of Mr. Friedman's statements because I base the damages purely on his statements alone and the damage to his statements alone regarding part one. As we spoke about earlier, prior association with Ms. Lively were likely of built into that before time period in Dr. Mesalin's analysis. And so we are comparing that before period, where that is already known, to the after period, where you see the dramatic rise in negative sentiment and in association, such as tone deaf, bond bully, and so forth, because that's how the Internet felt about her, that she was tone deaf and a bully. It's so wild. You can literally pay anybody to give whatever to regurgitate whatever you want them to in court. This, I'm saying, is for being a professor. You should be embarrassed. Who is this lady? Get me, damn it. Her name's Ashley Humphries. I looked her up. So she is a professor. And so it says Ashley. This is her bio. It says Ashley Humphries. Well, I guess this is publicly accessible. I'm not trying to. My opinion is that I think it was a silly deposition, but the deposition's been made public. She has a public website. She has a public bio. Ashley Humphries is a sociologist who examines core topics in consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Her research investigates the role of legal and cultural institutions in markets, the influence of language on consumer judgments of legitimacy. And the process of consumer co creation. She's also the author. Oh, so she has a publicly published book. So she is a public person. She is the author of Social Media Enduring Principles and her work has been published in the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Consumer Research, and Sociology Compass. She's an associate professor. Got it. Got it, Got it, got it. Okay, cool. She is an expert. Got it. I mean, I wonder what she thinks of me thinking her testimony is bullshit. What is the. What is the reputational impact of me saying I think her. Her assessment is. It's just my opinion. Right. We learned from Ryan Reynolds that people are allowed to have opinions and they can't. You know, they're allowed to feel how they feel if based off of the information. In this case, publicly accessible. It's kind of crazy. Okay, let's see what else she has to say. Yes, because she says that the terms tone deaf and bully were caused a dramatic rise in negative sentiment about Blake Lively. Got it. Attorney asks, well, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume there would be a rise in negative sentiment if someone had previously done some things, done some bad things, or said some bad things, Wouldn't people be predisposed to say, huh, so now she is doing xyz, but I remember a few years ago she did abc. Yeah, I'm not a fan anymore. Wouldn't those things be completely irrelevant to Mr. To Brian Friedman. To anything Brian Friedman did or said? And then we don't get an answer. Great. Are you aware that In August, from August 6 to August 9 of 2024, the film's premiere event, the theatrical release, triggered a surge in public engagement, including fan commentary, influencer reactions, red carpet coverage, and opening weekend box office reporting. Would you agree with that? Professor Humphrey says, I would need to look at the underlying sources, but I don't have any reason to disagree with that. You would need to look at the underlying sources. There was a fucking movie premiere, like with Blake Live. Okay, let's check the sources. Somebody grabbed the bibliography. I mean, listen, these are smart answers for an expert witness. I'm not, not saying she's doing a bad job. She's just annoying the out of me. Okay. Attorney asks, would those types of events increase attention to the film, the actors and. Or the. Let me guess, she's gonna say, I can't see. Speak to that. And. Or the drama that had been going on. And she answers. She says, so what I observed in Dr. Meslin's report of this very issue. I take it she's like, so I observed in my report of Dr. Meslin's issue of this very issue, analysis of this very issue was not. That was not only there was increased volume, but there was also increased negative sentiment during the August time period. And there was increased negative association congruent with the alleged retaliation campaign. I mean, correlation does not equal causation. Okay, but when there's already chatter around a highly publicized movie with a well known actress and her A list husband who's walking the red carpet, you don't need, you know, to check all of the sources, to use common sense and deduce what's happening right in front of you. But I get it. You're being paid by the Lively team to give this report and you're their expert witness. I would imagine there may be some loyalty that may be felt to them. Okay, question. Is it. Wait, does this. No. Okay, this one gets cut off too. Next question. Were there. Were they asked whether they considered her a liar? And then Humphrey's response. It was not in the public discourse, meaning it was not attached to her reputation. What about her being a liar where they asked. This is the hard part is when we only get the snippets. We don't know the context behind the, the, the line of questioning. So she says it was not in the public discourse, meaning that is not attached to her reputation, her being a liar. Okay, I think liar, liar, pants on fire. Now is it on the record? Because I said it out loud on YouTube. Okay, let's see. Okay. But it doesn't mean that people. It doesn't mean people were not aware of. It doesn't mean people didn't have underlying feelings. It doesn't mean that people didn't have underlying experiences about viewing her, read about her, observing her. So it could have been something dormant that her initiation of this very public lawsuit brought to the forefront of the conversation. Isn't that a possibility? The witnesses. I have no evidence to support that. Because you didn't look for evidence to support that. You were asked to find evidence to prove a smear campaign. And so that's what you did to, to mitigate reputational harm. Because she's trying to prove damages. So she has no evidence to prove that people weren't aware of her doing these things. They didn't have underlying feelings before. It does. She doesn't have proof of that. You know what's interesting though? And I will just to reference without a crystal ball, because she did share one of the videos that she talked about and she's like, they reference and they link out my video and then she talks about the video, and she talks about how that video specifically went through all of the reasons and all of the things that Blake Lively did prior and the things that Blake Lively was doing in real time that Katie Joy found and took issue with. So that's why for me, I'm like, huh? So she was actually explaining these things to you in the video that you reference is one of the impact pieces of content, and yet that you don't have any evidence to support this. This potential theory that the attorney is presenting in front of you. Suddenly your. Your professor expertise just goes out the window, and you're like, oh, well, now I can't speak to that because I don't have any evidence to support that. But you also didn't look for evidence. But then technically, you could use that video that Katie Joy was referencing, which you link in your report could have used that make it make sense. Okay, I have no evidence to support that. Okay. Do you have evidence to support the Ms. Lively engaged in prior conduct that would alienate members of the public? Not exactly. No. She doesn't have evidence that Blake Lively engaged in prior conduct that would alienate members of the public. And then they asked, do you think getting married on a slave plantation. Okay, so we don't get the rest of that, but you can clearly see, do you think getting married on a slave was probably slave plantation? I'm pretty sure he asked. You think getting married on a slave plantation impacted her reputation? And I'm very curious as to what Professor Humphries had to say about that, because obviously the public can feel a type of way about that. She's gonna be like, yeah, but that's not con. That's not congruent with the. With the. The terms bully and the terms tone deaf. I don't see that in the evidence that I have that I've presented to you based off of Mr. Musselin's report that I read for you. Thank you. So then the attorney asks. We skip ahead. And attorney says, but he doesn't make his statements until she initiated a very public lawsuit. So there would have been no reason for it to be in the public discourse. Very true. She initiates public lawsuits. Then you have Mr. Friedman's statements about the lawsuit. So she, you know, he's saying cause and effect. And then Professor Humphrey says, so reputation exists in the public discourse. It's the association that are connected with one's name in the public sphere. As my analysis shows on page 92 and 93. For example, the association between Ms. Lively and being a liar were virtually zero after mis. Were virtually zero until after Mr. Friedman's statement. Nobody thought Blake Lively was a liar. Nobody thought. You have no evidence that anybody thought Blake Lively was a liar prior to Mr. Friedman. You have. She says the association between Ms. Lively and being a liar was virtually 0 until after Ms. Actually, wait, can we go back to my podcast? Because didn't I say that I thought she may have been lying fresh out the gate? I, I said that there were red flags fresh out the gate. So I think people thought Blake Lively was a liar once Justin Baldoni actually came out swinging and had shown context to the text messages that were cherry picked and presented in the New York Times. So I think. I don't know. I don't know. I have questions. I have questions. Okay. So he says that there's no association to Blake Lively being a liar until after there was virtually zero. Zero. Virtually zero. Okay. And then they ask her, did you, did you ever research Blake Lively's company that she started with her brother? Oh, Preserve. Oh, we're getting. I didn't know. We're getting into the Preserve. Did you research Blake Lively's company? It was called Preserve. That she started with her brother? I did not. Why did you not? Weren't you supposed to be looking about, looking at Blake Lively's reputation? They said where the lawsuits that were commenced against Blake Lively and her brother for creating a toxic work environment. I did not. Why did you not? Because these are people that are making allegations against Blake Lively that may or may not have been buried by Leslie's own. Then they ask, well, that's because at the foremost. At the forefront of a Google search. Oh, he said, well, because that was not at the forefront of a Google search. Does that mean that it's not true? And then we don't get the rest. That was the last we get of it. Interesting. So that's what we got there with her. And then in her rapport. Oh, okay. Then we have this. Yeah, There were a number of things that she. That Blake Lively did that made the public dislike her. And it was not in relation to. It's not in relation to anything other than her own behavior. Okay, so here we go. Here we have. Look at. Oh, wait, that's me. And look at. We have the dates that I posted these. Interestingly, the dates that I post these. 117, 2025. 104, 2025. This was around when Baldoni was fighting back. 1227. This is right after. This is right after the, the, the lawsuit dropped. This is literally days after. I wonder what I said in that. 12:27. Let's see. And then these are the impressions that they got. And it's interesting because they're like, oh, wow. This one that came right after. Literally after the lawsuit. Not in August, during the smear campaign, but in. In December. That's what's so crazy to me, is that this was done in December. It's what they say. That that got 1.1 million views. My other one got 5.3 million views. This one got 263,000 views, which, I mean, you could think that they're probably going after accounts or they're going after posts that did really well. But you know what I found interesting because they're listing the numbers here, and we'll get into each of these individual videos. But I won. And I was like, I wonder what, like, one of my biggest. What was one of my biggest videos that ever, like, performed the best on Instagram? Because if that's what we're pulling from. And then I went and I looked. And this one, which is not listed here, what was the date on this? Okay, so this is an. The date on this one was February 3rd. Okay, so this was only a few weeks after. Okay, February 3rd. Just maybe not even a month after this most recent post. Right? 10 million views. 10.4 million views. And it was the yummy text messages. Why didn't we use that? Why didn't we include that post with the yummy text messages? The yummy text messages? Why? What? What? That would have been a great one. That one got the most. And it's within the time frame, right? That one got the most. 10.4 million views on Instagram. If we're going to go through my Instagram post, they also pull up my ex post. They also pull up and reference my TikTok videos. So I'm pretty sure there may be a YouTube video in there. I'm not entirely sure. So they have these where they reference us specifically and they quantify, like, the numbers of, you know, the engagement that it got here. They link out. Look at. They even cover stories from the Associated Press, Business Insider, the Daily Mail, Entertainment Online, E. Online, Entertainment Weekly, the Hollywood Reporter, Page Six, abc, cbs, cnn, C. CNN was in on the smear campaign, you guys. CNN was in on the smear campaign. My goodness, my goodness. My goodness, my goodness. Good afternoon. You are so fun to watch and listen to. Thank you, Sarah Smith. I appreciate you. I appreciate you. Wait. But I actually want to watch the videos here. So we're Gonna switch gears here. Let's switch to this tab. Okay, we stop it here. So this is. What was the date of this video? This was. Oh, this is the December 27th video. Okay. This is the December 27th video. This is the first one that's referenced. This is literally days after the New York Times article dropped Facilitate and execute a PR takedown of Blake Lively. Because that's what's alleged in her latest legal complaint against him. But outside of some out of context text messages and a lot of speculation, we don't have a lot of evidence to prove that. I don't know about you, but I remember the hit to her reputation going down just a little differently. Let's revisit. So I remember it initially starting with people reading her behavior and some of the answers in her interviews for before. It ends with us coming across a little tone deaf. It Ends with Us is in theaters now, so grab your friends. Where. I'm sorry, is this what she is saying? Is the smear campaign? This video? What? What? Interesting. Let's keep going your florals and head out to see it. Now, I know she wanted the promotion to be more focused on a story of hope rather than a story of a victim. But let's not forget she was also putting promoting her hair care line and her alcohol brand, which viewers also found a little tone deaf, given the nature of the film. And then there was some of her other behavior. Understands the themes of this movie. Comes across you in public and they want to really talk to you. What's the best way for them to be able to talk to you about this? How would you recommend they go about it? Like asking for, like, my address or my phone number or like my location share?