NEW Summer House Audio Leaks, More Blake Lively Unsealings & Kimmel Defends Trump 'Widow' Joke

Summary

No Filter With Zack Peter – Episode Summary

Episode Title: NEW Summer House Audio Leaks, More Blake Lively Unsealings & Kimmel Defends Trump 'Widow' Joke
Date: April 28, 2026
Host: Zack Peter

---

Episode Overview

In this caffeinated, rapid-fire episode, Zack Peter dives into three buzzy pop culture headlines:

1. Fresh “Summer House” reunion audio leaks and the alleged Bravo production drama behind them.
2. The latest legal developments in the Blake Lively vs. Wayfarer case, with a focus on court theatrics, expert testimony, and “DULU” chaos.
3. Jimmy Kimmel feuding with Melania Trump over his controversial “widow” joke and the state of cancel culture vs. free speech.

Zack keeps his trademark blunt, irreverent tone throughout, mixing inside scoops, snarky commentary, and real-time reactions to hot topics in reality TV and entertainment law.

---

1. Summer House Reunion Audio Leaks

[01:19–14:30]

Key Points

• Ongoing Audio Leaks: Two new juicy clips from the “Summer House” reunion surfaced online following Bravo’s previous leak and subsequent firing of the alleged inside culprit.
• Leak Theory: Zack breaks down a hypothetical “game of telephone” in production—suggesting a scenario where a crew member secretly recorded audio for their spouse, who innocently spread it to friends (“Donna”, “Molly”, etc.), and it eventually lands on Reddit.
  • “Whoever did it thought ... this would be juicy and wouldn't have ... consequences of this magnitude… whoever the Lance is in this situation, would lose his job.” (Zack, 05:10)
• Intentional Retaliation? The latest leaks are longer, more deliberate, and seem motivated by revenge. Bravo made clear a production member was fired, but rumors swirl about Jennifer Lawrence’s involvement as the “scapegoat.”
• PR Stunt? Zack addresses speculation that the leaks may have been a manufactured PR ploy to generate buzz for the reunion, though Andy Cohen dismisses such rumors (“Okay, Andy. Okay. Okay actually.”Zack, 07:30).
• Clip Recap:
  • Live Snippets: Amanda clarifies her relationship status and defends herself sharply when questioned about a kissing incident with Wes, referencing Kyle’s own conduct.
  • (“Guys, Kyle's making out with other people ... where’s the hate for him?” – Amanda, 09:43)
  • Tensions rise as timelines are picked apart and accusations of lying circulate. Zack notes how defensive Amanda becomes, drawing parallels to other recent Bravo scandals.
  • (“It just kind of sounds like Amanda’s really defensive ... not a good look.” – Zack, 12:44)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “I love how you’re like in the live chat, Ellis. Like, Zach was just using Donna as a hypothetical ... as I'm literally playing the clips.” – Zack, 09:06
• “Jokingly kissed Kyle. It was multiple kisses ... that's crazy to me.” – Amanda, 09:24
• “No, is just my boy.” – Amanda, discussing rumors about Wes, 10:43

Memorable Moments

• Zack’s soap operatic dramatization of the theoretical leaker chain.
• Enthusiastic anticipation for the reunion:
  “This actually does drum up some excitement and heat for what is to come at the reunion ... there’s real drama and real stakes.” – Zack, 13:44

---

2. Blake Lively vs Wayfarer: Legal Drama Unsealed

[18:49–47:00]

Key Points

• Coverage Via Inner City Press: Zack reads, annotates, and reacts to detailed courtroom updates from the key pretrial hearing about which expert testimony will be permitted in the Lively v. Wayfarer dispute.
• Battle Over Damages:
  • Wayfarer’s attorneys argue Lively’s projections are speculative and exaggerated (projected $132 million in five years vs. her actual $20 million over four movies).
  • Dispute centers on whether her lost profits and reputational harm claims are justified.
  • “She has a track record of brands not succeeding ... her expert didn't even consider or know about LOLhada ... this appears to be a business entity, potentially for managing intellectual property.” – Zack summarizing, 21:10
• Judicial Fatigue: Judge Lyman is direct (occasionally snarky), pushing both legal teams to clarify shifting arguments and showing impatience with Lively’s attorneys.
  • “He is so over this.” – Zack (paraphrasing Judge Lyman’s attitude), 45:00
• AI and Social Media Analysis: Wayfarer attempts to discredit Lively’s social media expert for relying on TikTok “comment likes” and even accuses her of using ChatGPT for the analysis.
  • “They didn't just take shots at ChatGPT, they said she didn’t even do the work. She used ChatGPT to write her essay!” – Zack, 31:55
• Key Legal Issues:
  • Authenticity/causation of social media sentiment shift.
  • Retaliation and reputational damage—can Lively tie Wayfarer actions to career harm?
  • Debate over sealing a “birthing video” Lively described as traumatizing (defense says it’s innocuous).
  • Court logistics: expected trial length (15 days per side), which experts will be deposed, and privacy for jurors.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “Are you kidding me? We did not just fall out of a coconut tree.” – Zack mocking claims about a nonexistent movie sequel, 25:20
• “Her report relies on her AI and it should be excluded ... She aggregates allegedly actionable and non-actionable posts.” – Wayfarer attorney (summarized by Zack), 33:40
• “Judge Lyman, mic drop: ‘Maybe mass audiences developed a negative view of Ms. Lively.’ Yeah, absolutely.” – Zack, 36:30

Memorable Moments

• Zack skewers both teams’ legal theatrics and the judge’s increasingly “Regina George” energy.
• Zingers such as “She is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. She had a 20 year track record. More opportunities should have been available to her.” – 27:18
• Continual snark aimed at Lively’s shifting legal arguments and claims to be the “victim” of a smear campaign.

---

3. Jimmy Kimmel vs. Melania Trump: Joke Backlash & Free Speech

[1:01:53–1:12:00]

Key Points

• The Controversy:
  • Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump as a “soon-to-be-glowing widow” at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
  • Melania issued a statement decrying the tastelessness and alleged incitement of political violence.
  • Kimmel defends himself, claiming it was merely an “old age” joke, not an assassination joke. Zack doesn’t buy it.
• Analysis of Cancel Culture: Zack explores hypocrisy around cancel culture:
  • The left defends Kimmel on “free speech,” despite past firings (e.g., Roseanne Barr) for offensive commentary.
  • Argues that if free speech is now the standard, “leniencies” must apply across the spectrum, not just protect favored figures.
• Both Sides to Blame:
  • Zack calls out Kimmel for fanning political flames and criticizes Trump and his circle for similar divisive rhetoric.
  • Expresses frustration that both public figures contribute to national polarization rather than healing divides.
  • “All the rhetoric all around needs to be down. Kimmel was 1000% wrong ... And I wish, like even George Bush knew when to unite the country after 9/11.” – Zack, 1:09:33

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “You know, we have his own wife who was saying she was cutting off family members that voted for Trump... They are very big proponents of division in our country and they want to divide our country.” – Zack, 1:08:10
• “We're all assholes, okay? I'm an asshole, you're an asshole. Look in the mirror. We're all assholes, okay? But we have an opportunity to be a little less of an asshole...” – Zack, 1:11:44

Memorable Moments

• Zack’s direct call for nuance and personal accountability: “That's the key here, is we're all assholes ... But it comes with the mindfulness first and saying, listen, I need to have a little accountability.”

---

Other Highlights

• PK (RHOBH) Interview Takeaways:
  • PK’s charm and ability to “massage” the audience and interviewer noted.
  • He both accepts accountability and (somewhat contradictorily) blames the “Real Housewives” environment for fueling drama and toxicity in his marriage to Dorit.
  • “He says he doesn't blame the show ... but then he kind of goes into all the different reasons why the show is toxic.” – Zack, 53:00

---

Conclusion

Zack closes the episode reinforcing the need for nuance, self-reflection, and not letting public figures set the tone for our own conduct and relationships.
“We can't be contributing to that in our own personal lives ... We have to try to be better people and trying to be unified with other people that we don't agree with.” – Zack, 1:11:15

For more hot takes and show updates, follow @nofilterwithzack and @justplainzack.

---

Timestamps of Key Segments:

• Summer House Audio Leaks: 01:19–14:30
• Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Legal Drama: 18:49–47:00
• RHOBH PK Interview Recap: 47:00–53:30
• Jimmy Kimmel Controversy: 1:01:53–1:12:00

(Advertisement and product mention sections omitted for focus on core content.)

Transcript

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

This message is brought to you by Apple Card Apple Card is a no fee credit card that you can apply for right from the Wallet app on your iPhone, subject to credit approval. Variable APRs for Apple Card range from 17.49% to 27.74% based on creditworthiness rates as of January 1, 2026. Existing customers can view their Variable APR in the Wallet app [e-mail] Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch terms and more at

applecard.com the most important People shape your life through choices, gestures and the kind of impact you come to understand with time. Vitamix Blenders are created with that same intention. Timeless, enduring and meant to stay with mom through whatever comes next. That's why Mother's Day isn't about more things. It's about choosing something worthy of her. This Mother's Day, give her the mother of all blenders. Vitamix Only the Essential well, we got

[Zach Peter]

two new summer house leaks, two new exclusive audio clips that have now begun circulating online after Bravo fired whoever was responsible for the leak for from last week. Crazy crazy Crazy Blake Lively. We have the the great unsealing. There was a new hearing this morning with Judge Lyman so we will recap that because the DULU is back out is back and then Jimmy Kimmel is actually fighting back. Melania Trump says that Jimmy Kimmel should be fired for the joke that he made about her and her husband and Jimmy is coming back swinging. So lots to get into. I hope you're ready for it. Let's dive in. This is no Filter with Zach Peter your go to source for all the latest pop culture and reality TVT surf Fresh all week long. Now let's dive in. Let's do it. Let's dive in. Everybody in the club. Lots to get into. Thank you Special KKS guys, let's break down the details. We'll break them down together. If there are updates, you don't need to put them in the live chat. We will discuss them and we will go over them as as the show goes on. We do have a We have two new Summer House clips from the reunion. At this point I kind of feel like Bravo's pissed and I Think whoever is leaking these is a little. Is a little bitter, in my opinion, because so what I think happened was it was one person on production that probably, you know, works there that sent it to maybe his wife or that sent it to maybe a friend. Right. We'll just go with the husband and wife theory. I was talking to Donna about this yesterday, and the theory I was using Lance and Donna, I was like, you know, for example, if Lance, who does work on productions, if he recorded something on the set, just sending it to Donna is like, babe, you won't believe what the hell just happened and what's going on. I know you're a huge fan of the show, but, like, this is juicy. And then he sends a clip to Donna, and then Donna's like, oh, my God. And then she decides. She's like, zach and Molly, I text you, we talk about these every day. You have to listen to this audio, but it stays between us. And then me and Molly are like, yes, please send us the audio. We want to hear it. And then Donna then sends the audio to the two of us. And now once it gets to the two of us, you know, there's a chance that I could be like, oh, my God, I have so many friends that are reporters in this, like, new. This, like, pop culture media world. I can easily send it to them and they can bullet point some of the topics, or I can give them a relay or whatever. And then, you know, or if Molly wants to send it to her daughter, you know, and that, like, it could then go down the food chain, right? Can go on to the next person and to the next person, and then it could end up in the hands of somebody that doesn't care because they have no skin in the game, and they don't have any attachment to Lance or Lance losing his job, even though he was the originator of the recording, even though it was technically against the rules, but he sent it to his wife and he trusted his wife, and his wife sent it to two people that she trusted. You know, it just. I think that's what happened, and I think it ended up in the wrong hands. Whoever did it thought that, you know, this would be juicy and wouldn't have, you know, consequences of this magnitude to where the Lance, wherever the Lance is in this situation, would lose his job, you know, and that. Yeah, because, like, think about it. If it's like, someone that got it firsthand, secondhand, third hand, fourth had, fifth hand, sixth hand, they don't know Lance. They don't have. They don't care what could happen to Lance or if it could affect his job or not. Like, they can go. They're like, I'm gonna hide behind an anonymous Reddit account and just post these because I have no, you know, no reason not to. That was at the first leak, though. Okay? We now have two more leaks that have come out, two more videos that have been posted online. Those now, I think, would maybe be the Donna in this scenario. Because let's just say, playing with hypothetical figures here, if Bravo then says, lance, we found out it was you. Jennifer Lawrence told us it was you. You're fired. And then he comes home and he's mad at Donna, and he's like, donna, I just got fired. I can't believe you. I trusted that. You weren't supposed to send that to anybody. How could it get this far? And then Donna's like, oh, my God, you're so right. And then if Donna's pissed that he lost his job, and they're like, well, now we have nothing to lose. You've already been fired. And then Donna's like, you know what? Screw it. I'm going to post the damn audio, and I'm going to get back at Bravo. I'm going to post the full, full bit of it. And so I think that's how it all played out. And I think. I don't know how Jennifer Lawrence got involved, but I also don't know how much I believe that Jennifer Lawrence was the one that actually cracked the code. It could have been like, she was like, oh, I saw this. Or I know. So and so and so and so sent me the video. And then we found out that the video came from Donna Bowling, and she happens to be married to Lance. So I don't know, Andy, you could figure those. You could put those pieces together. And then Andy's like, yes. So Elle says someone got fired. That is for certain. That is for certain. Because Bravo issued a statement saying that they. That they had released whoever did this. That's why I think these new audio leaks, being that they're longer and fuller, they definitely indicate that this was clearly deliberate and intentional to get back at the network. I think Jennifer Lawrence was the scapegoat. They couldn't fire her. Yeah. Or maybe the clip ended up in her hands. Maybe someone had circulated the clip to her, and then she went back to the person that sent it to her. And then they figured out, well, who did it come from? From who did it come from? From who did it come from? And then they traced it all the way Back. That's not for certain. That's just Bravo cya. I assume you mean covering their butts. Yes, I believe that is the case for sure. Okay, good note there. L. What did Elle say? Zach, looking hot and fine. Thank you. I be up in the gym, work on my fitness. I don't know. Do we really think this was a PR stunt? Like, it could very likely be a PR stunt, right? Like to have done all of this to like drum up some. I don't know. I know Andy's like, I don't care about. I don't care about conspiracy theories about this. Like stop and whatever. Okay, Andy. Okay. Okay. Actually, let's play the new clip. One of the new clips. One of them I think is like 10 minutes and then this one here is four. I'm not going to play the full 10 minute one because that's crazy. But this came from the Bravo Housewives Reddit account.

[Donna]

We again lied to our friends. It makes it all 100 times worse.

[Zach Peter]

And then why not mention knowing? I mean, if.

[Donna]

If could take a casual view viewer of the show to look at the statement and say, well, that's weird that they didn't mention Sierra or Kyle or kind of knowledge.

[Amanda]

I feel like I. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you say people, okay. And listen, I handle it the way that I thought was the right thing to do.

[Donna]

And if you're well spoken. That was a word salad.

[Amanda]

100 was a word salad. It was a thousand percent award. Not five. Physical with my own eyes. Saw you one night kissing.

[Zach Peter]

I love how you're like in the live chat, Ellis. Like, Zach was just using Donna as a hypothetical. And then she's like, donna didn't do anything. She wouldn't even play the clips. I. I love. I love you write that as I'm literally playing the clips.

[Amanda]

I jokingly kissed Kyle. It was multiple kisses. And I was talking to like, that's crazy to me.

[Zach Peter]

When was that?

[Amanda]

But that wasn't like an intimate romantic. Like, that was a jokey. Can you stop saying that?

[Kyle]

Wait, but you are married.

[Zach Peter]

That was your husband.

[Amanda]

Guys, Kyle's making out with other people. Kyle's going out on dates. But let's. Let's come at me for. For this. Kyle's still married. Where's the. Where's the hate for him? Where's the anger for him? We should not 100. We are not together. We are separated.

[Kyle]

Dating. Katie.

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

Is he?

[Kyle]

But if he was, I mean, I guess it's fair game.

[Amanda]

Kat's been my best friend since third grade.

[Donna]

So the. The kiss was after.

[Zach Peter]

No.

[Donna]

I walked in.

[Kyle]

I hope so.

[Donna]

We were coming from another bar. We walked into, you know, me, Jesse, and a bunch of our friends, and, you know, west and Amanda were sitting next to each other in a big. This was when?

[Amanda]

February. We were being silly.

[Zach Peter]

Yeah, we were being silly.

[Donna]

I was like, I'm gonna go order, like, 300 worth of food because we're all going back to West. He was too up to speak.

[Amanda]

Literally, when I got there, there was kissing. And.

[Zach Peter]

Yeah. And that was the first time I asked Amanda, like, are you hooking up with Wes? And she's like, no, is just my boy.

[Donna]

Did a PR person help you with that statement?

[Zach Peter]

Clearly not.

[Donna]

I hope not.

[Zach Peter]

Clearly not.

[Donna]

Okay, so then who wrote it to

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

both of y' all together?

[Amanda]

No, it. I was kidding.

[Donna]

When did you find out that this statement was coming?

[Kyle]

Less than 24 hours before it came out. Amanda texted me, basically admitting that her and last. Are.

[Zach Peter]

Whatever. Did you respond? No.

[Donna]

She called me, and then I had to wait 10 hours for my.

[Zach Peter]

Yeah.

[Donna]

Notification.

[Kyle]

Can I back up for one second?

[Zach Peter]

Yeah.

[Kyle]

Because we're. I feel like we're all just like.

[Zach Peter]

Yeah.

[Kyle]

And we're bouncing around and is getting convoluted up here. Okay, I just want to slow down for one second. Okay, so what I can't stop thinking about currently is the first statement as we're talking about statements when Amanda and Kyle put out the statement.

[Amanda]

Yes.

[Kyle]

So what I'm hearing is that the first time Sierra, maybe.

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

Kyle.

[Kyle]

I don't know. Whoever tracked your location spending the night at west was January 7th.

[Amanda]

Didn't spend the night at last.

[Kyle]

Okay, whatever. I didn't.

[Amanda]

But let's. I.

[Donna]

It's not.

[Kyle]

Whatever.

[Amanda]

I think this is very important details.

[Donna]

What is this?

[Amanda]

It was unreasonable hours. It wasn't unreasonable hours. I was not at west apartment until. Unreasonable hours. Oh, my God. It was a football game, and I was there with other people.

[Donna]

So I. I do want to clear something.

[Amanda]

Okay, what's your point?

[Donna]

There's something that I think really mattered.

[Kyle]

I'm just asking, like, hold on a second.

[Zach Peter]

I think you bring.

[Amanda]

Kyle, can you talk about your conversation with Katie DeLuca when you called her and she let you know exactly what was going on?

[Donna]

Then she came with Katie. She left with Katie.

[Zach Peter]

Oof. Oh, wow. Bethany. Wow. It just kind of sounds like Amanda's really defensive, and. It doesn't. It doesn't. It's not a good look. Um, she's super defensive. Now Amanda is standing on Timelines, like, it makes her a better friend. That's the thing is, like, the timeline, even as they're there, I'm pretty sure Wes is kind of just sitting there, like, I don't know what I'm doing. But the fact that she's getting so defensive and she's focused on, like, well, but that night, nothing happened, and that night, I didn't do anything. But it's like. But you were still lying to everybody. You were deceiving everybody. And Lindsay. Let's go. Lindsay. Yeah, I want to see an activated Lindsay. I want to know. Oh, I want to know if someone blackmailed Amanda with the video. That's kind of what's been insinuated, is that there was a video and Sierra saw video. I think Sierra has admitted that she's seen a video. I think that was in the last audio clip. I don't know. It's crazy. Wow, Bethany. Wow. But that's where we is. That's what it do. I need a beverage. This is getting juicy. I know. I'm excited. Like, this actually does drum up some excitement and heat for what is to come at the reunion. I'm excited. I'm ready. I want to watch it. I like that. I like that. There's real drama and there's real stakes in this. The cast is pissed at them, and Amanda and Wes are just like, we're in it together, you know, in love to the end. Kind of like, remember with Tom and Raquel when they were, like, you know, drinking and smoking in the back alley of the reunion? Like, that whole thing was hilarious. Hilarious. Okay. That said, let's. Oh. Let's get into the Blake live because she is cuckoo D. Lulu. She is cuckoo de Lulu. Christina says, I'll watch clips of the reunion, and I don't watch these shows. And, yeah, that's where I'm at. I'm like, oof. Because a good clip is a good clip, and when it slaps, it slaps. Oh, yes. Oh. I don't know if we're gonna have a zoom watch party, Mary, but we do have our zoom call on Wednesday, which is tomorrow night. Okay, guys. That said, I'm pretty sure you want to look cute this summer, right? You want to make sure you look fresh. You want to make sure your skin looks. Looks fresh. Right? And I know that my skin is something that you ask me about all the time, and I'm happy to report and share. I'm not a gatekeeper. I want to give you the scoop of what I actually like and use and I have to tell you, good skincare, like, it's getting good. A lot of skincare looks good on paper, right? But it doesn't deliver real results or even worse, you're sold the idea that you need 10 different products to have an effective routine. That's why One Skin really stands out. And that's why I love One Skin. Their products aren't about the hyper fancy packaging. It's real science. The brand was founded by longevity researchers who asked a simple question. If visible skin aging is driven by damaged senescence senescent cells, then what if you could slow it down without just covering it up, right? What if you could hydrate your skin? That research then led to OS1 done to run One Skin's proprietary peptide. It's the future of skin care, okay? It's the first ingredient proven to switch off those damaged senescent cells and actually slow skin aging directly at the source. This is serious science that fits easily into my existing routine. And every time I use One Skin, I'm giving my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen, and strengthen my skin barrier. Okay? Not only is the packaging super chic, but the products actually work. They're backed by science. Oneskin's products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data, including four peer reviewed clinical studies to validate their efficacy and safety on all skin types. Born from over a decade of longevity research, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin right now. And as you age, that's now and in the future. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code no filter at Oneskin co NoFilter, that's 15% off OneSkin Co with Code no filter. Okay? After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. So please show the show some love and tell them that I sent you. Tell them that Zach Peter sent you. Tell them that you're a fan of no Filter with Zach Peter and you're excited to be a fan of One Skin once again. That's Oneskin Co Nofilter. And use code no filter for for 15% off at Oneskin co. You know what they say?

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

Early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks, well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff. Come Summer with Verbo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only. VRBO makes it easy to claim your dream summer spot with early booking deals. From homes with pools to poolside loungers. When you book a vrbo, you don't have to reserve any loungers. They're all yours. All you have to do is book early. Book with vrbo.

[Zach Peter]

Premier hosts on vrbo. Deliver quality vacation rental stays with fast responses and clear instructions so you don't have to worry about surprises.

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

I asked our host a question about the house last night and he got back to me super quick.

[Zach Peter]

See, that's a premier host move right there.

[Amanda]

Wish I had a premier group chat. I asked them where we should have

[Podcast Host (Ad Read)]

dinner last night and they left me on red.

[Amanda]

I know you saw it. It says it.

[Zach Peter]

Classic group chat move. Don't walk into a surprise. Book a top rated Verbo Stay with a premier host. If you know you Verbo. Let's talk Blake Lively. Blakey, Blakey, Blakey. Achy, achy, Blakey. Lots to get into. So we're gonna read through Inner City Press's feed. There's so much. Let's see. I believe the hearing has already ended, but it went on for, I want to say, like over an hour. So I guess we can just read the updates that came in from Inner City Press. I guess I'll put them on the screen. That way we can read them together and you can get the full. And I'll make sure I do like a recap on Instagram reels and on TikToks, if you follow me on reels or Instagram Reels or TikTok or X. I'll make sure that I post like a little recap video. That way you're always briefed. Okay, so it starts. Lyman says this is all per Inner City Press. Let's make sure that you can. You can see it. Okay, let's zoom in. Okay. We're here for a pretrial conference on the issues of experts and damages. So that's what the hearing was about today. Was about what? What evidence will be admitted to try, admitted at trial and shared with the jury. So all of this is for them to determine which experts they're actually going to keep. Obviously, Wayfair wants to bump Lively's experts. Lively wants to bump Wayfair's experts. And then the discussion of damages, which is still uncertain, what damages Blake Lively actually suffered or not. So it says. Let's start with Ms. Lively's experts. And about social media. Ms. Alexander, let me hear from your defendants. So this is the Wayfair attorneys. Wayfair says Ms. Lively's expert is pure speculation. Ms. Lively's liquor brand was only around a day before the alleged retaliation campaign. So it is speculation her expert didn't speak with Deloitte. Deloitte? I don't know how you say that. Deloitte. Betty B's project projections were. Were they owned to fund to raise. To raising funding. The experts book speaks to this. Betty Buzz did not succeed for reasons that have nothing to do with the defendants. She has tracked record of brands and not succeeding. She has a track record of brands not succeeding. Her expert, Mr. Kenrich, didn't even consider or know about. What is LOL H A T A LOLhada? LOLhada Lahada Blake, what is this? LOLhada is a company linked to actress Blake Lively. It's mentioned in legal documents alongside Family Hive LLC in a 2022 agreement. The name has appeared in discussions regarding her legal disputes and business dealings. Okay, so it's kind of like a parent company. This appears to be a business entity, potentially for managing intellectual property and personal investments, rather than a phrase often used by her in public. Got it. Okay, cool. So that's. That's what the company was. I'm assuming the company is now defunct or I'm not entirely sure what happened to the company. Uh, but that's what Wayfarer is arguing. It says she may not have standing. And then the judge says, isn't she claiming lost profits, like from her company? And then Wayfarer says people didn't like the companies because people didn't like Ms. Lively, so she switched to it harms my business reputation. The case law is clear. Lost profits as a shareholder not standing. Wayfair continues. Ms. Lively's expert, Richard Marks, says she is going to end 132 million in five years. But she's only made just over 20 million on only four movies. He claims there is a sequel to. It ends with us. It's never going to happen. This is the part that I thought was really funny, that she's trying to argue that it ends with us. Was supposed to have the sequel. It starts with us. And she's making it seem like that was going to happen. And I'm losing that money I was supposed to do. It starts with us. I'm the star. And then we didn't get to do it because. Which also just goes to Wayfarer's motive. Insane. Why would they. If they had the rights and that everybody was under the understanding that they were going to be moving forward with it starts with us, the sequel to it ends with us. Then why would they tarnish their lead actress? That hurts them too. It hurts them more so than it hurts Lively, who is. And they say that she's only made 20 million over the course of four different movies. That's what, 5 million that she gets paid per movie. Not too shabby. So she got paid 5 million for another simple favor for I thought she only got 1 million for a dance with us. Maybe some were a little more and some are a little less. Okay, let's continue. But I just think it's hilarious that she's just like there was a sequel. I was supposed to be in the sequel. Like I'm the star of the movie. And then it's like well okay, well then if that's the argument that you're making, then you're just further validating why Wayfair would have motivation to keep the mo. The franchise afloat. Wayfair continues. Executives at Sony said that she was a terrorist. So this sequel not going to happen. Mr. Marx claims that it would be a blockbuster but he's no expert on that. He corroborated his findings with statements of her agent and her manager. It's unrealistic. Ms. Lively has only. Especially because again there's just no motivation for Wayfair to act on this and tarnish the franchise that they had that was already successful. Ms. Lively has only a sporadic work history. Four movies in eight years. Mr. Marks. Projects. Projects her working around the clock. Yeah, the projections that are put together like she was working non stop. But it's like to their point she's only done four movies in the course of eight different years. So she doesn't work consistently. She doesn't need to. She has Ryan Reynolds. And then the judge says okay, you got three minutes for rebuttal counsel for Lively. And then Lively's attorneys jump in and they say she seeks economic and non economic her hair care line, Mr. Kinrich compared to it of other comparable companies. Well I'm sure they are comparable companies in terms of they have hair care but not in terms of who's the face of the brand. And Blake Lively is not a very likable. Well I shouldn't say likable face because then that insinuates that she's ugly and she's not ugly. I think she's actually a beautiful woman. She just is ugly on the inside. Ms. Lively is already has a large following of 40 million followers. I think it was up to that. We can't predict the future, but there are real world facts. The products made $7 million and exceeded the expectations. And then Lineman says, I didn't read it that way. And Lively's attorney's response. There are always some discrepancies. It was. It was wildly off the mark. It wasn't wildly off the mark. We alleged retaliation started August 10th. The few days are key. This is a company Ms. Lively invested herself into for seven years, wiped out in days due to this conflict. Even if the court finds that Ms. Lively cannot recover economic damages directly, reputational harm doesn't require a calculation. This is an interesting argument that they then make. This jury has to have some basis to estimate the reputational harm. These are product lines that were based off of her line, the beverage line. The harm is direct evidence of the value of her reputation. Lyman says, you got two minutes, Mr. Marks. He bases his opinion on lengthy side of history of Ms. Lively's earnings. Based on the success of events with us, it would have opened new opportunities. He has 50 years of industry experience. And Judge Lyman says, was it a blockbuster success? And then Lively's attorney says, that's up to the jury. The expert is not required to say he identified the maximum number of opportunities for an actress of her stature. The jury would have to decide. There would be no sequel. There's evidence Mr. Baldoni wanted her to direct it. Oh, come on. Are you kidding me? Do they think we just fell out of a coconut tree? That Justin Baldoni was serious about her? He didn't say she should direct the sequel. He said, I think she's ready to direct. That's the red carpet interview. After he was allowed to leave the basement and he was walking the red carpet, and then they were like, you know, what's going on with Ms. Lively? And he's just like, oh, she. You know, he's like, you know what? Blake is great. She's ready to. Which, again, a statement that he made publicly during the alleged smear campaign, that he publicly made a nice thing that he said about Blake Lively during the alleged smear campaign, which shows that he was not harming her reputation. So again, they're using things that actually don't work in their favor, but they're taking things and twisting them, and they're like, he suggested that she should direct the sequel. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Are you kidding me? We did not just fall out of a coconut tree. My goodness. And that's up to a jury. That There would be no. It ends with a sequel. I think it's very obvious there's gonna be no sequel. Like, what evidence would they even have to present that there would be a sequel? Again, she didn't want to work with him. He sexually harassed her. Allegedly. He allegedly was doing it. He had a toxic work environment. And so she's claiming he had a toxic work environment, but she couldn't wait to go and get onto the sequel. Like, again. Are you kidding me? This is so stupid. It's stupid. Did they factor the reviews from social media about her hair care products? I don't think so. But it would determine when those reviews were placed. Were they placed before or after the alleged smear campaign? Retaliation campaign. Okay, let's see. Where were we? There's no. There's evidence that Mr. Bounce only wanted her to direct her. She's nuts. This lady is cuckoo for cocoa pups. She had a 20 year track record. More opportunities should have been available to her. Mr. Mark's opinion should be admitted. And then Wayfair's attorney jumps in and says, the Burden is on Ms. Lively and she had failed. She is seeking pie in the sky damages. Oh, we are shady today. He said. Okay, next Dober argument. Now Wayfairs, other attorneys. Now, it's uncertain which attorney is speaking because Inner City Press is just referring to them as Wayfair's attorney or Wayfair's second attorney. So it's unclear if it's Friedman or who. If Gottlieb is speaking or who it is. We're just. We just know it. In terms of Wayfair and Lively, Wayfair says her experts say they detected manipulation of social media, but the measurements are not probative of anything relevant in the case. I'll start with Colada. And then Lyman says, you seek exclusion. And they say, yes, Ms. Lively's expert relies on TikTok. Comment scores is not probative. Every single ratio or metric is not probative. And then Lyman says, let's focus on TikTok. Do you dispute that he has offered enough evidence? And Wayfair says, we do dispute it. And the judge says. He says there were an unusual under of, like an unusual number of likes on the comments rather than the post. Okay, so because the post had 100 likes, but then the comments on the post had what, 2,000 likes? Like that. That's what we're gauging here. That these likes on the comments were not real. Hello. Do you not realize how social media works? We live for the comments. We run to the comments. When we see a good post, you run to the comments and look for all the funny comments, all the snarky comments, all the good comments that you want to you end up liking. I like more of the comment because also you can only like a post one time. But if I'm scrolling through the comments, I can like 10, 20, 50 different comments if I want to. And those are 10, 20, 50 different likes that are then being added to those posts. So I don't understand they clearly don't understand how social media works, or they're hoping that the judge doesn't understand how social media likes works okay. Wayfair says usually doesn't mean it's inauthentic. Users sometimes react unusually to celebrity feuds. He focused on certain hashtags with the top comment score elevated. Judge Engelmeier of the court of this court in 2020 said that the courtroom is not the place for innovation. For example, on measuring social media manipulation, the premiere showed the rift with Mr. Baldoni excluded. She launched her hair care brand. Ms. Lively was criticized for during the launch of a film about domestic violence promoting her alcohol brand and her husband's gin brand. This was his superhero. There was his superhero film. Professor Maislin ignores all of this. It is not a discontinuity. Discontinuity design. Professor Maislin's use of artificial intelligence. Oof. The shade incorrectly classified many posts. The model misunderstood her instructions. It picked up posts that were negative about Anyone, not just Ms. Lively. She used ChatGPT4. It has not been. It has been criticized. Oof. We're not coming for ChatGPT. They took shots at ChatGPT. They didn't just take shots at ChatGPT. They said she didn't even do the work. She used ChatGPT to write her essay. I love it. I love it. I love it, love it. Okay, there's the shade of ChatGPT, then Wayfarers. Wayfarer says she certainly did not look through 1.1 million posts. So her report relies on her AI and it should be excluded. She she aggregates allegedly actionable and non actionable posts. And then Lyman says one minute from the 12 minute mark. And then Lyman says I'll hear from your adversary. And then lively says, Dr. Colada, did he say your adversary? As like, was the judge being shady when he said I'll hear from your adversary or was he being literal? Lively's attorney says, Dr. Colada, my friend objects to the case law. What? Your Honor has addressed this. In US vs Ray nefarious actors Engage in algorithmic manipulation. Lyman says. Okay. Any more studies? Lyman or Lively says, just the three. We have a wealth of material from the defendants that Mr. Wallace, as in Jed Wallace, was engaged in manipulating the comments section. Again, evidence they still have yet to present, mind you. Like where. Where is that evidence? Lyly says initially 1.7% of the audience engaged with the anti Blake Lively comments. That went up to 22%. It's indicative of. Indicative. He does not try to show causation. Maybe mass audience developed a negative view of Ms. Lively. Boom. Judge Lyman, mic drop. Maybe mass audiences developed a negative view of Ms. Lively. Yeah, absolutely. Elizabeth says alcohol in a film about domestic violence. What a great combo, right? It's like, okay. Truly special. KKS says Shirsty has the real data from her little bump video. Shows it went viral, not manipulated. Yep, yep. Nobody knows. Okay. Lively says, why not? Why only In August of 2024 there was a video, then a comment that her husband wrote whole scenes. It got more engagement. There is evidence of Jed Wallace Ron Ryan Reynolds. Dr. Culada. Is that how you say that? Culada. Dr. Kolada has an opinion about YouTube comments through the YouTube API about the little bump. He tracked bully related posts. Well, because she was being a fucking bully. What is bitch better? Like, what should we call her? What terms would she like us to call her? Why didn't she call. Did we not call her a bitch enough times at this point? Like we need. If she doesn't want us to call her a bully. I think bitch is very appropriate in this sense. Like now I'm. I'm full pro bitch. There were 14 before August 14th and then 700 after. Yes, because the little bump video. She was behaving like a bully. Oh. We came to that decision because we said she was acting like a bully. And so therefore she started acting like a bully. This is the temporal fingerprint. Useful to the jury. No. Correlation does not equal causation. Okay. You have to prove causation, which they have failed to do. They're heavily relying on correlation. Professor Maislin says that the use of AI is accepted. She had a trained model that was classifying the post. The errors impacted less than 1%. She conceded this and called it acceptable. As to Alexander, there is a new declaration on April 24th. Ms. Lively would be prejudiced. Ms. Lively would be prejudice. If Professor Alexander is allowed to testify without us being able to depose and test her. The since her change. She admits it was backwards. Her corrected data. You're out of time. Finish your Sentence. Lyman is done. He is like, I don't give a shit. I'm not doing this anymore. Like, he is done. Done. El says Dr. Pina Colada. She couldn't get a better references that sound like alcohol is activated. What is the protected activity she is saying she was retaliated against? I don't know. It was the. The CRA letter. I know that. And then it was the 17 point list. Those are the two things. All right? Ms. Lively would be prejudiced. Okay. And then he's like, you're out of time. Finish your sentence. And then Lively's attorney say should be excluded. And then Wayfair jumps in. Plaintiff's counsel claims these negative themes were absent before April 2024. Ms. Lively was called a bully, bullying Princess Catherine before Professor Maislin admitted TikTok data is not reliable. And on Alexander, Wayfair says it was only an error in the data file. It was not covered in the deposition. So we corrected it. Now the. The admissibility of evidence of the Wayfarer party's lawyer suit as retaliation. Okay, now we're moving into retaliation. That was just the experts. And which experts he'll allow and which he won't. We have to wait for his ruling on that. I don't believe there has been a ruling on that as of yet. Wayfarer says the complaint was dismissed, but not as frivolous. The court said that the powerful evidence that Ms. Lively provided her California complaint to the New York Times before she filed it. The dismissal is based on an unpublished California case. I want to touch on Rule 11 issue. And then Lyman says, I don't think you need to spend much time on that. And then Wayfarer says, Mr. Friedman's comments were made after the filing of Ms. Lively's claims. They are entitled to the same protection. Ms. Lively was privileged not only to file her complaint, but also to speak about it. There's evidence on both sides or Lively. Sorry. Lively jumped in and said Ms. Lively was privileged to not only file her complaint, but also to speak about it. And then Lyman says there's evidence on both sides. Lively says California law prohibits them from filing a defamation suit about a CRD complaint. Lydman says, if I accepted, your position would have a right to argue at trial. I don't. There's a typo here. Would have a right to argue at trial that Ms. Lively is a liar, that she propagated something knowing it was false. Lively's lawyer says, we'd be fine with that. But the court has already ruled on some claims Lyman says, I ruled on technical grounds. They still have an appeal. That is true. I believe he's referring to the Wayfair defamation lawsuit that was thrown out. And then Lively says, that's why this issue is teed up for the court on a motion. It's the court. It's for the court to decide if Ms. Lively's CRD complaint and her public comments were made without malice. Lively continues by saying, Our 47.1 motion says that they use their lawsuit to cause reputational damages. Lyman says, would that be subject to a retaliation lawsuit? Lively says, the Billy the Bill Johnson case of the Supreme Court says, there is an impact on an individual's reputation. And then Lyman says, haven't you talked about. Haven't you Talked yourself into Mr. Friedman's statements being exclus. Excludable? See, he's calling them out. He's like, not. He's not in the mood today. Lively's attorneys say, Ms. Humphrey's report goes to this. Lyman says, you're changing your course. It seems to me. Let me hear from your adversary. Ho, ho, ho. Let me hear from your adversary. Are there any, like, legal people in the chat? Is adversary something that they can. That they can like? Is it something they commonly use in court? Jader says, what does the. What does the judge seem to. Who does the judge seem to be favoring? It doesn't seem like he's favoring either, at least not at this point. But he's definitely making calls. He's being snappy with Lively's team, more so. I think he's just agitated with them. He's given them enough rope to hang themselves, and now we're watching it happen. Elle says, oh, snap. They can still appeal. Freaking love it, right? They can still appeal. Yes. Justin can still appeal, it looks like. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Lyman is the OG Mean girl. He's in his Regina George era, right? He's like, ah, nope. He's calling out Blake Lively's lawyers or Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively's lawyers. He's being snappy with them. That's what I'm saying. I think he's finally reached the point where he's gotten fatigued, because now he's even saying, you're completely changing your entire argument. First you were saying that, you know, you didn't want Friedman's statements to be allowed in, and then now you're trying to reshape, like, it's crazy. He is so over this. He is so over this. Okay, let's continue. You're changing your Course it seems to me. Let me hear from your adversary. Okay, now we hear from Wayfair again. And Wayfair is saying this was fair game. Of course, any defendant can defend themselves in a counterclaim. I'm confused by Mr. Gottlieb's. Okay, so it appears Mr. Gottlieb is the one that's speaking for Lively. I'm confused by Mr. Gottlieb's statements. He seems to argue that a defendant cannot defend their case under 47.1. Rule 11 has a different standard. And then Lyman says, let me hear on bifurcate. Bifurcation. What the. What is bifurcation? Bifurcation is the splitting of a system, path, or structure into two. Oh. Into two distinct branches or parts. Okay, so the divi. Okay, so he. He's like, let me hear how these things should be split. Okay. And then Lively jumps in, and she says, Mr. Sarawitz spoke of spending $100 million on this. Even if Ms. Lively was not aware of other people's experience, it still goes to reasonableness. There was a Mendoza case. Lyman says, I'm aware of it. He is just, like, not giving them shit today. I wish I could have listened to this live, because he is, like, over both of them. Okay, Wayfair's lawyer says Mr. Sarawitz is no longer a defendant in this case. His personal wealth is now irrelevant. If plaintiff would like to argue that resources were spent in defending, would Ryan Reynolds wealth be relevant? Oh, snap. Wafer came back. Punitive damages should be bifurcated. That was a good clapback. Scary for anyone accused of sh. What? They can. They can't defend themselves in the public. That's basically the argument that Lively's team is trying to make. Lyman is getting a taste of Blake. Well, I think he's given her enough opportunities to, like, okay, plead your case. Plead your case. This is why he gave her so many wins up at the beginning, because he's like, okay, you need this. I'll give you an extension. Okay, you need this. Okay, I'll seal that for you. Okay, you need this. Okay, fine, I'll give you another extension. And, like, now we're actually at that port at that. That point Kate says, it's like he is a different person. No, I don't think he's a different person. I just think he's. We've all been there where you've had that moment where you're like, okay, I have grace. Okay, I'm being forgiving. Okay, I'm being understanding. And then finally you reach that point where it's just like, hello, I've had enough, Grace. Like. Like, now I. Now you're just wasting my time. And he's. I think over him. Okay, let's continue. Lyman says, I'm thinking of next week having a hearing with three of the expert witnesses. One hour of cross and one hour of direct on each of them. Let me know of their availability. And that's going to be Maislin Colada and Alexander Lively says, we'd like to seal the birth video. What? And then Wayfair says, we don't need to see. We don't see a need to seal it. It's Mr. Heath's. And then Lyman says, so it's resolved. Any third parties have privacy interests other than what Mister. Mr. Wallace has said, meet and confirm. Why does she want to. Oh, bitch wants to seal the. The birthing video. Because then you'll see. You'll be able to see like it was completely innocuous. It was a pure video of the wife. Give it. It's wild of Lively to say she wants to seal the video. That is some fucking bullshit. You said this was the video that tormented you because it was. It was sexual harassment per your claims. And now all of a sudden, you don't want to show the birthing video. Why? Because you mischaracterize that and they're just like, nope. Actually, that's. That's. That's Jamie Heath's video, and he has no problem showing it. Like, bitch, you crazy, girl. The Delulu on you. You crazy. Okay, so he says, meet and confer regarding Mr. Wallace. I assume Mr. Wallace, that's Jed Wallace, wants to seal his client list. I'm assuming that's what he wants. To be protected. We'll see if that gets. I doubt that the meet and confer will go well, but. Okay, okay. Lyman says, how much time will each side need? Lively says they need 15 days, 15 trial days. And then Lyman says, well, defense. And then Baldoni's team, or Wayfarer, says, we asked for equal time. We are trying to get a stipulation that might shorten it. We are headed to the airport. And then Lyman says, I am working hard on the motions in limine. I'll address other issues at the end of the Dobert hearing. Anything more? Now, council says we'd like to have prosecutive jurors answer on hardship even before they come in. Oh, that's smart. Like if. Listen, if you can't. If you can't. If you can't make it, or there's some sort of hardship, childcare, whatever. Then, like, let us know before we even get into the courtroom, because that's just gonna waste everybody's time. And then Lively says some prospective jurors may be passive participants in the conduct alleged here. If they answer in front of others, it could affect the. It could infect the jury. Oh, no, not like her parents. Lyman says, hard for me to imagine anyone today other than a federal judge is not using social media. Wayfair says, why are we only hearing this now? These questions are too detailed. We can meet and confer. Lyman says, I'm not unaware that this case has generated some interest. I'd rather question the prospective jurors in person. Okay. It's been a long day. Adjourned. Who. Who is this? BKD responded, and she said, pretty interesting how with the limited character space per tweet, you can include every jab against Lively and none of her legal arguments. Maybe because she doesn't have any. Like, did you ever think of that? Like, you think that they're. You think Inner City Press is, what a team Beldoni fan. He. He doesn't like Blake Lively because the smear campaign influenced him. He's, like, not even involved in Lively vs. Beldoni. He's running from case to case to case to case to case. So, yeah, I don't think Inner City Press is trying to shade Blake Lively. I don't think he's part of the smear campaign. Okay. You whack a doodle do. Christina says, and a judge and a New York judge judge ruling for the first time on California law is wild. That is truly wild. And I know what's his name? Lyman probably doesn't really want to do that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. We'll see. Okay, so that's where. That's where we at. There's going to be more meet and confer as well. Hopefully have answers in terms of the motions in Lemonade, which Lyman said he's working hard on getting to, which is probably why he came in here pissed and, like, over Blake and her bullshit, because he's just having to do these damn motions in lemonade, and this shit is so annoying. Lyman is getting a taste of the games Lively and her crew have been playing with Justin. Yep, it's coming back now. Isaac says this is not even his most popular coverage on Twitter. Yeah, exactly. Inner City Press, like, yeah, like, calm down. You're being dumb if you think that Inner City Press is like, oh, I'm going to make sure I include all of the jabs at Blake Lively, but I'm going to completely not include her evidence, because the bitch don't have any. Okay. Elizabeth says, I saw you on Megan Kelly. Sorry, been a bit ill lately. Oh, thank you. I talked about Blake and Baldoni with. With. With. I lost my train of thought. Oh, with Megyn Kelly that I was on there. I talked about that. I talked about Nancy Guthrie. We talked about. About a few different things. The clip should be on my YouTube channel, by the way, if you want to watch them. If you didn't, PK from Real Housewives of Beverly Hills to pivot over. And then we'll end with Jimmy Kimmel. But PK did a interview on a podcast. What was the name of the podcast? We need to Talk. Which was actually a really. It was really good. It was long. It was an hour and 10 minutes. A lot of the initial, like, early part of the conversation was like his background, his business dealings, his upbringing, anti Semitism. Which, listen, as a host and as somebody that has conducted a number of interviews, I can say that, like, that was very smart on the host was to give that period of. Or to give him that chunk of the interview. You always start an interview by building up your guest, right? Humanizing them, making them seem reliable and trustworthy. That way the audience will fall in love with them by the time you really two reasons by the time that the audience will fall in love with them, by the time you have to ask the spicier questions, and two, so that your guest feels comfortable and they feel safe with you by the time you start asking the. The bigger, tougher questions, you're like, massaging the ego. You're like, so tell me about your childhood trauma. Tell me you are a successful businessman. Tell me about that. And then it's like, well, I see you just filed for bankruptcy, huh? So you just. You get them comfortable, and then you massage them into feeling safe enough to answer the questions you really want to ask. And so there is a big chunk of the middle part of the interview. Interview where they. He really kind of questions PK about a lot of it. And the show Real Housewives and Dorit. And I think PK did a really decent job of taking accountability. Now, I do know, or at least the word on the curb is that PK is very charismatic. And that's why, you know, he's a good businessman, because he knows how to navigate and he knows how to, you know, schmooze people. He knows how to be charismatic. He knows how to be loving and captivate a room, and he's interesting and fun and funny and all these things. Right? So I think he naturally has that. And that's why, for me, I was, like, trying to have a level of discernment of like, okay, he's naturally very charismatic, which is, you know, brownie points for him. But then I also have to have a level of discernment of like, okay, let me not fall for his charm. Let me see if he's being sincere. And he came across pretty sincere, obviously. Again, I didn't watch the first chunk of the interview because I didn't want my own judgment to be clouded or tainted, which, again, was the role. And the job of the interviewer, the host, is to make sure that you fall in love with your guests before you have to ask them the spice your questions, because then at that point, you've set a solid, fair stage for the audience to like you. And if you end up losing the audience, that's on you. Right. Because I've already given you a platform and an opportunity to look really good. So now that we have to get into the more difficult part of the conversation, now, this is where, you know, if. If you lose the audience, it's solely because it's on you. Yeah, I think that's. The interview is fine. He takes some accountability. He says he doesn't blame the show, but then he kind of goes into all of the different reasons why the show is toxic. So it was kind of like, I'm saying that I don't blame the show, but also I'm kind of blaming the show for x, y and z reason. You know, without saying, like, I'm not saying that I'm blaming the show. I'm saying that I'm not blaming the show. But then here are all the reasons why I'm, I guess, kind of sort of blaming the show. And he says that, you know, he does have some accountability because he's like, I need to know, was Dorit always this person? Was she always going to become this person? And I just didn't see it. Was she always destined to be the type of person that she has grown into be, or is it because I told her to join real houses at Beverly Hills and that experience tainted her? That experience changed her? Because I think it's clear that PK and everybody else. It's clear that PK and anybody else that is around them, like Kyle and Erica, like, they agree that Dorit has changed, that she used to be One way. And then now she, as Kyle said, is leaning into this villain arc. So we'll see. Christina says Zach giving us interview pointers. Yes. Again, I've been doing this a very, very long time. Doreen says Zach and one of your old lady followers. We have an army out there. Yes. Old lady pride also questioned to PK talk about the robbery. It seemed staged. Yeah, he came out. He said, I staged it. He came out and he's like, you know what? You caught me. I staged the robbery. I held story to gunpoint. No, he didn't talk about that. What's he gonna say? Oh my God, it was terrible. I mean, that's really all he can say is oh my God, it was terrible. At this time in history, we are all ranting. Yeah. So, yeah. Okay, let's move on to Jimmy Kimmel because as, okay, backstory, I touched on it a little bit yesterday, but Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump and we're not gonna get political or. Well, I'm gonna try to not. This isn't political. It's more commentary on the celebrity feud between Jimmy Kimmel and Melania Trump. But so during White House correspondence dinner, Jimmy did a fake, like roast. Because usually the White House correspondents dinner is hosted by a comedian and they roast everybody in the room and they poke jabs and it's hahaha. Right. Well, I guess that wasn't the case this year. They didn't have a comedian that went so well when they had killed Tony when Trump was on his, his campaign tour. But Jimmy Kimmel did a fake one, like a skit. And in it he made a joke about Melania, something about like, she, she smells like glowing widow, like soon to be glowing widow or something to that effect about he made a joke about Melania soon to be coming a widow. And so obviously myself and everybody, I think with two ears that heard that automatically took that, given the fact that there have been attempted assassinations on President Trump in the past, and being that there are many people that have expressed on social media with seeing him be assassinated, I think many of us took that as, wow, he's making a joke about assassinating the President of the United States. So Melania Trump then issued out this, like, lengthy statement about, you know, how it was inappropriate for him to say that she's going to be a soon to be widow given, you know, the political violence and the climate of our country and how that's continuing to. To rise up. And then Jimmy Kimmel and she, I believe, told abc like, when is it enough? Like, when are you guys finally going to stop contributing to this political division by making a joke about the assassination of my husband? And when are you going to act and do something? Right? Because we saw there were times like Roseanne Barr, who was fired for making a tweet. Again, whether you believe Roseanne or you are in support of her getting fired, I think culturally, we've gotten to a place where we're all kind of done and sick of cancel culture. So unfortunately, I think we're now in the place of having to accept, even though the left, it is critical of them to be or it's ironic of them to have been canceling people left and right back in, what, 2020, that whole era of cancel culture. And then, you know, now, of course, they don't want to be canceled. And now they're basically like, Jimmy Kim was like, no, it's free speech, free speech, free speech. When there were people that were arguing that with Sharon Osborne or Roseanne Barr. And so now I feel like if we're going to have that free speech standard, we have to move forward with that free speech standard, which also then, you know, doesn't mean that Jimmy Kimmel is automatically fired for that. Because if we're all arguing for free speech and we're all arguing to cancel cancel culture, then unfortunately, that means that there are people on the opposite side of the political spectrum that are going to have to get those leniencies as well. Now, that said, excuse me, Jimmy Kimmel then came out and he said that the joke was not an assassination joke. He's like, actually, no, I just said that because Trump is old. And so because he's old, it's okay to make an old joke, which to be fair, given that context, now, that's not to say I believe him. I do believe he was making an assassination joke. I think that was obvious. He was going for the shock value. And I think it was a convenient excuse to say that Trump is old. Because old jokes, I mean, we make them all the time, right? We, you know, she married him with one foot in the grave, right? Like, we've all made those types of jokes. And. But Jimmy Kimmel is too smart to know that if I make a joke about her becoming a widow, that's very likely going to be taken out of context. If there. If that wasn't the true context, like, it's very understandable how somebody would interpret that. So I don't buy that Jimmy Kimmel was making an old man joke. I think he was absolutely making an assassination joke. And I think he absolutely contributes to the political division. And I think he wants to. Right. I mean, we have his own wife that was saying she was cutting off family members that voted for Trump. So I think they have been, you know, based off of the history that we've seen with the Kimmels, we have seen that they are very big proponents of division in our country and they want to divide our country. And we know that because they have deliberately said that they have cut out family members and cut out friends and have encouraged other people to do the same thing solely based on who they voted for. Right. So there is a lack of tolerance on their side as well, that I think they're being. I don't know if it's deliberately ignorant or just completely negligent to seeing the reality that's in front of them. But I mean, listen, and that's. And the argument from, like, the pro Kimmel people, which is funny, because anybody that's pro Kimmel, let's be honest, you're not actually watching Jimmy Kimmel because his ratings are only good when he is talking about Trump and when they're fighting, other than that, nobody's watching Kimmel. But that's not exclusive to Kimmel. It's kind of the standard of late night TV dying altogether. But that said, yeah, I have to also say that, you know, it is a little, I don't know, a little contradictory of Melania. I mean, I understand the sentiment and I think what. The statement that she made rang true. And I actually think that that was, you know, a good unifying, sort of unifying statement that she made. But you can't be scolding Jimmy Kimmel when Trump does a lot of the same things. Right? And I've been cringing and disappointed in a lot of, you know, Trump's commentary or when you. He, like, wrote that nasty tweet about Rob Reiner after he was murdered by his son. Like, there have been a number of instances now where I'm just like, okay, like, you're not helping the problem either. And I think both sides are just continuing to point the finger at the other side, and then they're both contributing to the same fucking bullshit, you know, And I'm just like, this doesn't help anybody. This doesn't help anyone. And look at the players that we have in this situation alone. You have Jimmy Kimmel, who is a comedian. He's supposed to be bringing light to the world, light and levity and making us laugh during these hard times. And he's not he's making political statements, and he's turning this into his own personal political agenda. And then you have Donald Trump, who's the president and the leader of our country, who should also not be contributing to this. I think they're both fucking stupid, and I think they're both fucking wrong. And, you know, I just. I think they're both adding rhetoric that is continuing to exacerbate this. You know, and it also was really unfortunate timing that there was a shooter that was at the White House Correspondent center the same day Jimmy Kimmel made that joke. And so I think that's why you have to be mindful of the types of jokes that you're making at times like this, considering that you are flaming those. Those already high flames. Right? You're just adding more gasoline on the fire and then saying, but you're doing this, but you're fighting against free speech, but you're the bad one. But you're not listening, but you're causing chaos. And it's like you're both doing it. You know, all the rhetoric all around needs to be down. Kimmel was 1000% wrong. Yeah, he. I wasn't saying he was right, but also like, sorry. And this is where I don't like to read the live chat, because I feel like people eliminate that nuance and they pick their team and they dig their heels into the sand when I'm saying they're both wrong. Okay? They've both done things that have contributed to this, and I wish they both wouldn't, because, again, Kimmel is supposed to be somebody that's unifying and just making us all laugh. Right. And there's a way to make us laugh without creating more of that division. And then Trump is the leader of our country, who I hold to an even higher standard to. And yes, there are wins that the president has brought to the country, and yes, there are some losses that the president has not been perfect in and has been absolutely flawed in. Right. He's been able to do both, but every president before him has been able to do both. They've had wins and they've had losses. They've done good things for the country, and they've also done things that could hurt the country or they could hurt the economy. Right. I think that level of nuance is also there. Right. And we can't cry and bitch about every little thing that he does. Give him credit for what he's done. Right. And be critical of the things that he's done wrong, because both things still exist. But again, he is the leader of the country. I do wish he would tone down the rhetoric. And I wish, like even George Bush knew when to unite the country after 9, 11. And I think that's what we need. We need that leadership again, you know, and all I'm seeing, even when you see like Katie Porter, who's trying to run for president here in California, or not run for president, sorry, run for governor of California, and she's holding up a sign that says fuck Trump, I'm just like, that doesn't make you any better. Like you're saying that he's the bad guy and then that doesn't make you any better either. Like, I don't know what the solution is. I feel like it's only getting worse the more and more time goes on. And I think the solution comes back down to us and us stopping and not gassing up these players and encouraging this sort of behavior and this sort of rhetoric. And also comes down to us on a micro level in the sense that we can't be contributing to that in our own personal lives. Right? We have to be that change. We have to make that shift. We have to be trying to be better people and trying to be unified with other people that we don't agree with. Right. And we have to lead that country by example because the people above us aren't doing that. So I'll get off my soapbox now, but yeah, I. Sorry, Jimmy, I don't believe that. It was an old man joke. It was absolutely a, an assassination joke. I don't think anybody with half a brain would believe you unless they're blindly keeping the rose colored glasses on because they just want to blindly believe you. Because again, people have just picked their sides, dug their heels into the sand and have just, you know, left it at that. Okay, that said, Zach, I wish everyone understood that. I wish, too. But again, that's why it is important that we just breathe, take a step away, you know, put our personal feelings outside of it and just kind of look at it objectively and also look at how we're contributing to the problem. Right? And I'm not perfect. I'm sure I've contributed to the problem a number of different ways. A number of different ways. I'm certainly not perfect and we're never going to be perfect. That's the other thing is you don't have to aspire to be a perfect citizen, but at least call yourself out on your own bullshit. You know, I think that's one thing that I'm capable of doing and Being like, you know what? I shouldn't have done that. I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have pushed that hard. I shouldn't have made that joke knowing that that was going to upset that person the way that it did, you know, I mean, listen, a lot of the times I don't give a fuck, but there are times where I can have moments of self reflection, be like, you know, I could have been better. And so moving forward, I'm not going to be perfect, but I can be better. And I think that's, that's the key here, is we're all assholes, okay? I'm an asshole, you're an asshole. Look in the mirror. We're all assholes, okay? But we have an opportunity to be a little less of an asshole. But it comes with the mindfulness first and saying, listen, I need to have a little accountability to acknowledge that I'm an asshole sometimes and to say, hey, I could be better or, hey, I could have handled that situation differently or maybe I could be, you know, more loving in my relationships with my family. Even the family members that don't understand me or that don't understand where I'm coming from or don't understand why I voted for what I voted for or who I support, who I support, you know, so, yeah, all right, there we go. That's what we got. That's what we got. That's what we got. That's what we got. All right. See and isn't that funny? Because leaving this conversation, I'm pretty sure I will get Apple podcast reviews and people online like maga maga maga maga, maga maga. I'm just like, oh my God, it's getting old, it's getting boring. Like I, I'm in my business. Alright guys, I love you. I appreciate you. Follow me at Zack Peter all over the Internet, hit the like button, hit the subscribe button, do all the things if you want to keep the show going. It is a free way to support the show by hitting like button, by hitting the subscribe button on YouTube, by following on Spotify, by leaving a comment down below, by leaving an Apple podcast review or even just a rating. All free. All great ways that you can support the show. So please continue to support me because I love you, I appreciate you. I give all the lure in the club to the Zach pack. That is you guys supporting me right now. All right? That said, I will talk to you tomorrow. Tomorrow is only a day away.