Due diligence is your friend, Elon. Twitter has sued Elon Musk for walking away from his plans to purchase the company and it’s hard to see how Musk gets out of this unscathed. Twitter’s deal lawyers negotiated a pretty ironclad agreement, Musk’s complaints fail basic logic, and Delaware law is roundly against him. But other than that, he’s doing great! We also talk about the value of impeaching Supreme Court justices for lying during the confirmation process — even if there’s no hope of removal — and we chat about the value of a good video deposition angle.
Joe Patrice: Hello. Welcome to another edition of Thinking Like Lawyer
Kathryn Rubino: Thank you. I’m happy to be here.
Joe Patrice: Great. Glad.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I’m also glad that these listeners are here.
Joe Patrice: That’s true. I’m Joe Patrice. I’m Patrice from Above the Law as is Kathryn Rubino who keeps talking even though she hasn’t been introduced yet. But now she has been.
Kathryn Rubino: I’m sorry. Am I supposed to wait for an invitation from you?
Joe Patrice: It’s not an invitation. It’s me, making a grand entrance.
Kathryn Rubino: Sometimes you have to assert yourself, man. That’s what I learned.
Joe Patrice: If you want to do the beginning of the show always, you can do it.
Kathryn Rubino: Absolutely not. I much prefer to annoy you with it.
Joe Patrice: See, I‘m not annoyed by there anymore.
Kathryn Rubino: You just decided.
Joe Patrice: I’ve decided. I’m not —
Kathryn Rubino: Because I think that twitching your eyes says otherwise.
Joe Patrice: There’s no twitch.
Joe Patrice: So, let’s jump right into small, talk. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Did you do anything fun this weekend?
Joe Patrice: I can’t even remember. I don’t think so.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I did some gardening.
Joe Patrice: Oh, that’s nice.
Kathryn Rubino: That was, well, not really fun but productive. So, I guess that counts.
Joe Patrice: Growing anything interesting?
Kathryn Rubino: No. Mostly killing weeds is what I was doing.
Joe Patrice: Oh, killing things.
Kathryn Rubino: But when I say things like gardening, it sounds like it’s a cute little hobby. If I say weeding, the implication is that I’ve let the gardening go to pot and now I need to clean it up, which is way more accurate.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough.
Kathryn Rubino: Not necessarily the image that I wish to project into the world. So, you know. Oh, the other fun thing I did was listen to the new Lizzo album.
Joe Patrice: Oh yeah, how’s that?
Kathryn Rubino: I really like it.
Joe Patrice: Good.
Kathryn Rubino: Really like it. Birthday Girl, so far, is my favorite. But I think the more you listen to it, you get different favorites. But on the initial, few, dozen listening to the album. I really enjoyed Birthday Girl.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, that’s something I did. I continue my quest to get good at making homemade pizza by making homemade pizza. So, — and I actually —
Kathryn Rubino: (00:02:15) pizza, huh?
Joe Patrice: I did and I managed to get the — So personally, I prefer when pepperoni is that cool kind of pepperoni that curves up and makes like a little cup filled with like grease, whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: I know they market it that way.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Well, so, I’ve been buying the like version that’s marketed that way, but I managed to make it myself using a stick. You got to slice it super thin, but I was able to get –
Kathryn Rubino: Your knife skills are improving, I guess.
Joe Patrice: And then well — no I have a mandoline slicer now.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s like a professional tool. So, it still counts. Do you remember I think that it was like — I think it was at Pizzeria Uno. It used to have this pepperoni pizza, where they would have like, the thin little slices, but then they would also like chunk up pepperoni.
Joe Patrice: I’ve seen chunk up.
Kathryn Rubino: Like it was a chunk up with the curly kind. And it was like, you know how the curly ones, especially when it’s on top they can get a little like crispy and almost like lose some of the pepperoniness but you had like the chunky one’s underneath that really gave you that bite of pepperoni along with the crisp on top. That’s something for you to consider for your future in pizza making if this whole blogging thing doesn’t work out for you.
Joe Patrice: Fair enough.
Kathryn Rubino: or podcasting.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well, I think with that we can put a stop to the small talk.
Kathryn Rubino: Are you waiting for me to –
Kathryn Rubino: I thought that was it. I did think you were just waiting to irritate me. I’m going to take a note from your – it doesn’t bother me anymore.
Joe Patrice: You’re not going to be bothered by it anymore? See, there we go.
Kathryn Rubino: Just so we’re clear.
Joe Patrice: So, this is actually one of those instances where we already had previewed this last week and we’re going to make good on what we –
Kathryn Rubino: Fulfill the same for you.
Joe Patrice: Fulfill what we — it’s payoff.
Kathryn Rubino: For our regular listeners. Congratulations. You did a little pay off.
Joe Patrice: So last week we laid out the Chekhov’s gun of, I guess Elon’s gun in this instance. That Elon Musk was about to get sued by Twitter.
Kathryn Rubino: He sure did.
Joe Patrice: Elon Musk has now been sued by Twitter. And a lot has happened in that case that’s of note. So, we got to see the complaint. There’s a Above the Law story about it that you can read in detail, of course. Breaking down the complaint. But the general take away from the complaint is, it’s not looking great for all Elon.
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I mean, in fairness, you — I think from day two after they announced the deal were saying, I think he’s trying to get out of the deal.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. Within moments he was –
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah. Which doesn’t bode well for good faith efforts by one party to a deal without knowing the specifics. That is certainly something that jumps out to me, at least initially.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, the problem I think coming at this from a litigation perspective, which obviously I’m not a M&A lawyer. Though I feel as though I’m getting some –
Kathryn Rubino: You play one on TV?
Joe Patrice: No. I feel like I’m getting some good apprenticeship in deal making though. Just by covering the story back I’ve been hearing from M&A lawyers who’ve been writing back channel to me about my stories that I’m getting everything pretty much right. So that’s good to know. That I’m able to figure this stuff out.
Kathryn Rubino: Again, if this whole blogging thing doesn’t work out for you.
Joe Patrice: Right. I could be a lawyer or something like I was before. Anyway. So –
Kathryn Rubino: You weren’t an M&A lawyer.
Joe Patrice: That’s true. Anyway, I think the more damning vines from this can really come down to — there’s one line in the complaint that I really enjoyed where Twitter says, the agreement was negotiated through the night and in the process became even more seller friendly. That’s never a good place to begin if you’re the buyer to going to court. This agreement was apparently requested by Elon to the seller friendly because he wanted to get it done immediately. Then they negotiated overnight, and it became more seller friendly. Including explicitly agreeing to specific performance. If the deal started to not be done, basically agreeing that the courts of Delaware are allowed to force him to buy Twitter. He also waived his rights to due diligence.
Kathryn Rubino: See, that’s the one that gets me. It’s stunning and obviously Elon has been on Twitter complaining about bots basically since he decided. Well since the value of Tesla kind of tanked, right? These are not unrelated facts. But one of the things that — one of the details of this very seller friendly agreement, is that he waives all due diligence. And I’m like, well, then I don’t see your complaint.
Joe Patrice: Yes. So, theoretically, he would have the right to dig into a series of aspects of Twitter’s business to make sure that what he’s buying is what he wants. He decided the interest of getting the deal done quickly that he didn’t care about any of that. Now, obviously, he needs to find a way out. There is a provision that says that if there’s some materially adverse condition that the company is basically broken and lying and defrauding people that he could get out, he’s attempting to argue that the incidence of fake spam accounts are much bigger than Twitter, says they are. Twitter says there are around 5%. He says, they’re much — he asserts that they’re much bigger than that.
Kathryn Rubino: There’s no evidence behind the said assertion, correct?
Joe Patrice: Correct. There’s no evidence. He asked the company to provided him proof. They provided him according to the complaint, a detailed document explaining how they calculate this. He later, according to the complaint, admits that he never read this document.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s not a good fact for the defense.
Joe Patrice: After asking for it. Yeah. They have this number. They say it’s around five percent. He says, it’s not. But the crux is, it doesn’t — what it seems to be lacking from all conversation from the Tesla Bros about this, is that it’s not enough to say “aha, gotcha”. It was really six percent or something like that because that is not a material change to Twitter’s business model, whether you know. He’s got to be coming up with the idea that this is —
Kathryn Rubino: 75 percent.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, like 50, 60 percent or something like that, probably. I mean, even if he were able to get the 15 percent, that would be questionable whether or not that’s material, but at least it’s in the ballpark. But right now, his big complaint and we’ve seen since the original complaint came out, he hasn’t answered this complaint yet, but the complaint was far –
Kathryn Rubino: Your given time according to —
Joe Patrice: Well, the complaint also included motion to expedite the trial and basically go to trial in the fall. He wants to push this to 2023. So, he wrote answer to that motion which will be heard this week. That answer to the motion is not about the case-in-chief but does give us a preview of his theories in the case-in-chief and he really leans into Twitter didn’t use any AI, for some reason, to calculate how many bots there were, but instead took a random sample and used that.
Kathryn Rubino: That’s how these things – I’m no math whiz, but that is my understanding of statistics.
Joe Patrice: That is how statistics work. And interesting way he leans into in this answer that they only took point 00005 percent of the total.
Kathryn Rubino: That seems like a lot.
Joe Patrice: It’s a small amount. But in the world of statistics, if you’re pulling a truly random sample.
It’s been many years since I’ve had to do this since my economics degree. As an undergrad, I had to do a lot of stats. So, I haven’t done a lot of it lately but I was able to dust off my skills and do a little bit of calculating and it worked out that that probably results in — I don’t know, around one percent margin of error. So, maybe –
Kathryn Rubino: So, not material?
Joe Patrice: Maybe Twitter has six percent bots, not five, or maybe they have four somewhere in there.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay. Here’s — maybe I’m being silly but why is this statistical mechanism relevant for the question of whether or not, there’s an expedited trial?
Joe Patrice: Well, it’s not. And in fairness. I mean, I say it’s not. His argument for why it is, is that the only way to get to the truth would require massive and intensive factual and expert discovery about what the proper method is and get a bunch of data and whatever, which it doesn’t, because he’s of this mind that the only way to figure out how many bots there are is —
Kathryn Rubino: It’s like Twitter view every Twitter user.
Joe Patrice: He wants to build some like algorithm that is constantly always looking at all 300 million, or whatever accounts to figure out what’s going on which is just lunacy to get that deep, when you can use stats like we do for everything else.
Kathryn Rubino: Also, two things strike me as absolute killer to this argument. The first we’ve already discussed. It definitely does not require physically counting or doing some kind of new algorithm because you literally said, no due diligence. But also, the mechanism by which Twitter calculates its bot’s ratio has been disclosed in all of its public filings. So, this is known. So, he should have known a — or his lawyer certainly knew if he personally didn’t. Certainly knew that this is how Twitter has said that it has calculated bots since they started disclosing it however many years. But there’s been numerous filings filed with the government, with the SEC that explicitly says, this is how we calculate it.
Joe Patrice: Right. And this goes to the question whether or not there’s actual factual or expert discovery needed. The question that’s really on the table is, did Twitter perform the tests. It said it did and did those tests revealed the results they say that did. And as long as that’s true, that should end the inquiry. The question of whether or not there’s some other way they could be testing, it’s really a material. Immaterial, I meant not as a term of art but also, it’s a term of art in this case, it’s really bad. The one thing they do say in their motion against the expedited trial. And the one thing they do say there that may help and actually make it them over the hump on that specific question is that Twitter’s argument is, this needs to be done by the Fall because the merger agreement terminates in October. But there is a clause say that it’s stayed if there’s litigation. So that may be enough to push the trial a little bit later, but the idea that this trial has to be pushed because of how complex it is, is just – it’s just nobody understands statistics over there, which is a problem.
Kathryn Rubino: Or it’s just their best argument. Sometimes you advance arguments as a lawyer that you know are unlikely to be winners.
Joe Patrice: Well, it’s interesting. You say that’s their best argument, but I saw an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from some law professors.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh yeah. I was going to say it sounds like – it sounds to me like this is the slam dunk legal argument for Twitter.
Joe Patrice: But it’s so weird. This Wall Street Journal op-ed by some law professors said that it was obvious that Musk was going to win. Really impressive. Because then I read it. And yeah, it’s bad. Like bad, bad.
Kathryn Rubino: Wait, your argument is that the Waal Street Journal op-ed is?
Joe Patrice: Was disingenuous and wrong. What a shock. Especially last week, given that they had a bad week at their op-ed page. They got disproven in real time last week multiple times. But the argument, it just hurts my head?
Kathryn Rubino: It’s okay. You can tell me what the bad man did to you.
Joe Patrice: So, yeah. These professors started to say “Well, I mean, there’s no way there could be specific performance here.” And putting aside that that’s agreed to explicitly in the merger agreement.
Kathryn Rubino: I men that’s a pretty big thing to put aside.
Joe Patrice: Which is pretty big. But as our former colleague, the former deal-breaker. One of Above the Laws companion sides.
Kathryn Rubino: Is this your blog?
Joe Patrice: Yeah. But formerly of deal-breaker now, Bloomberg is — Matt Levine put — he took like 10 seconds was able to come up with multiple cases in Delaware, under Delaware law. Where specific performance was ordered. Indeed, the judge who’s assigned to this case has already done it in the past.
It’s just bad and they make arguments about – Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: You seem flummoxed.
Joe Patrice: It was a little disconcerting to read because it was as though they hadn’t bothered to do the basics of that sort of research. Other than they make this convoluted argument that because shareholders aren’t a party to this lawsuit. That means that if they don’t order specific performance, which they say, they can’t, but they can. If they don’t do that, there’s no way to create monetary damages because it would go to the company and not to the shareholders, but that’s not even true in Delaware. They’ve done that in Delaware law. What they do is they just you pay the company and their order to give it to the chair — it was like it was thrown together.
Kathryn Rubino: In order to capitalize on headlines?
Joe Patrice: Maybe – it is difficult.
Kathryn Rubino: I mean you had – Listen, it’s the only article that I’ve certainly seen about the merger that suggests that Twitter is not going to win. So, it gets a little bit of hot tea-chy kind of —
Joe Patrice: It felt very ESPN hot take show, sort of.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s like the Jason Wilbon of M&A.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, exactly. No, I will say, in their defense, the professors did write me on Friday night to explain. It was a Friday night or Saturday night. Well, one of these nights. They wrote me to explain their case. And to give a detailed explanation of where they thought their case was making more sense or whatever. And by detailed explanation, they called me a douche bag and that was the substance of their –
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I want to say that they are right about anything.
Joe Patrice: Okay, that’s all right there.
Kathryn Rubino: Oh, come on. You got to give me that one. Come on.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. There’s no attempt that actually substantively answering any of the issues. It’s just —
Kathryn Rubino: Well, it’s hard when you’re wrong.
Joe Patrice: Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s hard to come up with answers when facts and the law both go against you.
Joe Patrice: Are just not on your side. Yeah.
Kathryn Rubino: It’s rough.
Joe Patrice: Anyway —
Kathryn Rubino: Won’t you please think of the hot takers?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I guess that’s true. The hot take economy does deserve itself, yeah. Anyway, so that’s where we sit — that’s where we sit with Elon.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, that is where we are.
Joe Patrice: All right. Well, this is looking down. I see that we have a bunch of messages but —
Kathryn Rubino: Oh no. I’m busy right now because I’m recording a podcast. If only.
Joe Patrice: Yes, if only. When you were doing your legal work, you had someone else handling those and in taking those calls.
Kathryn Rubino: Right. So, you can focus on the task that you are trying to accomplish and not get distracted by telephone calls when you can have a virtual receptionist take care of that mundane work.
Joe Patrice: So, let’s hear from Posh about exactly that.
Female: As a lawyer, ever wish you could be in two places at once? You could take a call when you’re in court, capture lead during a meeting. That’s where Posh comes in. Where live virtual receptionist who answer and transfer your calls so you never miss an opportunity. And the Posh app lets you control when your receptionist steps in. So, if you can’t answer, Posh can. And if you’ve got it, Posh is just a tap away. With Posh, you can save as much as 40 percent off your current service provider’s rates. Start your free trial today at posh.com.
Craig Williams: Today’s legal news is rarely a straightforward as the headlines that accompany them. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, we provide legal perspective you need to better understand the current events that shape our society. Join me, Craig Williams, in a wide variety of industry experts as we break down the top stories. Follow Lawyer 2 Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network or wherever you subscribe to podcasts.
Joe Patrice: Okay, we’re back. What else do we have going on this week?
Kathryn Rubino: I wrote about impeachment.
Joe Patrice: I mean there’s a term that learned as a child and learned that it never comes up and has come up multiple times in my lifetime.
Kathryn Rubino: So many times in my lifetime. Three times as for president?
Joe Patrice: For president, yes. But those aren’t the only people who can be impeached.
Kathryn Rubino: No. it isn’t. There’s actually a supreme court justice that has already historically been impeached to Samuel Chase. But there was a letter written by a couple of congress people including AOC saying that they wanted the senate to make a finding of fact as to whether or not justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied to the senate during their confirmation hearings about whether or not they would overturn Roe based on various statements that they made. And, that’s all-kind asses that you know this kind of – if somebody lying in order to get a lifetime appointment cannot be tolerated, etc. It does not go this further step, but certainly when I read it, the first thing I thought about is like, oh they just want to tee up an impeachment vote.
If there’s a finding by the senate that yes, we believe these folks live under oath, that seems to beg the house to have an impeachment vote. And listen, we’ve said on this podcast about previous impeachments that the most important thing about impeachment is your ability to count to 60. And there’s zero chance that there are enough votes for removal that there’ll ever be a former Justice Kavanaugh or Justice Gorsuch. But I also think that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. Listen, the January 6 hearing are going on, they have been riveting. I think they have really done a tremendous job of showing what public spectacle looks like and why it’s important to kind of change the conversation. Why shouldn’t we drag Kavanaugh and Gorsuch through it. Make them be impeached, make them have remembered by history. As one of only three justices that have ever been impeached. Let’s have Susan Collins justify why she won’t actually remove the justices despite now going on TV and being like “Oh, I feel personally lied to” when we all knew that this was coming.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I mean she’s either deeply cynical or the easiest mark in the world. I think it’s pretty cynical. No. I mean, so I was on record as opposing the initial, the first Trump impeachment for that counting to 60 reasons. And my logic was he probably did obstruct justice, but if you’re not going to get a conviction, what do you accomplish? I felt all you do is whip up his supporters into believing you’re some sort of martyrdom and that it was all —
Kathryn Rubino: And of course, when he doesn’t get removed to – he’s been vindicated.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, exactly. So those were the reasons I was opposed to that. But in this instance, it’s a little bit different, I think. There’s no need for these — there’s no way these people are going to be removed, but I think it accomplishes a few goals. I agree with you. I think it accomplishes a few goals that you wouldn’t necessarily as opposed to just removal. I mean, A it does expose people like Collins to the fires of criticism that they absolutely deserve. But it also brings I think up the idea that the supreme court has devolved into being purely political. Putting aside what the results of this is, it would put them in the same seat as a Trump or a Clinton before being impeached, which underscores the political nature of it. Which I think is very important if you’re somebody like me, who thinks that we need to have term limits or other sorts of reforms or even more extreme than me. But I understand expanding the court, like if you want to make that case a lot of the push back to that case is what we shouldn’t make the court be political.
Kathryn Rubino: Too late. The ship sailed.
Joe Patrice: Putting aside that the ship has sailed. If you have people, if you drag people through a spectacle of pointing out that they lied under oath to congress, you really are putting yourself in a position of saying, look, this has happened to the only hope is some more fundamental reform, which I think helps that position. So, yeah, I agree with you. I think that that’s not a bad idea.
Kathryn Rubino: You know, a reader actually reached out to me after I wrote the article and wanted to know why Amy Coney Barrett was not included. And the first instance was like, well, that was the letter. I’m responding to what the letter said. The letter has those two justices specifically called out. But I think it’s also because in some way she was — she’s been a more cynical actor. If you recall during the hearing she said, “Oh, I don’t know how I would rule on any abortion case” And I think my article at the time when that happened, I was like, “Yes, she does. Yes, she does. She’s lying”. She’s definitely — I know exactly how she’s going to rule, so does she. But that’s the kind of lie that you can’t prove, right? So, I think she was way more cynical in her answers and perhaps all this ever does is make but any potential justice, more cynical and more vague in their answers going forward. But none of which is a reason not to do this right now in my mind.
Joe Patrice: Yeah, I know. It does seem like it has benefits beyond the counting to 60 parts. So yeah, very interesting. So yeah, so the last issue you already kind of raised the rivetingness of the rivetingness, or whatever.
Kathryn Rubino: Rivetingness.
Joe Patrice: I think?
Kathryn Rubino: I think that’s a word.
Joe Patrice: Whatever, it is now.
Kathryn Rubino: It is decided.
Joe Patrice: Yes, it is decided. So, the rivetingness of the January 6 hearings, I wrote a little bit about this in a piece that I feel is more of a public service piece. I don’t know as though, like not a ton of people have necessarily read it yet, but those that have, have been reaching out and thanking me for it. I did a detailed breakdown of — as part of the January 6 hearing.
If you’ve been watching any of it. They have a lot of video clips of the testimony that they’ve taken, video depositions, that’s the way it works. And that’s something that lawyers do all the time. They’re also, and this is also a plug for court reporting services. Court reporting services are very much involved with videographers and building a system that gives you as a lawyer, a good a good product to use. You can also — there’s e-discovery outfits. Have — I know Ever law for instance has a very lovely little AV editor that allows you to put together and sync up your video clips with the testimony and all. There’s some slick stuff going on out there in this world.
Kathryn Rubino: That is not what Sidney Powell was doing though.
Joe Patrice: Well, and this is my point. While there’s all of this technology out there and work being done and just prolific nature of video testimony. These hearings underscore that lawyer aren’t — of all the actors, thinking about these lawyers are really asleep at the switch is far as what their witnesses look like on camera.
Kathryn Rubino: Yeah, I mean, at least some of them.
Joe Patrice: At least some of them. Yes, that’s fair. So, I went through and did a detailed breakdown of all the different, not all, but I looked at all and a healthy selection of the video deposition testimony that we’ve already seen and talked about the ways in which it is poorly framed and a disservice to the client to put them in this position.
Kathryn Rubino: Okay. So, you’ve written about a lot of these. My question to you is, whose video setup, it was the absolute worst and why?
Joe Patrice: I feel like it — for different reasons, I feel that it was Bill Stepien where his lawyer is in the foreground taking up most of the screen and he’s like the weirdly behind him testifying. Was that awkward?
Kathryn Rubino: Okay, here’s a question though. Is it actually bidding though? If you’re trying to kind of blend in to the scenery and minimize your impact and you don’t necessarily want this to be your digital footprint for forever. Is it that bad?
Joe Patrice: Well, and that’s the question, was some of this being crazier — crazy like a fox and just saying, “I’m going to create the worst possible framing for this video testimony so that nobody will ever use it in a serious way”
Kathryn Rubino: Well, I do think that I — you know, I kind of mentioned Sidney Powell already but her testimony — I mean, it looked terrible because it looked like it was from 1985. It was as choppy and as just awful background, awful everything which I don’t think is clever like a fox at all or stupid like a fox or whatever. And the other one that I am not sure that they really thought about is former Above the law columnist Kayleigh McEnany which you delighted me with an angel reference.
Joe Patrice: Old-school Wolfram and Hart reference. Yeah, no —
Kathryn Rubino: Which if people or did never watch the TV show Angel was the law firm that was actually an evil –it was evil. And I think there was some sort of a hellmouth that they opened up there.
Joe Patrice: Something like that. Well, it’s so much like Kayleigh McEnany. Anyway, the point is her testimony was bizarre because it was almost – it was in the super dark room with the curtains drawn and there were shadows everywhere. She looked weird in all the shadows, but her attorney behind her look almost menacing. It was bad. I thought that was bad. I thought that the —
Kathryn Rubino: I mean, you never want someone’s takeaway of the image of you to be evil, right? That looked evil is not — if you’re trying to be like, “No, we did not try to take down the U.S. Republic. It’s not a great look.
Joe Patrice: I mean Ivanka and Jared both testified in like, backed up against a marble wall. In which looked like the simulacrum of classy, but in reality, it just looked like they were doing it from the lobby of a bad office building. And why are your — wires your back to — It was so weird. So many of these are terrible and it and there were a couple of good video ones. But the best ones, as one might expect, where people like Bill Barr who, you know, is a Savvy operator who did it in person with the investigators so that he would be at the same table that they were. So, he would be filmed in the same quality.
Kathryn Rubino: No difference in power dynamics and quality.
Joe Patrice: Same quality video. That’s the smart way to do it. Now, not everybody has that luxury, but if you aren’t going to have that luxury, I implore you to take a second or two to think about what you look like. Anyway, so that that happened. Cool. Yeah, that’s pretty much everything for the week in it.
Kathryn Rubino: It was, it was a hell of a week. I’m sure there was a lot more but that’s our time as they say.
Joe Patrice: Yeah. So, thanks everybody for listening. You should subscribe to the show so you get them when they come out. You should give review stars, write something. It’s all good for us. You should be reading Above the Law so you can see these and other stories before we chat about them here. You should be following us on social media. I’m @JosephPatrice. She’s @Kathryn1. The numeral one. You should also follow @ATLblog, which is our official stream. You should listen to our other shows. She’s the host of the Jabo. I’m a panelist on the legal Tech week journalists Roundtable. There’s Betty of programs by the legal Talk Network that we aren’t on that you should also be checking out. You should be — What else should you be doing? There’s something else they should be doing. Anyway, I’m sure it’ll come back to me.
Kathryn Rubino: Right reviews?
Joe Patrice: Yeah, right reviews. I think I said that. Anyway, point is you should do these things. They’re great. I think that’s it.
Kathryn Rubino: Thanks. Thanks to our sponsor, Posh.