The Culture War #58 The Steven Crowder Divorce Saga & Media Manipulation w/Sean Actual Justice Warrior & Ari Jacob
Host:
Tim Pool
Guests:
Sean (Actual Justice Warror) @IamSean90 (X)
Ari Jacob @LittleMissJacob (everywhere)
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
So in the past week or so, we got this big e-drama story about Steven Crowder, a former employee, his ex-wife, their divorce, and oh boy, the debate was raging.
But I think there's a lot of underlying issues in the media landscape, in general divorce and culture, that has led to a lot of conversations around who is right and who is wrong.
And I also think there's an interesting drama element to how the independent media machine operates, but how this lends itself to The future of media in general.
So the question being of course that this former employee of Steven Crowder, Jared, had asked for lots of money because he was being legally abused.
Crowder of course, I don't believe Crowder has actually spoken to it, but There has been a bigger conversation about how you could be under NDA while actually breaking the NDA and raising money.
And I don't want to say too much because I want to start from the beginning of the story without just introing, you know, the whole story.
But then, of course, I think there's an interesting conversation around how divorce works, how the drama that we're seeing lends itself to the larger culture around divorce and relationships.
But then even beyond that, Sure.
My name's Ariadna Jacob.
because of course there's also stuff we can talk about pertaining to Daily Wire and Candace Owens.
So we're just gonna talk about independent media landscape, NDAs, media manipulation, and a lot more around this.
I don't wanna say too much.
We had a couple guests.
unidentified
Would you like to introduce yourself first? - Sure.
My name's Ariadna Jacob.
You can call me Ari.
I am a former talent agent.
I represented probably some people you guys don't know, Charlie D'Amelio and Addison Rae, but they make about, you know, several, probably $10 million a year or more.
Wow.
And I represented, I worked with Canelo Alvarez, the boxer, all sorts of different celebrities.
And I have been in sort of social media for a very, very long time, back since like MySpace days.
Yeah, so I kind of famously sued Taylor Lorenz and the New York Times for defamation because I had a very successful talent agency and I was destroyed with a libelous article by Taylor and she was represented By the talent agency that took all my clients when, uh, you know what I'm saying?
So there's a conflict of interest.
So I'm aware of this, uh, media world.
And also, uh, I negotiated dozens of contracts, but now I am doing my own content.
So, uh, you can find me at little miss Jacob.com.
I actually made the website on the way over here on the airplane.
Look, I haven't seen you in like six months, or maybe a year.
Yeah, I'm a YouTuber.
I have a channel, Actual Justice Warrior.
I cover, like, legal issues, mostly criminal issues, but I got interested in this particular thing based on, you know, what's going on behind the scenes in different media companies and whatnot.
You can basically find me there or on my website, actualjusticewarrior.com.
All the links and all that, it's easy to find, but I'm looking forward to getting into this topic.
Yeah, I think what's... I'm not so much interested in the minutiae of Steven Crowder's daily life and his arguments, but outside of this, you've got this alleged extortion scheme where Jared Monroe, his former employee, is claiming he's being legally abused.
Crowder says that he teamed up with his ex-wife and they're going after him, but there's a bigger picture here in terms of We've got the Taylor Lorenz story.
They're sneaky, underhanded.
I mean, that sounds downright, like, intentionally anti-competitive.
You then have what appears to be a business dispute between Crowder and a former employee, where the former employee, I don't know, maybe I'm biased, but this is what I see, teams up with the guy's ex-wife.
There's no reason.
For a former employee to make contact with a guy's ex-wife when he's in a business dispute with him, I think any lawyer would be like, yeah, don't do that, because it looks really bad.
And then of course, later on we can probably talk about Daily Wire, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, there's been a lot of drama around there.
But let's start, I suppose, with what happened with Steven Crowder.
Do either one of you want to intro the drama around this?
unidentified
You want me to do it?
Yeah.
So a couple, maybe a week ago, a week and a half ago, Jared Monroe drops a video where he says that he had all these problems with Steven Crowder.
And during the course of that video, he cites legal abuse.
He says that he was served a cease and desist and a Rule 202 petition dating back to October.
And this was a time period where different news articles were dropping about Steven Crowder that quoted anonymous sources.
So like, you know, the timeline kind of makes sense for that.
And then he also claimed, and this is like one of the things that I'm interested in, is that Steven basically forced him in or strongly coerced him into signing a non-disparagement agreement based on the idea that he was going to take his social media account, his Twitter account, and that he wanted a carve out to work at another third company after he left Crowder because of a non-solicitation clause.
And supposedly, again, we don't have the documentation from Jared to be 100% fair, he was then blackballed later from that very company.
So he ended up out of media for about two years.
And then over time, like, you know, he's, you know, it's like been building up kind of thing.
And this was his like opportunity to strike back at Crowder, which, you know, is a time where he is vulnerable.
So he was raising money to pay off his previous legal bills.
Plus, he said file a counter motion, but Oh man, I'm just right off the bat disgusted by that.
He's in a business dispute so he teams up with the guy's wife who he's currently in divorce proceedings with?
unidentified
I mean, that's alleged by the Crowder team.
We do have some messages from him to the wife.
I did a thing where I broke down all of the screenshots that they showed.
There's a lot that is on the page that they didn't read to you, and there's also a lot of missing context there.
Like Crowder's wife, who unfortunately we have to talk about to a certain extent, but I agree with you, I don't want to get into his personal divorce.
They were, she was involved in the company.
From what everybody says, Crowder runs a family business.
Jared didn't have a problem with her, but assuming he had a problem with Steven, which obvious, like why would he be filing a complaint unless he had a problem with him, but got along with her, him reaching out to her after he finds out that she got a divorce is like a normal like thing just to say hey how you doing and all that but like this like grand Hillary conspiracy I do not think they have sufficiently proven that
So I think it's important to like understand what Jared said in his video because to be honest I had just done some research about the whole Daily Wire and Steven Crowder thing.
I wasn't really, I was just interested in it based on the fact that Candace left Daily Wire and all this stuff so I'm like maybe people need to understand kind of how these deals work.
I mean there's a famous spat that happened with Dave Portnoy and Alex Cooper, when she left, basically found her, built up her podcast, and then the girls went to L.A.
and talked to Logan Paul, and they're all saying, oh, you got a really bad deal.
Was it a bad deal?
They were getting paid like $100,000 a year plus some bonuses.
I think they ended up making like $500,000 a year.
Things like this have happened in the past where a talent feels like they've grown with the company and they're not getting compensated.
Someone like Portnoy or anyone at Barstool sees a podcast, it's not really that big, and they say, we're gonna pay you a hundred grand, which is a guaranteed loss for Barstool and Portnoy.
Like, we work here, we make podcasts, we do this, I guarantee you 12,000 downloads.
He's just basically saying, I will write you a check and give you my money.
Then she succeeds, his bet paid off, and then they immediately go, I have a bad deal and I'm leaving.
unidentified
I'm not right.
So that's kind of why I was interested in it.
And then, to be honest, I was kind of like, oh, I don't know how I feel about Crowder releasing the deal points and all this stuff.
And at first, I'm like, maybe that was done in bad form, whatever.
I didn't know the background of the whole situation.
And I think I had seen the leak tape of Crowder, the Rumble, or sorry, the Ringcam footage.
But I did think it was weird that Yashar Ali leaked that footage.
Do you know who Yashar Ali is?
Right.
Like, I don't think a lot of people know who he is, but he worked for the Hillary campaign, then he worked for Newsom, then he, I guess, slept on Kathy Griffin's couch and was evicted, and then he owes the Getty Family heir like $200,000.
So when you take a look at the statements that were released in the Crowder vs. Monroe lawsuit, that they're trying to damage him publicly to force him into unfavorable divorce terms, and then you find out that they leaked footage to a far-left media personality, who of course is going to attack Crowder, And then you've got Jared meeting up with them.
You've got him in statements saying, when we team up, it's his worst nightmare, saying things like, I don't want him near his kids.
I think it's fairly obvious that Crowder's right on this.
They're using a PR strategy to win a divorce settlement.
unidentified
Here's what people don't understand.
I was just gonna say see I actually like went through all these documents and the statements where supposedly they're doing that and what's interesting about the email the first thing that they showed or actually the second email that they showed which I actually printed up old school right here is that if you read it it's actually Hillary's father What do you call it?
Crowdfunding.
I'm not crowdfunding.
Sorry.
I don't know why.
Jared's crowdfunding.
It's Hillary's father summarizing what the lawyer told him.
If you actually read at the top, not just the highlighted portions of it.
He's breaking down the seven points from the lawyer right there.
And at the bottom of that, what they're doing, which is not read by Gerald.
In fact, Gerald weirdly says they never talk about the kids.
It says that they like Hillary's plan of going with a public co-parenting narrative for Stephen to try to settle the divorce quickly.
Well, if you meet with a divorce lawyer and they tell you, hey, here's how this normally goes, and then you summarize the points, and then somebody highlights a line or two lines from there that make you look the absolute worst and allege a conspiracy, that's not backed up by reality.
I also think that it's important for people to understand, and I know this because it was offered to me when Taylor Lorenz wrote the article about me, is that you can hire a law firm, and this happens, I think, I'm guessing mainly in Hollywood, but I'm sure it happens left right wing whoever it is you can hire a law firm and they will actually hire sort of their internal PR crisis people and those people can either launch a media campaign to help you kind of
Unravel something that you know you stick your foot in something and they help you unwind it or they can start a PR campaign in order to put pressure on whoever you know they work in side by side with the lawyers and what's interesting is that they charge about 20 grand a month and they also are.
Hired by the law firm so that you actually are paying the law firm the 20 grand a month and they pay the PR people.
And guess what?
The PR people, because they work for the law firm, they're under the same sort of, what is it called?
Attorney-client privilege.
So that is very interesting because if you're paying for those people, which I don't know if they were or not, but it is very possible.
Now, Brian Friedman is UTA's lawyer.
So United Talent Agency is the talent agency that represents Taylor Lorenz.
And I believe that they were working together.
I actually know a lot of people don't know this, but I sued UTA as well and Brian Friedman.
Yeah, Brian Friedman represented UTA and it's very weird because Taylor Lorenz was tweeting about me negatively and when I had already filed the lawsuit about UTA, guess who is retweeting Taylor?
Yes Charlie about me and I'm like what is this guy know about like why is he getting involved in this and so.
While I agree that you don't want to do guilt by association you also have to recognize that.
And I think the likelihood that Crowder would present a false statement to the court is zero.
Having been involved in lawsuits like this, you don't do it.
Your opinions may be are obviously like I throw this out the window when I'm reading these court documents.
Someone will say something like, it's at this point that the defendant made disparaging comments about me.
It's like, okay, well, you know, whether they did or didn't, we don't know for sure.
But the likelihood that he would submit to a court, to a judge, they did false statement to fact is, I don't believe that.
unidentified
In the initial civil complaint, there's always weird stuff in there that turns out to not be true.
I would think if she was ordered by the divorce court to preserve evidence, and then she did not do that, then you would think that there would be some admonishment by a judge.
Dude, I'm sorry if I'm a little frustrated on this one, because I've been involved in these lawsuits.
Judges don't admonish.
Judges will admonish you if you're...
People who are in the, uh, I don't want to speak specifically to Crowder or Hillary, I don't know, but having been involved in this stuff, the judges look to the person with money, power, and no time, and they say, I can squeeze you out and put an end to this.
The judges do that.
Because the judges don't want to be involved in these things, and the people who are outside of these court proceedings seem to think that a judge is this impartial guy or lady who's like, let me get to the bottom of this and find justice.
No.
The judges, because I've been involved in a bunch of these both personally and through stories, but also through people I know, the judges are like, how do I make this case go away?
What do I have to do?
And so when you end up with an employee who files a lawsuit, The employee says, I have no money, I have nothing but time, I can do anything I want, and the judge can't do anything to me.
And the judge knows the guy who runs the company loses tens of thousands of dollars every hour he spends dealing with this, so I can end this lawsuit, get this paperwork, throw it in the trash, so long as I pressure the CEO and not the employee.
So, in that capacity, I do not believe it would be likely that Crowder's company would submit a false statement to the court in that capacity.
Now, it may be exaggerated, perhaps something, maybe she accidentally deleted the footage, maybe she just, like, it was on a cycle to be deleted and she didn't preserve it.
I don't know what the exaggeration might be.
unidentified
It's a big no-no in court, like, generally to delete stuff.
covered many of these stories and and my personal bias having being involved in like three of them it is insane that people think these courts want anything to do with justice and accountability but we do have other documents of other like issues that the judges had and alex jones remember had discovery of supposedly discovery issues and the judge like that's a big thing
unidentified
so you would expect some kind of record or at least the order to preserve like you could insert that in there like one of the problems i have with again the louder with crowder company complaint because it's a separate lawsuit like i need to keep emphasizing that is that they first of all gerald in his video cites court documents but it's him alleging it in court like just because i write something down and submit it to a court doesn't mean i'm not sourcing myself
But then on top of that, they're quoting very selectively from these various different portions of the court when they have access to that documentation.
So in order to preserve and then something to show that she violated that, totally fine.
We gotta start from the beginning because the issue I'm having with your argument is We know they gave the footage to Yashar Ali, a leftist, which is absolutely going to be publicity damage to Crowder.
And there are statements where they're like, PR campaign, hiring a PR guy, the lawyers advising them, the longer this goes on, the worse it gets.
There's statements, whether they're snippets or not, where they're saying, where Hillary says, I wouldn't get as much in court, but I want more than that.
unidentified
Yeah, but that particular statement is another one that's completely, like, if you read it in its full context, they're arguing about the custody.
So she churned down more money than she would get in court, but, like, the issue was, and it's highlighted in the messages, that they're arguing about who gets the kids when and all that, so... But that doesn't matter, Mike.
Well, no, it does matter because... No, my point is, you said... It does matter... You said that these statements from the lawyers Yeah, this is a summary from the lawyer that they're taking as a grand conspiracy.
The idea that they wouldn't take their lawyer's advice they paid for is... Nobody said that they wouldn't.
And then they did!
So what are you arguing?
unidentified
If you go to a lawyer and then the lawyer meets with you, which by the way, Hillary's father should not have been with the lawyer because this would have been attorney-client for if it was just with the wife and she wrote this down.
We got a hole here.
between her and her lawyer.
But if you go to a lawyer and they say, hey, here's how this normally works, especially in a high profile divorce case, and they give you seven points, then you put that in your group message, like whatever messaging system this was to summarize for your family.
And then you have somebody who very opportunistically in order to deflect from the Jared issue, which we're not like talking on, highlights select portions on screen. - We got a hole here.
They did engage in a damaging PR campaign against Crowder.
Fact.
unidentified
Yeah, after Crowder talked about the divorce on the air, they then released the video.
Like, that did happen.
Can we back up for a sec?
Because I didn't change my... So, like, I got my stance on this just from watching Jared's video.
So, initially, I watched it and I'm like, oh, this guy, you know, Crowder's getting basically karma for throwing out the Daily Wire contract and, you know, whatever.
And I moved on with my day.
And then I...
Somebody posted about Brian Friedman being involved, Yashara Lee, and all these people repped by UTA.
And I'm like, maybe I'll take a second look.
And I watched the video again.
You really need to understand the timeline that Jared describes.
So if you're mad at him for getting Crowder, for blackballing him, all these, I think you just need to understand what he says.
So the first thing I noticed is that he talks about, so he says, I think he was, sorry, he resigns from Crowder.
In 2018.
And he says that he signed a NDA with a non-solicitation clause when he started work, which is pretty typical, okay?
Non-solicitation is not a non-compete.
A non-solicitation is just, you can't go and poach my clients, my advertisers, people, you know, you just can't steal basically company property and whatever.
But the way Jared describes it in the video is he says it's a non-solicitation at first, and then he goes, well, it felt like the strictest non-compete, and then he goes, and then the non-compete in quotes.
He said that they argued it would be interpreted as the strictest non-compete.
I believe Crowder, didn't Crowder say, I could be wrong, but didn't Crowder say he addressed the divorce because he was asked for comment on the video that had already been released to the journalists?
unidentified
No, no.
He did that video, if you remember, people were like weirding out about it, but I'm like, if he doesn't want to talk about it, it's fine, where he said that his only mistake was picking the wrong person.
I thought that, I could be wrong, but I thought the case was Crowder said, I have no choice but to address this because journalists are asking about it.
unidentified
I remember that too, I'm not sure though.
I thought the implication that that he had made to in his defense was that Candace Owens was kind of like dancing around the issue in public like, you know, and that's what made him address it.
But anyway, so like so I guess Jared is saying this stuff.
And then another thing that stood out to me from the video is he's like, you know, I'm being forced against Okay, wait, let me back up.
Sorry.
So he starts working for Crowder, signs an NDA with a non solicitation, then he wants to leave, he resigns.
And then I'm guessing that Crowder reminded him, well, you have a non solicitation clause, And so he says, basically, that would make it so that I couldn't work anywhere.
Well, Crowder gives him a carve out, which basically means, you know, I understand you want to go work for, let's say, said media company.
So I'm going to carve that media company out.
You can go ahead and work for them.
But in order to give you something you want, I want you to sign this NDA.
And so Jared hires an attorney.
The attorney negotiates that deal, gives him the carve out, and he goes on his way to the next job.
Then Jared says in the video that he was fired unlawfully from this next job, which is also kind of like, Jared, do you have a problem everywhere you go?
If you smell crap everywhere, check your- But not randomly.
unidentified
He did say that it was Stephen who got him fired from the other job.
No, no, but he didn't get him fired.
This is what happened.
Well, I didn't say he did.
I just said that's what he said.
Breaching the non-solicitation clause, which can mean a lot of people are taking it as, well, he was talking crap about Crowder and that's why Crowder got mad.
So he sends, let's say Crowder did send a cease and desist, then whatever the new employer could be liable for tortuous interference if I'll give you a quick example of what I think may be the most likely is that, this is wild speculation, Jared works for Crowder, Jared gets a bunch of phone numbers, Jared then leaves Crowder Has those phone numbers and then starts reaching out to people being like, oh, I know someone who can do this.
Then Crowder goes, is he texting our clients?
Insert whatever.
He's using our Rolodex for a different company.
That company fires him because they're like, hey, this is going to put us in legal liability for basically stealing information from a rival company.
We can't do that.
You can't do that.
And you have an agreement you can't do that.
I don't know exactly what I'm saying.
unidentified
That seems plausible.
It's very plausible.
So he says he gets fired unlawfully.
So that's in 2018.
Now, in his video, he's saying, I'm getting legally abused by Crowder.
This has been going on.
He doesn't say it implicitly.
He doesn't say it outright.
He basically is saying, I've been abused for a long time.
But the reality is that From the point that he gets fired from the job to, so 2018 to October of 2023, nothing is happening legally between him and Crowder.
Now you have to look at the timeline.
So the ring cam footage gets released end of April 2023.
Then in May, there's bad articles.
June, July, August, there's all these bad articles.
And then in October, Crowder files this petition to, I'm guessing, hey, somebody's leaking all this stuff.
We need to find out who's doing this because this is causing problems, right?
So they file this 202 petition, which basically means that you have to, the judge is going to let you get information, deposition, text messages and whatnot in order to see if there is reason to bring a lawsuit.
Now this is what's very interesting because in the video where Jared's asking for money, he's basically saying that he had to pay for litigation and he owes all this money because he had to pay.
He didn't start the litigation.
What he did is he argued that he didn't want to give up Discovery.
So in that thing, Where Crowder's asking for a deposition and text messages and all that, which is, by the way, normal in a lawsuit.
Both sides have to give it up, so whether you're the plaintiff or the defendant.
And the way that Jared's saying it is like, this is gonna be an abuse of my... What is it called?
My privacy, and I'm gonna get interrogated for... It is intrusive, but yeah.
But when I filed a lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz, I had to give up all my text messages and say Taylor Lorenz.
I mean, it feels very intrusive, yes.
But I wanted justice, right?
I also haven't been speaking, have I been on podcasts?
No, because anything I say, the New York Times would be like, well...
Ari's hanging out with Tim Pool.
She's ruined her own reputation.
You know what I mean?
They could say whatever.
As a content creator, it's not very fun to be in a lawsuit and it can definitely damage your career, but the way he described it is just the legal process.
Anyway, why was he fighting?
Why was he fighting the deposition?
If you're broke, Why are you gonna fight to give up your text messages and have a deposition?
I mean, the likelihood of Crowder actually filing that lawsuit, most people don't wanna file a lawsuit against someone that has no money.
What I think happened is that Crowder wanted to get the discovery so he could see if other people were messing with it.
People like his competitors, because when you get that discovery, you can use it then to file another lawsuit against your competitors, your ex-wife, or whoever.
He wanted to see what Jared was saying to his ex-wife.
Or current wife.
unidentified
He would have he would have that I think it's for potential other lawsuits because if you look at the other people because he has messages for he called Hillary's phone twice in the divorce so he has messages from her to Jared that's probably why he sent Jared this notice and I do agree with you.
Like, it is the legal process.
It is intrusive, but it definitely is the legal process that you get this information.
But he wants... Then Hillary's father, or... Yeah.
Most of the people he doesn't have access to.
unidentified
He wants the Dave Land... Like, it's on the list.
It's like Dave Landau, Jeremy Boring, like there's, you know, 14 names, and then the 15th one is unnamed, unlimited unnamed persons otherwise, or whatever, so...
There's like the Daily Wire, Crowder, secret backstage war has been going on for a long time.
Candace Owens was talking about the divorce and now Daily Wire and Candace is like, wow, look at this.
unidentified
Well, it's a very niche industry, right?
And the other thing I thought about with Jared is how many people would love to be on a show and get paid a salary to do?
I mean, a lot of people want to be YouTubers and you're not guaranteed a job in this industry.
You're just not.
And so if you go around Reaching your contracts or being a liability, it's understandable why somebody might not want to hire you.
And so it's weird to me that Jared is saying he couldn't work basically for six years or whatever because he was in this, I mean the non-circumvent thing or the non-solicitation was a two years.
So what's he been doing this whole time?
He said the non-compete was two years.
The non-solicitation was in the original agreement.
There was no non-compete.
He said the non-solicitation was in the original agreement and then that was interpreted as a non-compete but then he wanted an exemption for one unnamed company.
I want to add too, he's under a non-disparagement and a non-disclosure which he violated both of with his GoFundMe.
unidentified
Yeah.
So now what's happening, I guess, is that for some reason, all these lawyers don't want that discovery to come out.
So now they've filed, uh, you know, even though Jared said in his video that he was going to file a counter motion against, uh, Crowder, which I thought was weird.
Cause I'm like, I thought you didn't want to give up discovery.
If you file something against Crowder, you're going to have to give it, but no, he doesn't want it.
He's not going to have to give up discovery.
If this, uh, thing that they filed with an administrative agency goes through, which is basically, um, going to be a thing where they say, is this NDA And I talked to an attorney and she said, in a way, it's kind of like a race for who's first.
So if the administration's agency says the NDA is void before the tortious interference lawsuit moves forward, then he could get out of that because it could say it's a breach.
But you have to realize that these attorneys and the way the media works, they will blow something up to make it sound so crazy.
When Taylor wrote the article about me, she included this one thing saying that I was representing talent without a talent agency license.
Now it sounds like, oh my gosh, I can't believe that.
Well, a talent agency license, it really only matters if you are an agent in LA.
But you have to file, you have to pay 500 bucks, you fill in some paperwork, and then you get the license.
It's not, you know what I mean?
They're not like putting you through some rigorous thing to find out if you're, you know, okay to be an agent.
It's, so, but the way it sounds to people that don't understand it is like, oh, she's violating, and I did have a talent agency license, by the way.
I'm trying to be very academic in how I approach that.
But like the double masking and dancing and like, I feel like she's not well.
unidentified
She self-owned herself so hard that it was actually hard for me to fundraise.
By the time that we were able to like go through, I think people were just like, oh, we kind of hate her, but she's such a clown that, you know, She's taken herself down, which is fine.
I mean, I think that I'm so happy that I learned sort of the ins and outs of that world because I was so naive to everything.
And really, that's why I came out in defense of, I guess, people think I'm You know, shilling for Crowder or whatever.
I don't even know Crowder.
I never watch his content.
But you can't say that you're against Taylor Lorenz and the type of antics that she does and the people like her do.
And then you notice something and then sit back and say, well, she's doing it to Crowder.
Having dealt with these things, having people come out of the woodwork to stab you in the back.
What I can say that I know is that based on how... I can't speak for Texas, but I can speak certainly for a handful of East Coast states and some in the Midwest.
Right now, Jared just violated his non-dismaragement NDA and raised $92,000.
I do not believe he will face any serious admonishment from the court.
Crowder can do nothing in kind.
They put out a statement, but it wasn't Crowder.
Crowder's not on the show at the time.
If Steven Crowder comes out and says any word about this, the judge will flog him publicly.
This is what I've experienced.
Crowder is in a position where you throw a paperclip into the spokes, and you can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.
They can do nothing to Jared.
The court can be like, we told you not to do that, and likely what'll happen is the court will say, Jared, please don't do that again.
My... My... What... Doing something was there is... Jared is in violation of an agreement he made publicly to raise money.
Okay, you can't do that.
So that's what I mean by doing something.
Crowder can't do something in kind.
Certainly Crowder can file a lawsuit and then cross his fingers and hope the judge actually does something about it.
But what I'm saying is, in these court cases, what I have found, and not just the ones I've been involved in, the people with no money Can break the rules, bend the rules, because the courts have little leverage over them.
They can do very little.
They can go to the CEO of a company, and they can say, we are going to fine you whatever amount of money per day that will cause you to stop doing what you are doing.
You go to someone like Jared, and he's gonna be like, I don't have any money.
And they're gonna say, then please just stop doing it.
So this is the issue.
unidentified
Yeah, again, but like, here's the thing, they they issue their statement.
First of all, the non disparagement would be between him and the company.
So Gerald breaching a state making a statement is like his public response to that.
It's supposed to be a not a mutual non disparagement agreement, by the way.
So like, if we find out through the course of the case that they were also violating it, like telling his other employer, something damaging about him in order to get him fired, then like that might be grounds for them to get out of the NDA.
Like, one of the reasons they filed the complaint with the National Labor Relations Board is that they're trying to get the NDA resolved.
But, like, my main issue, and I would probably be way closer to you on this particular thing, is the fact that they didn't address the key points on it.
Like, I'm not the guy, Stephen Crowder's the guy, with Gerald, who came into this studio and complained about the Daily Wire seizing a social media account.
They were accused of that by Jared.
That was something that they said that he was doing, that they were trying to take his Twitter.
And that's one of the things they were leveraging against him.
So, Jared is in violation of his agreement and Crowder can do nothing.
unidentified
You said in your video, you're like, why isn't he turning in the cease and desist?
Because the cease and desist wasn't filed with the court.
So if he has an NDA with Jared, then that would be a breach of his NDA.
They're only talking about the court documents that were filed, is what I'm guessing.
From what I understand, the mutual NDA is about them not speaking bad about Loud or Crowded, the company, or Steven, or related entities, and the company has a mutual one about him.
So the CEO releasing a statement In your interpretation.
But you're allowed to talk about the lawsuit that you filed.
Listen, again, I'm gonna stress this as much as I can.
I'm very biased having been involved in this.
If I were in Crowder's position, having actively been involved as friends and personally having filed lawsuits and been sued, if this happened to me, And I remember sitting in these meetings with the judge and I said, I went out publicly and my company issued a statement.
The judge would be like, I am now going to fine you $10,000 every day until you take that post down and issue a public apology.
And my lawyers screaming in my face.
The phone calls I've been involved in where I'm yelling at a team of lawyers being like, how are they getting away with this?
And he's like, because they don't have money.
And I said, then why can't we respond?
And he goes, because the judge will fine you $10,000 every time you do.
unidentified
Except he does address some of the allegations in his video.
And like, so you're like, oh, this non, this so this non disparagement, what you're saying makes no sense.
This non disparagement covers his ability to address allegations one and two, but not three and four.
But also he could address five because they address various portions of it.
And again, I'm talking about Louder With Crowder, the company, because they released a statement in response to this, but they didn't address that, and they didn't address whether or not they blackballed them.
It's a simple denial if you're going to deny it.
Fair point.
You went on this whole screed against Daily Wire about how you're creators first, you're against specifically I agree.
Fair point.
of social media companies, including the ones you built, which is something that Crowder said in his video.
He said it here on this show, like a basic denial of that.
Like that's the thing that I'm interested in.
This whole thing with the divorce, like I agree with you guys, I'm not that interested. - I agree, fair point, absolutely. - But do you agree that some of this has to play out in court?
Like, you can't just make allegations unless they're already filed.
Like, I don't know, I feel like that would put them, it would be a liability for Lauder with Crowder.
I think they can only talk about what's been filed in the lawsuit.
At least, when I sued Taylor, it was like, I was, you know, I was advised to only talk about the things that were already publicly filed.
Yeah, you're advised to say nothing, I 100% agree with that.
Yeah, I know, I probably have been better to just say nothing.
Even about anything filed, your advice is to say nothing in any kind of litigation.
That's 100% true.
Here's the interesting thing, and why I'm probably also biased, is because I had this talent agency, I was bootstrapped, I didn't have a lot of money, but there was a point where TikTok people were making a lot of money because during the pandemic there was no music touring in Hollywood, there was no making movies or television, so I basically had a monopoly on these
People that were going to be very, very successful and the talent agents saw that I had that and they basically came to me and they're like, Okay, Ari, you found all these people, you develop them, you know, I've spent my own money to do this.
And so now I have, let's say I had 85 clients.
We're going to come in.
We're UTA.
We're the best.
We're going to come in and you have them signed for 20%.
Okay, cool.
We'll do a deal with you.
We'll take 10%.
You can take 10%.
And by the way, we don't want you to talk to L'Oreal or Chipotle.
We'll take all those incoming deals for you.
And I was like, well, no, I mean, thank you, but no, thank you.
I'm like, I already kind of did the work, and so I'm going to go ahead.
But if you guys want to bring a deal, if you want to go out and be, you know, the hunters and go hunt a deal, I'll give you the 10%.
And because I denied working with them, you know, the 10% then, All of a sudden, they take me down.
And what did they do?
This is what I think they did.
Because at first, I was mad at the influencers.
And I call them kids, but they were over 18.
I think it's kind of like a Jared situation.
They call you up, and they're like, oh my gosh, you're in a terrible deal.
I mean, this woman, Ari, she's the worst.
And did you know she doesn't even have a town agency license?
Well, I did.
But you know what I'm saying?
And then they explain to these 18-year-olds how The law works, and I have these teenagers yelling at me, being like, did you know that you don't have a talent agency license, so all your documents are invalid?
And I'm like, are you an attorney?
So they're basically manipulating, the people at the top, these people, let's just say it's UTA, I don't know for sure, they're manipulating these people to, because they're like emboldening them, you don't need Ari, we could take you here.
So I don't know if that happened, but I think it's possible, at least it happened in my situation.
But I'm not, like, I'm not sure how they're comparable because you had, like, legitimate talent and, like, UTA, like, it is a conflict of interest.
You have these attorneys and journalists that are represented by a talent agency that wants to poach your clients so they're doing all these hit pieces.
They'll do whatever to take you out.
Jared, like, let's, let's be honest.
He was not this, like, you know, fantastic talent that they were trying to poach.
He hasn't been in the, he hasn't been in content for, like, six years.
They used him to get what they wanted.
Which was to destroy his reputation, hurt his divorce proceedings, that's what my opinion is about the matter.
I mean, yeah, what about the portions of the emails where they basically say a PR campaign against Crowder could pressure him into getting, like, effectively paraphrasing, we can win if we launch a PR campaign.
unidentified
I mean, when you're suing a media figure, like, there is a chance that this goes out into the public and you should have a PR strategy.
But I mean, there's a difference between, it may get out into the public end, we want to intentionally drive this to the public sphere to damage his reputation.
unidentified
Look, a lot of those messages are from Hillary's father, and like, you know, I'm not saying he acted appropriately in that, but he is the father, like you would expect a relative to...
To be on the side of the person so it's like messages from him saying like I want to have people that are sympathetic to me which I you know I have that full message too and like you know and even in there they add the caveat that it's like I don't think the terms are unreasonable.
In that message but yeah like I don't like this I don't like the nasty divorce but like the there's there's two separate issues that were kind of like merge like I think the strategy of Gerald the CEO is to like you know start a fire in a corner but then fart in the other corner so you smell the fart and don't notice the fire.
Because, like, a lot of this has nothing to do with the original issues or what even interested me in, like, Jared's story.
Like, I want to know about the non-compete.
Like, I hear a lot that this is common in the industry, but it's actually not that common in niche industries like media.
Because you keep defending the family even though we're trying to talk about Jared and then you say you want to stop combining these things.
unidentified
Divorce is, I mean look, divorce is nasty and people act nasty in the divorce.
What I want to know with the Jared issue is I actually want to hear his side of the story.
We don't have his full side.
And for the divorce, we're getting excerpts from the Crowder side, who again, if you're accused of engaging in lawfare against somebody, and you're also suing with the company, your ex-wife, and her friend, and her parents, and her attorney, that does not lend to your argument.
My point is, I feel like you're being obtuse in trying to come up with reasons to defend the divorce issue when we could just agree we know they sent the footage, we know they wanted a PR campaign.
End of story.
Now let's talk about what Jared is doing.
unidentified
Yeah, I'm not, again, well, the reason that I'm in a disagreement with you is because that, like, worst case scenario, they're both doing this to each other in the public.
I think the lawsuit from the company against Hillary's family and her on top of the divorce for a million dollars is very unusual, like, and, like, nobody's pointing that out.
What do you mean?
That Louderwood Crowder, the company, is suing Hillary, her family.
No, because they're messing with his business.
I mean, the only way that you can find out... First of all, they published footage of Stephen Crowder.
Like, do we deny that that's him in the footage?
You said the family sent... Yeah, that footage published of Stephen Crowder, do we deny that that's him in the video?
So like, their argument in the case, in their filing, is that that caused people to, because their Rumble deal is based on subscribers or whatever, to unsubscribe and that hurts the- It's true.
Someone takes a select cut of video footage that makes me look bad, and omits any and all other context, and it costs me money, the reasonable thing to do- Crowder's company probably went to a lawyer and they said, we'll file a lawsuit, harassment, defamation, etc.
unidentified
What's the additional context in there?
Because they're alleging that 18 seconds is removed from the video.
Someone damages your company by posting embarrassing images about you, you file a lawsuit in response.
We have defamation lawsuits all the time.
Libel, slander, etc.
unidentified
It's not defamation or anything like that.
By the way though, defamation is much harder to win than tortuous interference because if you can prove that somebody knew there was an agreement between two parties and they did something to specifically ruin that contract, it's much easier to sue for tortuous interference.
I have a question for you because nobody's answered this.
If six years after he quit, Jared was supposed to turn over text messages and discovery, which is normal in a lawsuit, and get deposed.
Like, why didn't he just do that?
He didn't have to spend all that money on litigation.
Like, what was in those text messages that he does not want to give them over?
Like, that's what makes me think that these lawyers are like, you know, Jared, we're going to figure out a way that you don't have to turn this stuff in.
Like, why is everybody helping him so that he doesn't have to turn over discovery?
I mean, if you don't want to spend all that money on lawyers, it's okay.
I agree with you on the point that there's an interesting statement from Jared about Crowder wanting ownership of his social media, while Crowder had disparaged Daily Wire for something similar.
I think that's an interesting point that should be addressed.
I don't know how we get to that, except through court proceedings, deposition, and the release and discovery.
unidentified
And that's what's going on right now.
But as far as why you wouldn't want to turn over with discovery, nobody wants to turn over discovery.
It's intrusive.
This is like, well, if you're not committing any crimes, like, let the government go through your phone.
He's describing it as legal abuse.
And it's just so if you bog somebody down, you can you can bog somebody down in legal costs like intentionally in order to do that.
Of course, again, if you file motions against them and they have to hire representation.
That's a movie exaggeration that you can bury someone in paperwork.
It's technically true, but people think it's... Like, if I were to file a bunch of claims and things, the judge would say, nice try, and throw it in the garbage.
Judges are human beings.
unidentified
I mean, that did happen in the divorce case.
Like, if you go to Tony's current revolts, because he was in the courtroom, if you go to his reporting, one of the things the judge was like, he's like, why are there so many motions?
The idea that you could actually, as a wealthy person, be like, I will bury you in paperwork.
It's something people see in movies.
The judge goes, why do you have 17 lawyers on this and 17 different filings?
You are clearly trying to waste the court's time to put pressure.
There's a, uh, there's a term for it in court, they call it, I forgot what it was, and, uh, they just, the judge will say, no, and they throw it on the, we won't even read it, and they'll throw it in the garbage.
unidentified
I mean, you just said that the judges will do whatever, like, you know, earlier on.
But here's the thing, Jared fought with the judge.
I'm sorry, sorry, just real quick on the point of judges.
I think, you know, I can't speak for everybody, but you know, having grown up watching movies and TV, I certainly at a young age had this naive interpretation of what judges did.
And then when you actually go to court, you're like, oh, imagine, imagine this.
Your neighbor, and you are arguing over who gets the apples from the apple tree because his tree is growing onto your property.
And so you go to the neighbor across the street to argue it to him.
That's a judge.
That's literally, he's gonna be like, why are you guys fighting about?
And you're like, well, his tree goes into my yard, so I think the apples are mine.
No, it's my tree, the apples are mine.
And he's gonna be like, I don't care about either of you.
Take the apples that are on your side, take the apples that are on your side and stop bothering me.
That's what judges do.
unidentified
But to be clear, I've actually had this done to me not in a civil context, in a criminal context.
When I was 12, I got wrongfully arrested.
You pay a lawyer, a retainer, it covers five appearances.
The prosecutor was trying to extend the appearances.
That's what the strategy was, and that would run up the cost for me and for my family.
So there are ways that you can extend costs on other people.
Of course there's people that get legal abuse.
I just don't think that, in this case, Jared was legally abused.
And the thing is, he spent money to fight basically with Crowder over the 202 petition saying, I don't want to give over Discovery.
And they fought about it.
That's why he spent money on litigation.
But the judge said, no.
So after they fought, he lost.
And then the judge said, OK, you have to give over Discovery.
And then Jared's like, no, I'm not going to do that.
I'm sorry, but you can't go in one hand and say, I want justice and this was done to me and then say, well, I'm not going to abide by the legal system.
And then on top of it, it's like now he's saying the other thing that he was saying is that he was there was like sexual stuff that was going on on set and stuff like that.
The thing is, you have, I think in Texas, 300 days to file a sexual harassment thing, so that was long gone.
So he's really saying all that.
I, in my opinion, he didn't care about that stuff.
He didn't get sexually, they were, I don't know, it's probably some kind of, you know, fratty type of thing, but was he really, like, traumatized over whatever happened?
I don't think so.
I also think it's kind of like probably the attorneys are like, well, let's talk about what went wrong when you worked there.
Like, what can we pull?
- I don't think it's like a me too situation.
And it's like-- - I don't think so either. - I also think it's kind of like, probably the attorneys are like, well, let's talk about what went wrong when you worked there.
What can we pull out of this? - If I was at HR, I wouldn't say, "Look, we thought it was funny." And like-- - No, that was weird.
I would have been like, listen, listen, first of all, don't admit to that happening back and forth.
But the correct response when an employee starts exposing himself is to fire said employee.
The crazy thing about the corporate world, people should understand, is you have to do it based on law, because we live in a pseudo-communist country, right?
We're not a free market capitalist country, we're a mixed economy, which means there's tons of regulations, and people like to think, like, why do they have these diversity trainings?
They're required to by law.
And it's not so much by law, but by mechanism, that you're legally required to have insurance.
But insurance companies only insure you if you do the diversity trainings, and the companies get terrified of lawsuits because they could lose their insurance and it shuts their company down.
So, if someone here were to expose themselves, the first thing we do is we call a private security company, who then comes and escorts the person on camera with body cameras and all that stuff, gently off the property, and then waves them a polite goodbye.
There was that story recently where a woman went on TikTok and claimed a guy shoved her down the stairs.
And so, why did the bar have security come escort her out politely with cameras?
So, like, especially a public accommodation where you're letting people in, legal requirement to have insurance.
Or not even necessarily a legal requirement.
It could be like any standard business needs a loan to finance the property and the equipment.
Okay, in order to get the loan, you need the insurance.
In order to get the insurance, you gotta have cameras.
In order to get the insurance, also you need security guards.
This is exactly why.
unidentified
Yeah, absolutely.
And I mean, so probably the most egregious statement that Taylor Lorenz wrote in the New York Times about me, she wrote a statement basically saying that I leaked nude photos of a client for revenge because he was trying to leave.
This is after she, in pre-publication, before she published the article, she said, you know, we heard that Ari was doing this.
And my attorney said, absolutely not.
That's defamatory.
And she said, well, we're not we're not saying that she leaked them publicly.
So in the article it says, Ari, she leaked my nudes.
I mean, she acknowledged that, we're not saying that Ari leaked nudes, and then she published, she leaked my nudes.
So what actually happened is that I was representing a 25 year old guy, and another manager texted me, and I was representing like TikTok houses, and there was a house full of girls and a house full of guys.
And the manager said that this guy is sending nude photos to a 14 year old girl.
So imagine, as a manager, if I hadn't looked into that.
So I took and I said, what are you talking about?
They sent me just like, and how do you know about that?
Well, it's in a chat room with 100,000 people.
Anyway, I take the message, I send it to my HR person who's under NDA, to my lawyer and to the guy that was being accused.
And I said, did you do this?
What's the deal?
Oh, no, somebody broke into my iCloud and leaked all my messages.
It's all in a text message.
So You know, I think I was doing my moral ethical duty to look into, like, is this guy that I'm representing sending nudes to a 14-year-old?
And what did it turn out?
In the New York Times, it looks like I'm a total weirdo that's, you know, leaking my clients' nudes.
I mean, that's how they can twist the stories.
And these people are professionals.
I mean, it was wild.
When I was a little girl, I thought the New York Times was like, you know what I mean?
If you get an article in the New York Times, you hang it up on the wall, you put it on the front.
They could go to a homeless guy and they can say, how would you like to be an anonymous source that makes this claim?
Homeless guy says, done.
They go, got it.
They then go publish a story claiming the actual Justice Warrior was caught selling bananas to children on a playground or something.
According to our sources and then when you file a defamation suit and you say this is this is a false statement of fact They say we have an anonymous source who confirmed that you did it And then when the lawsuit comes and the judge orders the journalist they go I will never reveal my source and they don't have to well They'll be held in contempt and I think the longest journalists have protections They have like a shield look, but there are circumstances.
But you'll still be held in contempt.
So you can be held in contempt of court, but typically it's like if a journalist fabricates a story to make their career, they can simply rest on, I will never reveal my sources and gladly spend two months in jail and then come out a martyr and a hero.
It's crooked, evil people.
unidentified
When they go after someone, in that situation, they were not expecting that I was going to sue the New York Times.
When I went to the lawyers that I had at the time, they're like, sweetheart, you got railroaded, but you can't sue the New York Times.
You don't have the money.
The New York Times hasn't lost a defamation suit since the 1960s.
And Harmeet Dhillon and her firm, Matt Sarleson, they represented me.
And, but even when you're in a lawsuit like that, the judge decided twice that I could move forward, but now I have to hire, what is it called, experts of how much money I lost, you know, probably like 100, at least 200 grand.
And it's already been four years of my life.
It's like, you know, I, and my attorneys, you know, they ask me, what do you think?
And the other thing is too is, Only one statement went through.
The judge said, OK, the one statement about the nude photos can move forward.
But then the New York Times could depose me and say, well, did the rest of your article like kind of ruin your career too?
You know, the things that work based on opinion or whatever.
So I would have to prove that only that one statement.
So if they depose me and I said, yeah, actually, this other thing they said could hurt me.
Well, OK, well, we don't have to pay you anything then.
I think the real legal system is actually just force people to just settle instantly, because judges will not help you.
Like, I do not, I had a labor dispute 15 or no this is 20 years ago and after months of litigation and we had hard proof witness testimony of all of this violation of the law.
The lawyers that we had came back said, you're each gonna get paid a few thousand dollars and it's over.
And I said, whoa, like we've caught them breaking the law.
We've caught them doing all these things.
And they were like, we calculated how much you would have gotten if you weren't fired.
And it's $6,500.
You can take this or you get nothing.
So we recommend you take it.
And I was like, what's the punishment?
What's the fine for the company for breaking the law?
And they're like, nothing.
And I was like, wow.
And they were like, but be happy that you're getting some cash.
It's unbelievable.
unidentified
Yeah, you have to prove damages, and then you can get punitive damages on top of that, in theory, but like, that's a much harder burden.
So I think the company must have offered your attorneys a settlement, right?
So, I don't want to get into too much detail, because of the settlement itself, you know, afterwards they say you'll never disparage the company or whatever.
But the issue was basically keeping it vague.
The company came back and said, okay, it's been six months.
We'll give each of your clients about six, $7,000, and then we're done with it.
Otherwise, you know, like you're going nowhere.
And so we actually had the government involved.
We had the government actually investigating criminal wrongdoing in labor violations and things like this.
And all of them came back and said, guys, we really just want to go get a cheeseburger.
And so when I'm talking to like actual employees of government watchdog groups, and I'm like, here's all the proof they did it.
Here's the witness testimony.
There's five witnesses.
They were like, do I have to?
Can you just take the money?
I could sit here and play Pac-Man right now if you weren't in my office.
And so basically you've got everyone saying, why are you stupid?
It's $6,000.
Just take the money.
And then of course, It's so insane.
It's like the trial tax, but for civil court.
They come back, and then even your own lawyers and even the government watchdogs are like, listen, in three years, there could be a big story about a $100,000 penalty.
You might end up getting paid $20,000, but there's $6,000, a check right here with your name on it.
Don't you want to just let them get away with it?
And I said, no!
And they said, unfortunately, the other clients involved have accepted the money.
And I'm like...
It's all you can do.
unidentified
And the thing is with the New York Times is they have a rule where they actually won't, I guess they don't do settlements.
So they won't pay you.
So even if they would have agreed to like do mediation and say like, okay, well, we'll, you know, we'll change that one sentence in the article.
I mean, what's that going to do for me?
I would rather just end the thing and be able to speak freely and I don't have to sign a gag order or whatever to tell my story because I think, you know, being able to survive a media hit piece is something that is valuable to help other people.
I mean, I used to get messages all the time of People telling me, like, I'm kind of like, you know, thank you for standing up because I was destroyed by the media.
You hear about Crowder and, you know, Johnny Depp and all, you don't hear about the little guys because they're told by their lawyers, well, you can't see the New York Times.
You can't do anything about it.
That was the example.
I was thinking I couldn't think of it.
Amber Heard did file a bunch of her allegations in court.
And if we take like just her complaint as a source, Johnny, that's a terrible guy, even though he ended up winning that case.
Like someone could say he kicked my dog and then you respond, the dog was biting me.
unidentified
You know what I mean?
My question is, why are so many people triggered by this?
I spoke out because I saw some inconsistencies and there's literally people on X that are huge influencers that I thought I was friendly with that unfollowed me, didn't want to talk to me anymore.
And I'm just like, why are people so, I guess, One of the big issues that actually was the reason why I was like, hey, we should do a show on this, was the conservative feminists who came out being like, Crowder should have to pay.
And like, this idea that... So, you know, what I said was, Crowder is paying $25,000 a month, it's a temporary order during the proceedings.
It's been stated by numerous people, but everyone's arguing what's true and what's not.
So it is in dispute, I suppose, but the Crowder estate, which is both Crowder and his wife, are paying the legal fees of all the lawyers involved.
Which makes sense considering you're splitting up assets in a divorce anyway.
Crowder then has to additionally pay $25,000 to her per month, which she's then using for all of her legal fees in response to the Crowder lawsuit, which is separate.
unidentified
This is inaccurate.
So in Texas, I looked this up because I assumed this to be true because I was like, this is so bold.
So in Texas, at the end of a divorce, the estate will cover the fees.
That is something that will happen.
But the presumed rule in Texas is that you have to put up the money in the beginning of the proceedings.
So since Crowder's a stay-at-home mom, Hillary Crowder, obviously.
Both crowders are stay-at-home moms.
It's a really weird divorce case.
She has to file a petition and then they allot her a certain amount of money.
That amount is the $25,000.
That temporary court order is supposed to cover her attorney fees and minimal living expenses because the idea is if you marry somebody and you get them to leave their job like Steven did, she was making more money when they got married.
Do we know how much?
I don't he said he said in the past that he wanted the traditional life so even though she was making more money because they married 10 years like he was starting out so that they you can't just like run up the cost on them when they can't literally have any lawyer like so this is different from like whether you're using a law firm or whatever.
And so that's what the $25,000 is for.
That's what it's supposed to be covered.
And that's why it's a temporary motion.
But you had said at one point it's child support.
It's not child support.
Texas caps child support even at the max end at like $9,200.
So it's definitely not that.
This is to cover her legal costs.
But there's been additional documents that she has incurred way more lawyer bills.
Lauren Southern actually published it in her video, the actual ruling by the judge, that had to have him set aside additional money because you do have to pay for these individual motions and all these different hours related to the case.
So that money has been wildly misinterpreted, on purpose by the way, by Gerald, that this is money that she's putting in her pocket in order to spend.
My view on this, what I tweeted was, okay, fair point on the child support, if it's not child support, it was like a temporary, it's like an allotment he has to pay her during the proceedings.
unidentified
And that's to protect Crowder, right?
Because if it was the estate that just paid Unlimited, then she could do, like, you know, what a lot of people think he's doing, where you're just running up the cost on the estate, so by the time the divorce is over, he's bankrupt.
And I think the real answer should have been that when problems arose, a judge told them both STFU, you are in a marriage.
It is a sacred covenant.
You will not do X, Y, and Z. The problem I have with this is.
Marriage has become dating.
It's dating with strings attached in the financial world after the fact.
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't get married if you don't want to get married, okay?
If you don't want to get into a position where you have to file for a divorce and hire lawyers for these reasons, then don't get married at all.
And so the issue is not so much Like, in this argument I'm making, it's not to do with Hillary or Stephen specifically.
It's about the fact that we live in this world where people get married and then go, you know what?
It was a mistake.
Let's sever ties.
You pay me.
Like, okay, hold on.
This whole thing is broken.
The whole thing is broken.
The other point, you know, so like Lauren Southern responded to me saying, or she responded in general to many people.
So what?
Hillary gives up her job for Steven, but now that they're getting a divorce, she has no money?
And I'm like, even if...
She kept her job.
She would never have anywhere near as much money as Steven Crowder has.
I don't appreciate this argument that Crowder, as a wealthy man, pays her $25k a month.
If Steven Crowder was worth nothing and had no job, we wouldn't be having this argument.
So it's not an issue of whether she's entitled to as a woman and give up her job.
It's an issue of Steven has money, therefore they think he should pay.
So there's an interesting phenomenon here.
I don't think it's feminist at all.
emerged in this particular case where you're seeing a lot of these traditional conservatives actually come out as full on feminist as soon as it comes to the issue of divorce.
unidentified
I don't think it's feminist at all.
If you want to incentivize traditional marriage, like you can't like put one party in a position where they get totally like ripped off in case of a divorce.
The traditional response to how you fix marriages, divorce is not allowed.
Okay, but there are rare circumstances where like a guy is threatening to murder and beating his wife and his kids and infidelity is one of these things.
These are people who I don't think those accusations are on the table.
They're mostly just angry with each other and yelling at each other and they're not getting along.
That's where a judge comes in and says, you are grown adults.
You will behave appropriately, you have children, those children need functioning parents, you will treat this relationship properly, get therapy, and at the very least, if you don't like being around each other, you will be professional.
And you chose this, this covenant.
We now, as a society, this is why it is absolutely a feminist position to say, we should allow for divorce over irreconcilable differences.
unidentified
Yeah, but like, what are you advocating for?
For them to like, live in the same house when they don't like each other?
And then 10 years later, they're like, I'm having fun.
I quit.
unidentified
So in your like theory of like how this should work, like, so you should be able to theoretically using an example, very like not related to this at all, like, you know, let's say your media personality, and you move out by a townhouse, and then you cut your wife off financially, like, You should be able to do that.
There should be no court redress for that.
Because that's what happened in this case.
No, no, as long as you don't get divorced, though.
No, the judge will say, stop, you are married, STFU, you will both be in this house, you will raise your kids, you will stop fighting, and you will get therapy.
If you don't want to get married, don't get married.
unidentified
You just said that you don't trust judges in the way that they handle people with money versus no money, and now you're like, the judge needs to assess whether or not you should live in the same house?
That's completely irrelevant to the point that I'm making.
Okay, so let's talk about if you don't want to get married, you don't get married.
Instead, the progressive, feminist, and liberal response has been, let's weaken the institution of marriage.
And I'm like, whoa, leave marriage as it is.
People just don't have to get married.
People need to understand.
And part of me, I'm kind of glad we're seeing all this, because when you see the shocking reality of divorce, many people realize like, uh-oh, there's a problem here.
Maybe I shouldn't get married.
Maybe you shouldn't.
If you get married, and you swear an oath till death do us part, I do not believe you should be allowed to get divorced unless, except in extreme circumstances, like traditionally what it used to be was infidelity, abuse, criminal activity, things like this.
With the crowders, yes, I very much believe a family court judge should say, the problem here is two people who don't get along.
Be adults.
Grow up.
Shut your mouths.
Do not fight in front of the kids.
That's it.
unidentified
Okay, so let me, because, I mean, like, that's like an ideal, like, perception of what should be, but, like, let's say that meets your parameters for something that you can get divorced over, okay?
And, but you have a traditional... Like abuse and stuff.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, like, not this case, but, like, let's say a theoretical case.
A guy's beating his wife.
Yeah, something like that.
So in that particular case, like let's say the one of the people is same situation and makes all the income.
The other person gave up their job 10 years ago.
Like should they be able to run up the costs and like when the other person can't afford an attorney be frozen out of the estate?
Even though that a state in Texas law it's not it's not it's not a singular scenario in the instance of say abuse a woman shows up to the police.
unidentified
Covered in blood with teeth missing and then they go okay we're arresting a lot of guys not working if you eventually file for divorce in that kind of situation like how should the attorneys be paid for.
The family is a dual income, like they file jointly, they're married or whatever.
Then it should be that the divorce lawyers are paid.
Now, I think the issue there is you don't really have the same kind of divorce law when you have evidence of clear violations of fault in a divorce.
Now, that being said, infidelity is where things do get particularly troubling.
And I know a lot of people then say, Tim, the problem here is women will fabricate or men will fabricate.
They'll accuse each other of infidelity.
And I'm like, yeah, bad people do bad things.
How about you don't get married?
unidentified
I think the reason you got so much pushback is because the practical reality is that a lot of people on the right are pushing for a more traditional stay-at-home kind of marriage situation.
Now I'm getting married, but my fiancé is going to make pretty good money.
She's currently working on her career and all that.
But, like, you know, I would expect if I got her to stay at home, if, like, we were to get divorced, that I wouldn't be able to drown her in legal costs and, like, you know, half your estates or whatever.
It's not that Crowder has to pay, it's that it's no-fault divorce.
Like getting divorced for we're fighting a lot.
unidentified
But I'm saying this is why you're getting pushback.
It's like the misstatement of the 25K, which, to be fair, that was put out intentionally, I believe, by a lot of recrouter to make it seem like it's greedy Hillary.
That was their narrative.
And then it was the it's the idea that like, yeah, the traditional housewife gets totally screwed under your scenario.
But why is there is a divorce?
Why is it unfair to criticize Jared?
That's what I'm like.
So I wasn't getting involved in the whole thing and people were like, I made a funny video of, it was like, have you seen the social network?
You know, when they're basically, it was about the Facebook and they basically have one of the partners sign a contract and he comes and he's really mad at Mark Zuckerberg because he signed the contract.
He basically signed away his shares, but he signed it.
And I mean, you know, they had litigation over it.
Anyway, I made like a funny video I'm like, you know, not gay Jared, I thought was like a comedian.
And people were just like, you are so, you know, they're treating Jared like he's this dainty flower that can't be criticized.
And I'm like, why?
I mean, why can't we just criticize?
And it's all these people.
And I'm guessing it's because of the Hillary thing that they're so triggered by it.
But it's like, you should be able to ask questions about Jared. - I think a lot of people don't like Steven Crowder to be fair.
That's 100% built into this process.
I don't find myself in this camp.
Like, I don't care about the divorce.
I didn't even know his wife's name until this whole thing came up.
Like, that's the way I want to live with people in their personal lives.
The people who hate Crowder say things like, Tim's friends with Crowder.
That's why he's doing this.
I'm like, I think I've talked to Crowder 10 times in my life.
unidentified
But that's the thing.
So there's always going to be a huge portion of people that if you come out against Crowd, it doesn't matter.
They're going to be on that side.
But do you agree that if you're like dunking on Taylor Lorenz and all these journalists all the time because they're using shady tactics, they twist media narratives, and if you're going to say that that's wrong, Then and you figure out that maybe something Jared is doing is a little manipulative and twisting a narrative and whatever like why is calling that out now all of a sudden you're you know we're gonna take you out of the cool club it's like the mean girls club I got all these mean girls against me and I'm like but why?
There is a clicking element like these are these are all like the case like you know people don't like Steven so anybody who says anything even if it was like Even if this guy, even if it wasn't Jared, and it was just a random guy claiming to be Jared, and we all knew it wasn't him, because it was like some Asian dude, and we're like, we've all seen what Jared looks like, there will be people mad that you didn't take the fake Jared sign.
Let me read a super, real quick, it's a super chat.
Little Rock says, an attorney, louder with clatter, can address what has been said by Jared, and they can talk about what has been filed as a complaint, response or exhibits.
There was no violation by Jared, and he was advised by an attorney, and everything he said was reviewed.
So you asked, why don't they address the issue of seizing his social media accounts?
I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't, but my assumption would be this.
I don't know if this guy's actually a lawyer or not.
unidentified
It sounded like he was saying that he could have addressed it in that super chat.
I just, I immediately found it odd that a guy claiming he needs legal fees to fight an NDA was violating the NDA.
I'm like, well, you already violated it.
What do you need?
Like, if you're... So, when I was a kid, my friends would be like, I was like, hey, you want to go skate?
And they're like, I can't, I'm grounded.
And I would go, what does that mean?
And they're like, well, I can't go outside.
And I'm like, why not?
Because I'm grounded.
What'll happen if you go outside?
What do you mean?
I can't!
I'm like, let's like, take your skateboard, go outside, what happens?
I'll get grounded more!
And I'm like, okay, so you're grounded longer?
Then what happens?
What do you mean I can't go outside again?
I'm like, what happens if you're grounded longer and then you go outside again?
They'll ground me even longer!
And I was like, do you see where we're going with this?
So the dude doesn't have the money for- he doesn't have money in general.
He's under legal action, which you can't get blood from a turnip.
And what do they say?
There's a saying in- there's another saying related to this in law, suing someone who's penniless or something like that.
And, uh, like you'll always lose or whatever.
So he's like, help, I need money because I'm under an NDA that I'm currently in violation of right now so I don't fear the consequences of losing the case because I will instantly as soon as they show the video I used for the fundraiser.
And I'm like... So it's flushing money down the toilet.
unidentified
He could presumably win with his NLRB commercial.
Here's another red flag, by the way, guys, is like the day after he raises all this money, it was a quartering post or something, and he reposted and he's like, if you keep saying these opinions about me, I'm going to sue you.
And I'm like, first of all, you can't sue for defamation over opinion.
Nobody should be taking legal advice from Jared, okay?
And then his attorney, so, cause I called it out, I called a couple of things out and his attorney starts responding to me.
And I was like, well, basically the attorney says, well, if somebody talks bad about you, you know, you should just like say, you know, the opposite thing.
You just come out and say the other thing.
And I'm like, for an attorney to be like, make it so simple of like, once a lie is spread in the world and it's damaging your business, it's not like you can just put it back in the box.
This guy is simplifying things, I think, on purpose.
And I mean, the whole filing about the NDA, in my opinion, it's just like, this is a loophole.
We're going to make this whole big deal about an NDA, which a lot of people sign NDAs.
We're going to get him out of the NDA because, to be fair, I did talk to an attorney and she said, you know what, it's in the non-solicitation clause, or sorry, not the non-solicitation, the NDA may have been overly broad.
So when... But isn't there also a non-disparagement?
I believe it was a non-disparagement and a non-disclosure.
unidentified
So I guess from what she explained to me... In the non-disclosure, because they have the text in that guy's post, I think it's like it says in the non-disparagement, like you also don't say anything about... The fact that it's like in perpetuity, that could be damaged.
She basically said that she felt as though the NDA was sort of drafted, you know, by It wasn't drafted in a very well done way.
I want to make sure they're separate because I want to address the nondisclosure.
unidentified
Yeah, they're different.
Yeah, I meant the nondisclosure, sorry.
Obviously, it's not disparaging for me to say what I'm going to say.
I can't go and say, hey, yo, Tim's working on a documentary about this particular case or whatever, like, to the Daily Wire, and then they scoop you for it.
So we have NDAs here, and it's specifically for that reason, and people need to understand that that doesn't preclude someone from, like, if someone came out and said, Tim did bad thing, They're like, release the NDA, Tim!
No, no, no, the NDA doesn't stop them from doing that.
Non-disclosure simply means they can't release information pertaining to the operation of the business.
So, if someone said Tim did bad thing, I could argue, ha, but bad thing was part of business, and a judge, depending on what bad thing was, would be like, shut up.
You're wasting our time, and so this doesn't apply.
So we've actually had instances where Without getting into too much detail for obvious legal reasons, because when I mention these lawsuits, we've had a handful from both us being sued and us suing others.
There have been instances where people have done things that I would say are crimes, but the things they did involved the release of information that I would say probably is on the line of how the business operates, but no lawyer would actually think it was a plausible argument.
So there are people who are able to actually break the law, Get away with it.
We've had several instances where crimes were committed against us, and the government is just like, we don't care.
Screw you.
The judges say, is anyone hurt?
No?
Then we're not doing this.
And I'm like, these are federal felonies.
And they're like, we don't care.
unidentified
Well, even lawyers will advise you sometimes, like when this whole thing happened, people were like, well, why didn't you just sue all the influencers?
Didn't they have contracts with you?
And it's like, I went to the lawyers and at first I was, Directing my frustration at the influencers.
And they're like, what are you going to do?
You as a talent agent who wants to develop talent, you're going to go sue a bunch of influencers that some of them haven't made it yet.
And some of the people that spoke bad about me, I wasn't even signed.
I had actually said, no, thank you.
I don't want to represent you.
And they went to Taylor and said, oh yeah, we were signed to Ari and we got a bad deal.
These people can twist things, but people that don't have a lot to lose are kind of dangerous sometimes.
So the NDA, the non-disclosure, is like, we've developed methodologies and technologies here at Timcast for how we operate.
There's forward-facing things I find absolutely hilarious when I see people doing the same thing we do.
I'm like, wow, it's really crazy that people have used the same font, the same structure of videos, and all these other things.
Why not?
If it works, people want to make sure it works.
So internally there are things that like the way we hang the cameras they're not in the walls and we have in the new studio we have wiring that goes internally the way we made that operate the way we made it so that you can easily access and replace cables while they're running through the whole walls of the studio is our specific methodology and it's very light it's a technology in that we've created a system by which wires can run and be easily accessed.
We don't want our trade secrets that we spend tons of money on to be given to other people so they can compete with us.
To be fair, in that instance of the wiring, I really don't care.
But we do have other things.
Typically, I'm totally fine with explaining how we do things, how it operates, how much money videos make, why they make that money.
I have tons of people who are like, I'd love to come and have you just tell me all these things.
And I'm like, yep, no problem.
I don't need to charge money to anybody to consult.
We could, but it's fine.
However, the reason non-disparagements exist, separate issue is, You had people who you did not represent who lied.
Now, why would they do that?
It's like, I don't know you.
We're not enemies.
I have no issue here.
They see an opportunity for gain.
unidentified
And so if you... And everything is content.
Remember, these are people that want to be famous.
They will do anything to be famous.
And you have Taylor Lawrence over here.
Well, maybe if you're in the New York Times, you could get verified.
I mean, before Instagram verification was like the holy grail for influencers.
Because we've had instances where people make up lies about what's happening here.
It's the weirdest thing.
And so if someone is, let's say, I'm gonna give a total hypothetical.
John Smith is working for a big company and he gets caught stealing.
He gets caught red-handed, not on camera, no hard criminal evidence, but the boss sees it, writes him up for theft, and then says, you are immediately terminated, hand over your badge and never come back.
You're lucky we're not calling the police.
Or they do call the cops and the cops are like, look, we don't have any proof he committed, it's gonna be hard to prove.
We say just terminate him for cause, this is the reason.
The guy walks out the door, fuming and angry that he got caught, immediately calls a journalist and says the guy was exposing himself.
Then the New York Times says, we have an anonymous source who claims, or not even, this person was fired after he caught his boss.
Or a woman gets fired, or a man, probably in this scenario more so a woman, and accuses the boss of impropriety or harassment.
So then you create non-disparagements so that, not so that you can cover up your wrongdoing, but so that they can't go and lie to make money and grift off of their wrongdoing.
unidentified
And this is like, I mean, anybody that watches reality TV, I mean, you'll never see, a lot of the people that are on The Bachelor, that are on Love is Blind, they don't release the secrets of the behind the scenes because they know that there's this big company, ABC, that they can come after them.
Even, look at Tucker Carlson.
You won't hear him bad-mouthing Fox, you know?
People, and even Dave Landa, I mean, people abide by these agreements because they know a big company could sue me.
For example, when Taylor Lorenz was coming after me, And she was saying that I didn't pay influencers on time, which was not true.
In order to basically provide exculpatory information, stuff that would say that I was innocent, I would have to breach my NDA with said company that was supposed to pay us, right?
So if I go and say, oh, this Fortune 500 company paid us late, and that's why the influencers didn't get paid, not because I didn't pay them, then that Fortune 500 company could sue me Because I broke my NDA.
So my lawyer was like, even though this will basically exonerate you, you can't share that.
And what did I do?
I complied.
But you know, I did the right thing.
And I feel like... Isn't there normally like a court proceedings like carve out?
I think even in the non disparagement that they publish for Jared's case, like it's like, except obviously, if there's like court proceedings, like there were the terms of the deal.
All the influencers breached their non-disparagement NDAs with me, but I didn't have the money to sue them all.
Is that an issue because it's the third party company that was involved?
Well, so here's why I have some empathy for the Crowder situation, is because somebody that has nothing to lose is really messing with your business.
And then you have these people over here that are probably gonna benefit.
In my situation, it was UTA.
And so, of course, you're trying to get to the bottom of it.
Now, I don't know who... Steven Crowder sounds like he has a lot of enemies.
I don't know how... Do you think the conservative media space is very competitive in terms of... No, it's pretty complimentary.
Friendly?
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, so I don't know how, you know, but it does seem like he really had a fight with Daily Wire.
And of course, I'm not saying that they are behind it, but if you find out that somebody's having turmoil, right, and they're like your enemy and your competitor, and you find out they're having a messy divorce, and like, if you could add a little fuel to the fire of somebody that you really hate, I don't see, you know, it's like just Ben Shapiro doing the $500.
Maybe he wasn't behind it.
You know, it's just like... That's a statement though.
Let me get my people to like, really, you, you know, you messed with us.
Now we're going to, that's typical, I guess, in any competitive spaces that people are going to want to take down their competitors, especially somebody that's slighted them.
Man, the Daily Wire, like Crowder, the Daily Wire have a lot of haters.
You know what I mean?
They certainly have their big fan bases, but Crowder's got a lot of people, especially on the right, who just hate him.
The Daily Wire, especially.
I think the Daily Wire now, because of the Candace Owens stuff, I think Candace is fantastic, by the way.
I tweeted this before, I didn't think much of Candace Owens until I went on her show, and I wasn't saying I didn't think much of her in the negative sense, like, I don't think much of that guy.
No, no, no, what I meant was, she rarely ever came to mind.
I didn't pay attention to her, I didn't follow her, I didn't really think of her at all.
And then when I went on her show and we actually talked, I found her logic to be sound, well-researched, and I was fairly impressed.
I was like, wow, she's actually pretty good at what she does, and she doesn't back down when she believes something to be correct, so I can respect that.
So when she's at the Daily Wire and is saying the things that she wants to say, and then Ben Shapiro comes out and says, you know, we have an Overton window at the Daily Wire, we're not going to support certain ideas, it flies in the face of things he's said in the past about other companies doing the same thing.
So I can understand why people are like, oh, the Daily Wire.
unidentified
Yeah, I saw, was it Andrew, the comedian?
Andrew Klavan?
Yeah, talking about it.
Oh, no, the comedian, somebody else.
Andrew Klavan works at the Daily Wire.
Not Andrew Klavan, Slaygrant Podcast.
Anyway, he was talking about that as well, and I think... Yeah.
I mean, I've seen Ben's statement, and he's like, yeah, like, I would never advocate for somebody to be removed from a platform, but we're a publisher, and we have, like, an ideology.
And by the way, good on Megyn Kelly asking him that question.
Do you agree with dissent in the conservative space, except when it comes to Israel?
I mean, I feel like what Daily Wire has been... I feel like Daily Wire kind of has a monopoly of developing talent underneath a conservative Publisher media company.
You don't think so?
Because you've done this.
Like, so what you mean is like you've had people on that were relative nobodies and became more successful like on your show and then left, right?
So these are the co-hosts that we've had and and Phil Labonte.
They all had their own platforms for coming on and Luke and Seamus came on as just recurring guests.
Phil is a private contractor for other areas of the company and we have him on as a co-host and it's of his own volition like But I'm saying in your time, like where you've been on the platform, like you've developed people that- I'm saying it's benefited all of them as personalities coming on the show.
Because like Tommy Lahren- I have no contracts with these people.
So let me stress, for Phil, our agreement is mostly around like consulting in entertainment and stuff like this.
And then as an aside, because he's here, I'm like, whenever you feel like coming on the show, you guys deal with it.
We love having him, he's a smart guy.
Luke and Seamus, we had no agreements with, and I was like, come hang out, come on the show whenever you feel like it.
There's no restrictions, no requirements, they can promote their own stuff and whatever, they still benefit from the show.
We, like, I gotta be honest, like, I think we're really bad, corporate-wise, here at Timcast, in terms of, I'll never go public for this reason.
We don't have non disparagements.
Maybe we should.
We don't do like agreements with people who come on the show for occurring roles and like, maybe we should.
Daily Wire business model, though, is to develop talent.
Use their platform.
What I thought is really interesting is like the Brett Cooper model.
So I watched this kind of behind-the-scenes thing.
They had this idea for a Gen Z wholesome girl that was going to talk about conservative topics.
And they actually sent out like a casting thing.
And a bunch of people responded and they saw Brett Cooper.
They're like, she's adorable.
She's going to do it.
And then they built the show around her.
And so, you know, if you look at her views compared to Ben and Candace, she gets more views than all of them.
And so one of the things I did think that if I were The Daily Wire I would have been really mad at Crowder was that there was some, I don't know if Crowder implied it, but there was talk about that Brett Cooper has a terrible contract with The Daily Wire because of the term sheet that Crowder got.
Crowder was already independent, a huge person.
So to compare Brett Cooper's contract with Steve, it's like apples and oranges.
You shouldn't be able to do that.
But when somebody, you know, when you have a talent that's happy, that's bringing in a lot of money, bringing a lot of views, and then there's somebody, you know, a competitor that's basically shading their contract and now potentially going to cause like a Alex Cooper barstool situation where that person wants to leave, that would really upset me.
So I think that may have put a target on Crowder's head.
So, I love this conspiracy theory about Candace Owens, which I don't think is true, but it's funny, that she came out with the Bridget McCrone is a man thing to force the contract to break.
unidentified
I thought that was a little, like, she's like, I will bet my whole career on this.
People were tweeting this, and when I looked on Apple, one of them wasn't there.
But I'm like, is it possible that Candace was having discussions with upper management, Daily Wire, and they were saying things like, you know, look, you work here, you have a contract, you've got to finish the contract, and Candace is like, I want to leave, I don't want to be here anymore.
And they were like, you've got to finish your contract, and then Candace went, okay, I had a conspiracy that was proven wrong, I guess, because I found some inside information.
unidentified
But, you know, Candace launched that Daily Wire channel with them on March 21st, 2021.
And then Jeremy Boren came out and said that they were ending their agreement on March 22nd, 2024.
So I'm like, I think it was just a three year contract.
You know, somebody with inside information said, no, actually, she did get fired.
So when I worked for Fusion, I was actually trying to break the contract.
They said no.
When my contract expired, they called me up and said, thank you and have a nice day.
I said, thank you very much.
And so certainly people, they're going to be like, oh, wow, they called Tim and told me doesn't work here anymore.
And it's like, oh, he got fired.
No, I was trying to quit, but I was under contract.
When the contract ended, they then said, okay, now you can leave.
So I wonder if, you know, Jeremy Boring said on that Twitter, on that X space, I can't comment, obviously someone running a company, I can't comment on people have been fired or whatever.
And everyone went, he confirmed it, he fired her or whatever.
And I'm like, I think the contract expired.
And then they said, have a nice day.
unidentified
I don't, we don't know.
I know that somebody was trying to recruit that.
I have a crazy conspiracy about this too, right?
And it ties back into Crowder.
It's all connected.
So listen, Candace saw what they offer Crowder.
I don't think Candace got that offer.
I think we had a Tomi Lahren situation where she was like, I need to get out of here and go make like money or do my own thing or something like that.
And she was looking to get out of her contract because maybe like the Crowder deal was like a lot for her.
Maybe.
This is my totally like nonsensical conspiracy that everything's secretly about money.
Was it two years ago when we were in Nashville at Tim Castellaro?
I can't remember.
But we went down and we did a week in the mobile studio with the Daily Wire guys.
It was awesome.
We did a special episode with Ben Shapiro.
And while there, we didn't go down there for the explicit purpose of talking about TimCast joining Daily Wire or anything like that.
But obviously we're hanging out, and they said, you're doing really well, you're really big, what can we do together?
Is there something we can do?
And I always tell people, there is no no in business, there's only terms.
And so I said, what do you got in mind?
And they said, here's what we think, X, Y, and Z. One of the things was, I said, I feel like the Daily Wire is stodgy.
Right suit wearing, you know proper traditional approach, you know, and and we're kind of weirdos at Tim cast skateboarding Weird clothes rockstar Luke is a weird libertarian guy and they're like exactly that's why we love it because it's it's it's an overlapping space so we think would benefit everybody and I've been in a lot of negotiations with big companies big corporations and I have tremendous respect for Jeremy Boring.
Yeah, me too.
In terms of the meetings I've had, Jeremy was the most legit and honorable business meeting I've ever had, and I couldn't believe it.
I'm waiting for the BS, and he talked to me like we're sitting here talking right now.
Dude, I've been at these meetings.
Where they say these things that are stupid and obvious lies because they're hoping you're stupid enough to fall for it, and then you call them out and they go, oh, you know what?
You were right!
That, oh, okay, we'll have to change that.
I'm like, no, that's it.
You've wasted my time.
No, with Jeremy, everything was straightforward.
We went over numbers, and the ultimate conclusion was, uh, well, with all due respect, they couldn't afford it.
unidentified
Right.
It didn't make sense as a business.
Right.
And like when Jeremy came out with that video to explain the whole crowd, like I, because I've been in these negotiations, like what he was saying made a lot of sense to me.
And it's like, I don't know, I just feel like there's obviously jealousy and like in life and business and.
And there's people that think that they can do what you do, right?
They think that they can have a studio and employees.
And just because you're a personality, it doesn't mean that you can run a business.
I think I've heard you talk about it before, but it's like very in the weeds.
The people that are watching this stuff, maybe they don't even really care.
They don't need to know how you bake the cake or whatever.
They just want to consume it.
And I think that like, but because there's this, You know, sometimes when you have like a legal spat or whatever, it becomes content.
I mean, Dave Portnoy, when he fought with the girls, he went on their podcast and was like, these are the most greedy, like, this is the most greedy, disgusting thing I've ever experienced.
You know how Dave is, like, he'll just put it out there.
I mean, it's so, it's great.
And people love that.
But it's like, you know, I think people are starting to realize that this is, and everybody picks a side.
I genuinely believe, and this is like one of the first things Jeremy and I were talking about, is that if we had their production, managerial, and marketing apparatus behind us, we would be 10 times bigger.
Like, the money would be massive.
unidentified
Yeah, you have to respect what they put in.
No, no, but what you would take, what you would take would be, would be, because you get a flat fee based on, like, you know what I mean?
I don't want to say too much about... Without getting into the details.
It was a pretty good deal, and it just didn't work.
The issue was, you know, basically what I said to the guys is, it is a great deal.
You are right that, like, we're down here and Daily Wire's here in terms of experience and apparatus, and that would lift us up super quick.
I'm also kind of, I was like, I think, I think I said this publicly, I was like, one of the problems is like, what if I feel like buying a billboard that says, Liz Cheney is a fat pig?
And then I went, Oh, yeah, like, like, it's, you got to be in a team if you're here.
And there's like, strategies and PR stuff.
And so I was like, you see, that's the problem.
And, uh, ultimately what it came down to was, I believe they're correct.
I also think, you know, I was like, I guess the problem is there's a certain point for me, I guess, where we make enough to where even if you offered me a hundred million dollars, I'd just be like, I don't know what to do with that money.
unidentified
You have independence, though, and being able to run your own thing, and you're happy with that, right?
Yeah, the issue about not being able to afford it was like, I literally wouldn't know what to do with the money other than give it away.
So it's like, we do well here.
I think it'd be great if we, like, you know, we've been saying on the show, like, everyone should get fit by November.
I think those things would greatly benefit the anti-establishment, libertarian, conservative, post-anti-woke movement.
And I'd love it if that was a message that went out to 100 million people, But I'm also kind of like, I think the real challenge is not so much the money, but like, you know, I want to buy a billboard and I want to insult Liz Cheney, you know what I mean?
unidentified
Do you agree, though, that like when you go into a deal, so everybody's like, well, he got it, you know, Crowder gave a bad deal.
So if you're a business, you're obviously going to ask for, you're going to put something forward that is in your favor and then see because it goes back and forth like ping pong.
When I was first starting out, one of the big agencies, one of the big five or whatever, gave me a massive contract and I went into the garbage.
And I was like, don't waste my time.
And they were like, you're never going to make it in this industry unless you're willing to play a ball.
And I was just like, dude, I'm not going to hire a lawyer to go through your stupid contract.
One of the biggest radio networks wanted to syndicate my morning show.
And we had this great meeting and they talked and they said all these great things.
And they were like, here's how we'll do it.
We're going to sell ads.
We're going to keep 20%.
And I was like, this is fantastic.
They're like, you're looking at three to $4 million a year.
And I was like, wow.
And the contract they sent me included clauses that said they own the whole company from this point forward.
Basically, they were like, ooh, I hope he signs this because then we own it instantly.
And I read through it and I said, hey, there's a clause in here that says upon signing, you assume ownership of my company.
And they were like, well, you know, these things are in there.
And I said, I was like, email me when you're serious.
And they emailed me back and said, these things are totally normal in contract negotiations, Tim.
You should hire your lawyer to redline these things.
And I said, if you aren't taking this meeting seriously, and you expect me to spend money because you're trying to sneak garbage into this contract, you are an untrustworthy business partner.
Have a nice day.
Bye.
unidentified
I mean, Tim, they were just trying to get you on a radio show, but also secretly take your whole company.
This is why I was saying I like the Daily Wire, because when we went through all this stuff, there's none of that.
Jeremy was like, X, Y, and Z, A, B, and C. What do you think?
I was like, wow, that's a pretty good deal.
I just don't know.
unidentified
I do agree.
I disagree.
Well, I agree that I think that you should put a contract that you think is fair, but there might be something that's really important to someone that you don't know about.
Like, for example, I would do carve outs all the time for my influencer.
So I had You know, a girl that came and she's like, I already have a T-shirt company or whatever.
And so and it's doing really well and whatever.
And so I'm like, OK, well, we're not going to help you build that because you already have that.
So I'll carve that out.
Anything that you make off of that, I won't take a penny of it.
But if you're coming in and, you know, I'm going to have you live in a TikTok house and spend all this money to develop you and we're going to do a clothing brand together and I'm going to hire a marketing company to do the email, you know what I'm saying?
And then then, yeah, I would like a piece of that.
And so I think that in any You have to kind of figure out what is important.
I'm not going to know for sure that she had a t-shirt company.
So maybe it would have said, hey, if you have a t-shirt company, then I get a piece until she tells me, you know, this is what I think is fair.
And with those influencers I had, I went back and forth for like months with them.
So for then for the article to be, you know, Getting signed isn't everything, you know.
I want to be an influencer, but getting signed isn't everything.
Making it seem like I'm some type of witch that, you know, that's not fair.
That's totally normal.
Like, I have a guy that grabs the sponsors for me, but I had pre-existing relationships with non-profits or, well, a non-profit.
So I'm like, yeah, I need a carve out for that.
Right.
And they're like, oh, I don't know if we could do that.
I'm like, I'm not signing.
But it's easy to see how somebody can say, like, you see how Crowder gave a bad deal?
One of the most fascinating things in this industry, especially running any business, is the people who are like, you should give me more money than I produce.
And you're like, okay, well, how do I, how do you suppose I do that?
And I'm like, I don't know, do it.
And you're like, no.
So the way, the way we, we do things here is, uh, if you have preexisting IP that you're working on, we likely will not hire you, but we can contract you for certain things.
So that's why there's a handful of people here who are just contractors for one set thing.
And that means there are certain limitations on what they can and can't do with the company.
And then for anybody who works here, we own everything.
So if you say, I want to come work for your company, anything you make while here, we own.
However, the way we basically structure the deals is once we recuperate initial investment on your labor costs, production costs, or whatever we do.
We then basically start scaling up your pay to the point where we're taking it more like an agency than an employer.
So the easiest way to describe it is, let's say somebody writes a book and the book fails.
Okay, well, how much do we spend on you to write the book, right?
Okay, so your salary at the time, over the period of writing this book was, you know, 15, $20,000.
So we'll put that in the red.
Don't worry, we're gonna keep paying you your salary.
But if that book sells a million copies, we're going to subtract what we already paid you.
And the costs around it, and then keep 20% and the rest goes to you.
unidentified
It's good that you use a book as an analogy, because that sounds like an advance for a publisher.
So just to clarify, what a lot of companies will do is they'll say, we'll pay you $100,000 a year to do the show, and then we'll give you a bonus up to X amount.
Then the show's generating millions of dollars, and they're like, too bad, we don't do it that way.
So I don't know the full deal of the Portnoy thing, but the way I would do it, and I think this is better for retaining talent too is, If I'm like, hey, look, if your show makes $10 million and it costs us $800,000 to produce, we'll take a million.
You can have the rest.
So we get that.
We get that premium on top on top that basically makes it worth us for us to continue operating as a profit.
But you get rich.
We're here to support you.
unidentified
Portnoy tried this, by the way, because he was like, listen, like they had 18 months left on their contract.
It was something like that.
And he was like, the show makes so much money because they were a huge hit.
They were like the number six podcast in the world.
Also because it filled a niche that Barstool didn't have.
It was women.
I mean, they didn't really have women before that.
He's like, I'll shorten the term.
You can keep the IP, but please do the show for like six months more.
Especially because it was keeping them going throughout the pandemic.
That was what was paying the bills, I guess.
I think they got paid like an initial deal, which which you know is a great deal. - He gave them bonuses.
It was like a sliding scale.
Based off of downloads and merch sales, I'm gonna give you extra bonuses.
- He was very honest.
He's like every podcast is like 100K in ad sales.
So like he's losing so much money for them not doing this weekly show.
- Well, they were being stupid.
- That he's like I'll shorten the term, whatever just come back to work. - They're about to be super shady.
You know, there was a guy that worked, he calls him Suitman.
It's so funny.
The whole saga is hilarious.
It got, actually, that whole saga got me interested in Call Her Daddy because I didn't even hear about it before.
But Suitman was this, like, suit, and I think, I don't know if he was a town agent or he worked at HBO, but he was dating one of the girls, this girl Sophia, and he was the one that said, Why don't you guys just leave, call her daddy, you know, leave the IP behind and start this thing at Wondery and we're going to call it the fathers because they call themselves, you know, the daddy gang.
And so anyway, so this guy was like advising his girlfriend and his girlfriend was Sophia and Alex.
And so he causes all these problems.
Well, at the end, Alex Cooper takes the deal that Barstool gives, and Sophia doesn't take it.
Well, guess what?
Alex got the IP, and then she went and got a $60 million deal with Spotify.
Yeah, she got Spotify.
And guess what Sophia got?
Not even mentioned on the first... She hasn't even been mentioned on the podcast.
It's like she went away.
And honestly, she got a bad deal, but it's bad business to go around and screw people over.
I'm sorry.
I don't agree that their deal was bad.
I don't think so either.
There was a time that, well, I know you don't agree, but there was a time when I started out, if you offer me a contract of like, you know, like around 50K a year guaranteed money, I probably would have considered it because I was not, you know, when you start out a YouTube channel, you're making like four grand in AdSense, right?
Well, I meant for like a first like or second year.
So like, you know, it's pretty bad.
So then I'm like, but like, there's like times now where I find my taxes and I'm like, what I would have taken as a salary, I'm now like chucking at the government, right?
So it's like, but like at the time that stability, it's a consistent paycheck.
Stability is huge.
Whether you mess up.
I mean, to be honest with you, now I'm like in this game.
And I mean, at first I was like, oh, you know, maybe, maybe the Daily Wire would hire me.
And then I'm like, no.
I mean, like, I have like pictures of me with like a low cut shirt on.
I'm like, God forbid, you know, there's no way they could hire me.
So, you know, maybe, but would I take a job maybe at Barstool or at Valuetainment or, you know, I would consider it for sure because it is stability.
Haven't you heard that I'm a Daily Wire show?
And even though I don't know anybody there, I'm going to get hired with them imminently.
Me and Anna are going to do a show there, Anna Kasparian.
I wonder though, why do you think that people aren't doing that Brett Cooper model of like, you know, coming up with a format and then hiring the talent for it?
Anybody who's got the skills To do it, uh, doesn't need your money, and, uh, like, so, look, I go to the Daily Wire, they say, hey, we'll pay you a lot of money, and I'm like, yeah, but I already have my own company, I can do whatever I want, and I'm rich, so, like, why would I take this deal?
And they're like, well, you'll be richer, and I'm like...
I don't know what that means.
So, you know, I've talked to people who've got growing channels and I said, "Would you want to sign with us?
We'll basically, we'll pay you more than you're making now.
And then here's how the deal would work.
Like we take a percentage off of it." And they're like, "Why would I do that?" And I'm like, "Because you'll have more money now." And they're like, "I'll have more money in a year." And I'm like, "Yep, fair point." It's interesting that you say that because I feel like we're living in a time where everybody wants to be a creator.
unidentified
And I think that maybe what it is is that it's still hard to find talent.
We're paying a premium for talent because people that have the work ethic to do it, have the consistency.
You would think that there'd be millions of people you could choose from, but it's still a very small amount of people that can survive as independent creators.
I talked about this skateboarder who has a channel, and he's got a couple hundred thousand subscribers, and he did an interview on some podcast where he was like, it sucks, it's not what people think it is, being an influencer is not fun, blah blah blah.
And the issue is, a lot of people think that being an influencer is, you're in front of a camera having fun things, and you make money.
And I was like, what this guy didn't understand is, being an influencer is being a video editor, a photographer, you gotta do thumbnails, you gotta do your own marketing.
So it's not just... And this is basically what the Daily Wire's pitch to me was, like, just be Tim Pool, let us do the business, and it'll be bigger.
And I'm like, you are correct, but...
I kind of like doing business.
unidentified
Yeah, it's the work behind the scenes is like you get because I'm constantly in editing.
Like I'm now like pushing to do like more videos a day and I fully edit them.
So I'm like, like, it's it gets annoying.
But like, I enjoy that back end stuff.
And it's like, I don't want like, you could do it like, you know, like my friend nuance rose teaming up with Lisa, who like works for you, the booker, and they're doing a show right now where they just shoot The nonsense and nuance podcast or whatever they shoot and like somebody takes care of it.
They clip it.
They do all that stuff.
That sounds so nice.
But at the same time, I kind of like the grind in the back.
Yeah, same.
Well, those are the most successful creators, I think.
I like knowing all that stuff.
I mean, if you look at Mr. Beast, what he did is he was just going back and forth with thumbnail.
I mean, he lives and breathes content creation, and he loves it, and that's what it takes.
But a lot of people just see, and they, oh, I want to make money as an influencer.
They don't realize what it... You read his quotes, and you're like, he's on a whole other level, because he's so concerned.
He's like, I could eat dinner with my friend, Or make a quarter of a million dollars in that hour.
I mean, the hard thing is, obviously, if the Timcast company was making ten times more money, we'd be doing crazier things.
But it's like, it can only grow as it can grow.
You know, an important thing to understand is, money doesn't do what people think it can do.
Money is like...
It's not going to change the limitations of humanity.
For instance, we've been trying for two years to open this coffee shop.
And the biggest problem we've had across the board is contractors.
We've got a great team that works with us now and we're super excited, but we've gone through so many who will just take your money and run.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
So you'd think having money you could be like I'm gonna open a business and we're gonna yeah good luck that you gotta go through government then the government acts like it's not their fault and then there's permitting and then there's oh no now you got to do this thing they keep kicking it back on that oh we didn't realize that was a problem now do this so you if someone if someone came to me and said we'll put a hundred million dollars in your bank and I'd be like what am I gonna do with that?
unidentified
You could make Chicken City out there a lot more elaborate.
I already have a 700 square foot Chicken City livestream.
And I'll tell you, this was a funny thing when we launched it.
We were at the Daily Wire.
It was making $20,000 a month.
Chicken City, okay, was making $20,000 a month.
I was probably promoting it.
We put up a billboard in Times Square.
I mean, it was Chicken City gold.
It doesn't make nearly that much money now, but it pays for the chickens to live.
So these chickens are doing the work.
We wanted to do a bit where we ordered potato starch sheets, and we were gonna make paychecks and then give them out, but then the chickens would eat them, but they actually didn't wanna eat them, so.
unidentified
Well, like, here's the thing that that that I think is like a trend right now that's happening is that there's this like, people understand that if they play the victim in on their YouTube or whatever, that it's going to give them a boost.
And it's this like cry bully thing where it's like, if I if I do this thing, and I think it stems from they see somebody like a Crowder or like you and they say, Well, I could do that.
This guy's a jerk.
He's making all this money like he doesn't deserve it.
So I'm gonna go ahead and And do this thing to take them out.
And I just like, it bothers me because it's like, people don't realize how hard it is to be an entrepreneur and like really do all the things.
And so I just really hate cry bullies.
By the way, I made my shirt.
It says, it says cry bull or okay, cry bully.
The struggle is fake.
But I really think like cry bullies need to be called out because it's not a cool way to make content.
I don't know.
It's a lame way to do content.
Whatever, whatever contract issues that may come out that I'm actually concerned with the side, especially from somebody promoted himself as, you know, the best example, going to do it different, going to do it better.
Uh, like the guy is clearly somebody who built himself up like, you know, with this team and all that it's a family business to his success.
And there are people who just hate him for being successful a hundred percent.
And they think your job is super easy.
And to be clear, like I have the greatest job in the world.
I commute from, I got a new apartment where I have an actual studio room.
I was working out of my bedroom for six years.
I commute to the next room over, make videos about things that I'm interested in, edit them, upload them, and then randomly people expect like whatever topic.
If I want to talk about the Netflix Avatar The Last Airbender, guess what?
No, it's like, you lift so many bags, by the end of the day, we're like, maybe it's not 50,000.
I think we did the math, because the bags are estimated at 30 to 60 pounds on average, and then you lift, like, I don't know, 100, you know, every load, or like, depending on what you're doing.
So, but those jobs suck.
And then it was funny when Hassan said streaming is like the worst job or whatever.
unidentified
Oh my gosh.
Social battery, man.
Well, so why do you think that Jared hasn't like developed his career in the last six years?
I think being out of the game for like a couple of years is damaging.
If you're not around, you're not relevant.
But it also could be like he worked in this niche role.
Yeah, well I did, because I'm much easier to manage than a bunch of other people.
But the thing is, it's still a grind.
Right now, nobody's paying me.
You make a couple super chats here and there, but I like it.
When I was basically cancelled by Taylor in my industry, because not everybody maybe cared about this, but the big brands... Do you know who Gary Vaynerchuk is?
Gary V?
He was my mentor.
I mean, he's a very good friend of mine, and he was, like, championing me a lot.
And in the article, basically, Taylor made it seem like I'd name drop him and I don't even know him.
But anyway, you know, I was kind of, like, not allowed to do what I love to do, which was, you know, work with brands, help them match with influencers, and then help influencers monetize, because, you know, that's what I love to do.
So I was out of the game.
I moved to Vegas, and then I got a job at a, what's it called, a casino hotel, one of the best ones.
And I mean, I was getting paid very little.
But you know, the thing that I really hated about working in that corporate environment is just the politics.
It's like, you're not allowed to talk to this person.
If I wanted to do something, a friend of mine would be like, oh, well, you can't talk to her about it.
You have to do it like this.
And then when I went on Tucker Carlson, I had to go into the office to talk to a big marketing guy.
And he was like, don't mention our company when you're on Fox News.
You know, I just, like, I don't like this.
I mean, I did it and I got humbled.
It humbled me a bit.
But, um, but I love to do this now and I'm making a lot less.
I want to give a shout out to Nate the lawyer who super chatted.
Oh, he's lovely.
Saying, um, OMG both Sean and Ari literally my two favorite people.
Tim is alright too, lol.
Suing people with no money is known as judgment proof.
That's what the term I was looking for.
Stormy Daniels, for example, owes Trump 600k.
Right.
So, when you have, like, let's say a former employee steals something, disparages you, you go to your lawyer and you say, okay, what can we do?
And they go, wow, do you have a non-disparagement?
Yes, I do.
And you go, great, do you have a non-disclosure?
I absolutely do.
Okay, and it looks like that was criminal as well.
Yep.
What's the net worth?
I don't know.
Negative?
And they're like, so what are you going to win?
And I'm like, I don't know.
Can we stop them from doing it?
No.
And they go, okay, I just can't do anything about it.
unidentified
They could declare bankruptcy too.
So even if like, you know, you were like, oh, well, if I have a judgment against them, eventually, like when they make money, like, you know, if you sue like monolithic ethos, who was going after you yesterday, right?
Like, you know, he doesn't have any money now, but like, you know, eventually in the future, But he'll declare bankruptcy.
