Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:46

Friday Night Live! Depp, Sussman, and other Law Drama - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know this case is being televised, right?
	I am aware that there are cameras.
	And so this gets you your 15 minutes of fame.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	Argumentative.
	So I stand to gain nothing from this.
	I'm actually putting myself in the target of TMZ, a very litigious organization, and I'm not seeking any 15 minutes here.
	You're welcome to speculate.
	I could say the same thing by taking Amber Heard as a client.
	Oh, shit!
	A little argumentative, don't you think?
	Oh, hardly.
	I find that to be truly logical.
	Now, are you aware that Mr. Depp's attorneys were well aware of the TRO that was going to be presented on May 26th?
	I'm dead.
	I'm not here.
	Are you aware of that?
	Hold on, people.
	I know it's accurate.
	Okay.
	Are we live?
	And, um, look, I'm not red.
	I have not gone full red.
	I just have crappy lighting.
	I have crappy audio.
	Oh, wait a minute.
	Hold on.
	No, the only thing that's not crappy is the actual camera.
	Maybe if I do this.
	No?
	Oh, okay.
	Is the, um...
	Is the Cyclops of Doom going to be more distracting than no...
	Hold on a second.
	All right, people.
	Oh, I didn't put in slow mode yet.
	How is the audio?
	I apologize.
	Okay, first things first.
	Should I get rid of the light?
	Is that circle of awfulness too distracting?
	Light or no light?
	Yes, keep it.
	Oh, hold on.
	I see a joke in the house already.
	Oh, my wife's boyfriend gave me a $12.
	Mike Bruno says, Viva!
	My wife's boyfriend gave me $12 to Parrot Establishment Talking Points.
	Buckle up, folks.
	I'll be at it all night.
	$12?
	Dude, you're halfway through your budget, Bruno.
	Okay, so no light.
	Fine.
	I'll just look like I have a red face.
	I do not have a sunburn.
	We made it to the beach today for like a half an hour.
	I'm in Florida.
	I mean, if anybody was watching Reuben earlier today, you know that I'm in Florida.
	You know that I'm either going to have an investment property in Florida or I'm going to make it, you know, a home permanently.
	But I've been saying for a while, you vote with your dollar, you vote with your foot if you have to.
	So tonight was a sort of impromptu.
	I traveled yesterday.
	With my middle kid this time, we're splitting up these in and out visits to Florida to scope things out and to figure out logistics.
	And I haven't, you know, I'm superstitious.
	I'm neurotic.
	I don't like talking about it.
	And I also, there's a part of me that feels bad that this is the decision I've had to make with my nationality or with my future in this world.
	But we'll talk.
	Okay.
	So yesterday I was in transit, couldn't do a stream.
	I felt naked and alone when I couldn't do a stream.
	I felt sad.
	I felt a little unfulfilled with my day.
	I'm watching the news.
	It's like, God, I have some funny things to say about the death trial.
	Hold on a second.
	Eric?
	I'm live right now.
	I'll send you the link.
	Okay, bottom.
	Okay, that was Eric Connolly, who might be joining us.
	But, bottom line, we're live tonight.
	We're going to do closing arguments.
	We're going to do some stuff.
	It's just going to be an impromptu, but talking the news.
	And then, you know, the awful story of...
	We'll talk a bunch of stuff.
	Barnes is in the house.
	His lighting looks better than mine.
	His audio looks better.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	I thought it'd be a good chance to do a sort of closing argument breakdown, particularly of the better parts of the arguments.
	We may not cover all four hours, but cover the key parts of both, maybe the first 30 minutes of the closing arguments from Hurd or the best parts that she made, from what I understand.
	And then it may be the rebuttal.
	The woman for Depp made the best arguments for Depp.
	And so I think it'd be good to sort of break them down structurally, stylistically, analytically from a trial lawyer's perspective, what was good or strong with it.
	I think the jury, I originally last night when I was chatting up with Nick Ricada, I was on the stream.
	I was just in the live chat.
	Always an interesting live chat, Nick Ricada's live chat.
	I thought initially it would...
	It would be a different jury profile.
	After they got rid of the alternates, the seven that are left is very young, very male, probably very liberal democratic.
	Apparently four of the seven were wearing masks.
	At this point, you're still wearing masks?
	Welcome to Fairfax.
	I thought, oh, that's the kind of jury that won't...
	Most juries don't want to wait for a holiday weekend and come back and do it.
	But that kind of demographics told me they probably will be coming back on Tuesday.
	Well, Robert, I think I'll pull up maybe, I'll try to pull up some highlights.
	Maybe we go to law and crime just because there won't be a better commentary-free stream of the closing arguments.
	In my thought process, we would play a statement, then hit pause and explain, analyze, and then replay.
	Does that make sense?
	That makes perfect sense.
	Now, let me share the screen and let me see.
	You're like Sonic the Hedgehog.
	We're so fast that, you know, everything else is slow.
	Hold on.
	Now I've got to make sure that I'm on the right day, though.
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	I don't know that this is...
	Well, it's the right day, but they may have just started...
	Maybe this is just the verdict watch part?
	No, no.
	Yeah, this is closings.
	This is closings.
	Let's see.
	Coincided...
	Okay, so hold on.
	How do we want to do this structurally?
	Do we want to start with...
	I would start with Rottenborn.
	Rottenborn was...
	This is Rottenborn right here.
	Yep, it is.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Yeah, am I tethering off my phone?
	I'm not tethering off my phone.
	Hold on.
	Let me...
	Okay, so six minutes.
	So he's about to come up then.
	If this was at a break point, he was probably about to start right there probably.
	OK, here we go.
	The Mr. Gaff, his attorneys are sending him.
	I'm still a noob, Robert.
	I don't know how to fast forward.
	I would play it from right here.
	Okay.
	So we'll wait for it to come up.
	I don't know how many seconds we're going to have.
	It can't be too many.
	I think you hit play.
	It's playing.
	Let's just drag a little bit.
	Okay, we can actually see the time move on the clock.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	So now I'm going to bring up my screen and we're going to pause.
	Are we ready for the jury?
	Okay.
	I did not know that members of the jury were still wearing masks.
	And I say that without judgment.
	It's an observational thing, Robert, like you mentioned.
	I say it with judgment.
	Well, I'd say the judgment is that, in my view, not that these people are traumatized.
	These people have succumbed to absolute irrational fear.
	And I feel bad and not, you can draw some political conclusions if you want, or you can draw some behavioral conclusions.
	But I don't think that, I don't say judgmentally in the, they're bad people.
	I just think that they have definitely living in fear.
	They're the kind of people that could give in to a herd argument.
	Interesting.
	Let's see.
	Rottenborn approaches the stand.
	What is he tucking in?
	His mic.
	Microphone?
	Why would he have his own mic?
	He doesn't usually walk up to a mic.
	Unless his shirt was not tucked in and he needed a lane to do it.
	That I have not seen before.
	Is he wearing almost an identical tie color to the lead lawyer for Depp?
	Almost, didn't he?
	Yeah, the depth lawyer could probably button up his suit.
	So, Robert, I mean, I'm in Florida.
	I go to grocery stores.
	I see people wearing masks.
	It's their freedom, so long as they don't tell me what to do.
	Oh, it's the part of Florida you're in.
	No, there's very few of them.
	You go up to the Redneck Riviera, you'll be lucky.
	Everybody will feel guilty if they're wearing one.
	Thank you.
	Maybe see it.
	All right.
	Closing the arguments.
	Mr. Rottenberg.
	Okay, thank you.
	And the audio here, everybody?
	There's a little bit of an echo, but that's all.
	Okay, so you know what?
	I'll put on mute.
	I'm going to get my headphones.
	Mr. Rottenborn walks slowly to the platform.
	That's a real close proximity.
	Usually they make you be in the middle of the courtroom, not that close.
	Mr. Rottenborn, is your mic on?
	I believe it is.
	Oh, there we go.
	Okay.
	Does that work?
	Okay.
	In trying to convince you that Mr. Death has carried his burden of proof in proving that he was never abusive to Amber on even one occasion, think about the message that Mr. Death and his attorneys are sending to Amber.
	Pause.
	Yep.
	Smart start.
	Oh, that ticked you off?
	Yep.
	I think if you're in her camp, your facts are weak, the laws, you know...
	But you've got to have how much confidence you have in the jury to do it.
	And they've kind of blown that.
	You know, the defense of, hey, she's not talking about him.
	She's talking about their response.
	They've not tried the case that way.
	So if you're them, you look at who's persuadable in your argument.
	I think who's persuadable is someone who's scared of sending a message that they support domestic violence by ruling for Johnny Depp.
	Because you're in Fairfax?
	You got probably maybe all seven jurors are Democratic-leaning jurors.
	At least, and remember, Johnny Depp has to have a unanimous jury.
	You're looking for one to hang it.
	That's just fine if you're Amber Heard.
	You don't really think if you're Amber Heard you're going to win the trial at this point.
	I don't think.
	You just don't want to lose the jury verdict.
	You don't want to be bankrupt.
	When I was talking to the Alexes of the Duran, Alex said he believed the main reason that British judge ruled the way he did wasn't because of being enamored with Amber Heard, but was because in London, ruling against a domestic violence victim in the Me Too environment would make him persona non grata personal.
	So this lawyer is playing to the exact same thing that worked for him in London.
	He's looking for that juror.
	Do you want to be the one that they said you greenlit domestic violence?
	You didn't have a problem with domestic violence?
	You let the Harvey Weinstein of domestic violence walk?
	Do you want to be that?
	Do you want to go to your Liberal Party and be that person?
	That's, I think, who he's playing to because I think it's the only audience they have left.
	It's interesting, and this is where I guess it's not a question of bias.
	I have come to the conclusion after six weeks of trial...
	Amber's lying.
	I believe that she's not telling the truth.
	But if you're him, you're already hung with, right?
	Well, that's it.
	But then I'm thinking anybody who's not convinced, like they're trying to appeal to emotions what they have been unable to establish in fact.
	But I say that as a rational, you know, sort of critical thinking lawyer, not as an emotional potential jury member.
	So I appreciate the argument, Robert, that you're saying guilt some people into being hung on the jury so that at the very least she doesn't lose outright.
	And it's an easy, morally easy position to adopt.
	Yeah, I don't want to make life harder for other victims, but I dare say...
	I don't find it a personally persuasive argument, but I believe it's the only persuasive argument she has going forward with a potential jury.
	Okay.
	Let me see if I can do this.
	If you didn't take pictures, it didn't happen.
	If you did take pictures, they're fake.
	Problem is, one of them was not fake, just photoshopped.
	But this argument's better.
	I'll wait for him to finish before we...
	If you didn't tell your friends, you're lying.
	And if you did tell your friends, they're part of the hoax.
	If you didn't seek medical treatment, you weren't injured.
	If you did seek medical treatment, you're crazy.
	If you do everything that you can to help your spouse, the person that you love, rid himself, You're a nag.
	And if you finally decide that enough is enough, you've had enough of the fear, enough of the pain, and you have to leave to save yourself, you're a gold digger.
	That is the message that Mr. Death is asking you to send.
	But he doesn't stop there, because...
	It's an interesting spin because it basically creates either a no-win situation or a no-lose situation where they say, look, if we haven't made enough evidence, don't blame her for not having made the evidence.
	If we present the evidence, don't call her a liar or having fabricated it.
	And they create a situation where it just starts from the premise that what she said was the truth and any deficiencies or issues with the evidence can't be attributed to her because you don't want to blame the victim.
	Exactly.
	Don't make the case about Amber Heard.
	Don't make the case about Johnny Depp.
	Make the case about domestic violence and Me Too in general.
	And that Me Too is here on trial.
	And do you want to be the jury to denounce Me Too using the tactics of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world?
	That when you have proof, they deny it.
	When you don't have proof, they say that, deny it.
	And so on and so forth.
	And that was a very good framing of all of his huge evidentiary problems.
	He redefined his evidentiary problems.
	As really, if you endorse these evidentiary problems, you're the abuser.
	I mean, hey, it's all the guy's got.
	But it's the right strategy, given the limitations he's stuck with.
	Yeah.
	I love Mr. Death is how YouTube transcribes his name.
	In Mr. Death's world, don't leave Mr. Death.
	And if you do, he will start a campaign of global humiliation against you.
	A smear campaign.
	That lasts to this very day.
	He will do everything he can to destroy your life, to destroy your career.
	That is what they're saying, ladies and gentlemen.
	And that's what they're trying to get you, the jury, to be an accomplice to.
	But it's not surprising.
	This is what the organizational structure should have been from the get-go.
	The problem here is this is way too late.
	The argument should have been, she wrote an essay about, I was discussing this with our locals audience last night.
	She wrote an essay about the response to someone making an accusation.
	And she should have re-characterized that essay in that framework, said it wasn't anything about Johnny Depp, nothing to do with Johnny Depp.
	It's just coincidentally ancillary to that.
	And that she wrote an essay about how she got beat up and humiliated in public for raising questions, and that this case is a continuation of it.
	And that they want you to become an accomplice to Johnny Depp's humiliation campaign because that's what abusers do and ego trip people do, etc.
	It's a good argument now, but the problem is they didn't set that up.
	I mean, it wasn't there in the opening.
	It wasn't there in their presentation or cross-examination of evidence very much.
	Very limited.
	But I think stylists...
	Now, the part I don't like, I would have stayed away from personalizing this to Johnny Depp.
	Make this...
	People like Johnny Depp.
	Unless they know something about this jury, it's highly unlikely anybody dislikes...
	One, very few people came in with a dislike of Johnny Depp.
	Number two, Johnny's come across very well in the trial.
	So Amber has not.
	De-individualize this.
	Make it a generic story.
	And Robert, this is a question I was asking.
	I don't know who I asked, but do you think Amber heard the extravagant detail of the type of abuse that she alleged?
	Do you think she went into that?
	With an abusive personality like she is, who has great difficulty with the truth, she's probably not enough of a sociopath to take good counsel's advice.
	The advantage of a sociopath is they'll actually take good counsel's advice.
	She's not.
	She leaks emotion all the time.
	A good sociopath doesn't leak emotion like she does, in my opinion.
	That was my thought.
	To me, it seemed like she went into detail despite what her lawyers wanted, because Broughtenborn's argument here would have been perfect if it were limited to verbal abuse and the one or two, perhaps, physical altercations for which she actually had evidence.
	But this is great, except it doesn't jive with the evidence that they failed to, despite his explanation.
	Mr. Depp cannot and will not take responsibility for his own actions.
	It's always someone else's fault.
	Hit pause here.
	That's a mistake.
	It's a mistake to talk about that.
	It's not accurate about what happened in evidence, and he just described his own client.
	Yep.
	I can't share it to the screen, but I put this together with what Elaine says in a bit.
	It's always someone else's fault.
	It's his lawyers.
	Literally what Amber said on the stand about her lawyers not adducing evidence.
	It's always a family member.
	Literally, Amber blamed everybody in real time.
	I said, this is confession through projection and accuse your adversary of doing what you're doing.
	I thought it was terrible, but then, you know, I paid attention to the evidence and people are saying...
	It's just unnecessary.
	And it was make it generic, make it universal, don't make it specific or personal, guilt shame them as best you can, confuse where you have an opportunity, play on the vagueness of the article.
	Those are your strengths.
	Talking about the details of the case, personalizing it, individualizing it.
	All mistakes.
	Because that's where you're weak.
	And now here as a lawyer, you may have a problem.
	Someone like Amber Heard may demand you say certain things in closing.
	And all I advise lawyers is be very careful with that.
	Because I've never had a client there, if I took the client's advice and lost the case, the client said, thanks for sticking with my advice.
	Former mentor.
	He said, you know, your clients, you are your client's hero until you're not.
	If they tell you to do something, why did you listen to me?
	You're the lawyer.
	You're the professional.
	If it doesn't work out, they're coming after you.
	As I suspect Amber, you know, might have a similar situation there.
	The reason why they didn't define abuse is because she didn't define it in the article.
	So that it becomes a common, it becomes the jury's ordinary interpretation of the word.
	They can't define it differently because she chose not to define it in the article.
	There's a couple of chats which I can't bring up, but they're funny.
	Okay, we'll carry on.
	Vasquez did.
	Mr. Chu did.
	I would like to extend my thanks to you on behalf of Amber and our whole legal team for the care and the diligence which you have served.
	I find this always lame.
	They always tell lawyers, they say, oh, thank you so much, jury, and try to ingratiate yourself.
	It doesn't work.
	Often, jurors don't like it.
	There are ways to appeal to the jury, but I've never liked this formulaic, oh, say thank you, thank you, thank you.
	You're so wonderful.
	You paid so much attention.
	I'm not a fan of it.
	I've never had a jury trial.
	To me, this is patronizing.
	It's degrading.
	It's demeaning.
	And also, it's one of my red flags for troubled clients.
	When I get a client and they're so flattering, like I'm the smartest, they need me.
	I'm the only one who can solve their problems.
	I always know that that's a red flag for someone who's going to later turn against me.
	I know it's etiquette.
	Thank you for your six weeks.
	Robert, how much do they get paid, the jury?
	They don't get paid anything and the rest.
	But to me, they're part of a holy...
	And they're performing their constitutional duties.
	And you talk about them in the context of comparing them to other great jurors like that.
	You don't do it explicitly because you're correct.
	It doesn't play well.
	It's kind of like the formulaic part where you start out a speech in a certain way and it's like, that isn't how good speeches work.
	You start out and you grab them.
	And then you finish hard.
	This idea that you should go through these formulas, thank you everybody for being here today, and my name is Sean.
	Nobody wants to hear that.
	You've got to wake up and smack them in the face and get them going.
	And it's people saying it's $30 a day.
	I don't know how many of them are counting the dollar signs for when they are allowed to go.
	It's bad in the States.
	It's not even minimum wage.
	Well, at least these people know they're sitting on a gold mine, not a landmine.
	A gold mine in terms of...
	Future interviews and book prospects.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, I found it patronizing, and I always do.
	And Elaine goes even harder on the thank you to the jury.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's seen for exactly what it is.
	Just don't do it.
	You paid attention to every witness.
	Every piece of evidence.
	And I can't even imagine the sacrifice that you've made in terms of time away from friends.
	One of these days when I have a bad jury, I'm just going to get up and say, I know some of you were going to sleep, but I know you were snoozing half the time.
	You better get in there and give me a good...
	One of these days I'm going to unleash.
	But I never try this routine.
	It's just so over the top.
	They see it as BS.
	It doesn't help you.
	Tons of people advise you to do this.
	It's bad advice.
	It's nauseating to me.
	He knows, and everyone in that stand knows that at one point they dozed off.
	At one point they weren't paying attention.
	So thanks for on board.
	You're lying now, which leads me to believe.
	Emily, your job to be here on this jury.
	It's a very important role that you're serving, and we thank you very much.
	Let's pick up where we started six weeks ago in opening statement.
	You may remember that I asked you to keep a simple question in mind.
	Pause.
	Which is...
	Just a brief...
	Never do that kind of thing.
	In other words, when we were here in opening, boom, boom, boom.
	That's how you do that.
	Not, let's go back six weeks in time.
	You don't need that extra verbiage.
	You just don't need it.
	To me, it also might remind them of why they're so angry at having been there for so long.
	Potentially, if they don't like someone already.
	If they're predisposed to hate one of the two parties, if this guy brought on boards presupposed against Johnny Depp, I can't imagine that that's how the majority of them feel, but that's my own...
	Why are you here?
	And much of what you've heard during the course of this trial, you don't need to make a decision on.
	I do like this.
	There was a lot of bad evidence in the trial.
	You can just ignore it all.
	All the evidence that hurt us, just put that aside.
	You don't need to listen to that.
	I do think that's the right thing to do, but it's kind of obvious what he's doing.
	Hart Tackle is now in the house.
	He says...
	You know what?
	I didn't even bring your tackle down, Harder.
	No check-in.
	You can't take fishhooks on a plane.
	And I haven't even been fishing yet.
	It's terrible.
	Hard tackle in the house.
	Yeah.
	And Rottenborn's demeanor.
	Let's keep watching Rottenborn.
	Is that his real name?
	I'm not mispronouncing it.
	Yeah, that's his real name.
	If your name is that bad, change it.
	Change it.
	It's not that hard.
	I always think of Nicolas Cage, Saturday Night Live.
	He's making fun of all these names with his wife for the pregnant child.
	And all of a sudden, he answers the door, and the mailman says, is Mr. Asswipe here?
	He goes, no, it's a sweep-a.
	It's a sweep-a.
	At least change the pronunciation.
	But the other thing I don't like this, he's too anchored to his notes, like the way they're written down in front of him.
	When you write too much stuff down, you're going to...
	Get stuck with it, and you're going to lose process.
	I don't like the tone.
	You can be entertaining.
	There's nothing that prohibits you from being...
	Especially this judge is letting you get right up in front of the jury with a mobile mic.
	A lot of courts won't.
	A lot of courts will move you back, make you stay at the podium.
	This judge is letting you walk in front of them.
	Heck, get rid of this thing here.
	Walk right in front of them.
	Give them free access.
	Body language.
	People talk about this all the time.
	People trust you.
	If you give them free access to see everything.
	So use that.
	Don't use a podium.
	Leave it.
	Walk in front of them.
	Talk to them.
	Communicate to them.
	Try to persuade them directly.
	Not this corporate lawyer routine.
	Someone else got to the joke before I could say it.
	Mr. Dumbass, I would love to work for your company.
	I forget what ad it was.
	And he goes, it's pronounced Dumas.
	Yeah.
	You know, that's an actual name in Spain and France.
	Dumas.
	Yeah.
	In Quebec, it's a very common name.
	I knew a few Dumas.
	Okay, good.
	I don't like his demeanor, but I don't...
	Can somebody teach her not to look like that arrogant, condescending, bitch-faced look that she's got, resting bitch-faced look?
	See, the RBF, one might not be able to change it, so I don't judge that.
	I just judge the demeanor and the fact that she's so focused on what she looks like every day of the trial.
	The business suit routine?
	I mean, I get it.
	You're butch now.
	Okay.
	But I wouldn't play to that if I was...
	Robert, I don't know what you're talking about with that.
	I just say changing your attire every day, changing your hair every day to the jury.
	If I'm on the jury, that means you got up in the morning.
	You said, am I wearing Princess Leia hair?
	Am I doing a little swirl?
	Is it coming down?
	If she hadn't worn the same thing every day and...
	She's in Virginia.
	Wear a little Southern.
	Play up the stereotype where Laura Ashley dresses.
	Like she did in some of those photos from six years ago where she looks very innocent, very young.
	She did have a quasi-Rango-ish cowboy outfit on one of these days.
	You're on the jury.
	You're looking at her donning very different garb.
	At least Johnny...
	It might be a gender thing.
	Johnny looks good.
	Johnny's got his shades.
	He's got different color shades.
	He's got the blue thing going.
	He's got the vest going.
	He's kept his rings.
	He's done the hair back so it doesn't look out of control.
	Johnny Depp looks like a responsible Johnny Depp.
	Where she should look like a weak, vulnerable...
	A southern little girl that got picked on by this big, big, important guy.
	Instead, she looks like an aggressive butch lesbian who might want to smack you around on Saturday.
	And now for anybody who's listening to Robert, outraged.
	This is actually legit legal advice if you're going to have a client.
	If you want to win.
	I've told people this.
	If you want to lose, Wesley Snipes, I said, look, our pitch is going to be if crazy was criminal, half of Hollywood would be in prison.
	Snipes loved it.
	He wore crazy ties every single day.
	He would draw crazy things on the thing.
	Does Wesley Snipes do that routinely?
	No.
	He knew the jurors were going to pick up on this.
	The media was going to pick up on this.
	He was like, hey, I'm happy to fit what our story is.
	Her story has been she doesn't look like an abused anything.
	That's the problem.
	But then some people would say if she tries too hard to look abused, then it'll look like she's feigning.
	Well, and that's where it just looks Southern vulnerable.
	She grew up in Texas.
	I mean, I know it was Austin, but, you know, what is it?
	She's a survivor, right?
	She's a survivor.
	That's who she is.
	She doesn't want to ever concede weakness or vulnerability.
	But the only way she was going to win this case was to look weak and vulnerable.
	A lot of people are asking, is Elaine and the firm, are they cheap firms?
	People say it to be demeaning, but I don't know.
	They're not cheap.
	It's not like Elaine got a, someone said, better call Saul.
	Oh, no, no.
	These are very expensive, highly rated corporate lawyers in Virginia.
	Okay.
	And Roddenborn's presentation is your classic corporate representation.
	Yeah, he's definitely stiff.
	Yeah, Amber should have called Saul.
	Saul would have done...
	Saul would have given good advice.
	Saul would have thought dirty in the sense of...
	Saul would have given...
	Robert, not to compare you to Saul, because I think you're light years beyond in every respect, but Saul had street...
	What's the word?
	Street skills.
	He understood how to be a street lawyer.
	I mean, he would have Amber Heard convincing those five men on the jury that if any of them vote with her, they're going to get to go out on a date the next night.
	There's advantages she had, and she threw away all of them.
	Oh, what did I just do?
	These are the things that you have...
	Robert, I may have skipped some stuff.
	That's fine, that's fine.
	You have to answer yes.
	As Mr. Chu said, you have to answer yes to all of them in order to find in favor of Mr. Depp.
	This is good, because he's going through the jury instruction, and this is good to use early on, and the advantage is...
	The judge gave the jury instructions before their closing arguments.
	So it's easier to do this that way, though you can also do it when you know what the judge is going to instruct.
	You can say, anticipate.
	This is what the judge will tell you.
	But jurors like to know, what are we being asked to determine?
	What are we being asked to decide?
	So go to the core key, whatever is your best argument within that jury instruction, and hammer it.
	Someone said, would you have represented JD or AH?
	Would you have represented AH if you knew she wasn't going to win?
	No, it was tempting just because now that I was watching, I was like, no one would think she could win.
	And so that's the part that's tempting.
	Go in and think, 99% chance he can't win.
	And I could have told an argument that could have given her a good shot.
	I would have been able to present.
	Now, would she go along with advice?
	Probably not.
	Do I represent, as a general rule...
	Well, actually, universal rule.
	I never represent abusers.
	Now, this is Johnny Depp's rich and successful, so he's not quite the same victim dynamic.
	But I've never represented an abuser in my life, never will.
	So I've always had that limitation.
	Though that's not...
	I agree with Dershowitz.
	You should be a cab driver in law.
	I also agree with Dershowitz that says, only practice what you're good at doing.
	I'm not good at representing people I hate.
	So if I don't like somebody really bad...
	I will be a terrible lawyer.
	It will leak through.
	I love the analogy, but when it comes to that and Dershowitz, I'm not going to be a cab driver at law because I'm not going to get killed by a fare.
	When it comes to taking a client like Amber, or let me phrase it, I don't know if she's that type of client.
	I've learned the hard way.
	You don't take certain clients if they're not going to listen to you because it means they're going to blame you later.
	They can be in trouble.
	Never take a cheap client.
	Any client that's trying to be cheap, and I don't mean cheap by a client that doesn't have the means to pay.
	I understand that entirely.
	Over half of my clients can't pay me.
	But I mean the people that have the resources and want to pay you cheap, never get near them.
	Because if they don't respect you enough to pay you a fair wage, they're going to be bad clients.
	And every time I've given into that, they've always been a bad client.
	So that's a hard rule.
	If they try to haggle over the retainer, not because of necessity, but because of control, they're going to do the same type of behavior in all other respects of the practice.
	Absolutely.
	The statement was about Mr. Depp.
	And you can decide that in the context of...
	And I should say, yeah, here, this is the only strong point of Rottenborn's presentation in that make it look like it's so complex and so difficult to convict John.
	You have to go through, okay, so we'll just dismiss everybody's claim.
	I can see that being a good argument, but for the rest, we'll get there.
	It should have been a three-fold argument.
	I mean, they blew their best argument because they didn't set it up in opening, didn't use evidence for it.
	Whether that was Amber's fault, their fault, combinations two, ship has sailed.
	But putting that aside, in terms of what they had to work with now, trying to guilt trip the jury into thinking the whole world will hate them because they went along with the Me Too, they opposed Me Too.
	That's a good emotional appeal to a Fairfax jury.
	Two, given the dynamic.
	Two, going to the jury instructions and reminding them that there's a lot of legal arguments here that the evidence is weak that Depp has.
	And then the third thing I would have done is just make it as generic as possible that he didn't do a good job of.
	Don't make it about Amber.
	Don't make it about Johnny.
	Make it about Me Too in general.
	Make it about me and you.
	The friend we know that went through that, that, that, that, that.
	Make it that because individual, you got a bad client and you got a likable opposing party.
	Don't remind people of that.
	I'll get to the arguments that Mr. Depp raises on that in a minute.
	You also have to find that the statement is false.
	Let's skip a little bit ahead.
	We're going to look at the statements here.
	We're going to look at each of the three statements.
	We all know that it would be a very different article if she had written about what she suffered that she's told you about over the last six weeks.
	Because he knows the words.
	To get around their evidence problem.
	Because he's admitting we've presented a defense that's completely different than what the article's about.
	He's like, pretend that the two don't have anything to do with each other.
	I got a crazy client.
	She demanded to get up and say crazy stuff.
	Ignore all that.
	In the article, she didn't really say much.
	So let's let her off the hook.
	Those are true.
	Mr. Depp says that the words now have a defamatory implication.
	He says the statements are the same as saying, Johnny Depp abused me.
	Hold up.
	Why do people feel the need to repeat the other side's arguments?
	I've never understood that.
	This is...
	Okay, chat, listen.
	This is magnificent.
	Robert, please.
	Well, my brother taught me when I was very young.
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	Taught me that when I was 15 years old.
	No, actually 12 years old.
	He who wins the terms...
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	So you don't have to repeat what the other side says.
	They only have two hours, so they end up screwing up the whole time here on Depp's side.
	I mean, on Heard's side.
	And part of it is they're repeating other sides.
	You don't need to do that.
	You define the terms.
	You frame the issue.
	This is the issue.
	This is what you're facing.
	This is what it's about.
	Say, well, now the other side says this, and then the other.
	You don't need any of that.
	It's something that you're taught in law school, but it's useless in actually persuasion of two ordinary people.
	I'm just going to say citation needed.
	I've seen your comment.
	Please don't spam it because spam is the only thing that gets blocked.
	Appreciate your insight.
	And if you don't like it, you know where...
	Oh, I understand people look at Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, who cares, celebrity porn.
	I get all that.
	We're breaking this down to...
	Show you the qualities of closing argument.
	What's good, what's not.
	What's persuasive, what's not.
	This is universally valuable.
	So Jerry Spence wrote a book, How to Win and Argue Every Time.
	Why do you write that?
	Because everybody argues.
	You argue with your business.
	You argue with your customer.
	You argue with your friends.
	You argue with your family.
	You argue with your community.
	Sometimes politics.
	Sometimes law.
	Sometimes business.
	Sometimes family.
	This is universal application.
	What's persuasive?
	What is it?
	And now I'll say that there's a difference between getting ahead of your bad arguments and repeating your adversary's position.
	And especially when you try to repeat your adversary's position fairly, it's a very different thing than getting ahead of the bad arguments.
	And what they're doing right here is repeating.
	They're repeating the talking points.
	And it's usually a sign that their arguments are better.
	Whenever I hear people using my phraseology or using my terminology or my framing, I knew I was so persuasive I'm stuck in their head.
	And it's a sign that they've lost.
	So it's just a mistake of persuasion.
	I'm going nuts, but which trial was it where they were literally repeating the rhyming catchphrase of the other party?
	I want to say Rittenhouse, but I can't remember what it was.
	I thought it was an earlier case.
	And people chat.
	If you remember, there was...
	Might have been Chauvin?
	Was there parts of Chauvin?
	Oh, it might have been Chauvin.
	There was one trial that we were watching where they literally repeated the rhyming phrase of the other party, the catchphrase.
	And we said, why would you do that?
	You're just further ingraining their motto in the jury's brain.
	Okay.
	Just because he wants to make the article about himself doesn't mean it is.
	He has to show you that any defamatory implication was designed...
	And intended.
	Look at number four.
	Designed and intended by Ms. Heard to convey the defamatory meaning that he suggests.
	Just because people might read the article and remember, oh yeah, Amber Heard used to be married to Johnny Depp.
	And she accused him of abuse.
	That doesn't mean that she designed and intended.
	You go first, Robert.
	One, it's an argument that needed to be made in opening.
	They blew it by the whole way they presented evidence at the trial.
	So trying to say that now, the jury's going to be totally confused.
	The second aspect is, again, he's borrowing their argument.
	He's saying, well, you know, they can say that a person might say that she's thinking, oh, yeah, she used to be married to Johnny Depp and da-da-da-da.
	There's no reason to recite that.
	I mean, it's just the focus.
	Here's the reality.
	I mean, I would have made Johnny Depp look like an obsessive narcissist.
	Johnny Depp thinks every article is about him.
	We get it.
	We understand.
	His name's not even in here.
	She's talking about things that happened to her in high school.
	Things that happened to her in college.
	Johnny Depp wasn't around then.
	He was only on the TV screen and the movie screen.
	And he thinks everything's about him.
	I understand it.
	Maybe if I was Johnny Depp, I would think the world revolved around me too.
	I mean, what else do you learn?
	20 years old, you're famous, tons of money, you're one of the most richest, most powerful people in the world.
	You know, you can do what you want.
	You can throw wine bottles at Ellen Barkin's head.
	No one's going to care.
	She didn't even say that.
	She just said he threw it at a wall.
	Exactly.
	That's how you do that.
	Not like that.
	He keeps thinking about, okay, what's their strong argument?
	I better repeat it and then say, no.
	That's not a good argumentative style.
	Okay.
	I'm good at last warning citation.
	I don't like blocking this.
	Okay, doesn't matter.
	It was Hocus Pocus out of focus.
	It was from Rittenhouse.
	And, well, it worked out, but we all know now that that case was never going anywhere else.
	Not entirely related, but when you guys get a chance.
	Oh, yeah.
	Love Kyle Dunnigan.
	That's old now, but apparently Kyle Dunnigan was doing a great impression of Alec Baldwin.
	Which I haven't caught up on.
	And he did one for Ray Liotta as an honor because he loved Ray Liotta.
	So in honor of his passing, he did another Ray Liotta in honor of Ray Liotta.
	Ray Liotta.
	I don't do the whole rest in peace people on Twitter.
	Hey, I ran into him a couple times at a gas station in Malibu.
	He looked like a genuinely nice person.
	He was.
	He was nice.
	He was friendly.
	No crazy godfather-ish.
	No, but the thing is like...
	67. Ray Liotta, I grew up with him.
	When I was a kid, he was an old man.
	He was only 25 years older than me.
	Now, I wonder if people can tell me how they know that, now maybe it's just where the cameras are located, but the camera people love Johnny Depp and hate Amber Heard.
	I mean, just see this photo, right?
	I mean, the angle, they're not, you know, they're showing an angle of Johnny that's favorable.
	Now, part because Johnny's behaving better than Amber Heard is, but they have really...
	Taking it from the side.
	They've not done a lot of the straight-on shots, and they must have cameras that have a straight-on shot.
	But they almost never do that.
	They show this shot here, and that shot almost always never looks good for Amber.
	Well, right now she looks like she's looking up to the skies praying to God, and Johnny Depp looks like he's looking down sheepishly because he's guilty.
	If one were on Team Amber.
	Right, right, right.
	Exactly, of course.
	Two screens, one film.
	Sorry, one screen, two films.
	Okay, carrying on here.
	Boom.
	Defamatory implications.
	And think about it.
	If Mr. Depp is right, then virtually any statement that anyone could ever make about their own life that implies anything, implies any involvement with any other person, could be defamatory.
	Okay, I'll stop it there.
	This is Scott Adams' loser-think strawmanning.
	This is a bad argument because it will insult the intelligence of anybody who says, if you think that this was about Johnny, literally anything can be about anyone.
	No.
	No, and I think it's such a weak argument, I would never have raised it.
	What she should have said is that the statement by itself is clearly about her.
	And here you can play into her narcissism.
	Say, you know, this statement says I was a public representative of domestic abuse.
	She's talking about her.
	She's talking about her experience, not about Johnny Depp.
	It has nothing to do with Johnny Depp.
	It's her experience.
	That's what it's about.
	She's not saying Johnny Depp did this to me.
	Johnny Depp's name is not there.
	She's not saying Johnny Depp did any of the things.
	Look at the...
	Paragraph 4. It talks about things that happened during high school and college.
	That's the focal of the approach.
	Because he's trying to say, well, they say this.
	No, no.
	That's a bad structure because you end up with these exaggerated claims like he took me.
	I'm just saying, Sunday, I mistyped your name, Queen Bee.
	Sunday night, we'll be back to covering other stuff.
	It's the closing arguments, for goodness sake.
	The most watched trial since O.J. Simpson.
	And this is where people learn about the law.
	They learn about the law from these trials.
	Whether you like it, dislike it, hate it, love it, doesn't matter.
	This teaches the people about the law, so we want people to be well-educated in the law about this process.
	Oh, what am I doing?
	What am I doing, Robert?
	You're still there.
	And 1.2 million people watching Law and Crime.
	No commentary, no nothing.
	Emily Baker, amazing stuff.
	Because it's commentary, and you get the trial, you get the commentary.
	People watching this with no commentary?
	Oh, come on.
	It's like watching, I don't know, eating Captain Crunch without the marshmallows.
	Okay, here, hold on.
	That's clearly not what the First Amendment intends.
	She didn't design and intend the words to be the equivalent of writing Johnny Depp abuse me.
	And you don't have to take her words for it.
	You can take the words of Terrence Daugherty of the ACLU.
	He said that the op-ed wasn't even Ms. Heard's idea.
	The ACLU wrote the first draft, and great care was taken in drafting the article so as not to make it about Mr. Depp or Ms. Hurd's relationship with him.
	That's the only evidence presented about Ms. Hurd's motive, except her statements that that was exactly what she wanted to do.
	This is a mistake, because obviously you shouldn't have made that statement, because the problem is she refuted all that by the statement she made, particularly on the second set of...
	You know, cross where she got agitated about a series of questions and blurted this stuff out about, you know, to correct the record and whatnot.
	So that was a mistake by him.
	You know, there was no evidence until my client went up and said some stupid stuff.
	Just ignore that, please.
	This is where my bias comes into play.
	The ACLU is beyond trash.
	It's dangerous trash.
	She didn't mean to defame Johnny.
	It was the ACLU who wrote it.
	And then they're going to get back to later on that Johnny Depp is the one who blames everyone else for everything.
	Now you have Amber Heard blaming the ACLU for an article that she vetted.
	That she effectively ratified and shared.
	The real reason he's talking about the ACLU is this is a Fairfax Liberal Democratic jury.
	That's what he's really saying.
	Hey, this was approved by an important organization that was for this.
	Do you really want to be opposed to them?
	Do you want a virtue signal on the wrong side?
	Do you really want to go through?
	I mean, that's the subtext of that aspect.
	Robert, have you done a hush-hush on the ACLU yet?
	No, no, no.
	But as a kid, we grew up...
	I grew a Baptist community, so it was the anti-Christian liberties union, the American commie-loving union, all that kind of thing.
	And by the way, I know the origins of the ACLU.
	People can take offense to Robert's characterization.
	The origins is interesting, and the way they've degenerated is very interesting.
	Yeah, it's very sad.
	Very sad.
	It's terrible.
	Okay, let's do this.
	Back to this guy.
	He wanted to talk about Rottenborn.
	Her experiences after Johnny Depp.
	She wanted to own her story after Johnny Depp and fit those into what other women experience.
	What other people experience having accused someone of domestic abuse.
	There's this tendency to try to hold a pen.
	If you have something that you're going to be clicking through, don't keep it.
	Put it down.
	If you're obsessed with clicking, I don't like clicking through things.
	If I do a close, someone else has the clicker.
	And they know when I'm talking to put, and what I mean by clicker is sometimes you'll have video presentations, either demonstratives or actual exhibits that will go up on the video screen for the jury to see, right?
	So you just let the person who handles that know when I hit this point, boom, when I hit this point, boom, and I'll be double checking to make sure it's there.
	But that works, that way your hands are natural rather than this routine.
	Yeah.
	Whatever trial it is, people, Johnny Depp, Kyle Rittenhouse, listen to the advice of Robert Barnes, who has...
	Robert, how many trials have you had before a jury?
	I have either done trials or been part of trials, and then if you include mock trials, it's hundreds, but dozens of trials that I've personally partake and participated in, and then mock trials, hundreds, hundreds and hundreds.
	And then studied, watched a lot more.
	So it comes from lived experience primarily, but it also comes from...
	I encourage people, even if they have no interest in the law, read great closing arguments.
	People like Clarence Darrow used to go for three days.
	Three days of closing arguments.
	He would talk about everything in the world.
	He would talk about the budget.
	He'd talk about war.
	He'd talk about...
	He brought it all in.
	That's what the jury used to be in America.
	It used to be this great institution, and it's been undermined by these bureaucratic clerical judges.
	But putting that aside, it's the last place you get to see democracy in action, where ordinary people make impactful, important, final decisions about people's lives, their liberty, their property, their freedom, their future, you name it.
	And it's something to be celebrated and improve upon, both in the quality of argument presented and in the qualitative capacity of the jury to process that information.
	All right.
	So, Camille, why Moranth, who we know, people in our chat, why Moranth?
	He might not be on Team Amber, but he's definitely, or she, or, you know, looks like a...
	Polar bear, or no, dog.
	Yeah, it looks like a dog.
	It's not Team Johnny.
	Camille's over-the-top snark and condescending tone throughout was ridiculous.
	We'll get to Camille.
	I disagree.
	I think Camille...
	Some people don't really like her.
	Some people don't.
	Generally speaking, in cases, the quality of your evidence is what carries you.
	So if you have a good moral narrative or the better moral narrative, you're going to win nine times out of ten.
	Well, Camille did.
	I don't know if the first lawyer did it in the first part.
	Camille played the audio recording.
	We'll get to Camille.
	Camille destroyed it.
	And whether or not someone hears her voice and hears snark or sass, that might...
	This part of Rottenborn was the best part of Amber's argument for Close, and Camille's response was the best part of the Depp argument for Close.
	And I'm bringing this up not to give more attention to MoF.
	First of all, I don't block superchats, and in fact, I can't.
	I once wanted to reimburse a superchat because I knew the person had put an amount that they didn't want to put, and I couldn't even reimburse a superchat.
	So MoF, stop spamming.
	But I don't block Super Chats, so you might want to look at the words or links.
	You can't Super Chat links for some reason.
	I think obvious reasons.
	They want to limit the ability of people to use Super Chat to promote things.
	Okay, but anyways, Moe, we've heard what you said.
	You think I'm a controlled opposition.
	Okay.
	So in the backlash, they suffer.
	And then talk about legislative measures that could help protect people in those positions.
	That's what she meant, and that's what the article is about.
	There's no hidden meaning here, ladies and gentlemen.
	This isn't a hit piece on Johnny Depp.
	This is no hidden meaning.
	It's apparent meanings.
	This isn't a hit piece on Johnny Depp.
	And you can end here.
	You can end there by saying the statements that you wrote were not...
	Defense lawyers love this.
	They always love to say, you can end right there.
	You don't have to go any further.
	You can end right there.
	I've never been a huge fan of that.
	And the thing is, what it is, it's reducing the jury to this technical formulaic role where they're going through and checkbox and do, do, checkbox.
	No jury really thinks that way.
	They make a moral narrative and then they fill out the form.
	They don't look at the form to figure out their moral narrative.
	And so play to the moral narrative.
	But, you know, every defense lawyer does what he just said, though.
	Someone says I have zero faith in juries and I wanted to.
	No, that wasn't it.
	Okay.
	Someone's pointing out Casey Anthony.
	If you've seen enough cases, we went through it in Minnesota.
	The facts and the law pointed one direction.
	That jury rushed to a completely different conclusion.
	I still think Johnny Depp will win and I think he'll win a substantial verdict.
	But the demographics of the verdict, the mask wearing, the politics.
	All through a little bit of a curve into this.
	It looks like hung jury, or I guess not both claims dismissed, but hung jury on both claims.
	I don't think they'll rule into her favor, but maybe a hung jury on him.
	That's the risk that he faced.
	You know, of course, all law tube, you know what that would mean, right?
	Retrial.
	If you're part of WahTube, don't you have to honestly cheer for the mistrial?
	Don't you have to cheer for the retrial?
	Robert, I want this to be over and done with.
	Now, if it's a mistrial, they only have a retrial if the parties decide to sue each other again.
	I mean, if there's a mistrial, the judge just schedules another jury, and boom.
	Okay, but the parties will then...
	They will mutually desist.
	Nobody's spending another $10 million on this trial.
	Johnny Depp, I'm sure he'll do another one.
	That's nuts.
	What does this one say?
	Canada and the States need more people like Barnes at the head of the DOJ, RCMP, or even SCOTUS, Supreme Court of Canada.
	He has a great moral compass and an amazing understanding of law.
	I'm not your buddy, Guy.
	I agree.
	Alright, bring it on.
	False.
	And the First Amendment protects them.
	We're also never getting through this entire thing.
	I know there's a few highlights here and a few highlights in Camille.
	Now, some people wondered why he brought up First Amendment, because that's really not an argument that the jury's deciding.
	He's putting it into that context because it's persuasive appeal.
	Some judges wouldn't have allowed him to make that statement.
	We've got to get into what the judge did or did not reprimand Elaine for, but we'll get there.
	Okay, boom.
	Let's talk about the headline for a minute.
	The headline that was published.
	They just love this stuff.
	They all love PowerPoint.
	I think it was maybe Bronca.
	Somebody did just a great ripping of the uselessness of PowerPoint closes and now it's not.
	Lawyers have become obsessed with this because they do it in their little conference rooms.
	I've never used a PowerPoint in my life in any case.
	Never going to.
	The only thing that should be visual are like big clear, like if it's jury instruction because they're about to see it.
	That's useful to parallel.
	Otherwise, it should be exhibits and visuals.
	Nothing else.
	Let me tell you six times how this statement or this statement.
	I get he's putting up the statements.
	Really, it's only the top statement that truly matters.
	I would not have included this third statement in this context because it makes it look like an equal statement when she's disputing it because they wrote the headline.
	Less PowerPoint, everybody.
	We've got to get to Elaine because she does.
	I don't think Rotten Board made gains, but Elaine backpedaled.
	In the online version only of the article on December 18th, 2018, said, I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath.
	A few points here.
	Number one, this evidence is undisputed.
	There's no dispute about this.
	So as you weigh the evidence, you don't have to check your common sense at the door, and you can weigh circumstantial evidence.
	By the way, he's lost me.
	I want to know what the undisputed evidence was.
	If he's gone on for so long now, I actually don't know, but I want to hear what it was and what it is.
	But you can't see evidence where no evidence exists.
	And the undisputed evidence here is that Ms. Hurd didn't write the headline.
	She didn't approve the headline.
	She had nothing to...
	Am I wrong, Robert?
	Or is that actually not undisputed evidence?
	I think she ratified everything.
	She approved everything.
	That's the problem.
	She didn't write it.
	That's true.
	But she retweeted it.
	And that's the problem.
	She didn't read that.
	And I think she even...
	Chat, correct me if I'm wrong.
	I think she said she even approved the article.
	There's an easy way to get around that.
	That headline refers to other people.
	That she's talking about in the very first paragraph.
	That's the defense.
	The defense should have been, yes, there's a headline about sexual violence.
	Has nothing to do with Johnny Depp.
	How do you know?
	You can read the article that apparently Johnny Depp didn't read.
	Very first paragraph.
	It's about all the other people that she had been victimized by.
	Not including Johnny Depp.
	Now, problem for the Hurd's defense?
	She accused him of sexual violence at trial.
	So that ship kind of sailed.
	And by the way, Chixxie Plux...
	It was retweeted.
	She tweeted it out.
	She shared it.
	She shared the article on Twitter.
	It was shared outright.
	And by doing so, it's interpreted that she affirmed.
	It can be interpreted by a jury that she affirmed that headline.
	But that's where I think the key is.
	And yes, she didn't testify.
	She wrote the headline.
	But I think the testimony from somewhere was that, in fact, the headline was written by The Washington Post.
	The thing is, what the Washington Post is doing is they are quoting her effectively by the way the headline is written, but it's describing in the first paragraph.
	That's where the editor got it.
	She, however, chose to make this case about sexual violence by accusing him of it.
	So it's hard to make this argument now in close.
	Her testimony, I'm reading people's tweets.
	She said she retweeted it but didn't read the headline.
	Then she separately said, I approved the article.
	And then I believe she even said she approved the headline.
	The headline is the only part...
	And she makes very broad statements in her last testimony about why she wrote the article.
	I mean, so she kind of crushed that argument.
	And they didn't highlight this as well as they needed to in the opening.
	But once she started talking about sexual violence, the jury's too confused to think this statement is not about...
	Johnny Depp.
	To Anonymous.
	No, she's watching a movie.
	I got my kid watching a movie.
	There is so much crap that you actually have to watch before you can let a kid watch it.
	I mean, some of this shit on television these days.
	Holy crap.
	Okay.
	I'm going to hit play.
	Boom.
	To do with it.
	She was not given notice of the headline.
	That's a lie.
	I really think she testified that that's factually incorrect.
	She testified.
	You saw her testify about the sexual assault that she experienced at the hands of Mr. Depp.
	You saw her testify about that.
	Now, pause.
	See how he just kind of confused the jury?
	Hey, this doesn't really have to do with her.
	Someone else did this.
	Oh, by the way, she testified to it.
	It's like, okay, so what's your argument exactly?
	It becomes one of those, you know, if not this, then that.
	And if not that, then this.
	And if not that, then the other thing.
	You know, everything but the kitchen sink argument.
	That's fine to make legally in pleadings.
	Don't make it to a jury.
	If my client wasn't there, but if they were there, they only stole the other thing, not that thing.
	And if they did steal that thing, they meant to steal it.
	Not persuasive.
	Hold on here.
	You're a liar.
	You saw her on the stand, tough spot, with your own mouth.
	With her own mouth.
	Oh, I mean, this is...
	Okay, you saw it with your own mouth.
	These are bad slips.
	Exactly.
	It's rotten-born letting some Freudian things out of his head.
	For the first time in court, because people who have suffered that, they don't want to broadcast that to the world.
	They want to penalize Ms. Hurd for not speaking about that earlier.
	That's ridiculous.
	This is the problem.
	People who've gone through that, they don't want to broadcast it to the world.
	Says he about his client who broadcasted to the world in a Washington Post op-ed.
	The way to couch that is to tell it through a real person.
	Just tell a story.
	Not like this broken up kind of thing.
	In other words, tell it by, you know, it was dramatic, it was traumatic.
	Tell it through her eyes.
	Retell that story.
	Through what the evidence is there.
	Do it in those terms.
	Like you're arguing in the way that he's arguing.
	That's not an effective, persuasive method of persuasion.
	It's much better to tell it through like you're experiencing it through somebody else's eyes, not breaking it down like it's an analytical test.
	My wife is texting me.
	I think I'm in trouble.
	This is the problem.
	When you live online, people know what you're doing and when you're doing it.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	Moving on.
	This victim-blaming at its most disgusting.
	Sorry, Robert, I'll stop after this.
	I think seeing things like this are very bad because there will be some jury members.
	You can make that moral point through telling a narrative, right?
	You tell a story about someone that this had experienced and then what they happened, and you make the jury be, man, I don't want to be that mean, judgmental person.
	I want to be sympathetic to the...
	You tell it like that.
	You don't say, you're a bad person if you disagree with me.
	That just takes them off.
	There are jury members who clearly are going to either not believe or be suspicious.
	You're going to tell me I'm disgusting for using my own common sense to assess that?
	That's why you use an example.
	You use someone like, oh, I don't want to be that person.
	But don't accuse the jury of being that person.
	Unless, basically, you're totally screwed.
	You say, hey, everybody thinks you're a bastard.
	You better rule the other way to prove you're not.
	But that's when you're DOA.
	The only reference to sexual assault in the article, and you can read the op-ed, It's sexual assault that she said she had experienced by the time she was of college age before Mr. Depp.
	So there is a reference to sexual violence in that article.
	But it's not by Mr. Depp.
	That's a fair point, but he's just confused the heck out of the jury because just a minute ago he said she accused him of it.
	Well, not just that, but she spent six weeks trying to prove that she suffered death.
	So it's like, if he was going to go with this argument, which I thought was a legally good argument before the trial, One, then just skip what she's accused him of.
	Or put it at the very end.
	But trying to make the argument, hey, her article, yeah, she experienced this from him, but that isn't what the article is about.
	You can see that in the article.
	And do it that way, not the way he just did it, which is just, it's like he went down like a checklist or something.
	And it's okay, this, but also, not good.
	And if the argument were that the op-ed was not about Johnny, What she was testifying to was previous in other relationships.
	That would have been an entirely different argument as opposed to six, well, whatever, three days that she had saying, you know, he did it with a bottle, strangled.
	Oh, but no, I was talking about something else.
	I wasn't talking about that, which I testified to for three days.
	It's incompatible.
	Hold reliable for a headline she didn't write that contained something that had nothing, that was not about him.
	And they want you to think that she republished the headline.
	Republish the headline by tweeting out the link to the online version.
	So let's look at this.
	This is the tweet that she sent on December 19th.
	The hyperlink says, opinion Amber Heard, I spoke up against sexual violence.
	That's the online version of the article.
	As Ms. Heard said, you can't attach, you can't tweet a piece of paper.
	So when she wanted to share that she had written this article, what choice does she have?
	She has to attach that link.
	And the jury instructions that you have, Make clear that a hyperlink is not republication.
	Forwarding a link on does not mean that you broadcast the statement again, but that's what they want to make you think.
	The problem is the rest.
	If she just shared the article, his statement would be true.
	Twitter just retweeting and sharing a hyperlink is not republication.
	But it's all these other comments up atop.
	That's what is the problem.
	Let me read it for anybody who's old like me and can't focus.
	Today, I published this op-ed in the Washington Post about the women who are channeling their rage about violence and inequality into political strength, despite the price of coming forward from college campuses to Congress.
	We're balancing the scales.
	I will say, Amber Heard's not smart enough to write that statement.
	But putting that point aside, she put it out under her name.
	She wanted to take credit for it.
	She's affirming it in certain ways.
	It was a mistake.
	It was just a mistake.
	She could have said, today I published this article, period.
	But all these other things appear to affirm...
	Everything that's in the headline and everything else.
	That's the problem.
	Chick six of plucks.
	Chick six of plucks.
	I don't know if the position here is that it wasn't a retweet and it was an original tweet and therefore she could be held liable for it or it wasn't a retweet.
	It's an original tweet tweeting a link that's affirming the content of the link as her own.
	That's the problem.
	In law, let's just say I retweeted the Covington kids story.
	Let's just say I retweeted Elizabeth Warren's tweet.
	No comment, just retweet.
	Share what she said.
	If I retweet, that would not be defamation towards Nicholas Salmon.
	But if I retweet and say, look at what the scumbag Arrigan Prick did, and then retweet it, that would be defamation.
	My suit is that people affirm certain statements in the article by what they said before the article on behalf of the Covington kids.
	So the way to think of it is this.
	A tweet is like a letter.
	So, if all you sent to someone was an article with nothing attached to it, that's not republication.
	If you say, if you copy a letter, say, look at this article, it's all true, I wrote it, okay, different, now you've republished.
	Yeah, okay.
	I just said, the legal position that Rottenborn is putting forward is untenable, in my opinion.
	The only way...
	And the jury instructions that you have, we don't need to read through them in detail now, but the republication instruction says that merely linking to an article does not amount to republication, but adding content to a link.
	That's not what she did!
	Correct, that's problem one.
	But number two is, this is the sort of thing that should be up on the screen.
	Not him reading it like that.
	Because that, a jury instructions, jurors, this is the first time, sometimes they're given it physically before, usually they're not.
	The judge reads it to them, but sometimes the judge doesn't give them to it physically until they go into the jury room.
	And so it's real useful to have visual reminders of what that instruction is that they're going to be looking at.
	And that's what he should have done here, not this.
	But you're right.
	What he's representing is not the factual pattern of the situation present here.
	But even superficially to a non-lawyer jury.
	Okay, just retweeting is not...
	Yeah.
	I'm not an idiot.
	I see what she said when she tweeted it.
	And it wasn't a retweet.
	She posted the link saying, I wrote this and commentated on it.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Linked article may constitute republication.
	You must determine whether any added content was intended to reach a new audience.
	And if you find any content added to the hyperlink was intended to reach a new audience, it constitutes a republication.
	Does he not understand that that's exactly what he just proved?
	That's basically what he did.
	She added content to reach a new audience.
	Added to the article.
	No, she didn't add to the article, you dumbass.
	She created a new audience.
	That's republication.
	Also, if you added something to it, that's new publication of new defamation.
	She did both.
	And not added to the original source.
	Added to the sharing of the original source.
	These are dumb arguments.
	Yeah, no, I agree.
	She tweeted above the article.
	Say it again?
	He was obsessed with certain technical arguments and he went too far on this.
	And there's a temptation to defeat what is strong at Sun Tzu.
	To defeat what is strong, attack what is weak.
	Number two, to overcome what is weak, remember what is strong.
	And third, when the enemy is stronger, retreat.
	Those are my three favorite Sun Tzu principles.
	Applicable to closing arguments.
	Here he's got some weaknesses.
	You do not help by talking about them.
	You just pretend they don't exist.
	Simply saying, today I published this.
	That's what she said.
	She didn't add any content to it.
	She could have added some of the content that you've heard in this courtroom to it.
	She could have said, not only two years ago.
	She said the whole thing is about the women who are channeling their rage about violence and inequality.
	This was a very dumb statement to make.
	I've become a public figure representing domestic abuse, but let me tell you about the domestic abuse that I suffered.
	That would be adding new content.
	This is not adding new content.
	But I guess it's no surprise, because this whole case is about blaming Amber Heard for things she didn't do.
	But that's what Mr. Depp does.
	It's what he's always done.
	Blame other people.
	Have a theme.
	Repeat the theme.
	State it in multiple contexts.
	Don't have multiple themes.
	This case is all about X. Then 10 minutes later.
	This case is all about Y. Then 10 minutes later.
	This case is all about Z. 10 minutes later.
	This case is all about C. Have one theme.
	And everything's got to blend in with that theme.
	This case is all about boom.
	Whatever that is.
	And if he was going to go the guilt routine, this case is all about victims coming forward.
	And what happens to them in the court of public opinion when they do it?
	Against powerful people.
	That's the stage of analysis.
	And this was a mistake in terms of what he just did.
	Just have to make sure my kid eats the damn broccoli that I made.
	We're not wasting broccoli here.
	Okay.
	Sorry, Robert.
	I'll hit play.
	I missed what you said.
	There's a legal difference between...
	Yes, a retweet is just a retweet.
	Added commentary is your affirmation.
	Ratification and addition to the underlying content.
	Here she's saying, I published this in the Washington Post.
	It's my article.
	That's an affirmation and ratification of the headline and everything in it.
	And she says, here's what it's about.
	It's about experiencing domestic violence, basically.
	So, you know, she's redefined the article to make it more about Johnny Depp than it was the article itself.
	That was a bad tweet.
	And wait for this, people.
	Hashtag confession through projection.
	Or it is Goebbels.
	Goebbels, big Zuckerberg is in the house.
	Accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing to create confusion.
	Indeed.
	Refuse to take accountability.
	But the problem for him here is that he's running headlong into the United States Constitution, which says that you cannot hold Amber Heard liable for words she didn't write or publish.
	But here we are.
	Say it again?
	That's not in the Constitution.
	So there is a constitutional provision, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says, thou shalt not hold liable anything.
	That's defamation law.
	That's not in the Constitution.
	First Amendment now is sanctioned or tolerates defamation according to...
	And there's aspects like there's constitutional components.
	She's entitled to her opinion of her interpretation of her subjective...
	That's the Constitution's application.
	The Constitution's application is not what he just said.
	He just said the Constitution says you can't hold someone responsible if they didn't publish it.
	There's nothing in the Constitution at all about that.
	At all.
	I'm also saying the broccoli was shockingly expensive, and especially now I'm still on Canadian dollars, so I've got to multiply everything by like.33.
	Okay, moving on.
	Here we are.
	And you can decide this case without ever wading into any of the allegations.
	The facts, the evidence that you've heard.
	He did this a lot.
	You can decide this case without assessing credibility of my client.
	You really can.
	You don't have to look at the actual evidence.
	No, Nate.
	Don't worry about that.
	I mean, I understand why he's having to do that.
	That's not a position you want to be in.
	And I wouldn't remind a jury of that exactly.
	The heinous abuse that Miss Hurd suffered at the hands of Mr. Death.
	You can decide that.
	Determining that those statements are true and they're protected by the First Amendment.
	Also, they're not about Johnny because they predate Johnny.
	I mean, this guy is sucking and blowing.
	I mean, you've got to stick with the narrative.
	You can't be, if not this, then that.
	If not that, then the other thing.
	That is unpersuasive to a jury.
	They weren't about Johnny.
	They predated Johnny, but they were about Johnny, and they're true.
	It's like your kid gets caught, and they're like, well, if it wasn't George, it was Joe.
	Or maybe John.
	Maybe, you know, not persuasive.
	Yeah, listen to this.
	Not to get into a discussion on inflation, but we'll touch on it on Sunday.
	My wife at the kitchen unloading groceries and having spent $240 at the New Publix.
	All that I know is I got a cheaper piece of meat tonight than last night at a different Publix, but I think it was a cheaper cut of meat.
	Okay.
	But Mr. Depp brought this case, and he's suggesting that he was never abusive to Ms. Hurd.
	So if that's where you want to make your decision, that's where the road ends for Mr. Depp.
	Ladies and gentlemen, let me be very clear.
	If Amber was abused by Mr. Depp even one time, then she wins.
	Sorry.
	That statement is a good statement on the law.
	Make it, but keep it that simple.
	I mean, he's got six different statements about what the case is all about.
	That's one problem.
	The other problem is he went a whole bunch of different places he didn't need to go.
	That's how he should have said that.
	See, the reality of this case isn't about Johnny Depp.
	That's all about Johnny Depp being obsessed with Johnny Depp.
	But second, even if you want to make it all about Johnny Depp like Johnny Depp wants you to do, Okay, fine.
	All you got to do is prove that she believed that she suffered one incident of abuse.
	Not physical abuse, not any particular kind of abuse.
	One time.
	I think even if you talk about the door running over her foot, you could turn that into a situation of abuse.
	Especially from her subjective mindset.
	Because it's both, was the statement true or not objectively?
	And what did she subjectively believe?
	And so by focus, but he should have done that earlier, should have done that in the opening, should have done that in a lot of...
	This is a good part of his closing, but it would have been better if it was more coherently repeated and restructured in this way.
	And Danica asks, was Rottenborn lying about the Constitution?
	I don't presume...
	Yeah, he was.
	He was in the sense that there's things that are not in the Constitution.
	Normally, in federal court, a judge might intervene right here and say, that's an incorrect statement of law.
	Please correct or sometimes say himself.
	So like in my cases, tax cases, they don't want me talking about Constitution or anything.
	So judges real quick to jump on me if I even go a little bit outside where they want me to go.
	So this judge, state court, much more open, allowed them to say what they want.
	Johnny Depp's team may have made a tactical decision not to object much in closing.
	A lot of lawyers do.
	This, though, would be one where I would object.
	Say, Your Honor, misstating the Constitution, the law is up to the court.
	He can't get the Constitution right.
	He'd be better than his client and get the facts right.
	Sit down, you know, whatever.
	But make a few little points here and there because that was, in fact, a misstatement.
	Well, and that's the thing.
	It's like whether or not he's lying or whether or not he just doesn't understand the Constitution or he's, you know, making floppy statements.
	It's not so much.
	It's kind of lying, but he's just misstating the laws, the technical legal objection.
	And Elaine, I think, got in trouble for misstating the evidence.
	Maybe we'll skip ahead a bit.
	And we're not just talking about physical abuse.
	We're talking about emotional abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse.
	That's what we're talking about.
	Let's look at the evidence.
	You heard Mr. Depp.
	Define abuse from his own mouth.
	He admitted all of that.
	We'll skip ahead a little bit here.
	To make the definition of abuse what Depp said it was, it's not really.
	It's what a reasonable reader of the article would believe it is.
	That's the relevant legal standard.
	So it basically becomes a community jury standard.
	But that's a good flip to say, Johnny, admit it.
	If you do this financially, or you do this psychologically, or you do this emotionally, or you do this physically, or you do this sexually, any of the five.
	And sexual abuse can be a lot of things.
	It can be making her have a friend there with her, whatever.
	That's a good way to define abuse for the jury, even though legally it's not correct.
	Well, and, you know, Sergeant Hayes says as a joke, he proved cabinet abuse.
	He did.
	And a savvy lawyer would have said, tone it back on the Gone Girl bottle abuse and just say, that scared me.
	I felt intimidated.
	When I saw that, I felt like a victim of psychological violence.
	And I swear to you, had it been limited to that, I think she would have had a much better chance.
	Oh, much better.
	Much better.
	But let's skip a little bit here.
	Yeah, let's get close to where he finishes.
	Hold on a second.
	What's that?
	That is what their expert, Robert, thought was vomitous on Johnny.
	Oh.
	Their whole relationship.
	This isn't about with ice cream melted on his pants.
	And their psychiatrist expert thought that he had seen a picture of Johnny unconscious with a vomit on him.
	Breaking down a series of individual days Now this is him reframing this as, hey, let's not break down individual days because all of our individual evidence is kind of crap.
	Let's just blend it together and say, hey, didn't this relationship kind of suck?
	Doesn't that kind of seem like abuse to you?
	They gave as good as they got.
	But the problem was that was not the evidence.
	That was not the argument.
	That was not Amber's testimony.
	So you can't backtrack at that point.
	This isn't about breaking down a series of individual days that you've heard evidence about.
	This is about the cumulative effect of Mr. Depp and Ms. Hurd's relationship and whether that constitutes abuse.
	That is abuse, ladies and gentlemen.
	That's domestic abuse.
	I'm repeating the conclusion, but what is that?
	I don't think that looks like...
	Look at all that pot.
	That's domestic abuse, people.
	Smoking all that pot, all that weed, doing all that cocaine, drinking all that alcohol.
	Would you be tolerant of that?
	If that ain't abuse, what is abuse?
	That's a lot of marijuana.
	That is a lot of marijuana.
	I don't smoke marijuana.
	I love the smell of raw...
	I just love the way it smells, but I don't like...
	Really?
	I can honestly say I've never heard that.
	I love it.
	Just the smell.
	I don't enjoy the sensation.
	A lot of people complain about the smell of pot.
	But I love the smell of cigars, pot.
	I just don't like the sensation of either.
	Fascinating.
	That's a big freaking bag, man.
	Okay, sorry.
	I guess that'd be a mega bag, like his mega pint of wine.
	Jeez Louise.
	This is just character assassination in the legal sense.
	It looks like Johnny Depp from below.
	It's a fascinating definition of abuse.
	Using alcohol is abuse.
	Smoking pot is abuse.
	You know, that's an interesting definition of abuse.
	The spice cabinet of anyone in this courtroom.
	That's Mr. Depp.
	This is Mr. Depp.
	That's abuse?
	Is that abuse?
	This is Mr. Depp.
	Yeah, a freaking hard-working man who might have some problems, who's dozing off and has a partner.
	Now, this is a mistake.
	I don't think they did it in rebuttal.
	But this would be a field day for me when you step into something like this.
	So I'll give an example.
	Years ago, a lawyer used to use Santa Claus as part of his argument in criminal tax defense.
	He would say, hey, everybody used to believe in Santa Claus.
	Then we realized it wasn't true.
	My client discovered something about the tax laws that he believed it turned out not to be true like Santa Claus.
	He stopped doing it because a prosecutor came up in rebuttal and said, yeah, it was Santa Claus, all right.
	This guy thought he'd found his Santa Claus so he didn't have to pay taxes anymore.
	After that, he scrapped.
	So like this, I don't know if you'll say, look at this photo.
	Look at this photo.
	Do you think you're, if you were in getting, if you saw this or you were in the room, do you feel abused right now?
	Are you scared right now?
	Are you intimidated right now?
	Are you terrified right now for yourself?
	Do you think this is an abusive photo?
	This is how insane their argument is.
	I would not have put up any of these photos.
	This makes him look like, if anything, like a lazy pothead.
	Not a guy you're scared of.
	Not a guy you're afraid of.
	Maybe a guy you could take advantage of.
	Robert, you think like...
	Okay, never mind.
	This is Mr. Depp.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah.
	That looks like someone beat the crap out of him.
	Okay.
	And all you hear from Mr. Depp when these pictures are shown is snickering and defiance.
	Yeah.
	Because he's being absolutely terrorized by someone who's supposed to be in a loving relationship.
	Fall asleep and capturing...
	I get high now and then.
	Probably not a good idea.
	But, you know, none of this is abuse.
	My goodness.
	Okay.
	And it just undermines anything.
	Victim blaming.
	Blaming Miss Hurd for taking this picture of him.
	For trying to help.
	Look at you, Johnny.
	You're a hopeless piece of garbage, Johnny.
	I'm trying to help you, Johnny.
	And upset.
	He said these pictures were to substantiate her accusations of abuse, not trying to help him.
	He brought these pictures up to show an abuser, and now he's mixing his narratives.
	Yes, completely.
	Probably because he's looking at the photo and thinking, man, this is a crap argument.
	What the hell did I just do?
	I at least shouldn't be here.
	I'm just looking at Amber's response.
	Was it in his closing that they actually had an Amber Alert go off in the courtroom?
	Did you hear about this?
	No.
	It actually happened.
	The judge...
	So, you know how your phone won't stop an Amber Alert?
	Yep.
	It started going off.
	And the judge said, oh, sorry, sorry, this is an Amber Alert.
	She actually put up that it wasn't even technically an Amber Alert, but the judge called it an Amber Alert in the middle of his clothes!
	Oh, yeah, the chat is confirming.
	Holy cow.
	Yeah, there was a...
	That is all-time classic.
	I mean, that's going to go top 10 great legal closing argument stories.
	What do you want not to happen?
	I mean, if it had been me, I'd have been, Judge, mistrial.
	I mean, in this case, if I have this bad of a case, I'm finding every way to argue mistrial.
	Mistrial, mistrial, mistrial, mistrial, mistrial.
	I'd have been like, Judge, my closing argument's ruined.
	I had an Amber Alert in the middle of this.
	Yeah, and in Quebec, they used the Amber Alert to notify us of curfew alert.
	It went off, and it says...
	Yeah, it was actually a tornado alert.
	But she called it, the judge called it an Amber Alert.
	Don't give anybody any ideas, Robert.
	If someone's listening, they're going to say the judge swayed the jury with another joke, or maybe it was just a reflexive response.
	Oh my, that's terrible.
	Okay.
	So let's talk about some of these instances of abuse.
	Oh, I forgot one.
	That's terrible.
	Let's talk about the instances of abuse.
	And he's doing a photo of Johnny hungover, or maybe he'd been beaten the night before.
	That's a terrible, terrible...
	This is where you don't correspond well with your photos and images.
	Here, let me show you another picture of abuse.
	A man who clearly is passed out.
	Let's see this guy.
	Looks like an old guy, bent over.
	When I see this, I'm thinking, oh, I guess he got abused.
	That's my first thought.
	When he says it that way, it's terrible.
	This was awful.
	2013.
	Talked about the Wino Forever tattoo.
	In March 2013, there were a couple instances.
	There was one on March 8th.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Whitney Enriquez.
	Skip over the evidence.
	I want to get to the...
	He had one good point, which was a text message to...
	The texts are good for Amber Heard.
	Because Johnny says a lot of unfortunate things, shall we say, in some of those texts.
	Yeah.
	Oh, they were repeating those.
	But they should have only kind of done that.
	Oh, she almost cried.
	That's good.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	She gets there.
	He pulls out a bag of MDMA.
	He took a handful.
	She didn't say he took 10 at a time.
	She did say he took 8 to 10 over the course of that period.
	The second day, Mr. Depp, who claims that Miss Hurd refused to do a post-snub.
	Calls Amber's domestic relations attorney, Michelle Mulroney.
	You heard from her when he was drunk and he fired her.
	And he told Amber for about the 25th time, she said, the only way out of this is that I don't want to post nothing.
	And then she said she remembered him slamming up against the wall.
	And I won't go through.
	You remember her testimony from Australia.
	You remember her saying that he had her by the neck.
	We'll just skip that.
	He fired somebody.
	Oh my goodness.
	He was drunk and he fired somebody.
	These are not the best part of his argument.
	You remember her saying that he threw her on the games table like a ping pong table?
	You remember seeing the pictures of that broken table?
	You remember her saying that at some point he had a broken bottle up against her face and he told her that he'd carve up her face.
	That he was throwing bottles at her.
	Here's the problem.
	Those statements are so over the top that they're totally unbelievable.
	So I wouldn't highlight my incredulous components of my argument.
	No, it's like I just watched Black Mass yesterday, and it's like they're describing Whitey Bulger.
	They're describing a serial killer, not Johnny Depp, who, if this is the way he really is, has never had a problem with this in the past.
	Hold on just one second.
	Okay, hold on.
	...and I could feel glass breaking behind me, and you've seen the evidence of that.
	And he was just over and over again smashing the phone into the wall, screaming at me as she watched it break into pieces.
	Now, she doesn't know how he lost his finger.
	She said that she saw him smash the phone to pieces, and you heard him get impeached the other day with his testimony from the UK, which was different from what he testified here, where he said he did...
	Oh, did you say here?
	No, I didn't.
	Okay, sorry.
	Smash the phone.
	And then they tried to put that picture in front of you with a desk phone that suggests that that was it.
	It's deception.
	They're trying to deceive you.
	Pause.
	And then you heard her testify that the next morning she found...
	That's highly unethical what he just said.
	You cannot accuse the other opposing lawyers of trying to deceive the jury.
	Highly unprofessional.
	He could have been sanctioned.
	The judge could have said no more closing argument.
	That's totally impossible.
	In government cases, it's grounds for dismissal.
	Well, Elaine made an accusation, but not of opposing counsel, but of Waldman, I believe, of planting evidence or something.
	A meat that he had left all over the house, but not before what happened before she went to bed that night.
	Where Miss Hurd testified, and I remember trying to get up, and I was slipping on the glass.
	Oh, yeah.
	I was wanting to move.
	I felt this pressure, pressure in my pubic bone.
	I remember just not wanting to move because I didn't know if it was broken.
	I didn't know if the bottle that he had inside me was broken.
	This was orchestrated, but maybe it was at her demand.
	I wouldn't have gone with the most extreme foolish allegations.
	Slipping on glass, everyone just remember Die Hard.
	It was the only scene I could never get over in that movie.
	You walk on broken glass like that, you're done for a while.
	It's not just, oh, okay, now I'm going to go kill some terrorists who are taking over Nakatobi Plaza.
	No.
	If that happened, it's more than a few red scar lines in a picture at an event.
	It's over the top.
	Yeah, it is.
	It is.
	Who's he looking at?
	This is the next morning.
	He's obsessed with his power.
	There's been testimony about what happened to cut the finger off, but frankly, it's irrelevant to your deliberations here.
	Did he just go straight from the alleged attack with glass in a bottle on her to Johnny Depp's blown-off finger?
	Amber could have chopped.
	He hasn't organized a story in a thematic narrative that's emotionally connected in a way that people relate to.
	He's told us, you know, David Mamet's three uses of the knife, brilliant little small text explaining this from a blues song.
	He doesn't know how to do this, probably, to be honest with you.
	He's a conventional corporate lawyer.
	This is like a summary judgment argument being made to a jury.
	It's not what you do in a jury closing argument.
	Robert, are there vaguest odds on this?
	Somebody said there were, but I haven't seen any.
	But somebody said there were.
	So I'll check them out tomorrow if there are.
	He popped it off with an axe, and it has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Depp abused her.
	But we all know she didn't.
	We all know that his fingers weren't curled, and someone was standing with a half-gallon vodka bottle from about where that canopy is and threw it, and it somehow managed to damage just the bottom of the finger and leave the nose fully in.
	What's the problem with what he's just saying?
	He's pointing out that certain kinds of physical injuries would have to be demonstrative.
	In a much more dramatic way from incidents.
	What's the problem?
	That's her whole problem.
	She doesn't have.
	I would not have highlighted this point.
	Well, I would also just say, like, common sense.
	There was a picture once on Reddit of a guy who, someone broke a bottle over his face.
	And, you know, it was the picture of what happens after that.
	And it's not like in the movies where it's just, you know, it's sugar bottles.
	It gashes and slashes.
	Like, throw a bottle.
	Bad stuff happens.
	And especially since they tried to argue that with Johnny Depp himself.
	Throwing a bottle.
	There's no way he could have hurt his finger by merely throwing a bottle.
	But when it happened to Ellen Barkin, it's proof of abuse.
	And she's admitted to throwing stuff.
	So it's terrible.
	It's just terrible, I think.
	What did I just do here?
	We all know that didn't happen.
	Oh, we all know that.
	By the way, when everyone says we all know that, that's terrible.
	You don't make that argument.
	Depp knows it didn't happen.
	We'll see some evidence of that.
	But here...
	I agree with the chat.
	He says, make demonstrations great again.
	Make demonstrative evidence great again.
	Make closing arguments great again.
	Watching this legal team is like watching...
	The Mavs without Luka Donut.
	They're a great player.
	I thought...
	I don't know.
	I thought that was Mouse, the book from the third...
	Okay, sorry.
	So I didn't understand that chat.
	All right.
	Moving on.
	Starring Billy Bob and Easy Amber.
	We talked about controlling jealousy.
	We talked about him not wanting her to act on Hughes.
	Don't suddenly drop nicknames in.
	What was that?
	It's just boom.
	He's moving quickly because he's got all these little evidentiary points he thinks is important to make without a coherent thematic narrative, without a coherent emotional narrative, without a coherent narrative period.
	And doing things like dropping Nicknames in the middle is just one of those things that is not helpful.
	And to the super chat about, is the jury possibly looking at Camille's reactions?
	Five of the seven are meant.
	So there's that aspect.
	There's also, she's right next to them.
	So it's definitely possible that they're looking at her as much as they're looking at him.
	I'm going to press play and I'm going to go to rumble for a second just to see if there's any rumble on how that is a form of intimate partner abuse.
	He's writing on the mirror again and they try to blame her and say that she wrote Call Carly Simon.
	She didn't write that.
	Who was the lunatic in the house?
	Who was writing everywhere?
	Pause.
	I wouldn't say...
	The question of this trial is, who is the lunatic in this house?
	Amber, Amber, Amber.
	He didn't learn from Elaine's mistake.
	Don't ask stupid questions here, but you might not get the answer you want.
	Do we skip forward a little bit?
	I don't know.
	How long does he go?
	Yeah, let's see if we can get to the very last thing.
	Any damage to Mr. Depp's career.
	This is it.
	This is it.
	To rule for Mr. Depp.
	You would have to find that Ms. Hurd made the statements with actual malice.
	Now, what Mr. Chu didn't tell you is that you have to find this by clear and convincing evidence.
	So this is much higher.
	Okay, sorry.
	Is that correct?
	He should have started with that point.
	What's his strongest argument?
	That they don't have clear and convincing evidence that she believed that her statements had no merit whatsoever in the entire article.
	And then go through how 90% of the article is about...
	Things that people other than Johnny Depp did.
	That's how you introduce it in that context.
	And now he's doing it at the very end, with a few seconds left?
	That's not good.
	So for the threshold for the malice, it is in fact not...
	In Virginia, it's clear and convincing evidence that she knew she was lying about him.
	New shoes lying or reckless disregard for the truth?
	But the reckless disregard standard really wouldn't apply to her.
	That's more when you publish a third-party statement, right?
	With her, the reckless disregard and knowing is almost equal because she's not relying on anyone else's information.
	Reckless disregard is more, George told me something.
	Well, was that reckless disregard?
	Because I didn't know it was false because George told me it was true.
	Robert says, I know what that means.
	They're saying 67% chance of Johnny Depp winning, 40% chance of Amber Heard winning.
	There's a gap between the odds because they're trying to get a VIG.
	There's some money that automatically goes to Vegas no matter which way it goes.
	That's why it adds up to 107 or 110.
	So 67% chance they're saying Johnny Depp wins, 40% chance Amber Heard wins.
	I would say those are good odds.
	I would still, despite the jury, Audience.
	I'll find out if I can get a bet in, because I'll take that bet.
	Well, if he's the favorite to win, I would bet against him losing then.
	But now, does losing mean Amber wins?
	No, just that he doesn't win.
	So no burden for him.
	I would vote on him, absolutely.
	Minus 200?
	That's good money.
	I would say about 90% chance Depp wins.
	And that's not winning any money.
	That's just saying they find defamation.
	Really?
	So you're at 90%?
	Yeah, because the moral narrative was so strong for him.
	And I was curious about the close.
	I'm actually watching this live for the people who don't know.
	I mean, I read and saw little glimpses, but I was in court today on the whistleblower case, Brooke Jackson whistleblower case.
	So I ended up getting to do my appearance here.
	My co-counsel was in Texas.
	We'll talk about that on Sunday.
	Pfizer's interesting defense.
	It's okay if we commit fraud because the government's in on it.
	That was literally their defense to the judge.
	It doesn't matter, Judd.
	Nothing was just like Sussman.
	Nothing's material.
	It's not material if it's with the government, Judge.
	That was their argument today.
	It'll give us a good excuse to talk black mass on Sunday as well.
	It's not corruption if the FBI is in on it.
	Exactly.
	Jeez, I would have bet against Johnny if the odds are him favored to win, just because I don't think they're going to...
	I don't know.
	But this is just him winning, apparently, not that he gets any more than a dollar.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	And the greater weight of the evidence stands for the other claims, the other elements of the claim.
	Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that creates in your minds a firm belief or conviction that Mr. Depp has proved this issue.
	So if you believe that Ms. Heard did not act maliciously in writing her op-ed, then you must return.
	I would not have used that definition.
	That definition sucks.
	Clear and convincing sounds much better than that definition does.
	So, like, I used to give, I would come up with an analogy.
	Like, I used to do an analogy for Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
	The government got so mad that they've asked judges to not let me give it.
	But I used a Hitchcock story, right?
	You know, use a story where doubt matters.
	Translate.
	So it's either a Hitchcock story, Twilight Zone.
	I don't know which one it is.
	But what happens is a woman comes home and tells the man that she's been assaulted.
	He's enraged and says, we'll go find him.
	And says, come with me right now.
	Let's find him.
	Goes outside, gets in the car, drives down.
	She goes, oh my God, that's him.
	He goes, oh, she jumps out, chased the guy down, beats him, kills him.
	Hops back in the car, starts to go back home.
	And all of a sudden she points out, no, no, no, that's him.
	He has a moment's pause, but he's still filled with rage, understandable rage.
	So he hops out, chased the guy down, beats him down, beats him up and kills him.
	As he's going home, she points out every man she sees as being the guy.
	And so what's reasonable doubt?
	Before we point the finger of blame, we need to be sure lest we cause harm to the wrong person.
	So some version thereof.
	Define clear and convincing in that way.
	When you have a bad instruction like that that makes clear and convincing sound...
	Indistinguishable from anything else.
	Don't use it.
	Say this is clear evidence.
	Clear and convincing evidence.
	Not just weight of the evidence.
	Not just 51%.
	Clear.
	Convincing.
	Something that you would do without second doubt.
	And then use some analogy like the story I gave.
	Robert, I'm going to try something right now.
	No.
	I'm an idiot.
	I've wasted so much time of my life.
	I feel so...
	Okay, doesn't matter.
	...that there could be no meritorious claims.
	She affirmatively followed all of it.
	So you cannot find that...
	So right here, he's saying she can't be held responsible because she followed the advice of her lawyer.
	Okay, fine.
	...met the clear and convinced you when Amber went out of her way to ask her lawyer if it was okay.
	They will say that that doesn't...
	That lawyer, she does have a legal malpractice claim against that lawyer.
	Oh, but Robert...
	Johnny Depp's the one who blames everyone else.
	I mean, you've got to be stupid to not see this rotten board.
	Come on, man.
	Come on.
	It doesn't matter if she's lying, but even that isn't true.
	Because again, keep in mind that if Ms. Heard wanted to be malicious toward Mr. Depp, the article would be very different.
	And I think...
	She could have been so much worse, so she's innocent.
	Now, in here, what's he playing on?
	The terrible phraseology that we need to get rid of called actual malice.
	Because actual malice has nothing to do with actual malice.
	Actual malice is you knew you were lying.
	But that doesn't sound like actual malice, does it?
	Here he's saying, oh, if she was malicious, but that's not actually the standard.
	Here he's misstating the legal standard again to the jury.
	The standard is, did she know she was lying or not?
	Not whether she was malicious in the process of doing so.
	I think it's interesting here, we'll talk about Mr. Waldman in a second, but that Amber utilized her attorney.
	Let's skip this.
	You heard us reading the stack of articles stating years before he broke up with Amber.
	Incompatible arguments.
	He's saying now the articles are not about him, but everything she said is true.
	Before their marriage broke apart.
	Talking about his problem.
	He said in 2016, I want to sue her for harm that was caused then.
	Very good throughout the trial.
	Depp's posture.
	Like, you know, put the fingers here, here, contemplative here.
	You can see why he's such a skilled actor.
	He knows how to express himself in a sympathetic way.
	She does not.
	And she's scanning the jury obsessively.
	And here I would tell you to be careful with this.
	Now, again, if I was representing her, I would be having her do other things.
	Communicate to the jury.
	Well, she might not be good at it, but she can't be terrible at it.
	You know, be subtle at different things, but not look like you're kind of desperate.
	Not have the shirt buttoned up all the way like that.
	I wouldn't go the way she's gone.
	That Depp had issues with drugs.
	He said he was late to the set and that he used it.
	Depp sued him.
	Then think about the testimony that you've heard from his former business manager, Joel Mandel.
	Said that Depp had issues with drugs and alcohol.
	They love to go through these lists.
	Remember, then this happened, and then this happened.
	You remember this witness?
	They said this.
	I would make it simple.
	Say, look, Johnny Depp wants to blame the end of his career on his relationship with Amber Heard.
	Whose fault was it Johnny Depp was a cokehead?
	Whose fault was it Johnny Depp was a pothead?
	Whose fault is it Johnny was getting stumbling, bumbling, drunk anywhere, everywhere, anyplace, anytime?
	Who was that?
	Wasn't that kind of on Johnny?
	And you don't have to take our word for it.
	Everybody in the media is covering this.
	Newspaper after newspaper, article after article.
	They didn't care about Amber Heard's relationship with him.
	They cared about Johnny not showing up on set on time because he was going to be like, peace, man.
	So that's how you hit him.
	Well, we talked to the business manager, and this person said this on transcript page 7 on middle of 3 o 'clock.
	By the way, now I realize I can actually skip forward without even watching it.
	Look at this.
	I can do this here.
	So, bottom line, he says Johnny blames everyone for everything.
	Terrible way to end it, because in my mind, it just sounded like Amber.
	You know, come in, boom, finish, boom.
	Let's get to Elaine here.
	Let's get to Elaine.
	Yeah, let's get to Camille.
	By the way, 9 o 'clock, I've got to be out here.
	I've got to go for a walk.
	Let's go to Camille, then.
	Elaine sucks.
	Basically, Cat Lady's still bad.
	Cat Lady's still Cat Lady.
	Hold on.
	Here, because you heard me teach him about 13 times.
	Oh, I teach him.
	I'm so good.
	Very, very strong.
	Thank you to all of you for this extraordinary service.
	We really appreciate it.
	I'm going to go really fast.
	I'm going to go really fast because I...
	I just want to skip over all the bad stuff.
	Thank you so much.
	Let me skip over the bad stuff and let me get into this.
	And try to go as quick as I can so that you can get a break from us and go make your decision.
	I know you're probably itching.
	You can't give him anything.
	They didn't tell you that, but the court told you that.
	And that's a very, very important thing here.
	He told his story.
	He had his opportunity.
	It's just one of many lies in this case, but it's a really big one.
	Only to go after Amber.
	A lot of lies in this case.
	That's psychological abuse.
	He's going after Amber for nothing.
	Because he wants to put her through this again.
	The third time.
	He has never accepted this.
	Enough.
	Enough.
	And we're asking you to finally hold this man responsible.
	He has never accepted responsibility for anything in his life.
	You've heard it this whole time.
	He hasn't admitted to anything.
	He's blamed everybody in the world.
	His agent, his manager, his lawyer, Amber, his friends, everybody.
	But he's never accepted responsibility for a thing he's done in his life.
	Am I crazy, Robert?
	Or do I think anybody who believes this has to have not watched the trial?
	Well, and the other problem is never ask more for the jury than you have to.
	So when you ask the jury, if ruling in my client's favor means you're going to bash and destroy Johnny Depp, I've put you in a bad position as a jury because you don't want to do that.
	You don't want to bash and destroy Johnny Depp.
	So don't go that far.
	Don't take it that far.
	Give him a palatable exit, a palatable out.
	That is consistent with the moral narrative, your client, and not doing something they don't want to do.
	That was for Amber Heard, frankly.
	That Elaine close struck me as, make Amber feel good, point to Johnny, point to Johnny, point to Johnny.
	But I would not do it in this context.
	Yeah, let's watch a little Camille, everybody's favorite lawyer.
	In this case.
	I'm on mute.
	I got a kid who actually wants to get physical exercise.
	So we're going to go walk and look at the beautiful Floridian nightlife.
	It's just beautiful.
	But okay, here.
	Amber.
	Camille.
	Who killed?
	Who destroyed?
	I want to hear her when she played the recording.
	Committing perjury.
	Ms. Heard needs you to believe that all the people who showed up in this courtroom to testify on behalf of Mr. Depp, they're all lying.
	Just demeanor, Robert.
	Everyone can say it sounds like a high school debate.
	I don't care about demeanor when there's substance.
	Yeah, I mean, I think she's, again, I would favor broader narrative, broader story framework, core themes.
	I think she made very good argumentative points within her points.
	I think the same thing that was missing from her team was also missing from her close.
	Come in with a thematic organization.
	Come in with a narrative.
	Tell a story.
	Connect it emotionally.
	Connect it morally.
	Some people call it the hero's journey.
	Something like that.
	So the jury feels, if I go in there and rule in your client's favor, I'm a hero.
	I, the jury, am a hero.
	Not only am I rewarding the hero, I'm the hero.
	And if you do it the right way, that's how you get them coming back with the right verdict, with a big verdict.
	She makes very good arguments that you would make on a TV debate.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Very good.
	Very well done.
	Very well presented.
	Tone is fine.
	It's tougher for women in law in public settings because they're put under different stereotypes as to what's an appropriate voice and not.
	I think she did very well there all the way through the whole trial.
	I might be relating her to a lawyer I practiced with who looks exactly like her and delivered exactly like her.
	But, you know, she's young.
	She's attractive.
	She speaks slowly, sort of like public debate.
	But set all that aside.
	Substance.
	And the punchline, which we're going to get to.
	Here, let's do this here.
	Boom.
	She needs you to believe that the witnesses you heard from, including security professionals, former cops, medical professionals, And police officers.
	They're all lying.
	Covering up for Mr. Depp.
	She's asking you to believe that she's the one telling the truth and that the rest of the people in Mr. Depp's life are all part of a conspiracy of silence.
	This case is not just about whether you believe Mr. Depp or you believe Ms. Hurd.
	This case is about whether you believe Ms. Hurd or whether you believe Mr. Depp, Chrissy Dombrowski, who, yes, is here supporting her brother.
	My only big criticism, she's literally tracking her notes with her finger.
	She did that all the way through.
	If you're going to be a good public advocate, get away from notes.
	They tie you down.
	They strip you of emotional content.
	They don't allow you to be live in the moment.
	Learn to tell a story without having it memorized.
	That's why I don't like politicians doing the scripted teleprompter thing.
	Do it live.
	And I think she's fully capable of doing that.
	It's just that she hasn't been instructed to do that because most lawyers are not, unfortunately.
	I think bullet points, 10 points, and you can not wing it, but you can sort of...
	Do it in the moment.
	Just walk through that memory mansion.
	Cicero's memory mansion.
	And boom, boom, boom, boom.
	And if you learn the story well enough, you know exactly what to hit emotionally.
	You re-experience it.
	You associate it with certain things.
	And boom, boom, boom.
	And then you're really rocking.
	She's doing a solid job, but could have been better.
	Yep.
	Just look at her hands.
	We're going to skip forward after.
	Look at her hands right now.
	Spiracy of silence.
	This case is not just about whether you believe Mr. Dapp.
	It's probably nerves.
	She's clearly...
	Young lawyer, first time, national TV.
	Millions of people watching this.
	You're going to be like this.
	This is your make or break case.
	What's the Eminem song?
	This is your moment.
	And so I get people saying, nitpicking, this is absolutely nitpicking.
	This is absolutely nitpicking.
	This is what this is.
	This is how you can improve, how you can improve.
	It's always learning for me.
	It's like, okay, this is why I don't like this.
	I do like this.
	So it's self-education, but it's sharing it with everyone else.
	What can be better?
	You're either getting better or you're getting worse.
	There's nothing else in my view.
	So you're constantly improving.
	And nitpicking is the essential aspect to that improvement.
	And just to run off that, Robert, my father said, you know, when you're the smartest kid at eight years old, if you don't get any better, you're not the smartest kid at 14. You're still the smartest kid at eight, but compared to 14, you haven't gotten better, you've gotten worse.
	But we'll go to the punchline.
	She was great.
	The only thing I would also say here, it is all about whether you believe Amber Heard.
	Now, I get what she's trying to say.
	Is it Amber Heard or this witness or this witness or this witness or this?
	So, I get what she's trying to say.
	But I would hammer home.
	Do you believe Amber Heard or not?
	That's why we're here.
	Do you believe Amber Heard?
	That's it.
	Because that's their strongest point.
	Also, another former police officer.
	She goes through the evidence.
	Morgan Knight.
	Beverly Leonard.
	I think it's dramatic and it's impactful.
	I might find that a little too rehearsed and a little too high schoolish, but it doesn't matter.
	It's impactful and it's relying on the evidence.
	And that means that Ms. Hurd has to do more than prove that Mr. Waldman got some details wrong.
	That's an important word.
	Where's the recording?
	Ms. Hurd needs to prove that Mr. Waldman was acting as Mr. Depp's agent.
	Okay, so that legal question is going on.
	Ms. Hurd wants you to believe that she suffers from PTSD because Mr. Depp purportedly abused her.
	But as usual...
	Ms. Heard is not telling the truth.
	As you heard from Dr. Shannon Curry, Ms. Heard does not have PTSD.
	It's easy.
	That's Dr. Muffins, right?
	Is that what Dr. Muffins was?
	I had no idea what the Muffins was.
	She brought Muffins for Amber Heard the first time.
	And, of course, the Raketa chat, being the Raketa chat, we're like, Dr. Muffins.
	Dr. Muffins.
	I've been seeing these comments about Dr. Muffins.
	Okay.
	It's the only nickname that lasted through this trial, interestingly enough.
	Well, you know, yeah, he didn't get a grambo again.
	Let's get to really the best part.
	We've got like seven minutes before I have one.
	You heard it straight from him.
	Ms. Heard's expert, Catherine Arnold, testified.
	But for the statements from Mr. Waldman, Ms. Heard would be much more successful in her career.
	To form this opinion, Ms. Arnold compares Ms. Hurd to actors such as Jason Momoa.
	Weak evidence.
	Weak evidence.
	What does that have to do with the Waldman statements?
	Where is the part where she brought up the dance?
	This is the tweet Ms. Hurd sent.
	She retweeted the Washington Post tweet to a new audience, her own Twitter followers.
	And she affirmatively reiterated the statement by proudly declaring, today I published this op-ed in the Washington Post.
	So, Robert, I mean, this is where you get punished for being an idiot, like Rottenborn, like, oh, all she do is retweet it, and now you get your face mashed in your own legal poop.
	Yes.
	Did I?
	What is this tank rat?
	Hold on one second.
	Was it brought up that the cabinet video that was shown was never given a date of the video?
	Also that Amber Heard's team never gave the devices and cloud access to go with the photos provided to JD's team?
	I don't think the latter was ever publicly discussed in court.
	I don't think so either, actually.
	There's more people in the chat who know more than above the team.
	Yeah, I only watch glimpses.
	Perjury.
	Mr. Rottenborn argued that the lack of supporting evidence for Ms. Hurd's allegations of horrendous, constant abuse is somehow not something to be considered.
	That it is shameful for you to consider the fact that she didn't document all the terrible injuries that she claims to have suffered.
	Look at her face.
	Look at Amber's face right now.
	That is a twisted argument.
	First, you know because you have seen and listened to Ms. Hurd in action, that Ms. Hurd is a woman who's documenting things throughout their relationship.
	And it is instructive that the things she chose to document had nothing to do with violence.
	She documented Mr. Depp sleeping.
	It's just banging on the evidence.
	And this is where people confuse a lot.
	Lawyer presentation with quality of arguments.
	Throughout this trial, I think at times, Depp's team's lawyers have been celebrated for their skills.
	When it's just they have the facts on their side.
	They got a better witness.
	They got better facts.
	That always makes you look like a better lawyer.
	You got the arguments on your side.
	It's, you know, she put together the outline.
	She put together the argument.
	It's great.
	She documented everything.
	It shouldn't be.
	I don't like, you know, like to deal with her crosses.
	She wrote them all out.
	So I get why.
	I'm just not a fan of that.
	I don't think that's the best presentation style.
	And I would say of all the lawyers, she made the best presentation style.
	But of all the capability of what a lawyer can do in a closing, I would give her a B. Not an age.
	She'll learn.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Is this her first biggest trial?
	I can't imagine.
	No one could have imagined it would have gotten to this level, although everyone knew it was going to be huge.
	Okay, but we'll have to end on the kicker here, because I need to get to the record.
	You can't find a system of domestic abuse.
	And by extension, made these up.
	I'm just going to get to the recording because that's where she wanted in no uncertainty.
	It's their best evidence.
	You go back to your best evidence.
	The best evidence is what Amber Heard said when no one was listening.
	When no jury was here, no media was here, what did she say at the time?
	What did she say in live time?
	You get to listen to it.
	You can listen to it over and over again.
	Does this sound like an abused woman or does this sound like an abusive person?
	Which is it?
	You can hear it for yourself.
	Listen to your screen.
	And to knock out Mr. Depp and...
	2020, leading up to...
	Oh, sorry.
	No sign of property damage.
	When was it?
	Did she give part of the rebuttal as well?
	Chat, who knows when she played the recording?
	Okay, we got that.
	No, it was...
	I like that she is a liar.
	I like closing on...
	This is about Amber Heard.
	Amber Heard's a liar.
	That's what's on trial.
	Listen to the tapes.
	Look at the evidence.
	I heard it live, so it had to have been during the day.
	Chat, who knows when it comes up in this?
	If anyone can get that, that would...
	Nobody says the first part.
	First part?
	When was she up in the first part?
	Okay, so how do I do this?
	I need a timestamp, people.
	Timestamp on this.
	No, it was after Rottenborn.
	It was after Rottenborn, because I was...
	The first statement.
	No, it was after Elaine.
	Oh, gosh, guys.
	Viva, don't give up the day job.
	Come on, man.
	So which is worse for Team Hurd?
	Bad facts by far.
	So that was her being an insane defendant in second.
	You can work around that if you have some facts on your side.
	They had none, really.
	They had no real facts on their side, and they had bad witness, and that just compounded the problem.
	There was a defense she could have made.
	They just didn't make it.
	By the way, this is how you know witness testimony is the worst.
	I could have sworn to you I heard this after Rottenborg.
	...evator.
	...mitted the defamatory...
	...as may seem to punish...
	...tell people that it was a fair fight, and see what the jury and judge think.
	Tell the world, Johnny.
	Tell them, Johnny Depp.
	Pause.
	I do like what she does right there.
	She looks right at the jury.
	While that's being listened to.
	And that's good.
	That's a good way to make that contact, make that connection, draw that association.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	What's amazing is that her posture there looks exactly like her posture in the allegedly abused photo.
	Look at how badly she's aged.
	I mean, she looks so young and vulnerable and innocent in that people photo.
	And now she looks like some old crazy, she looks like a mean Karen kind of, you know, gonna cut something off when you're asleep.
	No, the cheekbones has made her face look more square.
	Yeah, it's just bad.
	Bad look.
	Bad look.
	Where is the part where it was the other one?
	Imagine if it had been a woman saying it.
	Oh, Chad, come on.
	You are such a baby!
	Grow the fuck up, Tony!
	I did start a physical fight.
	Yes, you did.
	So you did the right thing, the big thing.
	You know what?
	You were admirable.
	You were admirable.
	I love that.
	That's where the recording ended, but...
	Take a minute to really think about what you just heard there.
	Quote, I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you.
	I was not punching you.
	Babe, you're not punched.
	Imagine that was Mr. Depp saying that to Ms. Heard.
	On that recording.
	Look at Johnny.
	Johnny's a great client to have in a courtroom.
	I mean, Snipes was like this, but his ability to mirror emotions of everybody in the room and know exactly how to communicate it was very subtle, was really genius throughout the whole trial.
	But I agree, that's the best part of all of the closings was her making that comparison, going to the core audience, making that analysis.
	Could have been better.
	That's always true.
	But I'll bet on Johnny Depp winning.
	I still think it's going to be a hung jury.
	I don't think he's going to win.
	I think there's going to be someone who's going to get hung up on one of the elements.
	Are you saying they're going to get hung up on Amber Heard?
	First of all, I loved everything about that delivery.
	First of all, the angle of the camera was beautiful.
	Side view.
	The lawyer looked fragile.
	The lawyer...
	Much better than her arms.
	She's got small, thin arms, young.
	You can tell she's nervous.
	She's almost gripping the podium there a little bit.
	But that's good.
	If that was one of her first closings, I would always include that up there.
	I would milk that.
	If I could lie and get away with it, I would do that over and over.
	I'm a young lawyer.
	I'm just so happy to be.
	I hope I don't screw up.
	Play that violin.
	Well, anyways, it was Robert.
	So, look, we'll wind it up just so that I can go back to being a parent.
	There's only so much crap a kid can watch on TV before I have to take responsibility for it.
	So you think, Johnny, it's amazing.
	Okay, all that I know is I started off thinking that Johnny should not have initiated the suit because I thought Johnny would have had much more dirt in his closet than ever came out in the evidence.
	So I'll say this.
	I was wrong on my original assessment.
	And I might have said, don't sue.
	You're only going to look worse.
	And I would have been wrong.
	Whether or not he wins, he's already won.
	But if he wins, my goodness, is it a double, triple, quadruple whammy win?
	Yeah.
	What I said in the beginning is that Amber Heard is batshit insane.
	Turned out she's just batshit insane.
	She's...
	Can you imagine, like, don't blame her for not having evidence.
	And don't blame her for the evidence that she did have potentially being falsified.
	Believe all victims, unless it's Johnny Depp, who, you know, don't believe him because he's a rich male, and they don't ever get abused.
	It's amazing how it...
	He should win.
	If he doesn't, it's a sign of a bad jury in Fairfax.
	And we'll find out with the Sussman case, which also went to jury trial today, and with another January 6th case where they rushed in a verdict.
	I assume it's a bad verdict.
	I just heard they rushed it back right away.
	Well, see, are juries in the D.C. area, in these big urban democratic areas, capable of impartial justice?
	Because if they are, Johnny Depp, in my opinion, is a no-brainer winner.
	And we're going to talk about this on Sunday.
	I wanted to get into the legal drama.
	I might do it tomorrow.
	You mean the D.U.I.
	guy getting...
	No, the D.U.I.
	guy getting...
	First of all, getting kicked out of the line.
	Pulled out of the line for his reaction, whether or not that reporter...
	She blocked me now.
	I've been blocked by the reporter who I said, yeah, if being a deaf fan means having a sense of humor and reacting like a human.
	And apparently he's been pulled off of a list of this internet award for the top law tubers.
	They fixed that after Nick Ricada complained.
	Okay, because I was going to say, take my name off the list.
	I still might take my name off the list.
	I hate these awards.
	It's tainted.
	It's all tainted now.
	But I'm going to see if I can get DOI Guy on.
	If he can come on, we'll do it tomorrow at some point.
	Or maybe he pops in Sunday.
	So everyone else, that was our breakdown of the death-causing arguments.
	Sunday night, Sussman.
	There was Sussman.
	There's a bunch of stuff.
	There's Trump stuff.
	There's a bunch of federal court cases that came down this week on a wide range of topics.
	I was just in court on the big whistleblower case against Pfizer-related the COVID vaccine.
	So we have a lot of updates on a lot of cases to discuss on Sunday.
	It's going to be an orange face update unless I can get some better freaking lighting.
	That's what I'm going to do on tomorrow.
	I'm going to go to a store and get some good lighting.
	Robert, thank you for joining.
	Well, thank you.
	Thank you for coming.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you.
	Sunday night, Davos.
	We'll do an update on Davos, but we'll see what happens for Sunday.
	We have some Davos updates that we can include in there.
	Okay, awesome.
	So Sunday night, people.
	7 o 'clock.
	Tune in.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes to everyone in the chat.
	Thank you all, and see you soon.

▲