February 23, 2023 • 36 mins
This time Larry and Thomas discuss the good news for Alec Baldwin. His charges for accidentally shooting cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during filming of the movie "Rust" have been down graded. Next they talk about the news that Adele and Ed Sheeran have declined to perform at King Charles coronation and they wonder if Prince Harry will show up. And finally they chat about the ongoing quarterback trading and player negotiations in the NFL.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
The wheels of justice continue to roll. Sometimes they fall off, sometimes they
seize up, but most of thetime they roll. Would you not agree,
entertainment, brother, I totally agree, entertainment, brother Hackett, And
we are there under the wheels,crushed by the wheels of justice, if
you will once again this week,Yeah, we have more news from the
movie set. Rust Listeners out theremight be I think we're obsessed with this
(00:22):
case, but it's good stuff.It's also a great window onto the law
and power and celebrity and all thethings that we'd like to talk about.
One of the things we're going totalk about today there are some new legal
development, which we'll get to ina moment, but we also want to
talk about the personalities involved to somedegree and insofar as we know them,
and how they're approaching this case.Yeah. You know, whether it was
the OJ case with Marsha Clark andJohnny Cochrane and all the other lawyers whose
(00:46):
name names became household names. I'vecovered cases where the attorneys became, you
know, central figures in the drama, both in the well of the courtroomain
outside, and how they approach thesecases, how they deal with their clients,
and how they orchestrate the legal operathat is ensuing. I love that
league a lot, so we willget to that. We'll also get to
(01:07):
some royal news that's kind of interestingand I think place into what we're talking
about. Anyway, Ladies and gentlemen, once again from Times Square, we
got the Entertainment Brothers and now theEntertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackett and Thomas
(01:33):
Valentino. Hello, everybody, welcomeback. More news from the movie set.
Russ. The big news this week, and it is It is big
news, particularly for Alec Baldwin,was the decision by prosecutors in New Mexico
to downgrade charges against him. Hewas facing, you will remember two manslaughter
charges, one of which the moreserious one involved the firearm and came with
(01:56):
a mandatory five years sentence. Thethought was at the time when these charges
were first announced that that was apretty high bar to convict him on that,
but nevertheless, he had to walka tight rope and he was facing
a potential mandatory jail time if hewas convicted of this firearm charge. Several
weeks ago, his defense attorney,Lucas Nikos, who's here based in New
York filed some motions, one ofwhich was a demand that that charge be
(02:20):
eliminated because it was based on alaw that wasn't passed until it wasn't passed
by the New Mexico legislature until afterthe shooting. In their decision to withdraw
these charges in downgrad them, theNew Mexico authorities, I think, kind
of telegraphed what it is their approachis going to be in this case.
And it's something you and I havetalked about for weeks now. We have
(02:45):
said it's important to hire local attorneys. Remind the listeners why that itself.
Well, a lot of times thelocal attorneys appeal to the jury because they
look at them and they see themselvesin that person more so than someone say,
from out of town. Right,that's probably a universal sentiment. Right.
(03:06):
A lot of times the local attorneysmay be a little not as skilled
in a certain way, but thenthey're more familiar with the nuances of getting
along with the judge, and itjust makes everybody who's local feel like,
hey, this is someone that weknow, right, Like we could go
have a beer with him or her. Right, They're an ambassador to the
(03:29):
legal establishment. Taking that executively,right, there's someone who's gonna be greasing
the path, both legally in termsof familiarity, in terms of the personalities
involved everything. Yeah. Yeah,and we have said that's going to be
important. We don't know if that'shappened or not yet, and there's nothing
going on in the court. Itdoesn't appear lessn't appear to be So that's
something. Everything that after this weekand the reason we thought it would happen,
(03:50):
was illustrated. What ought to happenwas illustrated vividly. Yes, in
the comments made by the new Excoprosecutor and withdrawing these charges. Yeah.
Basically, instead of saying, yep, you're right, we made a mistake
that this law didn't apply. Yeah, they decided they didn't want any quote
unquote litigious distractions anymore from Baldwin's attorneyand basically accused him of being a big
(04:14):
city lawyer interested only in getting billablehours for his clients. I mean,
this was an extraordinary comment. Yeah. Yeah, the Prostitution's priority is securing
justice, not securing billable hours forbig city attorneys. This was the spokesperson
for the Santa Fe District Attorney's office, that is nervy in the extreme,
(04:38):
and it also goes right to theheart of the discussions you and I were
having about the need for a localattorney. Right, their strategy is going
to include painting Baldwin and the crewand the entire and all the individuals involved
here as being outsiders who didn't careabout the local laws, Moray's traditions,
(05:00):
safety protocols, whatever, And they'renow dragging this attorney into that mix as
well. It's an extraordinary revelation andpeak I think into how they're going to
treat this case. What do youthink? Well? There, I really
can't believe it. Some of thethings that they've said, I'm not sure
I've ever heard before, right,like saying things about billable hours that sort
(05:24):
of off limits. Well, notonly that code, how many people code?
How many people do they think?I mean, they're clearly appealing to
local folks out there that these bigcity slackers are come. I shouldn't use
the Southern accent. They're not Southern. These people are coming in here,
right. But I have to wonderwhether or not the people that this would
appeal to locally, the jury pool, right, do they even know what
(05:46):
billable hours means, well, maybeit's about it. Yeah, you know,
I'm okay. But the idea isstill the things that the prosecutor and
or the prosecutor's representatives are saying arethings that you just typically don't hear.
Right, So they sound to melike they hate Alec Baldwin and they hate
(06:12):
his attorney. And the whole ideaof the justice system is that you don't
ever want to give the indication thatyou're getting emotional or that you're being biased.
I mean, you can, ofcourse if you're arguing the law and
saying listen, this is what happened, But it appears now that they're arguing
more personal things than they are theactual law, and they did make a
(06:38):
mistake blat out. There's an oldlegal attitude you have in tone before tell
us what, yes, yes,which is, when you have the law
on your side, you argue thelaw. When you have the facts on
your side, you argue the facts. But if you don't have the law
on your side, and you don'thave the facts on your side, you
pound the table really really hard.All right, thank you, professor or
(07:00):
dover Hofstra University evidence one oh one, and this is table pounding isn't it.
Yes, this is Oh, thisis pounding. This is pounding times
too. I'm listening to a bookabout Lyndon Johnson and his tenure in the
United States in the Senate, anda lot of the cases are now dealing
with civil rights. And there arelots of discussions in this book about cases
(07:21):
in the South, whether it wasbussing, and so much of the legal
strategy among attorneys and sheriffs and othersdown there who were dedicated to preserving Jim
Crow and preserving the status quo wasabout outsiders coming in here and telling us
what to do, right, andthe Justice Department, the big city,
(07:42):
you know guys and their suits fromthe FBI and the Justice Department kind of
telling us how we should live ourlives. I don't want to compare it.
I like Baldwin's case the civil rightsstruggle, but right, the strategy
it appears to be very, veryvery similar. They are outsiders and they
don't know how we operate here,and how dare they come in here and
commit this crime. Here's the otherthing, if you got called on something,
(08:05):
Okay, Baldwin's attorney raised a goodpoint about the law. Yeah,
right, it's straight up. It'slike, you can't apply a law retroactively
if it wasn't on the books,right, And that's a pretty standard argument.
I don't know how much you knowwent into it, but it's sort
of like, Okay, he arguedthe law. He didn't say, oh,
(08:28):
the Prosecutor's office is bogus, orhe didn't say anything negative about the
people. He made an argument legally, and they lost that they got really
pissed about. And that's the point. Yeah, if I'm him, I'm
like, this is manna from heaven. Yeah. Not only did I win
legally, and God, do whatI'm supposed to do for my client,
(08:48):
right, I clearly know the Achillesheel in this PROCESSUS office. They get
angry when they get caught, whenthey called out in the law. I'm
just gonna do this all day long. The idea that people that he's gonna
back off because of their comments aboutBill, are you kidding me? He
sees red right right right, He'snot with them even harder. Yeah,
you've just activated them even more exactly. Okay. And I could make an
(09:09):
argument that if you lose on somethinglike that, Okay, and you lost,
let's face it, that you justtake it as a loss. What
you don't do is you don't comeback and say things that are personal.
You'd be a little more gracious aboutwhat you don't Shay, I lost.
You don't show that it's stung,right, right, right, exactly,
you show exactly here's my here's thesoft point on which you know that hurt,
(09:31):
my arm punched me again? Right, you know, I mean it's
right. And you can speak tothat from the relationship of public relations,
communications and just strategy and the wholething. So let's talk about these individuals
(09:56):
involved here either not just lawyers.These are people who are involve as the
character and they are clearly now goinghead to head right. Baldin's attorney is
a guy named Lucas Nikas who's basedhere in New York. He's a young
guy. There's not much on himin the clips. He's won various awards.
He's seen as being high powerty.He does a lot of commercial work,
but he also does some big cases. The most interesting case he had
(10:16):
was about six or seven years agowhen he represented the curator at a Manhattan
gallery art gallery who was accused bya wealthy couple of basically defrauding them.
They had bought eight years earlier apainting that was represented to them as being
a Mark Rothkoe painting. It turnedout to be a fraud. And it
turned out that as this story unraveled, this woman and Friedman, who was
(10:39):
the curator at the gallery, hadcome in contact with these basically con people,
a woman and several other individuals basedin Queens, and they were churning
out bogus expressionist works. And thisart gallery and esteemed art gallery over one
hundred years old, noted in Manhattanaround the world, we're buying these things
(11:00):
almost without question. The woman inQueens when she came to the gallery,
claimed that she was representing some anonymousbuyer. I mean, the story was
totally full of holes and one concoctedby somebody at their kitchen table and woodside,
and the gallery owners were either unwillingor unable to prove otherwise. The
people who had bought the piece ofwork believed that the gallery owners were fully
(11:22):
aware that they were bogus and theywanted their money back. Nikos represented the
curator. I won't go to thethat's a really good summation. Well,
thank you, and what happened wasright before his client was about to testify.
They settled right. But interestingly,according to the stories I read at
the time, he was very veryvery thorough, and he was in the
(11:45):
business of picking apart the assumptions thatpeople had that this gallery owner should have
known better. In that way,that is very very very similar to the
Baldwin case. He should have known, he should have looked. There are
very similar issues at stake here aboutwhat he ought to have done, and
(12:05):
in this art gallery case, whatshe ought to have done or ought to
have known, versus his very methodicaldefensive her saying, well, that's not
right, and that expert that shetalked to, she just talked to that
expert. That expert didn't verify things, and nobody can really verify anything.
And he slowly picked away at thenotion that, of course this woman had
to be guilty, because how couldshe not be, she's a worldwide expert.
(12:26):
Again, we never saw the actualend of the movie because they settled
the case right. But I thoughtin reading a long detailed story about that
case, you got a glimpse ofthe tactics that Nikas will use, which
is very methodical. He used alot of illustrations and kind of powerpoints in
the courtroom. He would use comewith cartoons and illustrations about matters of law
(12:46):
to make them understandable to the jury. And clearly by the sounds of the
long piece and art news that Iread, the author of that piece was
impressed by Nikas and by his legalacumen, so that what we know about
him. Mary Carmack Altweez is thedistrict attorney in Santa Fe and could not
be more different. She went tothe University of to Mexico law school.
(13:09):
She was a public defender. Shewas elected to this office in twenty twenty
one. Right, she is marriedto a former cop. She is a
local product through and through, andone who's has to wonder based on again,
these are just biographical sketches and biographicaloutlines. But you take that and
you combine that with again this unbelievableresponse to the notion of take of withdrawing
(13:31):
these particular charges. Yeah, andthe nastiness and petulance and kind of home
team ism that she was trying toinvoke. This is going to be a
hell of a rod. And thenyou add in we haven't even gone to
Alec Baldwin yet, Right, Yeah, there was no shrinking Violet himself.
No, not at all. Soright there with those three people, I
(13:52):
mean, this is a Shakespearean thisis operatic. You mentioned it in the
beginning, it could write. Thecharacters are just phenomenal. The setup you
do point out though. You havethe typical big time, big city attorney,
right, who's there with all thepower, and then you have the
prosecutor. What's interesting is that bothof these people are lawyers, but their
(14:16):
motives are different, right, Theirreasons for practicing law are different, obviously,
Okay, and that's being highlighted inthis case, really really well.
There was a column by a localbi columnist in New Mexico very recently about
this case, and it was fromthe point of view articularly the look that
even if she loses this case,it won't damage her in terms of her
(14:37):
reelection and whatever her kind of politicalviability is. Yeah, that basically she
had no choice. She had tocharge this. Her profile will increase somewhat,
and if she loses, it'll bedown to you know, the blinding
fawning towards movie stars that you couldargue with what went on with the Johnny
Depp case, right, I mean, that's just at the end of the
day that people said he's Johnny Depp. We've seen in movies. We believe
(14:58):
him, and that would be thecase in the Baldwin I think fundamentally,
and this is something we should talkabout. Alec Bolden and Johnny Depp are
not the same character and the kindof like soft spokenness and boyish appeal that
Johnny Depp cultivated when he testified inhis defamation case last summer, I have
a hard time at this stage thinkingthat Alec Boldin can muster that kind of
(15:20):
humility. He's going to have to, I think, because he may have
won this round on the law,but I think it's going to be just
as important that he appeared to behumble and contrite and not a big movie
star when it comes to this.Now we know that he testified, we
know that he spoke to cops,and he spoke to the press, and
(15:41):
as we've noted on this podcast,the complaint against him is full of comments
contradictory comments that he made to policebecause he spoke and lessened one would be
shouldn't have talked at all, buthe did, right, the question is
does he have to talk again?So let's start there. Yeah, do
you think he has to testify?You don't know, and I don't know
if he should because they could settleandi plea. Okay, but let's assume
(16:07):
it goes to distance. Okay,you don't think it's it's you don't think
it's if it goes the distance,should he testify? That's always the question
in every case, right, especiallywhen you have a celebrity. I would
say, good question. No,I wouldn't let him testify because the charges
right now, the lawyer, youhave one lawyer out maneuvering another. That's
(16:33):
an indication of what's going to goon here, and what the prosecutor has
to prove is already a stretch,right, Okay, there's a lot of
variables here. Right. We knowthat he was given the gun. I
mean, I've argued four and againstright, so we know he was given
the gun and he was told itwas cold and it wasn't right. So
there's big facts there in his favor. So if it were me, I
(16:55):
wouldn't put him on the stand.No way. I don't know that he's
that guy to begin with. Butthen there's not by not testifying, I
don't see what you lose, seebecause, as you say, it's a
question about the law in New Mexico, and there's nothing that Alec Baldwin is
going to tell you about the law, correct, based on what he did
at that moment. Correct. It'slike, yeah, you can say that
(17:15):
I should have done this, andI should have done that, and you
have your side of this story andI have mine, and my lawyer is
going to throw down a bunch oflaw and a bunch of probably precedence,
things we may have never even heardof before that are going to be very,
very compelling. And now that thecharge is reduced, it's not a
(17:36):
banner as much as it was forthe prosecutor. But does the fact that
he's a celebrity cut both ways?That is to say, as you say,
if your Fifth Amendment right, youdon't have to testify. But will
there be an expectation that because he'sa celebrity, he kind of has to
testify. Not when it's involuntary manslaughter. I think there's a little difference with
that versus you know, what wewere looking at. So you don't think
(17:57):
psychologically the jury will hold it againsthim if he doesn't testify. No,
no, And in fact, youknow you can argue this a few different
ways. Okay, how about this, Like everybody's supposed to be objective,
okay, but there are people whowere star struck all over the world.
So you could make an argument ifhe testifies, it's not about what he
(18:18):
says, it's that about people areentwolved by him and they mind against influence.
This happens every day in life.Hello, yeah, that in my
mind, as you know, thatwas the Johnny Dead case. Yeah,
exactly. He lost, Yeah,the case in England. Yeah, because
there was no jury that was basedon the law. That's right, right,
he won here, right because hetestified for five days. Well he
testified, but the but his lawyersjust pounded you know, her Amber Herds
(18:41):
lawyers. In my opinion, hedid well. She did poorly on testimony,
correct, not on the law.Her law was differrect. You know.
They both were dif versions of tablepounding. And he pounded better.
Yeah, he as you would sayhe did. I think Baldiman is gonna
want it testify just based on hischaracter in the county. I get why
you're saying that. My guess isthat he will run through the lots of
(19:03):
dry runs where someone is going toimpersonate the prosecutor. Yeah, and see
how he behaves and whether or notshe gets his goat because you know,
yeah, if he does go onthe stand, yeah, she will do
everything she can to piss him off. Yeah. I don't think. I
don't think that will work though,because I think he's disciplined enough and it
contained environment to not go off.Where he goes off is when he's not
(19:26):
disciplined, he's outside of a confinedenvironment, like outside on the streets of
New York City or in situations likethat. I'm sorry because because he's on,
because he's he chases down a bicyclist. Wait, wait, how many
incidents is of him his anger gettingthe best of him in public? Do
we need? Well, but that'snot hasn't been in a courtroom, right,
(19:48):
So right, this attorney, thisattorney mark my words on this right,
will not correct, will not lethim testify unless he knows his performance
is going to be flawless. Iagree with you totally. Okay, I
agree with you. Jolly all right, let us move on, bam.
This is there's gonna be a lotof this and it's a great case,
and I'm glad we talked about thepersonalities involved, because as you know,
(20:10):
better than anyone, because no oneelse is well and because why we're the
entertainment. It's not just about thelaw, it's about the characters involved.
We talked on the drama and theyknow, and there's a death here and
everybody else is talking about other stuff. That's our job. King Charles is
(20:37):
going to be officially coronated, crowd, excuse me, And there's gonna be
a coronation in May. And thisis a big deal. Obviously we haven't
had a coronation in the UK andover seventy years because the other reigned for
that long. And this is goingto be a huge party over there with
all kinds of you know things thatgo on, including a concert in the
day after the coronation as part ofthat. And we've seen these in the
(20:57):
past. There were a lot ofthese jubilee concerts for the Queen when she
was alive, and all the greatand good UK artists turn up, you
know, everyone from Brian May toShirley Bassey, you know, all perform
these kind of royal command performances.The Beatles stamously did a royal command performance
in nineteen sixty three, right soentertainer is performing at the request of the
(21:18):
crown is not unusual. It's somethingthat we have seen from a distance over
here. What makes this unusual isthat as part of the planning people on
behalf of King Charles asked ed Shearonand Adele and Pursul and others. We've
been told but ed Shearon and Adeleto perform, and they said no.
Huh. Now Adele didn't give anyexcuse as to why she said no.
(21:41):
Ed Shearon City had a concert theday before in Texas. The idea of
performing for you know, a bunchof cowboys. I shouldn't be disparaging of
people in Texas, but the ideain Mexico, the idea that you can't
perform in Texas or that because andyou're turning down an opportunity to do something
that hasn't been done in seventy years. Yeah, and you've already in fact
(22:03):
performed for the Queen. I wasactually looking this up. He performed at
when her jubilees very recently, edSheeran. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
that tells you something. Well,and these are high profile kind of professional
Brits, right, they go whenthey do their thing, right, that
he can't figure couldn't figure out away to get there the next day.
I think the fact that he actuallybrought up this concert in Texas as an
excuse is almost worse than adult notsaying anything. I agree with that,
(22:26):
right, I agree completely. AndI have my theory as to what's going
on here. You want to hearmy theory, of course I do.
What do you? I mean?What else would I This is not about
anybody's schedule, right, This ispart of the great Royal soap opera between
the Royal family. Yes, andHarry and Meghan. Correct, Harry and
Megan are essentially Hollywood royalty now literallyand figuratively right. They live in Montecito,
(22:48):
which is just outside of Santa Barbara. They hobnob with people like this.
They are, you know, thekind of you know, Royal family
in exile. Yeah. Entertainers likeEd Sharon and Adele, who are much
younger than the Tom Jones, ShirleyBassie ill Point, who will often show
up at these things, are fullyaware of the claims made against the Royal
(23:10):
Family of racism and misogyny directed atMegan, and I think they're taking the
long, hard look at whether ornot they perform on their behalf for this
family. That Hall has all ofthese accusations around it. Now we all
know the British press has all saidthis is all you know bs, and
that Meghan and Harry are crazy.But I think I'm on the young and
younger generation, and again I'm speak. This is my opinion. I don't
(23:32):
know if any of this is true. They haven't said anything, but my
guess is that this has nothing todo with scheduling and it has everything to
do with not wanting to appear onteam Charles and not doing something that Megan
and Harry might not do. Wedon't know whether I'm Megan and Harry going
too this car Nation or whether justHarry goes or whatever. And I think
that this is an extraordinary moment becausethis is not something that ordinarily happened.
(23:55):
People would move, you know,mountains to go perform there if you're king
or your queen asked you to dothat. I think this is a big
deal. Is it more about sortof sticking up for Meghan and Harry or
Harry and Meghan right, or isit the fact that maybe they just don't
like Charles and if it were theQueen asking let's just roll the clock batch,
(24:19):
right? Would they then show upif the Queen was asking as opposed
to Charles. I don't think thisis about Charles, like liking the guy.
I think this No that I don'tthink and I don't think necessarily it
was about although I think the Queenwas beloved from Charles. I think I
think what I think it's about whatCharles represents, and what he represents is
(24:40):
the continuation. If you'll believe Harryand Meghan is a continuation of this corrupt
exchange of information with the tabloid newspapers, with a family that is insensitive to
misogyny and racism, and it wouldbe I think it's what people like adel
and at a cheer and believed itwould be a tacit in dorsement of that
(25:00):
culture if you went and sang onthe King's behalf. That's what I think
it is. Now, Okay.Do I think that they're concerned that Harry
and Megan might be upset? Maybe? I think the greater concern would be
I don't want to be seen asrepresenting this old order. You know,
they may have problems with the royalty. Well, like I say, don't
because like I said, Ed Sheeronsang for the Queen, but you know
(25:22):
she was like grandma. He's kindof almost like Grandpa. You think you
think, no, you think it'sthat they just don't like him. Yeah,
they don't want to cut it alittle bit of both. Most well,
I think, you know, don'tforget Diana. Let's not forget the
whole Diana king of him, youknow, being married to one woman and
then sort of having a gumata aswe'd say, an Italian on the side,
(25:42):
right, And I think it's alittle bit of an extension of that.
And don't forget Harry's an extension ofyou know, obviously Diana, right.
So I think it's a little bit. My guess is that if this
were the Queen and she were asking, they would both show up, no
doubt. Okay, he already hasa spy of it, right, he
already has. So I just don'tknow that Charles carries it the way that
(26:06):
the Queen did. I don't seeit myself. In other words, if
he wasn't, if it wasn't givento him, would he still be able
to carry it? Right? Right? Because he comes into office and you
know, comes onto the throne withall of that stuff we know about him,
whether it was cheating on Diana andthe you know, ridiculous phone calls,
you know they were taped and allthat kind of crazy yeah bedroom talk,
yes, right, yeah, andyou never had any of that with
(26:27):
the queen obviously, right, notthat we know, well, no,
right, right, right, right. So it's going to be curious about
how this kind of thing again,assuming that I'm right, how it manifests
itself going forward, right y,idea of anybody saying no to the king
or the queen, it just seemsto me to have been unheard of,
right right, And I don't knowwhat this is going to mean. The
(26:49):
story I read about all this didsay that people like Lionel Richie are going
to be there, of course,and that Harry Styles might save the day.
Okay, well I could see that. I can see that. Yeah.
You know, again, we're lookingat people who have different points of
view. There is a younger generation, although Harry's part of that, right,
and I think in their own mindsthey're not bound to the past much
(27:15):
the way all institutions don't hold thesame level of authority over people the way
they once did. So people aremore independent thinking. Yeah, I also
think it's a sign that despite theabuse that they've taken from the British press
since the Netflix documentary and since Harry'sbook came out in January, that in
Harry's case in particular, he's gota lot of fans. You know,
(27:37):
you and I'd sat at this table, and I know when the book came
out, and when the documentary cameout and the book came out, I'm
like, Okay, now, whatright, He's basically kind of like,
you know, used all his ammunition, He's done. What does he have
left? What's he going to donow? I am revising that viewpoint.
I think anybody who sells as manybooks as he has sold is doing it
because he's likable, and yes,they want to know the story. But
(27:59):
there's something about out him that Ithink a lot of people respond to.
He is both ordinary Joe and aguy with a prince in front of his
name, And I don't know ifhe has the intention or the fortitude to
become I guess it sounds ridiculous,you know, a Ryan Seacrest or someone
who would do some kind of entertainmentprogram on an ongoing basis with his wife.
I think that could be a hit. I think there's something. First
(28:22):
of all, people know who heis, right, and he is generally
likable. He does not appear tobe condescending or haughty like a lot of
other members of the family. Infact, he seems to be almost ordinary.
I mean maybe he hides it,and he definitely was raising, but
I mean, there's nothing about thisguy that vibes fussy or fancy, right,
he doesn't. He doesn't have somebodylike his father does, you know,
(28:42):
on the road pressing his pants andthings like that. He seems like
an ordinary guy, unless I wouldbe hard pressed to believe after watching that
documentary and all this sort of stuffthat his kind of like you know,
bracelet wearing new age thing is anact. I think he really is that.
Oh yeah, you know, yeah, And why wouldn't he be,
(29:03):
I mean because he could be likebrother and sleep in a tuxedo. Yeah,
Okay, he's different in that wayhow he plays. I mean,
I'm on Twitter a lot, andyou know the comments on Twitter about him
and Megan are not positive. Okay. Who he sold a lot of books.
Was that because of him or becauseof what people wanted to know,
(29:25):
and then now what and then ifhe does become Ryan Seacrest, does he
have the chops to actually be thatgood or is he just someone who was
given the opportunity. I don't literally, I don't know, and I don't
literally, but there is a generationalthing going on here of I'm a victim,
you know, and it's just pervasivethroughout society, right of, So
he could be a hero for muchlike Diana was to her generation. Diana
(29:49):
came out and said, okay,you know, here's what's going on.
I'm letting you in on some things. He sort of took it to the
next level for his generation. Youknow, Diana would. She did her
one or two TV appearances and shebut she also appeared like a like a
bird in a gilded cage. Sheseemed very kind of nervous and skittish.
He has done all of these interviews. I could not see Diana going on
(30:10):
the Stephen Colbert Show. Right.He's very at ease and much more kind
of conversational and confident. You cansay lots of things about Diana, confident
was not one of them. Shedid not vibe confidence. She didn't make
the viewer feel more relaxed. Right. The thing about you know, you
know, we all know what TVis like, right, You don't want
to watch someone who's making you uncomfortableor nervous. Yeah, she would do
(30:34):
that. You know. You canwatch her one interview with Martin Bisher and
there aren't very many like that thatshe did, and you will withstand the
discomfort because she's so uncomfortable. Butyou know, I don't know how much
money that you could take every dayshe just made. She made me literally
nervous to watch her. He doesn'thave that either, skills that he has.
This could all be nonsense. Butthe idea that I had before,
(30:56):
which is that they've done their documentary, they've at all there is to say
they're not part of the royal familyanymore, and they basically have emptied their
notebook. That may indeed be true, but I think there could be a
future from other of them. Okay, Okay, that's all I got.
Okay, So wait, wait,wait, First of all, what's her
podcast doing? Right? Is theirpodcast? I don't know? I know
nothing about her, Okay, Imean in terms of numbers and making,
(31:18):
I don't know. I don't knowif you did that. Well, I'm
growing a distinction between her and him. Okay, I think he is the
one who's more likable right now.I don't think that's not saying much to
some people, but I get yourpoint, right, So out of the
two of them, he sort ofemerges is more likable and maybe more bankable,
(31:41):
and may be more able to dothings any sort of things. It's
within the modern culture. Okay,he's the prince. Yeah, okay.
But at the end of the day, let's circle all the way back to
where we started with ed Shearon andAdele. Okay, and if the whole
effect of this has been for EdShearon in Adele not to show up at
(32:07):
the coronation, I ask you,does anybody really care? At the end
of the day, there's gonna beso many stars there, is it really
relevant are either one of them thatbig? I mean, she's no,
not what the event goes on,yea being there, right, it's not
(32:29):
the idea that you said no,okay, right? The thing right and
at the end of the day theysaid no, And you know who cares?
I think a lot of people care, and I think it's going to
keep the soap opera on. Okay, If Harry style shows up. All
forgiven. I mean, I'm sorry, I'm into this whole star thing,
right, all is forgiven. IfHarry shows up, and I have a
(32:51):
feeling he will, because he willsteal the show. And when you're a
star, you live for that.That's the super Bowl of entertainment and two
and right, and they're not Pauland he's gonna walk in there. And
by the way, he will sizzleboth of them anytime on his stage anywhere.
I mean, let's face it,Adele's never been known for her you
(33:12):
know, her vocal dynamics, Yes, her stage performance. No, Ed
Shearing gets up there with a guitar. I mean, come on versus Harry
styles. Come on. So ifhe shows up, this is like what,
well we shall see Harry Mason.I hope you show up. That's
all I have to say, becauseI'll watch for that. All right,
(33:45):
Let's do a briefing on negotiations.What's going on right now? Yeah,
and you and I are from believers. That's football and sports are our entertainment.
They are. There's no doubt.There's lots of discussions about quarterbacks who
are in free agency right now.We're not gonna get into all that kind
of stuff. But they and againthe Packers and Derek Carr and Aaron Rodgers
and Lamar Lamar Jackson Jackson, thankyou, and lots of other quarterbacks who
(34:07):
are in play. Yeah, I'mless interested in who's fit with with what
team than in the art of negotiating. Talk to me a little bit about
what is what goes on here inthese cases. If you watch sports television,
it's all about, you know,will Rogers leave, who's a better
fit with the Jets? That's notwhat goes on when agents are talking or
when lawyers are talking. Right,What is it about the current state of
(34:29):
contracts or however you want to approachthis that makes this interesting to you?
Well, a lot of things havechanged because contracts don't have the same kind
of meaning and power that they usedto. We've seen that, right.
So if essentially, if you havea star right now on a team and
they don't really like where they're playing, they demand to be traded, and
(34:50):
in a lot of instances that demandis granted, okay, more than it
was in the past, way morethan the past way. More so is
that a question of the law orjust the culture that we live in.
One of the things that was mostfascinating to me. When I went to
work at an entertainment firm, Iwas told that when artists had success.
(35:13):
This was like the second day Iwas there, they renegotiated the contract and
I said, what do you meanrenegotiate the contract? Yeah, well we
just take the contract and kind ofrip it up and renegotiated. So if
you had a contract. Now I'mcoming right out of law school, right
thinking contract, contract binding, statueof frauds, all this other stuff,
to find out that at the endof the day, it's really about the
(35:34):
leverage of the parties and how happyyou want someone to be. Okay,
And so what we're seeing here forthe first time, it's unprecedented the amount
of quarterbacks that are actually available tobe traded or to be moved. Okay,
that's one thing, And then we'realso seeing the times which you're saying,
if you have someone like Lamar Jacksonand he's not happy with what you're
(35:54):
offering, he's just going to turnaround. He's not even going to come
back and say I'm going to counteroffer. He's just gonna say no,
I want to go to another team. And then you have to ask well,
is he really happy there to beginwith because they're offering him more money
than I mean, fifty million ayear. How much more do you want?
Right then? How can you getright then? How right that?
Is it really just about the factthat you want more money or is it
(36:16):
about the fact that maybe you wantto play in LA and you know,
build your brand like Lebron did right? Right? So there's a lot of
moving parts here, and especially thisyear, all over the place. And
you know, the agents arose isnot just about quarterbacks that maybe other trades
involved there, maybe draft picks,so there's a lot of things that are
on the table that go into this. Well, all I can say is
(36:37):
I'm glad the Santa Fe District Attorneyis involved because she's not interested in securing
Billibell hours City attorney. Yeah,not at all. A good stuff.
Yeah, Well that's it for thisweek. All right, let's take it
to continue take everything from coronations toquarterbacks. Were covering here, yea,
brothers, Yes see you next week. See you next week.
The wheels of justice continue to roll. Sometimes they fall off, sometimes they
seize up, but most of thetime they roll. Would you not agree,
entertainment, brother, I totally agree, entertainment, brother Hackett, And
we are there under the wheels,crushed by the wheels of justice, if
you will once again this week,Yeah, we have more news from the
movie set. Rust Listeners out theremight be I think we're obsessed with this
(00:22):
case, but it's good stuff.It's also a great window onto the law
and power and celebrity and all thethings that we'd like to talk about.
One of the things we're going totalk about today there are some new legal
development, which we'll get to ina moment, but we also want to
talk about the personalities involved to somedegree and insofar as we know them,
and how they're approaching this case.Yeah. You know, whether it was
the OJ case with Marsha Clark andJohnny Cochrane and all the other lawyers whose
(00:46):
name names became household names. I'vecovered cases where the attorneys became, you
know, central figures in the drama, both in the well of the courtroomain
outside, and how they approach thesecases, how they deal with their clients,
and how they orchestrate the legal operathat is ensuing. I love that
league a lot, so we willget to that. We'll also get to
(01:07):
some royal news that's kind of interestingand I think place into what we're talking
about. Anyway, Ladies and gentlemen, once again from Times Square, we
got the Entertainment Brothers and now theEntertainment Brothers. Here's Larry Hackett and Thomas
(01:33):
Valentino. Hello, everybody, welcomeback. More news from the movie set.
Russ. The big news this week, and it is It is big
news, particularly for Alec Baldwin,was the decision by prosecutors in New Mexico
to downgrade charges against him. Hewas facing, you will remember two manslaughter
charges, one of which the moreserious one involved the firearm and came with
(01:56):
a mandatory five years sentence. Thethought was at the time when these charges
were first announced that that was apretty high bar to convict him on that,
but nevertheless, he had to walka tight rope and he was facing
a potential mandatory jail time if hewas convicted of this firearm charge. Several
weeks ago, his defense attorney,Lucas Nikos, who's here based in New
York filed some motions, one ofwhich was a demand that that charge be
(02:20):
eliminated because it was based on alaw that wasn't passed until it wasn't passed
by the New Mexico legislature until afterthe shooting. In their decision to withdraw
these charges in downgrad them, theNew Mexico authorities, I think, kind
of telegraphed what it is their approachis going to be in this case.
And it's something you and I havetalked about for weeks now. We have
(02:45):
said it's important to hire local attorneys. Remind the listeners why that itself.
Well, a lot of times thelocal attorneys appeal to the jury because they
look at them and they see themselvesin that person more so than someone say,
from out of town. Right,that's probably a universal sentiment. Right.
(03:06):
A lot of times the local attorneysmay be a little not as skilled
in a certain way, but thenthey're more familiar with the nuances of getting
along with the judge, and itjust makes everybody who's local feel like,
hey, this is someone that weknow, right, Like we could go
have a beer with him or her. Right, They're an ambassador to the
(03:29):
legal establishment. Taking that executively,right, there's someone who's gonna be greasing
the path, both legally in termsof familiarity, in terms of the personalities
involved everything. Yeah. Yeah,and we have said that's going to be
important. We don't know if that'shappened or not yet, and there's nothing
going on in the court. Itdoesn't appear lessn't appear to be So that's
something. Everything that after this weekand the reason we thought it would happen,
(03:50):
was illustrated. What ought to happenwas illustrated vividly. Yes, in
the comments made by the new Excoprosecutor and withdrawing these charges. Yeah.
Basically, instead of saying, yep, you're right, we made a mistake
that this law didn't apply. Yeah, they decided they didn't want any quote
unquote litigious distractions anymore from Baldwin's attorneyand basically accused him of being a big
(04:14):
city lawyer interested only in getting billablehours for his clients. I mean,
this was an extraordinary comment. Yeah. Yeah, the Prostitution's priority is securing
justice, not securing billable hours forbig city attorneys. This was the spokesperson
for the Santa Fe District Attorney's office, that is nervy in the extreme,
(04:38):
and it also goes right to theheart of the discussions you and I were
having about the need for a localattorney. Right, their strategy is going
to include painting Baldwin and the crewand the entire and all the individuals involved
here as being outsiders who didn't careabout the local laws, Moray's traditions,
(05:00):
safety protocols, whatever, And they'renow dragging this attorney into that mix as
well. It's an extraordinary revelation andpeak I think into how they're going to
treat this case. What do youthink? Well? There, I really
can't believe it. Some of thethings that they've said, I'm not sure
I've ever heard before, right,like saying things about billable hours that sort
(05:24):
of off limits. Well, notonly that code, how many people code?
How many people do they think?I mean, they're clearly appealing to
local folks out there that these bigcity slackers are come. I shouldn't use
the Southern accent. They're not Southern. These people are coming in here,
right. But I have to wonderwhether or not the people that this would
appeal to locally, the jury pool, right, do they even know what
(05:46):
billable hours means, well, maybeit's about it. Yeah, you know,
I'm okay. But the idea isstill the things that the prosecutor and
or the prosecutor's representatives are saying arethings that you just typically don't hear.
Right, So they sound to melike they hate Alec Baldwin and they hate
(06:12):
his attorney. And the whole ideaof the justice system is that you don't
ever want to give the indication thatyou're getting emotional or that you're being biased.
I mean, you can, ofcourse if you're arguing the law and
saying listen, this is what happened, But it appears now that they're arguing
more personal things than they are theactual law, and they did make a
(06:38):
mistake blat out. There's an oldlegal attitude you have in tone before tell
us what, yes, yes,which is, when you have the law
on your side, you argue thelaw. When you have the facts on
your side, you argue the facts. But if you don't have the law
on your side, and you don'thave the facts on your side, you
pound the table really really hard.All right, thank you, professor or
(07:00):
dover Hofstra University evidence one oh one, and this is table pounding isn't it.
Yes, this is Oh, thisis pounding. This is pounding times
too. I'm listening to a bookabout Lyndon Johnson and his tenure in the
United States in the Senate, anda lot of the cases are now dealing
with civil rights. And there arelots of discussions in this book about cases
(07:21):
in the South, whether it wasbussing, and so much of the legal
strategy among attorneys and sheriffs and othersdown there who were dedicated to preserving Jim
Crow and preserving the status quo wasabout outsiders coming in here and telling us
what to do, right, andthe Justice Department, the big city,
(07:42):
you know guys and their suits fromthe FBI and the Justice Department kind of
telling us how we should live ourlives. I don't want to compare it.
I like Baldwin's case the civil rightsstruggle, but right, the strategy
it appears to be very, veryvery similar. They are outsiders and they
don't know how we operate here,and how dare they come in here and
commit this crime. Here's the otherthing, if you got called on something,
(08:05):
Okay, Baldwin's attorney raised a goodpoint about the law. Yeah,
right, it's straight up. It'slike, you can't apply a law retroactively
if it wasn't on the books,right, And that's a pretty standard argument.
I don't know how much you knowwent into it, but it's sort
of like, Okay, he arguedthe law. He didn't say, oh,
(08:28):
the Prosecutor's office is bogus, orhe didn't say anything negative about the
people. He made an argument legally, and they lost that they got really
pissed about. And that's the point. Yeah, if I'm him, I'm
like, this is manna from heaven. Yeah. Not only did I win
legally, and God, do whatI'm supposed to do for my client,
(08:48):
right, I clearly know the Achillesheel in this PROCESSUS office. They get
angry when they get caught, whenthey called out in the law. I'm
just gonna do this all day long. The idea that people that he's gonna
back off because of their comments aboutBill, are you kidding me? He
sees red right right right, He'snot with them even harder. Yeah,
you've just activated them even more exactly. Okay. And I could make an
(09:09):
argument that if you lose on somethinglike that, Okay, and you lost,
let's face it, that you justtake it as a loss. What
you don't do is you don't comeback and say things that are personal.
You'd be a little more gracious aboutwhat you don't Shay, I lost.
You don't show that it's stung,right, right, right, exactly,
you show exactly here's my here's thesoft point on which you know that hurt,
(09:31):
my arm punched me again? Right, you know, I mean it's
right. And you can speak tothat from the relationship of public relations,
communications and just strategy and the wholething. So let's talk about these individuals
(09:56):
involved here either not just lawyers.These are people who are involve as the
character and they are clearly now goinghead to head right. Baldin's attorney is
a guy named Lucas Nikas who's basedhere in New York. He's a young
guy. There's not much on himin the clips. He's won various awards.
He's seen as being high powerty.He does a lot of commercial work,
but he also does some big cases. The most interesting case he had
(10:16):
was about six or seven years agowhen he represented the curator at a Manhattan
gallery art gallery who was accused bya wealthy couple of basically defrauding them.
They had bought eight years earlier apainting that was represented to them as being
a Mark Rothkoe painting. It turnedout to be a fraud. And it
turned out that as this story unraveled, this woman and Friedman, who was
(10:39):
the curator at the gallery, hadcome in contact with these basically con people,
a woman and several other individuals basedin Queens, and they were churning
out bogus expressionist works. And thisart gallery and esteemed art gallery over one
hundred years old, noted in Manhattanaround the world, we're buying these things
(11:00):
almost without question. The woman inQueens when she came to the gallery,
claimed that she was representing some anonymousbuyer. I mean, the story was
totally full of holes and one concoctedby somebody at their kitchen table and woodside,
and the gallery owners were either unwillingor unable to prove otherwise. The
people who had bought the piece ofwork believed that the gallery owners were fully
(11:22):
aware that they were bogus and theywanted their money back. Nikos represented the
curator. I won't go to thethat's a really good summation. Well,
thank you, and what happened wasright before his client was about to testify.
They settled right. But interestingly,according to the stories I read at
the time, he was very veryvery thorough, and he was in the
(11:45):
business of picking apart the assumptions thatpeople had that this gallery owner should have
known better. In that way,that is very very very similar to the
Baldwin case. He should have known, he should have looked. There are
very similar issues at stake here aboutwhat he ought to have done, and
(12:05):
in this art gallery case, whatshe ought to have done or ought to
have known, versus his very methodicaldefensive her saying, well, that's not
right, and that expert that shetalked to, she just talked to that
expert. That expert didn't verify things, and nobody can really verify anything.
And he slowly picked away at thenotion that, of course this woman had
to be guilty, because how couldshe not be, she's a worldwide expert.
(12:26):
Again, we never saw the actualend of the movie because they settled
the case right. But I thoughtin reading a long detailed story about that
case, you got a glimpse ofthe tactics that Nikas will use, which
is very methodical. He used alot of illustrations and kind of powerpoints in
the courtroom. He would use comewith cartoons and illustrations about matters of law
(12:46):
to make them understandable to the jury. And clearly by the sounds of the
long piece and art news that Iread, the author of that piece was
impressed by Nikas and by his legalacumen, so that what we know about
him. Mary Carmack Altweez is thedistrict attorney in Santa Fe and could not
be more different. She went tothe University of to Mexico law school.
(13:09):
She was a public defender. Shewas elected to this office in twenty twenty
one. Right, she is marriedto a former cop. She is a
local product through and through, andone who's has to wonder based on again,
these are just biographical sketches and biographicaloutlines. But you take that and
you combine that with again this unbelievableresponse to the notion of take of withdrawing
(13:31):
these particular charges. Yeah, andthe nastiness and petulance and kind of home
team ism that she was trying toinvoke. This is going to be a
hell of a rod. And thenyou add in we haven't even gone to
Alec Baldwin yet, Right, Yeah, there was no shrinking Violet himself.
No, not at all. Soright there with those three people, I
(13:52):
mean, this is a Shakespearean thisis operatic. You mentioned it in the
beginning, it could write. Thecharacters are just phenomenal. The setup you
do point out though. You havethe typical big time, big city attorney,
right, who's there with all thepower, and then you have the
prosecutor. What's interesting is that bothof these people are lawyers, but their
(14:16):
motives are different, right, Theirreasons for practicing law are different, obviously,
Okay, and that's being highlighted inthis case, really really well.
There was a column by a localbi columnist in New Mexico very recently about
this case, and it was fromthe point of view articularly the look that
even if she loses this case,it won't damage her in terms of her
(14:37):
reelection and whatever her kind of politicalviability is. Yeah, that basically she
had no choice. She had tocharge this. Her profile will increase somewhat,
and if she loses, it'll bedown to you know, the blinding
fawning towards movie stars that you couldargue with what went on with the Johnny
Depp case, right, I mean, that's just at the end of the
day that people said he's Johnny Depp. We've seen in movies. We believe
(14:58):
him, and that would be thecase in the Baldwin I think fundamentally,
and this is something we should talkabout. Alec Bolden and Johnny Depp are
not the same character and the kindof like soft spokenness and boyish appeal that
Johnny Depp cultivated when he testified inhis defamation case last summer, I have
a hard time at this stage thinkingthat Alec Boldin can muster that kind of
(15:20):
humility. He's going to have to, I think, because he may have
won this round on the law,but I think it's going to be just
as important that he appeared to behumble and contrite and not a big movie
star when it comes to this.Now we know that he testified, we
know that he spoke to cops,and he spoke to the press, and
(15:41):
as we've noted on this podcast,the complaint against him is full of comments
contradictory comments that he made to policebecause he spoke and lessened one would be
shouldn't have talked at all, buthe did, right, the question is
does he have to talk again?So let's start there. Yeah, do
you think he has to testify?You don't know, and I don't know
if he should because they could settleandi plea. Okay, but let's assume
(16:07):
it goes to distance. Okay,you don't think it's it's you don't think
it's if it goes the distance,should he testify? That's always the question
in every case, right, especiallywhen you have a celebrity. I would
say, good question. No,I wouldn't let him testify because the charges
right now, the lawyer, youhave one lawyer out maneuvering another. That's
(16:33):
an indication of what's going to goon here, and what the prosecutor has
to prove is already a stretch,right, Okay, there's a lot of
variables here. Right. We knowthat he was given the gun. I
mean, I've argued four and againstright, so we know he was given
the gun and he was told itwas cold and it wasn't right. So
there's big facts there in his favor. So if it were me, I
(16:55):
wouldn't put him on the stand.No way. I don't know that he's
that guy to begin with. Butthen there's not by not testifying, I
don't see what you lose, seebecause, as you say, it's a
question about the law in New Mexico, and there's nothing that Alec Baldwin is
going to tell you about the law, correct, based on what he did
at that moment. Correct. It'slike, yeah, you can say that
(17:15):
I should have done this, andI should have done that, and you
have your side of this story andI have mine, and my lawyer is
going to throw down a bunch oflaw and a bunch of probably precedence,
things we may have never even heardof before that are going to be very,
very compelling. And now that thecharge is reduced, it's not a
(17:36):
banner as much as it was forthe prosecutor. But does the fact that
he's a celebrity cut both ways?That is to say, as you say,
if your Fifth Amendment right, youdon't have to testify. But will
there be an expectation that because he'sa celebrity, he kind of has to
testify. Not when it's involuntary manslaughter. I think there's a little difference with
that versus you know, what wewere looking at. So you don't think
(17:57):
psychologically the jury will hold it againsthim if he doesn't testify. No,
no, And in fact, youknow you can argue this a few different
ways. Okay, how about this, Like everybody's supposed to be objective,
okay, but there are people whowere star struck all over the world.
So you could make an argument ifhe testifies, it's not about what he
(18:18):
says, it's that about people areentwolved by him and they mind against influence.
This happens every day in life.Hello, yeah, that in my
mind, as you know, thatwas the Johnny Dead case. Yeah,
exactly. He lost, Yeah,the case in England. Yeah, because
there was no jury that was basedon the law. That's right, right,
he won here, right because hetestified for five days. Well he
testified, but the but his lawyersjust pounded you know, her Amber Herds
(18:41):
lawyers. In my opinion, hedid well. She did poorly on testimony,
correct, not on the law.Her law was differrect. You know.
They both were dif versions of tablepounding. And he pounded better.
Yeah, he as you would sayhe did. I think Baldiman is gonna
want it testify just based on hischaracter in the county. I get why
you're saying that. My guess isthat he will run through the lots of
(19:03):
dry runs where someone is going toimpersonate the prosecutor. Yeah, and see
how he behaves and whether or notshe gets his goat because you know,
yeah, if he does go onthe stand, yeah, she will do
everything she can to piss him off. Yeah. I don't think. I
don't think that will work though,because I think he's disciplined enough and it
contained environment to not go off.Where he goes off is when he's not
(19:26):
disciplined, he's outside of a confinedenvironment, like outside on the streets of
New York City or in situations likethat. I'm sorry because because he's on,
because he's he chases down a bicyclist. Wait, wait, how many
incidents is of him his anger gettingthe best of him in public? Do
we need? Well, but that'snot hasn't been in a courtroom, right,
(19:48):
So right, this attorney, thisattorney mark my words on this right,
will not correct, will not lethim testify unless he knows his performance
is going to be flawless. Iagree with you totally. Okay, I
agree with you. Jolly all right, let us move on, bam.
This is there's gonna be a lotof this and it's a great case,
and I'm glad we talked about thepersonalities involved, because as you know,
(20:10):
better than anyone, because no oneelse is well and because why we're the
entertainment. It's not just about thelaw, it's about the characters involved.
We talked on the drama and theyknow, and there's a death here and
everybody else is talking about other stuff. That's our job. King Charles is
(20:37):
going to be officially coronated, crowd, excuse me, And there's gonna be
a coronation in May. And thisis a big deal. Obviously we haven't
had a coronation in the UK andover seventy years because the other reigned for
that long. And this is goingto be a huge party over there with
all kinds of you know things thatgo on, including a concert in the
day after the coronation as part ofthat. And we've seen these in the
(20:57):
past. There were a lot ofthese jubilee concerts for the Queen when she
was alive, and all the greatand good UK artists turn up, you
know, everyone from Brian May toShirley Bassey, you know, all perform
these kind of royal command performances.The Beatles stamously did a royal command performance
in nineteen sixty three, right soentertainer is performing at the request of the
(21:18):
crown is not unusual. It's somethingthat we have seen from a distance over
here. What makes this unusual isthat as part of the planning people on
behalf of King Charles asked ed Shearonand Adele and Pursul and others. We've
been told but ed Shearon and Adeleto perform, and they said no.
Huh. Now Adele didn't give anyexcuse as to why she said no.
(21:41):
Ed Shearon City had a concert theday before in Texas. The idea of
performing for you know, a bunchof cowboys. I shouldn't be disparaging of
people in Texas, but the ideain Mexico, the idea that you can't
perform in Texas or that because andyou're turning down an opportunity to do something
that hasn't been done in seventy years. Yeah, and you've already in fact
(22:03):
performed for the Queen. I wasactually looking this up. He performed at
when her jubilees very recently, edSheeran. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
that tells you something. Well,and these are high profile kind of professional
Brits, right, they go whenthey do their thing, right, that
he can't figure couldn't figure out away to get there the next day.
I think the fact that he actuallybrought up this concert in Texas as an
excuse is almost worse than adult notsaying anything. I agree with that,
(22:26):
right, I agree completely. AndI have my theory as to what's going
on here. You want to hearmy theory, of course I do.
What do you? I mean?What else would I This is not about
anybody's schedule, right, This ispart of the great Royal soap opera between
the Royal family. Yes, andHarry and Meghan. Correct, Harry and
Megan are essentially Hollywood royalty now literallyand figuratively right. They live in Montecito,
(22:48):
which is just outside of Santa Barbara. They hobnob with people like this.
They are, you know, thekind of you know, Royal family
in exile. Yeah. Entertainers likeEd Sharon and Adele, who are much
younger than the Tom Jones, ShirleyBassie ill Point, who will often show
up at these things, are fullyaware of the claims made against the Royal
(23:10):
Family of racism and misogyny directed atMegan, and I think they're taking the
long, hard look at whether ornot they perform on their behalf for this
family. That Hall has all ofthese accusations around it. Now we all
know the British press has all saidthis is all you know bs, and
that Meghan and Harry are crazy.But I think I'm on the young and
younger generation, and again I'm speak. This is my opinion. I don't
(23:32):
know if any of this is true. They haven't said anything, but my
guess is that this has nothing todo with scheduling and it has everything to
do with not wanting to appear onteam Charles and not doing something that Megan
and Harry might not do. Wedon't know whether I'm Megan and Harry going
too this car Nation or whether justHarry goes or whatever. And I think
that this is an extraordinary moment becausethis is not something that ordinarily happened.
(23:55):
People would move, you know,mountains to go perform there if you're king
or your queen asked you to dothat. I think this is a big
deal. Is it more about sortof sticking up for Meghan and Harry or
Harry and Meghan right, or isit the fact that maybe they just don't
like Charles and if it were theQueen asking let's just roll the clock batch,
(24:19):
right? Would they then show upif the Queen was asking as opposed
to Charles. I don't think thisis about Charles, like liking the guy.
I think this No that I don'tthink and I don't think necessarily it
was about although I think the Queenwas beloved from Charles. I think I
think what I think it's about whatCharles represents, and what he represents is
(24:40):
the continuation. If you'll believe Harryand Meghan is a continuation of this corrupt
exchange of information with the tabloid newspapers, with a family that is insensitive to
misogyny and racism, and it wouldbe I think it's what people like adel
and at a cheer and believed itwould be a tacit in dorsement of that
(25:00):
culture if you went and sang onthe King's behalf. That's what I think
it is. Now, Okay.Do I think that they're concerned that Harry
and Megan might be upset? Maybe? I think the greater concern would be
I don't want to be seen asrepresenting this old order. You know,
they may have problems with the royalty. Well, like I say, don't
because like I said, Ed Sheeronsang for the Queen, but you know
(25:22):
she was like grandma. He's kindof almost like Grandpa. You think you
think, no, you think it'sthat they just don't like him. Yeah,
they don't want to cut it alittle bit of both. Most well,
I think, you know, don'tforget Diana. Let's not forget the
whole Diana king of him, youknow, being married to one woman and
then sort of having a gumata aswe'd say, an Italian on the side,
(25:42):
right, And I think it's alittle bit of an extension of that.
And don't forget Harry's an extension ofyou know, obviously Diana, right.
So I think it's a little bit. My guess is that if this
were the Queen and she were asking, they would both show up, no
doubt. Okay, he already hasa spy of it, right, he
already has. So I just don'tknow that Charles carries it the way that
(26:06):
the Queen did. I don't seeit myself. In other words, if
he wasn't, if it wasn't givento him, would he still be able
to carry it? Right? Right? Because he comes into office and you
know, comes onto the throne withall of that stuff we know about him,
whether it was cheating on Diana andthe you know, ridiculous phone calls,
you know they were taped and allthat kind of crazy yeah bedroom talk,
yes, right, yeah, andyou never had any of that with
(26:27):
the queen obviously, right, notthat we know, well, no,
right, right, right, right. So it's going to be curious about
how this kind of thing again,assuming that I'm right, how it manifests
itself going forward, right y,idea of anybody saying no to the king
or the queen, it just seemsto me to have been unheard of,
right right, And I don't knowwhat this is going to mean. The
(26:49):
story I read about all this didsay that people like Lionel Richie are going
to be there, of course,and that Harry Styles might save the day.
Okay, well I could see that. I can see that. Yeah.
You know, again, we're lookingat people who have different points of
view. There is a younger generation, although Harry's part of that, right,
and I think in their own mindsthey're not bound to the past much
(27:15):
the way all institutions don't hold thesame level of authority over people the way
they once did. So people aremore independent thinking. Yeah, I also
think it's a sign that despite theabuse that they've taken from the British press
since the Netflix documentary and since Harry'sbook came out in January, that in
Harry's case in particular, he's gota lot of fans. You know,
(27:37):
you and I'd sat at this table, and I know when the book came
out, and when the documentary cameout and the book came out, I'm
like, Okay, now, whatright, He's basically kind of like,
you know, used all his ammunition, He's done. What does he have
left? What's he going to donow? I am revising that viewpoint.
I think anybody who sells as manybooks as he has sold is doing it
because he's likable, and yes,they want to know the story. But
(27:59):
there's something about out him that Ithink a lot of people respond to.
He is both ordinary Joe and aguy with a prince in front of his
name, And I don't know ifhe has the intention or the fortitude to
become I guess it sounds ridiculous,you know, a Ryan Seacrest or someone
who would do some kind of entertainmentprogram on an ongoing basis with his wife.
I think that could be a hit. I think there's something. First
(28:22):
of all, people know who heis, right, and he is generally
likable. He does not appear tobe condescending or haughty like a lot of
other members of the family. Infact, he seems to be almost ordinary.
I mean maybe he hides it,and he definitely was raising, but
I mean, there's nothing about thisguy that vibes fussy or fancy, right,
he doesn't. He doesn't have somebodylike his father does, you know,
(28:42):
on the road pressing his pants andthings like that. He seems like
an ordinary guy, unless I wouldbe hard pressed to believe after watching that
documentary and all this sort of stuffthat his kind of like you know,
bracelet wearing new age thing is anact. I think he really is that.
Oh yeah, you know, yeah, And why wouldn't he be,
(29:03):
I mean because he could be likebrother and sleep in a tuxedo. Yeah,
Okay, he's different in that wayhow he plays. I mean,
I'm on Twitter a lot, andyou know the comments on Twitter about him
and Megan are not positive. Okay. Who he sold a lot of books.
Was that because of him or becauseof what people wanted to know,
(29:25):
and then now what and then ifhe does become Ryan Seacrest, does he
have the chops to actually be thatgood or is he just someone who was
given the opportunity. I don't literally, I don't know, and I don't
literally, but there is a generationalthing going on here of I'm a victim,
you know, and it's just pervasivethroughout society, right of, So
he could be a hero for muchlike Diana was to her generation. Diana
(29:49):
came out and said, okay,you know, here's what's going on.
I'm letting you in on some things. He sort of took it to the
next level for his generation. Youknow, Diana would. She did her
one or two TV appearances and shebut she also appeared like a like a
bird in a gilded cage. Sheseemed very kind of nervous and skittish.
He has done all of these interviews. I could not see Diana going on
(30:10):
the Stephen Colbert Show. Right.He's very at ease and much more kind
of conversational and confident. You cansay lots of things about Diana, confident
was not one of them. Shedid not vibe confidence. She didn't make
the viewer feel more relaxed. Right. The thing about you know, you
know, we all know what TVis like, right, You don't want
to watch someone who's making you uncomfortableor nervous. Yeah, she would do
(30:34):
that. You know. You canwatch her one interview with Martin Bisher and
there aren't very many like that thatshe did, and you will withstand the
discomfort because she's so uncomfortable. Butyou know, I don't know how much
money that you could take every dayshe just made. She made me literally
nervous to watch her. He doesn'thave that either, skills that he has.
This could all be nonsense. Butthe idea that I had before,
(30:56):
which is that they've done their documentary, they've at all there is to say
they're not part of the royal familyanymore, and they basically have emptied their
notebook. That may indeed be true, but I think there could be a
future from other of them. Okay, Okay, that's all I got.
Okay, So wait, wait,wait, First of all, what's her
podcast doing? Right? Is theirpodcast? I don't know? I know
nothing about her, Okay, Imean in terms of numbers and making,
(31:18):
I don't know. I don't knowif you did that. Well, I'm
growing a distinction between her and him. Okay, I think he is the
one who's more likable right now.I don't think that's not saying much to
some people, but I get yourpoint, right, So out of the
two of them, he sort ofemerges is more likable and maybe more bankable,
(31:41):
and may be more able to dothings any sort of things. It's
within the modern culture. Okay,he's the prince. Yeah, okay.
But at the end of the day, let's circle all the way back to
where we started with ed Shearon andAdele. Okay, and if the whole
effect of this has been for EdShearon in Adele not to show up at
(32:07):
the coronation, I ask you,does anybody really care? At the end
of the day, there's gonna beso many stars there, is it really
relevant are either one of them thatbig? I mean, she's no,
not what the event goes on,yea being there, right, it's not
(32:29):
the idea that you said no,okay, right? The thing right and
at the end of the day theysaid no, And you know who cares?
I think a lot of people care, and I think it's going to
keep the soap opera on. Okay, If Harry style shows up. All
forgiven. I mean, I'm sorry, I'm into this whole star thing,
right, all is forgiven. IfHarry shows up, and I have a
(32:51):
feeling he will, because he willsteal the show. And when you're a
star, you live for that.That's the super Bowl of entertainment and two
and right, and they're not Pauland he's gonna walk in there. And
by the way, he will sizzleboth of them anytime on his stage anywhere.
I mean, let's face it,Adele's never been known for her you
(33:12):
know, her vocal dynamics, Yes, her stage performance. No, Ed
Shearing gets up there with a guitar. I mean, come on versus Harry
styles. Come on. So ifhe shows up, this is like what,
well we shall see Harry Mason.I hope you show up. That's
all I have to say, becauseI'll watch for that. All right,
(33:45):
Let's do a briefing on negotiations.What's going on right now? Yeah,
and you and I are from believers. That's football and sports are our entertainment.
They are. There's no doubt.There's lots of discussions about quarterbacks who
are in free agency right now.We're not gonna get into all that kind
of stuff. But they and againthe Packers and Derek Carr and Aaron Rodgers
and Lamar Lamar Jackson Jackson, thankyou, and lots of other quarterbacks who
(34:07):
are in play. Yeah, I'mless interested in who's fit with with what
team than in the art of negotiating. Talk to me a little bit about
what is what goes on here inthese cases. If you watch sports television,
it's all about, you know,will Rogers leave, who's a better
fit with the Jets? That's notwhat goes on when agents are talking or
when lawyers are talking. Right,What is it about the current state of
(34:29):
contracts or however you want to approachthis that makes this interesting to you?
Well, a lot of things havechanged because contracts don't have the same kind
of meaning and power that they usedto. We've seen that, right.
So if essentially, if you havea star right now on a team and
they don't really like where they're playing, they demand to be traded, and
(34:50):
in a lot of instances that demandis granted, okay, more than it
was in the past, way morethan the past way. More so is
that a question of the law orjust the culture that we live in.
One of the things that was mostfascinating to me. When I went to
work at an entertainment firm, Iwas told that when artists had success.
(35:13):
This was like the second day Iwas there, they renegotiated the contract and
I said, what do you meanrenegotiate the contract? Yeah, well we
just take the contract and kind ofrip it up and renegotiated. So if
you had a contract. Now I'mcoming right out of law school, right
thinking contract, contract binding, statueof frauds, all this other stuff,
to find out that at the endof the day, it's really about the
(35:34):
leverage of the parties and how happyyou want someone to be. Okay,
And so what we're seeing here forthe first time, it's unprecedented the amount
of quarterbacks that are actually available tobe traded or to be moved. Okay,
that's one thing, And then we'realso seeing the times which you're saying,
if you have someone like Lamar Jacksonand he's not happy with what you're
(35:54):
offering, he's just going to turnaround. He's not even going to come
back and say I'm going to counteroffer. He's just gonna say no,
I want to go to another team. And then you have to ask well,
is he really happy there to beginwith because they're offering him more money
than I mean, fifty million ayear. How much more do you want?
Right then? How can you getright then? How right that?
Is it really just about the factthat you want more money or is it
(36:16):
about the fact that maybe you wantto play in LA and you know,
build your brand like Lebron did right? Right? So there's a lot of
moving parts here, and especially thisyear, all over the place. And
you know, the agents arose isnot just about quarterbacks that maybe other trades
involved there, maybe draft picks,so there's a lot of things that are
on the table that go into this. Well, all I can say is
(36:37):
I'm glad the Santa Fe District Attorneyis involved because she's not interested in securing
Billibell hours City attorney. Yeah,not at all. A good stuff.
Yeah, Well that's it for thisweek. All right, let's take it
to continue take everything from coronations toquarterbacks. Were covering here, yea,
brothers, Yes see you next week. See you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.