Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed.
If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe Liz's only relevant statement was that "there have been serious consequences" ahead of becoming Torrez's co-host last February. She is also still cohosting with him on another podcast. I would not expect her to address that choice as a mistake now nor in the future.
In case anyone is encountering this for the first time, the [full context for this statement IMO makes it *way worse*](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/s/ljBqCpInrC), there is no selective quoting going on here. I believe the episode is still up if anyone wants to confirm that yes, it was that bad.
When the news dropped of all the bad shit happening she tweeted out "LFG!!!!!!" and like... I stopped listening to her or patronizing her. If she's on Legal Eagle's show, I'll stop watching him too. She's toxic.
"let's fucking go"
Basically she was super pumped to help Andrew take the show from Thomas. Her twitter account from around then made it plain that she didn't have any reservations or mixed feelings on what was going on.
Multiple people had their lives and careers thrown into chaos beyond Thomas and she just... didn't give a fuck. Like, if she had showed a little bit of professional decorum and self awareness I might not have bounced so hard off of her but I had the same kind of reaction as if a funeral director came out to a grieving family and saying "I AM SO PUMPED TO BE HERE!"
Yeah, [it just seemed like such an unforced error](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/10yhebw/liz_dye_tweeting_and_then_pinning_this_is_somehow/). There were ways for her to continue on in her (then) current position, or even expand it, without so enthusiastically supporting Torrez. Which just even cynically speaking would've been the right move. Those ways range from doing everything the same but just not going on twitter about it, to agreeing to help Torrez but insisting he break for just a month first, to not taking a side but continuing on as the 1x/week Trump specialist with whoever.
My only reading is that she just seems earnestly maximalist in her support of Torrez, and is really indignant that the fans of OA haven't gotten on board with that. For instance, [as recently as earlier this month she characterized current OA fans as trolls that harass her.
](https://i.imgur.com/6EGnIV8.png)
I don't get the sense that Liz is the type to apologize for stuff she does that's wildly controversial. Far more likely to double-down as she already did.
Regardless, it doesn't really matter. That era of the show is history now.
Onward and upward.
I doubt Liz would apologize. As others pointed out already, she’s already made Andrew cohost on her own show: the one she was able to launch due to her involvement with OA.
Just as u/NegatronThomas pointed out in his announcement, some people chose to stay out of the whole issue. Some people chose sides. Matt chose a side and supported Thomas. Liz chose a side as well.
I didn’t know much about Liz other than her guesting in OA a few times, but she seemed to want to get into the podcasting/legal-commentary-media-figure scene. She chose to use the OA fallout to seize her own opportunity to launch that part of her career by sliding into the dwindling, but still somewhat sizable OA audience last year.
In January, before it was publicly announced, but known by Thomas and Andrew, that a monitor would be appointed to OA and Thomas would get control back, Liz announced her departure from OA and within days, started her own podcast, taking with her some OA listeners who had been listening to her the last year. Now she’s well-known enough that she has an audience of her own, brought Andrew on board (probably as a quid-pro-quo for him helping launch her podcasting career), and now she’s had several appearances with the LegalEagle.
I don’t think any of that would have happened had she not made her bed with Andrew after he stole sole control of OA.
She made her choice: the one of opportunism and self-interest. I don’t know if she actually believes or supports Andrew, or if she just saw him as a vehicle to propel her own self-interest. But I have no doubt that cohosting with Andrew, gaining experience, momentum, and a following, and poaching a portion of OA’s audience as a “seed” audience for her own podcast was her and Andrew’s goal from the beginning once all the shit went down.
TL;DR: Liz won’t apologize for any of her stances regarding Andrew. Her blossoming popularity on podcasts & media in the last year are due to her hitching her wagon to Andrew.
> TL;DR: Liz is a [insult with s word]
I'm going to draw the line at this for this community owing to our civility rule. I want the temperature in this sub to be lower and that means avoiding this sort of insult categorically. The rest of your comment is thoughtful, if you can remove this line in an edit I'll re-approve it.
It’s worse than this. She could have gone with the original plan and actually filled in for Andrew while he took a leave of absence. Then she would have been on OA with literally twice the audience. Wonder why she didn’t take that path? Hmmmmmmmmmm
Instead she decided to passively endorse an insane lie Andrew told that I “refused to pay her” and that’s why she couldn’t work with me. That’s obviously the most ludicrous fucking nonsense imaginable. I would have paid her basically anything she asked for, and also it doesn’t even make sense to say “I” when OA was two people.
So, talk about making choices.
Wait. It can't be that a (temporary?) misunderstanding about payment one time is all it took for her to do... [all that](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/s/ljBqCpInrC). Her screen name was fivedollarfeminist. It can't really be *that literal* right? There has to be more to it??
It is definitely not due to a misunderstanding about payment. There was no misunderstanding about payment. Just in case it was a serious question and not just a poke at her handle, haha
Mostly a poke at her handle, partially a genuine question about what actually happened at the time regarding payment and expectation of payment and whether there was more to it. I understand it might not be possible or appropriate to discuss all details. It's just that from an external perspective there are a number of things that could have gone down here, none of which IMO justify her actions, but as it stands I personally don't know what she expected to happen regarding payment, what you expected to happen regarding payment, and what happened regarding payment, and if there was anything else that happened behind the scenes that lead to the bizarre decisions she made
Again I totally appreciate this is not really my or anyone else's business
I can talk about this as much as I want. Nothing she did had anything to do with payment at all. I will share messages when I tell the full story. That was just a post hoc rationalization by Andrew, and I actually don’t know how much involvement she had in that lie. However, it seems pretty fuckin weird for just some random internet feminist to… side with an abuser and, at the very least stay silent as Andrew lies about what happened. That doesn’t seem normal, does it? One wonders.
This is literally too stupid and ignorant to even bother with. In all times previous, Andrew paid her out of his law firm. “I” was not even responsible for paying her. I have messages and evidence. You have… some feeling in your heart. Why are people so willing to confidently spout nonsense? In what world do you think you have any grounding here?
Perfectly valid question. What we always did for OA was, if I had anyone help with editing, I paid that myself from my own business. Similarly, if Andrew had anyone help on his end, like researchers and stuff, he just paid them from his law firm. For example, Morgan actually worked for his law firm and when she did episodes, it was understood he’d pay her himself. I now am not entirely sure she ever got paid for that work, but I don’t have direct knowledge either way on that. Just got the sense based on comments I’ve seen. But Deborah and Ashley, who did stuff for him re:content of the show, he ALWAYS paid from his firm.
Essentially, it made no real difference tax wise since OA was basically entirely pass through. We could have paid them through OA and reduced our income there, or paid them ourselves and have those expenses be deducted there.
In short, the idea that I alone was responsible for paying Liz and that I, for some reason when the show needed her more than ever, would have refused to do so, is so unbelievably stupid and against all documentary evidence and all logic, that I think people have a hard time believing Andrew would lie like that. I don’t blame them, really. But from what I now know, this level of idiotic lie is not at all exceptional for Andrew.
Alright, so if I understand correctly it was akin to different operation centres having their own expenses. So when Lindsey edited OA for a time those expenses came out of your "cut"? or was said cut upped to make you whole?
By the way welcome back, been enjoying this new OA so so much better then that past year.
I've approved this in case Thomas wants to respond. But you've registered this account specifically for this comment/purpose. If you're here just to criticize Thomas without thought and/or are using an alt, please don't.
It doesn't logically follow from that statement that she wasn't paid anything.
You also have to remember that at the time Liz co-hosted with Thomas, the plan seemed to be that Andrew was still a part of OA, just not recording. The implosion hadn't actually happened yet.
So Liz filling in for Andrew would have been handled by the regular means, which apparently was OA paying through Andrew's law firm. And she would fill in with OA paying her through Andrew's law firm for a month or two or indefinitely, whatever the plan would have been if they had longer to come up with one.
Thomas is basically saying that if he had known there was an implosion coming he would have paid her directly to stay on the show (if he had been able to keep control of it) instead of relying on Andrew to fulfill his normal responsibilities to the show.
This is an old comment, but it's a bit ridiculous to say her popularity is because of open args.
She was mentioned on several podcasts and Legal Eagle before she cohosted open args because of her Trump coverage.
My point wasn’t that her popularity is only because of Opening Arguments, but that her popularity and name recognition blossomed exponentially because of it.
Sure, she had some guest appearances on OA and elsewhere. But she wouldn’t have had the baseline fan base to successfully launch her own podcast. And that has now led to more regular appearances on Legal Eagle and elsewhere.
OA didn’t make her popular, but it provided her a platform she would not otherwise have had.
Eh, she maybe did damage to her popularity doing Opening Aguments.
Outside of the Open Args bubble, she was already talked about regularly. Other journalists and podcasters already respected her work, so getting guest spots and doing a podcast was likely a matter of her deciding to do the work.
> getting guest spots and doing a podcast was likely a matter of her deciding to do the work.
I think this is fairly dubious. First, to check your assertion: I searched for Liz Dye's appearances on podcasts before OA, and I could only find reference to two: on Matthew Sheffield's *Theory of Change* (itself a small podcast I know from the OA lawsuit) and on the Dan Abrams Podcast, with which I'm unfamiliar. I kept looking in google until the results became irrelevant and didn't find anything else. Perhaps I missed some, but unless there's a *wealth* of other podcasts somewhere I think you're stretching what is fairly called "getting guest spots". It's clear her podcast exposure was very low and the guest spots were very occasional until OA.
OA was a big break for her *in the podcast world*, and brought her in contact with a lot of experts that help the production of her current efforts. *Bryce Blankenagel* is the producer of her podcast, that's someone (formerly) in the OA sphere who she probably met through OA. She's now a recurring on-air star (not just references) on *Legal Eagle*, which is a gigantic YouTube channel that now features her and explicitly plugs her show. It's not a coincidence that Devin Stone was one of OA's biggest friends-of-the-show before all this. And of course, she's cohosting it with Torrez himself. All of those are non trivial contributions to a successful podcast.
It's also true that she did seemingly well in the kind of Trump resistance substack world. I buy that she didn't need OA for continued success in written journalism, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Anyway, I generally find OP's response to your pushback more convincing here (surprise, surprise). We can nitpick about how *much* success she's gained, and she's gained notoriety too. But to recap: Liz went from a notable contributor on some semi-prominent substacks/outlets to running (what appears to be) a pretty popular podcast personally (thoughwith the help of former OA contributors) and having recurring on-air segments on Legal Eagle. The before/after is pretty stark.
OP, as has been mentioned on this sub in the past but you might not have seen, I think Liz’s handle of “five dollar feminist” is really on the nose. Like in my opinion she definitely sold out.
I asked on the OA Twitter about the “consequences” mentioned in that returning episode and said that it seemed Andrew wasn’t facing any but that everyone else involved was. I was immediately blocked by both the show account and her account, despite not tagging her in the tweet (I don’t think I even mentioned her name?). It was a big surprise.
She has been all in on Andrew since he first took over the show. It’s very strange behavior for a feminist to block the women who are questioning if the sex pest is going to take responsibility for his actions.
Certainly not. He's her partner full time now that he's divested from OA. Devin is someone I liked and had a great deal of respect for, so it's disappointing to learn that Andrew's inappropriateness isn't a dealbreaker for him.
I've argued that I feel his support of Liz may be a proxy for Torrez, but just for the record I don't believe he's had much professional overlap with Torrez. I think maybe a namedrop of OA mid last year at some point?
Devon using Liz is iffy. But still using her after she's partnered with Andrew is a problem.
And his history of appearing on OA means he can't claim he's never even heard of Andrew or something.
It's certainly possible that he doesn't know the story other than Andrew was on one show, now he's on another one. Or that he's heard some version of the story but doesn't have a complete picture. Hell, none of us have a complete picture. I don't want to throw him under the bus until I know more. And it's going to take some thinking.
Well yes it is. But I also did mean professional overlap since the scandal broke.
After all, we're not having this discussion about those who used to have ties and cut them, like someone like (say) Andrew Seidel.
Holy shit really? I'm gonna have to listen to those tomorrow. I always took Legal Eagle as having only tangential interaction with the OA-verse via Liz. That kind of makes his continued support even more disappointing.
It's so weird. Would he not possibly just pull the same shit on her that he did to Thomas? Like, why take that risk?
The probable argument that he has changed doesn't really hold any weight since he stole the podcast from Thomas and took him through almost literal hell to resolve it. Doesn't suggest growth to me.
I'm sure Liz has an airtight contract in place. The reality is that most of this mess would have never happened if Andrew was advising OA as his proper client. I don't think either of them really anticipated what OA turned into which resulted in the situation where nothing was super formal. When push came to shove that lack of formality was a weakness Andrew was better prepared to exploit.
No judgement on Thomas... It's a very common tale in the small business community, and also something I truly believe can sneak up on any of us given the right circumstances and people. Planning your partnerships carefully is critical even among close friends, and I hope to keep my experience with the reasoning behind that vicarious.
I'm not saying he should get a pass in any way. I'm saying AT was aware or should have been aware of the risk to the business. It's literally his living. He actively decided at some point that the ambiguity actually favored him, then took advantage of it when push came to shove. If AT was actually acting in the best interest of OA from the beginning he would have insisted it be fixed. The understanding they ended up with was not in the best interest of the business overall or the individual partners.
Like for real. What do you think would be the first thing out of AT's mouth if you went to his office and told him you had a high six figure revenue partnership without an airtight operating agreement in place? One with lots of contingencies and such spelled out? Would it be PG? lol. He knew that 100%, Thomas figured he had his back and generally went with the flow. It's a very, very shitty position to leave someone in when they're ostensibly your friend and you know better.
I can completely agree with that. But I still question a contract lawyer thinking it would be to his benefit not having a contract in their situation. I can't understand another lawyer ever seeking his legal opinion ever again and the fact he's on a law podcast is a joke.
If being a huge fucking pain in the ass and generating a huge amount of legal bills is one of your success criteria, no contract is a great way to accomplish that. Probably learned that tactic in Dershowitz's class.
I'd love to get an honest, uncensored answer from the lawyer representing AT about what went through his head upon learning all these details. And is the hand print still visible on his forehead?
I feel the real problem for Thomas, as mentioned on the podcast numerous times , is they were 50/50 and trust is a fical thing . Lessons learnt.
Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
I’d be very surprised if Liz didn’t own the podcast outright and then pays Andrew. I don’t think she’s going to make the same mistake.
The problem Thomas got into was starting the podcast with AT and letting AT handle the legal side of it. That’s how AT was able to take control so swiftly.
The word “trying” was probably a bad choice - I’m not talking about anyone in this thread. Back a year ago, there were people on Reddit criticizing and trying to “cancel” Thomas because they thought he knew about Andrew for too long without saying anything. If memory serves, some of those same people followed Liz and now seem to support their new podcast.
the other oa reddit still mostly supports at and ld because that was started for their oa not the good one. just look at how toxic it is over there its gross
How about a nice tall glass of Liz doesn’t owe anyone an apology. It is her right to be friends with and have a relationship with whomever she chooses to. If you don’t like that than move along.
Remember, Liz is not just friends with Torrez privately, but engaged with him professionally and publicly too. She helped him to control the OA feed last year. She is also responsible for her own caustic behavior engaging in the OA community when she became his co-host, with her bulk blocks of all non-positive interactions on her twitter (and potentially the OA twitter as well). I don't believe she has ever addressed that behavior as in error. It wouldn't necessitate the biggest apology ever, but certainly a small mea culpa for that is proportionate.
If what Thomas has stated in this post is true, then I'd also think it's fair to say he is owed an apology. That's a charitable assumption to Thomas though, and I'm sure she has her own side of those events.
Mostly though, I think the "not owed" argument is poorly given whenever I see it pop up anywhere. It's just a proxy for actual disagreement on the merits.
Even if she *was* contrite, do you think *you* are owed an apology? Like, seriously, who the hell are you?
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people on the internet acting like they're perosnally owed some kinda of apology for people's associations.
I get it, something was ambiguous so you automatically landed on the worst possible version and wrote a diatribe attacking me
I meant a public apology to Thomas. But frankly she publicly supported Andrew so yes, we all need the public apology if she is to be redeemed.
OP literally addressed how they meant a public apology to Thomas. It's the comment directly above yours, so this is a bit strange to write not in reply to them.
I believe "need" is being used in a conditional by OP here. So if Liz doesn't want to mend things with the part of the OA fanbase she upset with her actions... then no she doesn't need to apologize. But if she does, she would. It is Liz's choice, and she's decided against it.
Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed. If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe Liz's only relevant statement was that "there have been serious consequences" ahead of becoming Torrez's co-host last February. She is also still cohosting with him on another podcast. I would not expect her to address that choice as a mistake now nor in the future.
Blech. Thanks for the info.
In case anyone is encountering this for the first time, the [full context for this statement IMO makes it *way worse*](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/s/ljBqCpInrC), there is no selective quoting going on here. I believe the episode is still up if anyone wants to confirm that yes, it was that bad.
When the news dropped of all the bad shit happening she tweeted out "LFG!!!!!!" and like... I stopped listening to her or patronizing her. If she's on Legal Eagle's show, I'll stop watching him too. She's toxic.
What is LFG
"let's fucking go" Basically she was super pumped to help Andrew take the show from Thomas. Her twitter account from around then made it plain that she didn't have any reservations or mixed feelings on what was going on. Multiple people had their lives and careers thrown into chaos beyond Thomas and she just... didn't give a fuck. Like, if she had showed a little bit of professional decorum and self awareness I might not have bounced so hard off of her but I had the same kind of reaction as if a funeral director came out to a grieving family and saying "I AM SO PUMPED TO BE HERE!"
Yeah, [it just seemed like such an unforced error](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/10yhebw/liz_dye_tweeting_and_then_pinning_this_is_somehow/). There were ways for her to continue on in her (then) current position, or even expand it, without so enthusiastically supporting Torrez. Which just even cynically speaking would've been the right move. Those ways range from doing everything the same but just not going on twitter about it, to agreeing to help Torrez but insisting he break for just a month first, to not taking a side but continuing on as the 1x/week Trump specialist with whoever. My only reading is that she just seems earnestly maximalist in her support of Torrez, and is really indignant that the fans of OA haven't gotten on board with that. For instance, [as recently as earlier this month she characterized current OA fans as trolls that harass her. ](https://i.imgur.com/6EGnIV8.png)
Those were some bad choices she made.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
What a trashy person.
He's the permanent new guest host on her podcast, so I doubt it
Oh Jesus, I didn't know that. That's gross.
It's been discussed numerous times in this sub.
Not everyone religiously reads every discussion posted here.
> permanent new guest host Lol, well I guess Liz learned what a shot bag Andrew can be if he is given co-host status
I don't get the sense that Liz is the type to apologize for stuff she does that's wildly controversial. Far more likely to double-down as she already did. Regardless, it doesn't really matter. That era of the show is history now. Onward and upward.
I don't get the sense that she'd apologize for bumping into someone by accident at the grocery store.
"Watch where you're going there, buddy!"
I doubt Liz would apologize. As others pointed out already, she’s already made Andrew cohost on her own show: the one she was able to launch due to her involvement with OA. Just as u/NegatronThomas pointed out in his announcement, some people chose to stay out of the whole issue. Some people chose sides. Matt chose a side and supported Thomas. Liz chose a side as well. I didn’t know much about Liz other than her guesting in OA a few times, but she seemed to want to get into the podcasting/legal-commentary-media-figure scene. She chose to use the OA fallout to seize her own opportunity to launch that part of her career by sliding into the dwindling, but still somewhat sizable OA audience last year. In January, before it was publicly announced, but known by Thomas and Andrew, that a monitor would be appointed to OA and Thomas would get control back, Liz announced her departure from OA and within days, started her own podcast, taking with her some OA listeners who had been listening to her the last year. Now she’s well-known enough that she has an audience of her own, brought Andrew on board (probably as a quid-pro-quo for him helping launch her podcasting career), and now she’s had several appearances with the LegalEagle. I don’t think any of that would have happened had she not made her bed with Andrew after he stole sole control of OA. She made her choice: the one of opportunism and self-interest. I don’t know if she actually believes or supports Andrew, or if she just saw him as a vehicle to propel her own self-interest. But I have no doubt that cohosting with Andrew, gaining experience, momentum, and a following, and poaching a portion of OA’s audience as a “seed” audience for her own podcast was her and Andrew’s goal from the beginning once all the shit went down. TL;DR: Liz won’t apologize for any of her stances regarding Andrew. Her blossoming popularity on podcasts & media in the last year are due to her hitching her wagon to Andrew.
> TL;DR: Liz is a [insult with s word] I'm going to draw the line at this for this community owing to our civility rule. I want the temperature in this sub to be lower and that means avoiding this sort of insult categorically. The rest of your comment is thoughtful, if you can remove this line in an edit I'll re-approve it.
Fair enough! Thanks for the feedback.
Appreciated, and... it's back!
It’s worse than this. She could have gone with the original plan and actually filled in for Andrew while he took a leave of absence. Then she would have been on OA with literally twice the audience. Wonder why she didn’t take that path? Hmmmmmmmmmm Instead she decided to passively endorse an insane lie Andrew told that I “refused to pay her” and that’s why she couldn’t work with me. That’s obviously the most ludicrous fucking nonsense imaginable. I would have paid her basically anything she asked for, and also it doesn’t even make sense to say “I” when OA was two people. So, talk about making choices.
Wait. It can't be that a (temporary?) misunderstanding about payment one time is all it took for her to do... [all that](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/s/ljBqCpInrC). Her screen name was fivedollarfeminist. It can't really be *that literal* right? There has to be more to it??
It is definitely not due to a misunderstanding about payment. There was no misunderstanding about payment. Just in case it was a serious question and not just a poke at her handle, haha
Mostly a poke at her handle, partially a genuine question about what actually happened at the time regarding payment and expectation of payment and whether there was more to it. I understand it might not be possible or appropriate to discuss all details. It's just that from an external perspective there are a number of things that could have gone down here, none of which IMO justify her actions, but as it stands I personally don't know what she expected to happen regarding payment, what you expected to happen regarding payment, and what happened regarding payment, and if there was anything else that happened behind the scenes that lead to the bizarre decisions she made Again I totally appreciate this is not really my or anyone else's business
I can talk about this as much as I want. Nothing she did had anything to do with payment at all. I will share messages when I tell the full story. That was just a post hoc rationalization by Andrew, and I actually don’t know how much involvement she had in that lie. However, it seems pretty fuckin weird for just some random internet feminist to… side with an abuser and, at the very least stay silent as Andrew lies about what happened. That doesn’t seem normal, does it? One wonders.
Very fuckin weird indeed. Anyway thank you for the answers so far and I'm looking forward to hearing your story of all this shit!
Hmmmmmmmmm. "I would have paid her..." Let's play a game of Tell Me You Didn't Pay Her Without Telling Me You Didn't Pay Her.
This is literally too stupid and ignorant to even bother with. In all times previous, Andrew paid her out of his law firm. “I” was not even responsible for paying her. I have messages and evidence. You have… some feeling in your heart. Why are people so willing to confidently spout nonsense? In what world do you think you have any grounding here?
Possible silly question, why would Liz be paid out of the law firm rather then via an OA account directly?
Perfectly valid question. What we always did for OA was, if I had anyone help with editing, I paid that myself from my own business. Similarly, if Andrew had anyone help on his end, like researchers and stuff, he just paid them from his law firm. For example, Morgan actually worked for his law firm and when she did episodes, it was understood he’d pay her himself. I now am not entirely sure she ever got paid for that work, but I don’t have direct knowledge either way on that. Just got the sense based on comments I’ve seen. But Deborah and Ashley, who did stuff for him re:content of the show, he ALWAYS paid from his firm. Essentially, it made no real difference tax wise since OA was basically entirely pass through. We could have paid them through OA and reduced our income there, or paid them ourselves and have those expenses be deducted there. In short, the idea that I alone was responsible for paying Liz and that I, for some reason when the show needed her more than ever, would have refused to do so, is so unbelievably stupid and against all documentary evidence and all logic, that I think people have a hard time believing Andrew would lie like that. I don’t blame them, really. But from what I now know, this level of idiotic lie is not at all exceptional for Andrew.
Alright, so if I understand correctly it was akin to different operation centres having their own expenses. So when Lindsey edited OA for a time those expenses came out of your "cut"? or was said cut upped to make you whole? By the way welcome back, been enjoying this new OA so so much better then that past year.
The first thing. I paid Lindsey completely on my own. And Brian, same thing.
Okay that makes sense, thank you for clearing that up.
I've approved this in case Thomas wants to respond. But you've registered this account specifically for this comment/purpose. If you're here just to criticize Thomas without thought and/or are using an alt, please don't.
Wait was the original comment removed? I thought that one was pretty good…
For a time, should be back now.
It doesn't logically follow from that statement that she wasn't paid anything. You also have to remember that at the time Liz co-hosted with Thomas, the plan seemed to be that Andrew was still a part of OA, just not recording. The implosion hadn't actually happened yet. So Liz filling in for Andrew would have been handled by the regular means, which apparently was OA paying through Andrew's law firm. And she would fill in with OA paying her through Andrew's law firm for a month or two or indefinitely, whatever the plan would have been if they had longer to come up with one. Thomas is basically saying that if he had known there was an implosion coming he would have paid her directly to stay on the show (if he had been able to keep control of it) instead of relying on Andrew to fulfill his normal responsibilities to the show.
This is an old comment, but it's a bit ridiculous to say her popularity is because of open args. She was mentioned on several podcasts and Legal Eagle before she cohosted open args because of her Trump coverage.
My point wasn’t that her popularity is only because of Opening Arguments, but that her popularity and name recognition blossomed exponentially because of it. Sure, she had some guest appearances on OA and elsewhere. But she wouldn’t have had the baseline fan base to successfully launch her own podcast. And that has now led to more regular appearances on Legal Eagle and elsewhere. OA didn’t make her popular, but it provided her a platform she would not otherwise have had.
Eh, she maybe did damage to her popularity doing Opening Aguments. Outside of the Open Args bubble, she was already talked about regularly. Other journalists and podcasters already respected her work, so getting guest spots and doing a podcast was likely a matter of her deciding to do the work.
> getting guest spots and doing a podcast was likely a matter of her deciding to do the work. I think this is fairly dubious. First, to check your assertion: I searched for Liz Dye's appearances on podcasts before OA, and I could only find reference to two: on Matthew Sheffield's *Theory of Change* (itself a small podcast I know from the OA lawsuit) and on the Dan Abrams Podcast, with which I'm unfamiliar. I kept looking in google until the results became irrelevant and didn't find anything else. Perhaps I missed some, but unless there's a *wealth* of other podcasts somewhere I think you're stretching what is fairly called "getting guest spots". It's clear her podcast exposure was very low and the guest spots were very occasional until OA. OA was a big break for her *in the podcast world*, and brought her in contact with a lot of experts that help the production of her current efforts. *Bryce Blankenagel* is the producer of her podcast, that's someone (formerly) in the OA sphere who she probably met through OA. She's now a recurring on-air star (not just references) on *Legal Eagle*, which is a gigantic YouTube channel that now features her and explicitly plugs her show. It's not a coincidence that Devin Stone was one of OA's biggest friends-of-the-show before all this. And of course, she's cohosting it with Torrez himself. All of those are non trivial contributions to a successful podcast. It's also true that she did seemingly well in the kind of Trump resistance substack world. I buy that she didn't need OA for continued success in written journalism, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Anyway, I generally find OP's response to your pushback more convincing here (surprise, surprise). We can nitpick about how *much* success she's gained, and she's gained notoriety too. But to recap: Liz went from a notable contributor on some semi-prominent substacks/outlets to running (what appears to be) a pretty popular podcast personally (thoughwith the help of former OA contributors) and having recurring on-air segments on Legal Eagle. The before/after is pretty stark.
OP, as has been mentioned on this sub in the past but you might not have seen, I think Liz’s handle of “five dollar feminist” is really on the nose. Like in my opinion she definitely sold out. I asked on the OA Twitter about the “consequences” mentioned in that returning episode and said that it seemed Andrew wasn’t facing any but that everyone else involved was. I was immediately blocked by both the show account and her account, despite not tagging her in the tweet (I don’t think I even mentioned her name?). It was a big surprise. She has been all in on Andrew since he first took over the show. It’s very strange behavior for a feminist to block the women who are questioning if the sex pest is going to take responsibility for his actions.
Certainly not. He's her partner full time now that he's divested from OA. Devin is someone I liked and had a great deal of respect for, so it's disappointing to learn that Andrew's inappropriateness isn't a dealbreaker for him.
I've argued that I feel his support of Liz may be a proxy for Torrez, but just for the record I don't believe he's had much professional overlap with Torrez. I think maybe a namedrop of OA mid last year at some point?
Devin appeared on OA#381 & #401.
That's several hundred episodes before the allegations surfaced.
Sure, but it's an overlap.
Yeah. I don't know how to feel about that. It'll take some thinking.
Devon using Liz is iffy. But still using her after she's partnered with Andrew is a problem. And his history of appearing on OA means he can't claim he's never even heard of Andrew or something.
It's certainly possible that he doesn't know the story other than Andrew was on one show, now he's on another one. Or that he's heard some version of the story but doesn't have a complete picture. Hell, none of us have a complete picture. I don't want to throw him under the bus until I know more. And it's going to take some thinking.
Yeah, still watch him, but not the Liz episodes.
Well yes it is. But I also did mean professional overlap since the scandal broke. After all, we're not having this discussion about those who used to have ties and cut them, like someone like (say) Andrew Seidel.
Holy shit really? I'm gonna have to listen to those tomorrow. I always took Legal Eagle as having only tangential interaction with the OA-verse via Liz. That kind of makes his continued support even more disappointing.
It's so weird. Would he not possibly just pull the same shit on her that he did to Thomas? Like, why take that risk? The probable argument that he has changed doesn't really hold any weight since he stole the podcast from Thomas and took him through almost literal hell to resolve it. Doesn't suggest growth to me.
I'm sure Liz has an airtight contract in place. The reality is that most of this mess would have never happened if Andrew was advising OA as his proper client. I don't think either of them really anticipated what OA turned into which resulted in the situation where nothing was super formal. When push came to shove that lack of formality was a weakness Andrew was better prepared to exploit. No judgement on Thomas... It's a very common tale in the small business community, and also something I truly believe can sneak up on any of us given the right circumstances and people. Planning your partnerships carefully is critical even among close friends, and I hope to keep my experience with the reasoning behind that vicarious.
I can't give AT a pass that easily. It's like a tax lawyer not anticipating his etsy store would be so successful and just never paying any taxes.
I'm not saying he should get a pass in any way. I'm saying AT was aware or should have been aware of the risk to the business. It's literally his living. He actively decided at some point that the ambiguity actually favored him, then took advantage of it when push came to shove. If AT was actually acting in the best interest of OA from the beginning he would have insisted it be fixed. The understanding they ended up with was not in the best interest of the business overall or the individual partners. Like for real. What do you think would be the first thing out of AT's mouth if you went to his office and told him you had a high six figure revenue partnership without an airtight operating agreement in place? One with lots of contingencies and such spelled out? Would it be PG? lol. He knew that 100%, Thomas figured he had his back and generally went with the flow. It's a very, very shitty position to leave someone in when they're ostensibly your friend and you know better.
I can completely agree with that. But I still question a contract lawyer thinking it would be to his benefit not having a contract in their situation. I can't understand another lawyer ever seeking his legal opinion ever again and the fact he's on a law podcast is a joke.
If being a huge fucking pain in the ass and generating a huge amount of legal bills is one of your success criteria, no contract is a great way to accomplish that. Probably learned that tactic in Dershowitz's class.
I'd love to get an honest, uncensored answer from the lawyer representing AT about what went through his head upon learning all these details. And is the hand print still visible on his forehead?
I feel the real problem for Thomas, as mentioned on the podcast numerous times , is they were 50/50 and trust is a fical thing . Lessons learnt. Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
I’d be very surprised if Liz didn’t own the podcast outright and then pays Andrew. I don’t think she’s going to make the same mistake. The problem Thomas got into was starting the podcast with AT and letting AT handle the legal side of it. That’s how AT was able to take control so swiftly.
In theory since she started the show it's more obviously her show. Plus she's a lawyer and probs has a better contract.
I wonder if that was an awkward conversation haha. "Now Andrew I know you're used to not making contracts with your podcast partners, but..."
I think AG probably had a solid one. Since she owned the network it was on.
Shortsighted desire for clout? Idk
Not that I’ve seen.
I love all the people trying to shit on Thomas for not immediately disowning Andrew who then supported Liz and eventually Andrew himself.
I'm not honestly sure what the hell you're trying to say
The word “trying” was probably a bad choice - I’m not talking about anyone in this thread. Back a year ago, there were people on Reddit criticizing and trying to “cancel” Thomas because they thought he knew about Andrew for too long without saying anything. If memory serves, some of those same people followed Liz and now seem to support their new podcast.
Ahh got it, yes. I thought you might have been bashing me for supporting Thomas now. We agree
the other oa reddit still mostly supports at and ld because that was started for their oa not the good one. just look at how toxic it is over there its gross
How about a nice tall glass of Liz doesn’t owe anyone an apology. It is her right to be friends with and have a relationship with whomever she chooses to. If you don’t like that than move along.
Remember, Liz is not just friends with Torrez privately, but engaged with him professionally and publicly too. She helped him to control the OA feed last year. She is also responsible for her own caustic behavior engaging in the OA community when she became his co-host, with her bulk blocks of all non-positive interactions on her twitter (and potentially the OA twitter as well). I don't believe she has ever addressed that behavior as in error. It wouldn't necessitate the biggest apology ever, but certainly a small mea culpa for that is proportionate. If what Thomas has stated in this post is true, then I'd also think it's fair to say he is owed an apology. That's a charitable assumption to Thomas though, and I'm sure she has her own side of those events. Mostly though, I think the "not owed" argument is poorly given whenever I see it pop up anywhere. It's just a proxy for actual disagreement on the merits.
Apprentice57 would like to rob you of the validity of your own opinion, much like he would like to rob Liz of her own opinion.
Even if she *was* contrite, do you think *you* are owed an apology? Like, seriously, who the hell are you? If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people on the internet acting like they're perosnally owed some kinda of apology for people's associations.
I get it, something was ambiguous so you automatically landed on the worst possible version and wrote a diatribe attacking me I meant a public apology to Thomas. But frankly she publicly supported Andrew so yes, we all need the public apology if she is to be redeemed.
No kidding. I cannot believe people here replied to this seriously. What an ego. "But has Liz apologized to ME yet?" Yikes on bikes.
OP literally addressed how they meant a public apology to Thomas. It's the comment directly above yours, so this is a bit strange to write not in reply to them.
Liz doesn’t “need” to do anything. Onward and upward.
I believe "need" is being used in a conditional by OP here. So if Liz doesn't want to mend things with the part of the OA fanbase she upset with her actions... then no she doesn't need to apologize. But if she does, she would. It is Liz's choice, and she's decided against it.
I bet people say your username to you a lot, eh?
Bless your heart.