Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

^ and I’m a lawyer and btw no professional thinks that his pay day will be $400m. Anyone who thinks it’s either 0/no settlement or $400m must be a teenager posting on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am kind of shocked that TS' dad is the source, because it actually seems likely to drag TS further into the quagmire irrespective of what the texts say. That said, if TS' team doesn't push back/TS' dad doesn't deny it, it's obviously true, because Page Six is not like "online rumors" it's a huge mainstream celebrity news source.

They made a deal. Hence...dropped subpoena.

How would these deal work? How would they ensure that this material information does not get disclosed in any filings or that no one calls anyone to testify about these documents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and I’m a lawyer and btw no professional thinks that his pay day will be $400m. Anyone who thinks it’s either 0/no settlement or $400m must be a teenager posting on here.

I have not seen a single comment indicating he would get 9 figures

[Anonymous]

Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

Cope. Taylor's team is being covert and still wants plausible deniability. It's only in DM for the same reason a lot of other leaks from Swift are only in DM. They don't want to go to People or these other tabloids. And Bryan Freedman is not going to "reward" them with exclusives when People has been nothing but Blake's mouthpiece (except when it involves Taylor, in which she case, she takes precedence).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

Cope. Taylor's team is being covert and still wants plausible deniability. It's only in DM for the same reason a lot of other leaks from Swift are only in DM. They don't want to go to People or these other tabloids. And Bryan Freedman is not going to "reward" them with exclusives when People has been nothing but Blake's mouthpiece (except when it involves Taylor, in which she case, she takes precedence).

DP but what possible motive would Scott Swift have to go to Freedman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and I’m a lawyer and btw no professional thinks that his pay day will be $400m. Anyone who thinks it’s either 0/no settlement or $400m must be a teenager posting on here.

I have not seen a single comment indicating he would get 9 figures

Well, there were a few. Or rather people arguing that BL shouldn’t settled because ‘Baldoni doesn’t deserve $400m!!’ As if that’s how it works.

[Anonymous]

Settle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

DM has a source. As preposterous as it might sound, they do get real breaks. They’re not making crazy stuff up about dead people like the national enquirer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

DM has a source. As preposterous as it might sound, they do get real breaks. They’re not making crazy stuff up about dead people like the national enquirer

I'm sure they have a source, but is it a reliable one and how do they vet it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just want to note Page Six doesn't have an original source on the Scott Swift story. They just cite the Daily Mail article and state that "an insider" told Daily Mail it was Swift -- no independent confirmation. Most of the article is just a recitation of the back story.

I'm guessing Page Six just didn't want to go into the long weekend with nothing new on this story, so "reported on" the Daily Mail news despite having no source of their own.

For which reason I remain highly skeptical of the Scott Swift revelation. Why hasn't anyone else confirmed it? Who the heck is this source? I read tabloids enough to know that a story like this can seem like a big deal and then two weeks later everyone's like "remember when we all thought Taylor's dad had leaked the Blake stuff to Freedman." Similar to "remember when we all thought Taylor was engaged to Tom Hiddleston for a weekend?" or "remember when everyone thought Taylor and Travis had a signed contract for a fake relationship?"

There is a point at which tabloid news becomes obviously true but the Scott Swift story isn't there. It's in unconfirmed rumor land. Could be true, but seems off only DM has a source and something about it just does not make logical sense.

DM has a source. As preposterous as it might sound, they do get real breaks. They’re not making crazy stuff up about dead people like the national enquirer

I'm sure they have a source, but is it a reliable one and how do they vet it?

They wouldn’t make a big statement like that about TSs dad unless the source was someone they deemed credible. They are extremely experienced at this stuff, despite all the flack they get, and they report hundreds of stories a day, so their records is quite good overall. This also came out of DM US from what I can tell. They break lots of juicy stories like this.

[Anonymous]

Noting that Taylor’s camp is not denying the story about her dad and it’s been a few days.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Noting that Taylor’s camp is not denying the story about her dad and it’s been a few days.[/quote]

TS almost never denies wrong stories in tabloids. If the story was wrong, silence is exactly how most people would expect TS to respond.

Also to the PP who said People won't get this because Freedman resents their pro-Lively stance: this would not be up to Freedman. TS does not historically give info to DM. She does to People. So it is suspicious that DM is the only one with a source.

I could be wrong and I wouldn't be shocked if it were true based on Scott's personality, but the way it's coming out is weird and doesn't feel correct to me.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Noting that Taylor’s camp is not denying the story about her dad and it’s been a few days.[/quote]

TS almost never denies wrong stories in tabloids. If the story was wrong, silence is exactly how most people would expect TS to respond.

Also to the PP who said People won't get this because Freedman resents their pro-Lively stance: this would not be up to Freedman. TS does not historically give info to DM. She does to People. So it is suspicious that DM is the only one with a source.

I could be wrong and I wouldn't be shocked if it were true based on Scott's personality, but the way it's coming out is weird and doesn't feel correct to me. [/quote]

That’s because you are in denial that Blake’s case is going up in smoke.

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong and I wouldn't be shocked if it were true based on Scott's personality,

Can you elaborate? I don't know much about him. I feel like it makes no sense for anyone close to Swift to leak to Freedman and get her more involved in the case.