Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

I have no idea and you have no idea. It certainly hasn’t been debunked at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

Lol, sorry. Such sass! Why would a Google interface produce an earlier date of that complaint?

Good lord, Lively and her “side” are smooth brained. Looking forward to her legal triumphs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

I have no idea and you have no idea. It certainly hasn’t been debunked at this point.

Sexism alert! Just kidding.

The explanation up thread summarizing how BL and RR encroached to credit-snatch this project is very well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ the NYT better be careful here

Good. You can’t just write unverified allegations from a crazy person about people which would in turn ruin their lives.

.

Totally agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

I have no idea and you have no idea. It certainly hasn’t been debunked at this point.

The NYT released a statement specifically denying that they had the complaint in advance and explaining that the earlier dates were automatically generated and did not represent the true dates of their receipt. If you think the NYT and its lawyers are going to play loose with facts on this issue that is certainly an opinion you’re entitled to hold, but it puts you over on the “defends Baldoni on EVERYTHING” end of the spectrum which also says something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought this was interesting. Liz Plank, who cohosted the Man Enough podcast with Baldoni and Heath for years and has said nothing publicly about the Lively/Baldoni situation since formally quitting the podcast right after the NYT story, posted this video on TikTok last week:

https://www.tiktok.com/@lizplank/video/7466248157081472299

Basically she's just pointing out that no one should get their news from Candace Owens (and she's right). It's not a commentary on the case but a pretty useful reminder for anyone who wants to seize on the Candace Owens commentary on this situation.

(But also it is killing me that she has said nothing about this situation either way -- what does she think???? I would love her unfiltered opinion on all of it considering her close relationship with Baldoni and Heath and the fact that they discussed ALL of these issues on the podcast at some point -- consent, power dynamics in relationships, how women are treated in media, etc.)

I mean I get it.
But 1–Candace isnt “news” and isn’t claiming to be. She’s just fascinated with the saga, and has been reading through the evidence and piecing together the timeline. And like her or not, she’s been super thorough—so that’s why her site is attracting viewers on this issue. (And she points out constantly that she has zero in common ideologically with Justin, doesn’t know him, and has no reason to support him other than the fact that he appears to have been ostracized, humiliated, and railroaded for no reason other than that BL and RR wanted his film)
2–Candace has pointed out that she thinks it’s super-smarmy of all these people to immediately abandon JB over these allegations. Especially Liz Plank who is supposedly good friends with him. So of course Liz Plank is gonna tell people not to listen to her!
3–Candace is pretty consistent on speaking out on injustice. But you don’t have to like her to enjoy the commentary. If it turns out there is any evidence AT ALL that JB is guilty of any SH, Candace would not suddenly bend over backward to support him. I’m sure JB doesn’t care about Candace and they’d disagree about probably everything (except Gaza/Palestine and his situation with BL/RR)

Why on earth would you insert the Middle East? For the record JB has said nothing about it. He simply travels to Haifa due to his religion (one that is currently opressed in Iran). Candace flip-flopped big time and does not have a good udnerstanding of the conflict. What a strange thing to bring up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

I have no idea and you have no idea. It certainly hasn’t been debunked at this point.

The NYT released a statement specifically denying that they had the complaint in advance and explaining that the earlier dates were automatically generated and did not represent the true dates of their receipt. If you think the NYT and its lawyers are going to play loose with facts on this issue that is certainly an opinion you’re entitled to hold, but it puts you over on the “defends Baldoni on EVERYTHING” end of the spectrum which also says something.

I don’t believe the NYT. They lost all credibility when they didn’t fact check Blake and are on the hook for $250M. Just because my opinion differs from yours, does not mean I am ok whatever spectrum you assigned me to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that you’re the only person in here who is “outraged” — I guess that anyone might possibly disagree with you about what a great feminist and good guy Baldoni is. This is a thread to discuss that, not just for a bunch of people to talk about how overweight Lively was.

There are so very many different PR firms. Absolutely no need to hire the very same one that had destroyed Heard. My guess is he knew precisely what he was doing.

I have no idea about Justin’s feminism and whether or not he is a good guy. Blake and Ryan tried to destroy him and Jamey heath. If I were in their shoes I would try and destroy them right back. When you make false accusations like this the gloves are off.

Ok but he signed a document saying he wouldn't retaliate against Lively. If he hired PR specifically to "destroy" Lively he will lose his lawsuit, even if you think he had a right to do that. He said he wouldn't.

So you think she should use her dragons and destroy him and he should just do nothing? I don’t think he signed a paper promising that lol.

The multiple people arguing with you have been super clear about this. Hollywood has hundreds or PR firms and dozens of very excellent ones. There was no need to hire precisely the same PR firms that planted stories to destroy Heard, if you actually have any feminist ideals. Seems like you also wouldn’t want to send your people a story about another woman being taken out by questionable PR and say “hey this is the kind of thing we need.” Seems like you’re specifically focused on some sort of male vengeance at that point that would seem to run counter to actual feminism, but ymmv I guess.

Also no reason to hire Nathan if you are actually innocent. Depp hired Nathan because Depp is a violent alcoholic and Heard had him on video going into violent tirades. Depp could not win in the court of public opinion without dirty tricks because Depp was/is a pretty crappy person who treated his ex-wife very badly. There wasn't much to work with there.

If Baldoni is such a great guy and the allegations were totally false, he doesn't need Nathan doing dirty tricks for him. He can hire someone one the up and up who will promote what a good guy his is with all the copious evidence at their disposal.

Nathan's specialty is smearing the opposition because it's the only way out of getting pinned with viable accusations. Why would Baldoni need that?

I’m PP you’re agreeing with above and that is a really, really great point. Wish I had thought of that. Why, indeed?

Why would Blake lively need to go to the NYT with lies?

Better question: why would Blake Lively file a lawsuit and publicize it in the NYT if it was based on lies? Surely it would be debunked and ruin her career. It doesn't make any sense unless she truly believes her allegations are truthful.

It has been debunked by the plethora of receipts released so far. She never expected Justin to be able to fight back to this level. And she is going down.

Yeah BL and the NYT were exposed once those TikTok sleuths found the embedded timestamp data in the article.

This blowback is very much deserved for both BL and NYT.

This has been debunked. The NYTs had receipts to show that the metadata timestamp that online sleuths were saying showed they received a copy of the filing on Dec. 10 was actually generated by Google software and had nothing to do with when the NYT received it.

That allegation always struck me as bizarre because even if Lively shared a version of her complaint with the NYT two weeks before filing, I have a hard time believing that it would be the exact same version of as the one she filed later. A document like that would generally be reviewed by lawyers prior to filing, and if they had two weeks, they would have gone through it with a fine tooth comb (if only to occupy an associate looking to make hours in December!). The complaint actually had some typos and errors in it though, and they are the same in the actual filing and the version the NYT has. That doesn't make sense if they actually had a version from Dec. 10.

Clients always receive at least one copy of the complaint for review. Maybe she handed it straight to the NYT.

13 days before filing? And the lawyers made zero changes in that time? It doesn't make sense.

Plus I'm sure the NYT's evidence of when they received it and all their communications with Lively are pretty firm, and they likely have IT experts who can testify to it, or they wouldn't have publicly denied this do firmly.

This was just an example internet rumor based on some people who thought they'd caught the NYT with something but it's been debunked. Sorry.

I have no idea and you have no idea. It certainly hasn’t been debunked at this point.

The NYT released a statement specifically denying that they had the complaint in advance and explaining that the earlier dates were automatically generated and did not represent the true dates of their receipt. If you think the NYT and its lawyers are going to play loose with facts on this issue that is certainly an opinion you’re entitled to hold, but it puts you over on the “defends Baldoni on EVERYTHING” end of the spectrum which also says something.

+1 and also this particular point isn't even about defending Baldoni. This was a conspiracy theory cooked up by people online who thought they'd gotten tricky with the metadata, and the Baldoni's lawyer put it in his complaint without any vetting (which is wild to me, actually). In theory it could strengthen Baldoni's case against the NYT but I also think it could be used against him -- if the NYT had a copy of the complaint for two weeks but chose not to publish until it was being filed, that doesn't indicate they were conspiring with Lively. It indicates that they did not think the story merited publishing until Lively took actions that would bring the story into the public eye regardless of what the NYT does. This shows restraint and the NYT's behalf which is good for their case.

So I am especially baffled by people who keep bringing this up even though the NYTs and clearly settled the issue as being a nonstarter -- it's not even clear that it's good or bad for Baldoni. I feel like people who keep pushing this are actually advocating on behalf of the internet sleuths who "discovered" the metadata. Like it's not really about Baldoni at all. So strange.

[Anonymous]

This case teaches me that moms of boys need to teach their sons to record everything. Unfortunately, Baldoni would have been toast if he didn't have so much evidence to refute Blake's allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This case teaches me that moms of boys need to teach their sons to record everything. Unfortunately, Baldoni would have been toast if he didn't have so much evidence to refute Blake's allegations.

This is what is so concerning about this case. Most people wouldn’t have this much evidence.

[Anonymous]

Let the Baldoni supporters ally themselves with Candace Owens. It speaks volumes lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether when all of this is over whether Baldoni will go back to a public facing feminist role, or whether he will naturally make a hard right turn that sometimes happens when the feminism was fake to begin with. Kind of like Milo Yannapolis, Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand and their ilk — initially gained attention for being male feminists and then sh!t got real.

Maybe this has changed his view on feminism. He’s gotten totally screwed over with false allegations.

Alternatively, maybe Big Man got called on some of his sexist bullish!t and harassment such as insisting on sex scenes and nudity from a costar who hadn’t signed up for that, and maybe mentally he just couldn’t cope with that when he had built his entire public image on being a male feminist who supported women. Seems like that story was coming crashing down. So I wonder whether he will try to rebuild it if he sincerely believes that way, or if he will go the other way if it was never really heartfelt but kinda just a prop from the start to get attention.

Justin Baldoni is currently winning the PR war because it looks like he worked for years on the film and then Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds tried to take over his project. Blake and Ryan look like bullies as a result and they are taking a bigger hit reputation wise. Ryan, especially, comes off like a control freak.

Or just maybe he is winning part of the PR war because he hired people to lie and plant stories on his behalf, same way Johnny Depp destroyed Heard. Maybe Baldoni is actually an anxious, indecisive fake feminist who was in way over his head and never should have been both directing in and starring in a film requiring him to handle high pressure situations that he didn’t have enough brainpower or emotional intelligence to deal with. That’s a possibility, too.

I am going to assume that most professional actors have PR reps. I don't see why that's so scandalous. Blake has PR too and I am sure they are busy.

In the end Blake is done in to some degree by her own weird text messages to Baldoni. If you were really so repulsed by the harrassment you experienced you would not be sending after hours flirty texts to the harrasser. And I don't care about he said/she said PR from Hollywood agents. Hollywood PR folk are mostly bubbleheads. I have read the texts on Baldoni's site snd Blake sure did not seem to feel harrassed if the texts are any indication.

This, exactly. I didn't really have any opinion on Blake Lively / Ryan Reynolds before all of this, and I had never heard of Justin Baldoni. But anyone reading those bizarre and inappropriate texts would immediately conclude that BL/RR were stepping WAY over the line of propriety and JB was trying to keep it more or less professional. That's all I'm going by - those texts. And the video of them dancing where she insisted he was sexually harassing him, and it turns out there was nothing like that happening.

I do wonder how Jamey Heath (someone else I had never heard of) responded to the claims that he entered BL's trailer while she was topless and then didn't leave? Can anyone summarize that so I don't have wade through this thread to find out? TIA!

He said she wasn’t topless. He said she was covered up—either nursing or pumping. When she asked him to turn around, he did, but later she complained that he had made eye contact with her. At that point, he apologized and said he had no idea he had made eye contact with her. She said, “it’s okay—I know you weren’t trying to cop a look.” And they moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let the Baldoni supporters ally themselves with Candace Owens. It speaks volumes lol.

I don’t think he has supporters per se, just people who read the available material and concluded that Lively is a liar with a preexisting rotten public reputation.

[Anonymous]

Those Candace Owens autopsies clearly have Reynolds and Lively rattled. Tens of millions of organic views, plus zoomers on TikTok clipping them. It must be a conspiracy! lol. The deluded paranoia of Hollywood idiots never ceases to amaze me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those Candace Owens autopsies clearly have Reynolds and Lively rattled. Tens of millions of organic views, plus zoomers on TikTok clipping them. It must be a conspiracy! lol. The deluded paranoia of Hollywood idiots never ceases to amaze me.

I would be rattled if Candace Owen’s targeted me, regardless of my innocence or guilt. She has an audience full of nutjobs prone to conspiracy theories. Many who have been targeted by the right wing psycho media machine have endured years of abuse at the hands of these crazy internet trolls. See the parents of the Sandy Hook kids.