Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

You truly are a moron. That was related to Baldoni’s filing of counterclaims and general response to Blake’s lawsuit and NY Times article. Nor was Baldoni’s website a “smear” of Blake, or for that matter, his litigation or state,Mets made about it by his attorneys.

As for the smear campaign that is alleged described in the Complaint, her lawyers have repeatedly called it untraceable even after full discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

You truly are a moron. That was related to Baldoni’s filing of counterclaims and general response to Blake’s lawsuit and NY Times article. Nor was Baldoni’s website a “smear” of Blake, or for that matter, his litigation or state,Mets made about it by his attorneys.

As for the smear campaign that is alleged described in the Complaint, her lawyers have repeatedly called it untraceable even after full discovery.

I'm not going to call you childish names, but do you not know where the word untraceable came from? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

Right. If you watch the interview, sounds like Burke was upset Blake tried to go on a 47.1 roadshow. Someone on Reddit said Blake wanted authorship of 47.1 lol

If this is true then Burke is getting in her head for weird reasons. I follow this case closely and have zero sense that Blake is on a 47.1 "roadshow", was not even aware that Blake or her lawyers were advocating in other states for 47.1 laws, and it has never occurred to me that she's trying to eclipse any of the original creators of the law (and there are many, not just Burke, though Burke does call herself the "Architect" of the law in all of her bios and job descriptions without offering any credit to the other authors and advocates of the law).

She may perceive Blake as stealing her thunder or disagree with how Blake has chosen to advocate for 47.1 type laws. I would be open to those criticisms and it's a conversation worth happening. This was also an issue with the #MeToo movement, which was started by activist Tarana Burke but popularized by actresses like Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd when they came forward with allegations against Weinstein. The media started acting as though the actresses had started the movement and Tarana was briefly eclipsed, but then they worked together to re-center her, appropriately. That's how advocacy works sometimes, and celebrity advocates and spokespeople are both incredibly useful at raising awareness and also sometimes liabilities when their fame and specific stories get centered over the movement. It's a dance.

But to raise these issues on MEGYN KELLY while defending Johnny Depp?

Girl, bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

Right. If you watch the interview, sounds like Burke was upset Blake tried to go on a 47.1 roadshow. Someone on Reddit said Blake wanted authorship of 47.1 lol

If this is true then Burke is getting in her head for weird reasons. I follow this case closely and have zero sense that Blake is on a 47.1 "roadshow", was not even aware that Blake or her lawyers were advocating in other states for 47.1 laws, and it has never occurred to me that she's trying to eclipse any of the original creators of the law (and there are many, not just Burke, though Burke does call herself the "Architect" of the law in all of her bios and job descriptions without offering any credit to the other authors and advocates of the law).

She may perceive Blake as stealing her thunder or disagree with how Blake has chosen to advocate for 47.1 type laws. I would be open to those criticisms and it's a conversation worth happening. This was also an issue with the #MeToo movement, which was started by activist Tarana Burke but popularized by actresses like Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd when they came forward with allegations against Weinstein. The media started acting as though the actresses had started the movement and Tarana was briefly eclipsed, but then they worked together to re-center her, appropriately. That's how advocacy works sometimes, and celebrity advocates and spokespeople are both incredibly useful at raising awareness and also sometimes liabilities when their fame and specific stories get centered over the movement. It's a dance.

But to raise these issues on MEGYN KELLY while defending Johnny Depp?

Girl, bye.

It sounds like Blake is planning to take it national (meaning she hasn’t done so yet). The author basically said please don’t, I have a strategy. And Blake’s lawyers basically said thanks for your perspective but we’re doing it. It also sounds like the author does not think the association with Blake is a good thing for the law.

[Anonymous]

I'm going with the MeToo movement was astroturfed, the feminist orgs' support and amici briefs for Lively were astroturfed, and this flip is astroturfed in concert with Wayfarer's preferred content creators. Everything is fake, as usual.

[Anonymous]

Really interesting that Blake’s fans are dismissing Victoria Burke b/c she went on Megyn Kelly and because she mentioned Johnny depp would have prevailed under 47.1 (which is just a fact). It’s interesting b/c this woman was actually assaulted, not just shown a birthing video. She then saw a problem with the law and took it upon herself to advocate for change over the course of multiple years. She’s continued to quietly push the law and has introduced it in 15 states. She obviously has pure intentions. Yet you all defend Blake and hate on Victoria presumably b/c you think she’s a conservative (otherwise why do you care she went on Megyn Kelly)? Seek help lol. Some of you have gone so far to the left you’ve turned the corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going with the MeToo movement was astroturfed, the feminist orgs' support and amici briefs for Lively were astroturfed, and this flip is astroturfed in concert with Wayfarer's preferred content creators. Everything is fake, as usual.

Right, anything to avoid the truth that Lively's case was a a bunch of dogshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting that Blake’s fans are dismissing Victoria Burke b/c she went on Megyn Kelly and because she mentioned Johnny depp would have prevailed under 47.1 (which is just a fact). It’s interesting b/c this woman was actually assaulted, not just shown a birthing video. She then saw a problem with the law and took it upon herself to advocate for change over the course of multiple years. She’s continued to quietly push the law and has introduced it in 15 states. She obviously has pure intentions. Yet you all defend Blake and hate on Victoria presumably b/c you think she’s a conservative (otherwise why do you care she went on Megyn Kelly)? Seek help lol. Some of you have gone so far to the left you’ve turned the corner.

I am a rape survivor. I support survivors. I really believe in 47.1 and believe it's important to the cause. I'm grateful to Burke for all the work she's done and support her as a fellow survivor.

And I'm fine if she has decided to stop supporting Lively. I would want to hear why and am open to that point if view.

But forgive me if I'm struggling with her choice to raise this issue, in this way, on this platform. And I disagree with her and you on the Amber Heard case -- I believe that verdict was a miscarriage of justice heavily influenced by an aggressive social media campaign that distorted facts.

I'm not dismissing her but I need answers to thes questions. Megyn Kelly backs Weinstein and has defended Epstein's pedophilia. Those are just facts. I'm deeply disturbed by choosing he show as a venue guy ven that I'm am certain there are other options, and I'm disturbed by some of what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting that Blake’s fans are dismissing Victoria Burke b/c she went on Megyn Kelly and because she mentioned Johnny depp would have prevailed under 47.1 (which is just a fact). It’s interesting b/c this woman was actually assaulted, not just shown a birthing video. She then saw a problem with the law and took it upon herself to advocate for change over the course of multiple years. She’s continued to quietly push the law and has introduced it in 15 states. She obviously has pure intentions. Yet you all defend Blake and hate on Victoria presumably b/c you think she’s a conservative (otherwise why do you care she went on Megyn Kelly)? Seek help lol. Some of you have gone so far to the left you’ve turned the corner.

I am a rape survivor. I support survivors. I really believe in 47.1 and believe it's important to the cause. I'm grateful to Burke for all the work she's done and support her as a fellow survivor.

And I'm fine if she has decided to stop supporting Lively. I would want to hear why and am open to that point if view.

But forgive me if I'm struggling with her choice to raise this issue, in this way, on this platform. And I disagree with her and you on the Amber Heard case -- I believe that verdict was a miscarriage of justice heavily influenced by an aggressive social media campaign that distorted facts.

I'm not dismissing her but I need answers to thes questions. Megyn Kelly backs Weinstein and has defended Epstein's pedophilia. Those are just facts. I'm deeply disturbed by choosing he show as a venue guy ven that I'm am certain there are other options, and I'm disturbed by some of what she said.

Dp but why does it matter? She went where she was invited because she wanted to express her opinion. To my knowledge, MSNBC hasn’t been covering the Lively Baldoni litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting that Blake’s fans are dismissing Victoria Burke b/c she went on Megyn Kelly and because she mentioned Johnny depp would have prevailed under 47.1 (which is just a fact). It’s interesting b/c this woman was actually assaulted, not just shown a birthing video. She then saw a problem with the law and took it upon herself to advocate for change over the course of multiple years. She’s continued to quietly push the law and has introduced it in 15 states. She obviously has pure intentions. Yet you all defend Blake and hate on Victoria presumably b/c you think she’s a conservative (otherwise why do you care she went on Megyn Kelly)? Seek help lol. Some of you have gone so far to the left you’ve turned the corner.

I am a rape survivor. I support survivors. I really believe in 47.1 and believe it's important to the cause. I'm grateful to Burke for all the work she's done and support her as a fellow survivor.

And I'm fine if she has decided to stop supporting Lively. I would want to hear why and am open to that point if view.

But forgive me if I'm struggling with her choice to raise this issue, in this way, on this platform. And I disagree with her and you on the Amber Heard case -- I believe that verdict was a miscarriage of justice heavily influenced by an aggressive social media campaign that distorted facts.

I'm not dismissing her but I need answers to thes questions. Megyn Kelly backs Weinstein and has defended Epstein's pedophilia. Those are just facts. I'm deeply disturbed by choosing he show as a venue guy ven that I'm am certain there are other options, and I'm disturbed by some of what she said.

Sorry, but where else is she going to go? Not every digital creator, podcast, or major news outlet wants to deal with this story anymore - at this point it’s niche. Megan’s been following it the whole time so it makes sense she is wanting to continue to deal with this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really interesting that Blake’s fans are dismissing Victoria Burke b/c she went on Megyn Kelly and because she mentioned Johnny depp would have prevailed under 47.1 (which is just a fact). It’s interesting b/c this woman was actually assaulted, not just shown a birthing video. She then saw a problem with the law and took it upon herself to advocate for change over the course of multiple years. She’s continued to quietly push the law and has introduced it in 15 states. She obviously has pure intentions. Yet you all defend Blake and hate on Victoria presumably b/c you think she’s a conservative (otherwise why do you care she went on Megyn Kelly)? Seek help lol. Some of you have gone so far to the left you’ve turned the corner.

I am a rape survivor. I support survivors. I really believe in 47.1 and believe it's important to the cause. I'm grateful to Burke for all the work she's done and support her as a fellow survivor.

And I'm fine if she has decided to stop supporting Lively. I would want to hear why and am open to that point if view.

But forgive me if I'm struggling with her choice to raise this issue, in this way, on this platform. And I disagree with her and you on the Amber Heard case -- I believe that verdict was a miscarriage of justice heavily influenced by an aggressive social media campaign that distorted facts.

I'm not dismissing her but I need answers to thes questions. Megyn Kelly backs Weinstein and has defended Epstein's pedophilia. Those are just facts. I'm deeply disturbed by choosing he show as a venue guy ven that I'm am certain there are other options, and I'm disturbed by some of what she said.

Dp but why does it matter? She went where she was invited because she wanted to express her opinion. To my knowledge, MSNBC hasn’t been covering the Lively Baldoni litigation.

It's been covered in all major newspapers, all the cable networks, multiple podcasts, etc. There are also legal blogs and podcasts that have covered the progress of 47.1 from the start. There was absolutely no reason to do this on Megyn Kelly and the impression it gives is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

You truly are a moron. That was related to Baldoni’s filing of counterclaims and general response to Blake’s lawsuit and NY Times article. Nor was Baldoni’s website a “smear” of Blake, or for that matter, his litigation or state,Mets made about it by his attorneys.

As for the smear campaign that is alleged described in the Complaint, her lawyers have repeatedly called it untraceable even after full discovery.

I'm not going to call you childish names, but do you not know where the word untraceable came from? Wow.

Different poster, but I call troll because you can’t be this stupid. What they assumed was happening was a bot campaign, which is I promise is you very traceable.

This is not high-level government ops. This was some dude from his basement being paid $90,000. I promise if he had deployed some sort of smear campaign, it would 100% be traceable. He said so himself when he was monitoring and saw someone messed with the wayfarer Wikipedia page and he said don’t worry, don’t do anything, everything is traceable.

Blake hired former CIA not Wayfarer. They thought they were going to find a bot campaign and they did not. They panicked and subpoenad over 100 content creators and found nothing there either. This was tens of million dollars into discovery so what were they going to say? Oops our bad? No they were going to say it was untraceable, but that’s just not how the Internet works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

You truly are a moron. That was related to Baldoni’s filing of counterclaims and general response to Blake’s lawsuit and NY Times article. Nor was Baldoni’s website a “smear” of Blake, or for that matter, his litigation or state,Mets made about it by his attorneys.

As for the smear campaign that is alleged described in the Complaint, her lawyers have repeatedly called it untraceable even after full discovery.

I'm not going to call you childish names, but do you not know where the word untraceable came from? Wow.

Different poster, but I call troll because you can’t be this stupid. What they assumed was happening was a bot campaign, which is I promise is you very traceable.

This is not high-level government ops. This was some dude from his basement being paid $90,000. I promise if he had deployed some sort of smear campaign, it would 100% be traceable. He said so himself when he was monitoring and saw someone messed with the wayfarer Wikipedia page and he said don’t worry, don’t do anything, everything is traceable.

Blake hired former CIA not Wayfarer. They thought they were going to find a bot campaign and they did not. They panicked and subpoenad over 100 content creators and found nothing there either. This was tens of million dollars into discovery so what were they going to say? Oops our bad? No they were going to say it was untraceable, but that’s just not how the Internet works.

So you don't know where the term came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really doesn't matter to the legal case but that is embarrassing for Lively. Though one does wonder how "organic" it is that Flaa "found" the comment and then Burke ended up on Megyn Kelly.

You have to be a particular type of moron to think that anything that is happening to Blake now is the result of social media manipulation or some type of smear campaign by WF. Even if WF had been conducting some stealth campaign against Blake, in 2024 (and there is, by her attorney’s own admission, no such evidence), WF would not have continued such a campaign once the lawsuit was initiated and certainly not three years later.

There is evidence in the record of their team working with Sage Steele on talking points in January 2025.

Source for the bolded?

You truly are a moron. That was related to Baldoni’s filing of counterclaims and general response to Blake’s lawsuit and NY Times article. Nor was Baldoni’s website a “smear” of Blake, or for that matter, his litigation or state,Mets made about it by his attorneys.

As for the smear campaign that is alleged described in the Complaint, her lawyers have repeatedly called it untraceable even after full discovery.

I'm not going to call you childish names, but do you not know where the word untraceable came from? Wow.

Different poster, but I call troll because you can’t be this stupid. What they assumed was happening was a bot campaign, which is I promise is you very traceable.

This is not high-level government ops. This was some dude from his basement being paid $90,000. I promise if he had deployed some sort of smear campaign, it would 100% be traceable. He said so himself when he was monitoring and saw someone messed with the wayfarer Wikipedia page and he said don’t worry, don’t do anything, everything is traceable.

Blake hired former CIA not Wayfarer. They thought they were going to find a bot campaign and they did not. They panicked and subpoenad over 100 content creators and found nothing there either. This was tens of million dollars into discovery so what were they going to say? Oops our bad? No they were going to say it was untraceable, but that’s just not how the Internet works.

So you don't know where the term came from.

+1

To the PP: "untraceable" was a direct quote from either Jen Able or Melissa Nathan bragging about how they could destroy Blake's rep online without anyone knowing who it was. Their words.