Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are dumb PR people. They hired Jed after having an intern track traffic about lively in a spreadsheet.

Jed is the one who used the term,”everything is traceable.”

[Anonymous]

Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's called puffery. It certainly doesn't explain Lively's complete inability to turn up any evidence of an active smear campaign in 2024.

[Anonymous]

The Rule 47.1 legisiation is beyond flawed, I hope no other state uses it as a model. A relatively simple fee-shifting provision would address the concern of a sexual assault victim being unable to defend herself against a defamation claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

They’re all in Blake/Ari’s pocket. ABC and Hulu (both Disney) did pro Blake documentaries on this case. Gottlieb has been on CNN but Freedman has not. People only does Blake friendly pieces, nyt, Hollywood reporter. Justin only gets fair coverage from Daily Mail, Megyn, Candace and content creators. Tell me where’s the lie in anything I just said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you.

[Anonymous]

She can’t stop digging.

You don’t want an advocate like this coming after you.

Her lawyers should not have started this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you.

Are you the one who just claimed that the entire mainstream media is in Blake's pocket, making a Harvey Weinstein apologist the only acceptable venue for this?

But i'm the one bring overly restrictive. Hmmm

She could have issued a press release clearly laying out her position and it would have been picked up by everyone. She also could have filed an amended custody brief with the court. She had a million options. She chose Megyn Kelly, a Bryan Freedman client who recently claimed it unfair to call Epstein a pedophile because he was into teenagers and not pre-pubescent children. She chose that.

[Anonymous]

^ amicus brief, not amended custody, my autocorrect is very stupid, much like Megyn Kelly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you.

Are you the one who just claimed that the entire mainstream media is in Blake's pocket, making a Harvey Weinstein apologist the only acceptable venue for this?

But i'm the one bring overly restrictive. Hmmm

She could have issued a press release clearly laying out her position and it would have been picked up by everyone. She also could have filed an amended custody brief with the court. She had a million options. She chose Megyn Kelly, a Bryan Freedman client who recently claimed it unfair to call Epstein a pedophile because he was into teenagers and not pre-pubescent children. She chose that.

Yep she could’ve issued a press release. Oh that’s right she posted on social media 4 days ago and no one picked it up. When Megyn Kelly shared it and it became something they couldn’t ignore, they framed it in the light most favorable to Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you.

Are you the one who just claimed that the entire mainstream media is in Blake's pocket, making a Harvey Weinstein apologist the only acceptable venue for this?

But i'm the one bring overly restrictive. Hmmm

She could have issued a press release clearly laying out her position and it would have been picked up by everyone. She also could have filed an amended custody brief with the court. She had a million options. She chose Megyn Kelly, a Bryan Freedman client who recently claimed it unfair to call Epstein a pedophile because he was into teenagers and not pre-pubescent children. She chose that.

Yep she could’ve issued a press release. Oh that’s right she posted on social media 4 days ago and no one picked it up. When Megyn Kelly shared it and it became something they couldn’t ignore, they framed it in the light most favorable to Blake.

Maybe she’s a little problematic, and so is the law she’s been peddling around. Her whole argument for not wanting Blake’s involvement is that they were quietly implementing it, and now there’s all this publicity attached to this law. She doesn’t want Blake using 47.1 for PR, because she doesn’t want any PR. I was expecting her to explain why/how this law doesn’t apply to Blake, but that doesn’t seem to be her issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone who questioned why Burke went to Megyn Kelly, just take a look at the article TMZ just put out. It’s far more tame than what Burke said (as someone pointed out in the comments) which shows mainstream media is bought and paid for. My guess is Leslie got to the and carefully negotiated the wording. It waters down what Burke said. Such a disgrace. Hope that answers your questions about why go on Megyn Kelly.

No. TMZ is just a celeb tabloid. That's not it either.

She could have gone on any one of the legal podcasts that discuss the intersection of law and feminism. I am positive they would have had her. It would have gotten traction with people following this case no matter where because it's a big story. Choosing Megyn Kelly, who has a close relationship with Freedman and who actively opposes the MeToo movement is a very intentional choice. I don't get it.

You don't understand why she would pick a show with a big audience? Be real. An esoteric legal podcast is not going to get her message out.

There are other shows with big audiences where the host doesn't support Harvey Weinstein or defend Jeffrey Epstein.

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you.

Are you the one who just claimed that the entire mainstream media is in Blake's pocket, making a Harvey Weinstein apologist the only acceptable venue for this?

But i'm the one bring overly restrictive. Hmmm

She could have issued a press release clearly laying out her position and it would have been picked up by everyone. She also could have filed an amended custody brief with the court. She had a million options. She chose Megyn Kelly, a Bryan Freedman client who recently claimed it unfair to call Epstein a pedophile because he was into teenagers and not pre-pubescent children. She chose that.

Yep she could’ve issued a press release. Oh that’s right she posted on social media 4 days ago and no one picked it up. When Megyn Kelly shared it and it became something they couldn’t ignore, they framed it in the light most favorable to Blake.

She didn't post to social media in a public way. She responded to something else with a comment that in retrospect was confusing, it was outed in one of Flaa's videos, and then within a few hours she was appearing on Megyn Kelly.

It seems like she had no intention of taking this public at all but then wound up choosing weird venues for doing so.

I also think she was unprepared for the kind of interview Kelly was inevitably going to do (she has a very specific agenda and it is NOT supportive of the cause) which is what led to the Johnny Depp comments.

Basically it was messy chaos, which is why many people are confused.