Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Well it’s been 24 hrs and no one has picked up the interview in mainstream media except tmz (which sanitized it), LA Mag and foreign press. I’ll gladly admit Megyn Kelly isn’t great if you’re willing to acknowledge the media is corrupt and protecting Blake. This is a pretty big story but most outlets are posting about Blake’s thirst trap picture or Ryan instead. And still we’re confused why she went on Megyn Kelly… |
Anonymous
|
No matter how you slice it this is not good for Blake. Either people are going to see Burke as a true advocate who once supported Blake and now has changed her mind after all the facts have come out and she thinks she is abusing the law, so Blake has one less advocate on her side.
Or people are going to decide she never should’ve been taken seriously anyway and who cares if she supported Blake she’s just an opportunistic flake who hangs with Megan Kelly. Either way it’s one less person in the advocacy community supporting Blake. Which is exactly why she posts dumb things on her Instagram story which is so transparent and stupid. |
Anonymous
I think the reason mainstream media isn't picking it up is because she chose to announce it on Megyn Kelly and her argument is muddy and weird. So she loudly supported Blake when she filed the case, and cheered when Baldoni's case was thrown out, but now disagrees with Blakes' use of 47.1. Okay, fine, but what bearing does this have on the case? None, really. It would be different if it was a group of 47.1 advocates speaking out against Blake. That's what happened with the amicus briefs, only it was on the other side. When you have an entire advocacy community saying "this is what we think as a group" that's pretty compelling. But this is one person, and she comes off like a weird flip-flopper, and she's talking about it on questionable outlets that aren't respected by real journalists. That's why no one else is talking about it, and that's why TMZ, which is a tabloid but is pretty cautious/responsible about only printing verifiable info, gave it fairly cursory coverage. It's not actually a big story. |
Anonymous
There’s a lot of rationalizing here. She is the author of the bill turning on Blake. It is a big story. WME has pull. Just admit it. |
Anonymous
|
It’s starting to get picked up!
https://nypost.com/2026/06/03/opinion/blake-lively-is-hell-bent-on-justifying-perceived-victimhood/ Headline is bad for Blake -“Blake Lively is so hell-bent on justifying her perceived victimhood, she’s now angered actual victims” |
Anonymous
| What's next, Daily Mail? |
Anonymous
That's an opinion piece. Not a news article. And it's by a right winger. Here's her prior headline: "Self-righteous mutiny at ‘60 Minutes’ isn’t about saving the show — it’s about sabotage and being a martyr for the rotting left" I can only assume she writes these terrible headlines herself because the copyediting staff probably refuses to deal with her. |
Anonymous
Will Tucker Carlson and Clavicular also weigh in? Hmmmmm. |
Anonymous
| I just saw Burke was also interviewed by Flaa. The Lively Slop Ecosystem World Tour. This was so predictable, I can't believe Lively and her team thought they could salvage something with 47.1. |
Anonymous
Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird. She complains that Lively is taking over 47.1 legislation in other states and boxing her out, is trying to take credit for the legislation in other states and is ruining Burke's "under the radar" strategy by during the legislation into just another "Met Gala" or "Fendi store" (she uses these specific terms which I found so strange, only someone who has followed this case closely on Reddit would understand the "Fendi store" reference). She also says that she doesn't want Blake associated with the legislation because someone last year told her that people view Blake as toxic like Amber Heard and she shouldn't want that sort of association with the legislation. But then she complains that her organization or an affiliated one asked Blake to record a video and write a personal statement supporting the introduction of 47.1 in NY state and Blake declined to do so. So which is it? Blake is trying to take over the legislation and put her name all over it or Blake is not being sufficiently supportive or willing to put her name on the legislation? She also talks about how her friends have been telling her bad stuff about Blake but don't tell her bad stuff about Baldoni. Are her friends... Reddit commenters? Because I feel confident based on what else she says that her friends don't actually have personal experiences with either of these people. So it's just based on gossip? It all feels circular and weird. Also Flaa is an atrocious interviewer. None of this is journalism. I guess that's why they call them "content creators." It is content. But not sure what else. I certainly don't feel like I learned anything or understand what is going on. |
Anonymous
Not going to quote long post, but it is funny how she is a law professor and the architect of this legislation and keeps saying "Oh, I didn't read the judge's decision, it was like 150 pages! I just assumed from the CNN article that the judge ruled there was malice and stuff under 47.1." Seriously?! I think she's just a grifter who was happy to hitch her pet project to Lively's name at the time when it sounded good and then there was some kind of pissing match with Esra Hudson so now she's working with the other side. |
Anonymous
Couple things. 1. PP is distorting the timeline. The video request was last spring prior to Justin’s dismissal. Blake knew very little about the Blake at that point and hadn’t formed an opinion. Her view on Blake being bad for the bill is much more recent and the whole conversation with Esra Hudson about Blake wanting to take 47.1 national was after Blake’s own claims were dismissed. 2. A content creator pulled up the exact CNN article Burke had read and it was flat out wrong and did say the judge had “cited” 47.1 in his decision. It was sloppy likely pro Blake journalism but that’s been a mainstay in this case. In fairness to Burke, most people view outlets like cnn and the nyt as high authority sources. Those of us who have been following the media manipulation in this case know better but most people don’t. |
Anonymous
I agree with your point about the media in #2 but it's still crazy that she wouldn't even just like open the judge's decision and CTRL-F for 47.1 before opining. You can do that from a phone. If I wrote legislation and CNN reported that, I would be thrilled to dig in. So yeah, she just wanted a video from Blake because she was a celeb and seemed to be winning at that point. |
Anonymous
DP but: 1. It still doesn't make sense that Burke is simultaneously mad that Lively is currently advocating for the legislation and also mad that Lively didn't make a video last year advocating for the legislation. And she also says that last year is when someone told her that Lively was like Amber Heard and therefore a problematic name to attach, yet that's also when they asked her to do the video. Lively was also engaged in active litigation at the time, preparing for her own deposition, and had become and extremely controversial and beleaguered public figure. It honestly doesn't sound like it would have been a good time for Lively to put her name on the bill and perhaps Lively understood that at the time. It also just sounds like Burke never formed her own opinion of Lively, her case, or her use of 47.1 and was (and is) getting pulled around by what other people are telling her. This is weird to me because she's an attorney and is capable of sitting down, reading the filings in Lively's case, and drawing an educated conclusion on whether Lively is using 47.1 correctly or is someone Burke wants to align herself with. I don't understand why she's relying on what essentially sounds like gossip by people around her, instead of deciding for herself. 2. I find it incredible that someone who views herself as the author of 47.1 would hear about one of it's very first applications in court, in a super high profile case being covered by CNN and the NYT, and would simply rely on a CNN report of what the decision says. I've been a lawyer and worked with lawyers for 20+ years and I simply cannot imagine this. It wouldn't matter how busy I was or what else was going on -- I would be reading that decision the day it came out. I'd read it at 2am if I had to. Burke refers to this as her "life's work." And she's relying on a clipping from CNN to tell her what the judge said? It really strains belief. |
Anonymous
Of course Ryan’s clout is being used to mop up this mess. However, the fact is Blake is barely a celebrity. Very few people care about this inside baseball crap 18 months later. Blake and imo Ryan are old news. |