Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

As a Swiftie, I don't see her silence as tacit approval (yet.) Anything she says or does in this situation will invite more legal and media attention and complications, which she clearly does not want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What difference does any of this make? As soon as Ryan comes out with another Deadpool movie, everyone is going to see it.

Super hero movies are dead. Ryan’s old as dirt. And Ryan and Blake are radioactive to audiences. What studio is going to risk a billion dollars on him when they can get some 20-something hunk to do the role without any backlash and drama?

Or a 40 year old named Ryan Gosling who everyone loves and who has managed to stay gossip free despite being in Hollywood for many decades.

Whether it’s Gosling or someone younger. If a film hasn’t even begun yet you have a release date when Reynolds is like 55 years old? lol. That’s old as dirt for a superhero even before factoring in all the schemer sociopath baggage from this. Their careers are over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

You are so weirdly paranoid. I don’t have inside info. I’m not at the center of this thing lol. I’m an arlington mom!!!

I have said above that I have been defending Lively but that if Lively asked Swift to delete messages or if Gottlieb tried to extort a public statement of support from Swift in clear exchange for sensitive info not getting released that would hurt Swift, I would be done supporting Lively.

And what I do not understand is why any Baldoni people are not saying that if Freedman is all wrong about this, they would stop supporting him. I guess I can see they wouldn’t stop supporting Baldoni. But I would think that if Freedman were going to wrongly accuse Lively’s lead attorney of extortion in a public filing to the judge that he signed, why would you still support Freedman? Seems like such dishonesty and willingness to air out false accusations against counsel on the docket to the judge (if false) should change your opinion of him, at least.

Gottlieb is a well known and respected lawyer. In the last few years, he tried a case in front of Liman, I believe pro bono, where he represented poll workers who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani, and he won. This is the lawyer Freedman is putting his unverified speculation re extortion to the judge about. I find it hard to believe, but like I said, if it’s true, I’m out. But if it’s not true, why on earth would you still be on Team Freedman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

You are so weirdly paranoid. I don’t have inside info. I’m not at the center of this thing lol. I’m an arlington mom!!!

I have said above that I have been defending Lively but that if Lively asked Swift to delete messages or if Gottlieb tried to extort a public statement of support from Swift in clear exchange for sensitive info not getting released that would hurt Swift, I would be done supporting Lively.

And what I do not understand is why any Baldoni people are not saying that if Freedman is all wrong about this, they would stop supporting him. I guess I can see they wouldn’t stop supporting Baldoni. But I would think that if Freedman were going to wrongly accuse Lively’s lead attorney of extortion in a public filing to the judge that he signed, why would you still support Freedman? Seems like such dishonesty and willingness to air out false accusations against counsel on the docket to the judge (if false) should change your opinion of him, at least.

Gottlieb is a well known and respected lawyer. In the last few years, he tried a case in front of Liman, I believe pro bono, where he represented poll workers who were defamed by Rudy Giuliani, and he won. This is the lawyer Freedman is putting his unverified speculation re extortion to the judge about. I find it hard to believe, but like I said, if it’s true, I’m out. But if it’s not true, why on earth would you still be on Team Freedman?

Who said I was talking to you? Anyway, I assume you’re the one who writes long diatribes about freedman and your hatred of him and gloating over minor issues like the PO?? Is that you?

Most people don’t care so much about the lawyers but if we are going to talk about questionable moves, Blake’s legal side has many more of them at this point. I personally don’t think Freedman would totally lie here, and I also don’t think DM would run this without some back up, but either way, I’m not as obsessed with freedman as you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

The people article is definitely more significant, particularly because they have been Team Blake thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

Nothing she could say would change whether she is deposed or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

Again, they’re not stupid and they know to use caution when potentially defaming a seasoned litigator and Taylor swift. These are particularly high risk potential plaintiffs. Using words like ‘Alleging’ and ‘claims’ wouldn’t fully protect them here. I personally think there is some decent back up here. But I guess we shall see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

Again, they’re not stupid and they know to use caution when potentially defaming a seasoned litigator and Taylor swift. These are particularly high risk potential plaintiffs. Using words like ‘Alleging’ and ‘claims’ wouldn’t fully protect them here. I personally think there is some decent back up here. But I guess we shall see

Nothing they wrote is defamatory toward Taylor Swift.

[Anonymous]

These pro Lively posts seems very similar to the level of denial we saw with the VanZan litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t hate me - really am trying to catch up and clearly it totally up on what’s going on. Is it possible that the threat that gottlieb made was not actually attempting to extort Taylor but literally saying, hey, if Taylor steps up and supports Blake, we can end this and it will save Taylor from having to share personal text messages that could be embarrassing that are related to this case?

Daily mail would not have run it without some decent sourcing. They’re not dumb. They wouldn’t mess with a litigator AND taylor swift without back up. They did not run to publish this in 5 minutes either. It was clearly a sourced story

I don’t buy that Blake’s team was just going to release text messages from Taylor just to release text messages. Right? Or is the scenario I just laid out just as bad and legally gray?

I think you’re right that it was probably more “if Taylor supports Blake we can end this and her texts won’t have to come out” but since Taylor’s a potential witness that’s just as bad imo.

I disagree it's "just as bad."

An extortion threat is very serious. Gottlieb could be disbarred for that, or face civil penalties.

Whereas you are describing a non-threatening strategy discussion -- no threats, no extortion.

They are very different.

I am less interested in the celebrities here than the lawyers at this point. If Freedman accused Gottlieb of extortion and facilitating destruction of evidence, he's a bad dude and should be forced out of the case. On the other hand, if Freedman is baking those accusations in bad faith, and that's not what happened, I think he should face ethics challenges and potentially have his pro hac vice status removed.

I'm pretty gobsmacked about this.

However it was worded, Freedman’s alleging that someone on Taylor’s side considered it inappropriate enough that they memorialized it in an email basically saying how dare you.

Freedman doesn’t say who his source is. You are assuming. What if his source is someone less credible than a person in Swift’s camp? What if it’s someone who claimed to overhear something or have knowledge they don’t have?

Daily mail wouldn’t publish without there being something credible in the mix. They know not to publish a piece that is a blatant attack against a seasoned litigator AND involving taylor swift without some cover… although the irony of them being able to use the fair report privilege as the NYT did is not lost on me. HA.

They’re not dumb, and yes, obviously this story was set up at least somewhat in advance. There is something to it.

Extremely easy for DM to just report on the letter Freedman filed in federal court, attribute all allegations to him, and use qualifiers like "claims" and "alleges."

Which is exactly what they did.

The idea that the Daily Mail wouldn't publish an unfounded allegation as long as they could CYA with attribution is deranged. They are a tabloid, that's what they do all the time.

Again, they’re not stupid and they know to use caution when potentially defaming a seasoned litigator and Taylor swift. These are particularly high risk potential plaintiffs. Using words like ‘Alleging’ and ‘claims’ wouldn’t fully protect them here. I personally think there is some decent back up here. But I guess we shall see

Nothing they wrote is defamatory toward Taylor Swift.

They would not make statements involving her that were easily proven as lies. Same with Gottlieb. You underestimate them, and their level of sophistication. They don’t make up wholesale lies. But again, let’s see how this plays out. Let’s see if Taylor’s side calls BS. You don’t think it’s curious they haven’t yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

Nothing she could say would change whether she is deposed or not.

+1. This is Blake’s side desperately trying to distract from the fact that V or TS has not denied freedman’s claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

Everything you post is batshit and the authoritative tone is comical. You're on here legit 18 to 20 hours a day and you want us to believe you're a seasoned successful attorney? I hope this shilling is at least paying your rent, car note and groceries, otherwise... YIKES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally one of the worse days for Blake since the lawsuit was filed and the Lively supporter is screaming about how can any support Freedman. It’s funny.

That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. If he’s not lying, you all have been basically right all along. But if what he is saying is NOT true, why won’t anyone here adjust their opinions because of that? If his information is wrong and he just spread lies via a signed letter on the court docket, why wouldn’t you change your opinion of him?

The irony of this stuns me. It’s almost like someone on the BL side is trying to set up freedman to make a huge mistake so they can undermine Baldonis entire case and defense. This poster is so adamant that if freedman is wrong, everyone should also hate Baldoni.

Yeah, in his letter, Freedman made clear he was relying on a credible anonymous source, not that he had personal knowledge. In any case, the silence from Team Taylor speaks volumes. She could rescue Blake at any point if this was a big misunderstanding.

The minute she speaks publicly on this, Freedom will claim she's a fact witness and must be deposed.

This whole thing is a plot to try and make her do that.

That's why you haven't heard a peep from Venable or Swift.

Nothing she could say would change whether she is deposed or not.

+1. This is Blake’s side desperately trying to distract from the fact that V or TS has not denied freedman’s claims.

+1. Total crash out. Careers over and will have to cut some monumental checks. Ryan ought to be interviewing divorce attorneys and Blake can claim postpartum depression depression or something. That won't work, of course, but there's no play here that'll salvage whatever was left of her career anyways. This entire scheme was deeply evil. The complicit NYT hack should be fired too.