Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is anyone following stroller gate? Blake and Ryan did a pap walk with an infant stroller meanwhile their youngest kid is 2.5. These people are so gross and attention hungry. Their PR stunts keep backfiring b/c they don’t know how to be anything besides fake.[/quote]

Ha, I believe this. They seem to have put two shills who post night and day about nonsense on this thread (and from what I can tell they are shilling all over Reddit too and people notice). So what’s to stop them from a silly stroller pap walk too? [/quote]

Honestly, I'm just glad you guys are alive, I was actually a little worried about you.  I know it's been a tough week.[/quote]

Not a tough week. Blake’s an idiot for bringing up the Taylor stuff again. It makes it even more clear that Taylor is completely done with her because if they’re besties, why can’t Blake ask Taylor what was told or given to freedman?! With these people, every accusation is an admission. [/quote]

DP. They know what Taylor gave. It's in the email from her lawyer. No documents and no testimony. NAG has some crazy theory that Venable just "showed" Freedman the letter without giving him a copy, and I generally like NAG, but that is some theory. [/quote]

I saw that, also!  I admit that I generally like NAG as well, she has grown on me, but I don't think they "shared screens" and the Venable attorney showed Freedman the letter that way -- anyone knows you can just screenshot a Teams call, no lawyers is going to do that.  NAG's other theory was just that Freedman basically lied and got nothing -- she did say that was one of the two big possibilities.  She didn't understand why he'd give up on the subpoena, then, but someone else suggested that Freedman basically got what he wanted from Swift's statement that she had nothing to do with the film, which tended to suggest Lively had been lying about her involvement.  And he also got what he wanted because Swift and Lively are estranged.

The thing is, if Freedman's story was wrong and misinterpreted, there was really nothing for Freedman to get.  Venable could have told him it was wrong, and then there's no point in deposing etc.

If the part about Lively asking Swift to delete texts was true, that could explain why Freedman still really, really wants to get communications between Swift and Lively, even if they're not otherwise relevant to the case anymore.  But man, did this dismissal ever throw a huge bomb into Freedman's plans if that's the case.  Presumably he also would want to raise this issue later this month in Lively's deposition, I'd think, so this motion may be designed to try to take that off the table, as well.[/quote]

PP. Yeah, I was like - he would have had to fly there in person to look at the letter in that case because obviously they could screenshot. And if they proved the letter existed then it would be crazy for Freedman to not pursue the subpoena and get the actual document (a document like that getting in the wrong hands actually would give Lively a good reason to settle the case!)

I don't see why Venable would play games and make shady deals instead of seeing their motion to quash through. Especially since their email indicates that Freedman was withdrawing the subpoena without prejudice, reserving the right to reinstate, which would mean they gave up this supposed information receiving basically nothing in return.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics