Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Clearly she doesn't have the same super restrictive purity meter as you. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Meh. The full video is up now. Gives more context than the clip. She basically says the law wasn’t intended to apply when there’s been no fact finding of malice (which is an issue Liman has raised),and the SH claims were thrown out. She said she was surprised they didn’t deal with this in settlement. She said this law was intended to protect the less powerless against the powerful. Megyn said yeah and that’s not Blake. Victoria played it cool and didn’t respond with words but smirked/laughed in agreement.[/quote]

It’s all confusing to me because her own story was that she didn’t even have a case (evidence was lost or something) and was advised she could be sued for speaking about her harassment and naming the person in a casual setting. If she’s saying 47.1 doesn’t apply in Blake’s instance, because the SH claims never went to trial and thus malice can’t be proved, how would 47.1 have helped someone like her? Or are we taking about malice from Baldoni’s suit?  [/quote]

I’m not sure. I think often times people hold back in the name of respectability politics, but she seems to think Blake is a liar and just doesn’t want to say it so explicitly. She said she told Blake’s lawyers “your client is frequently compared to amber heard” and was basically suggesting Blake’s association with the law is harmful not helpful.[/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