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]Burke's interview with Flaa made no sense and was super weird. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/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