Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the big bombshell is supposed to be in that podcast.

It was a live version of the podcast broadcast at the Wilshire Ebelle theater. It's plainly obvious it's going to be used in court to support Baldoni's defamation case. Ari severed Baldoni's employment based on defamatory statements by Ryan Reynolds and allegations from the suit. If Reynold's statements to Ari (and others he spoke with) are proven to be libelous, this will he was defamed and fired as a result. He may be deposed.

Anonymous wrote:It’s been 24 hrs and no statement from Blake and Ryan defending the woman suing Kevin Costner for SH and retaliation. I thought they believed women? Even when the accused is A list?

Has WME fired him yet? I thought they didn’t stand for this kind of thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Who cares, she was a consenting adult. White women are perfect angels and have no agency in your worldview, we get it. Doesn't change the reality that she's a #metoo grifter.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the big bombshell is supposed to be in that podcast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Especially when she was a student and Wright was her professor — that was totally great. And the subsequent 6 students he tried it on with.

Honestly, it’s depressing to hear you guys do this and make these arguments. Do you know you’re just proving my point? Maybe you should add some negative comments about her appearance, too, just to get it out of your system?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the big bombshell is supposed to be in that podcast.

Because you're ESL or just so darn thick? Ari is so powerful he made one of the most popular podcasts on the U.S. charts delete an episode under the guise of technical issues - the first ever such glitch in the podcast's like 20 year history! Imagine that. On said podcast Ari bragged he fired Justin, essentially signaling he was helping blackball him in Hollywood off this obvious hoax/scheme because he's so wedded to plantation Barbie and her zesty husband.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So above a Baldoni fan is torching Elyse Dorsey, and on LinkedIn people are sending her hateful invective via their comments. This is the treatment that Bryan Freedman and male feminist Justin Baldoni think is appropriate for survivors like Elyse Dorsey to receive.

I’ll say it again: You guys are the worst.

I’m not Baldoni or Freedman, or even male. Nor am I the person who posted the WSj article. No question Wright should have been fired by George Mason for having affairs with students. But Dorsey had a consensual relationship with him for years afterwards, and he got her several jobs, including hiring her to work for him at the FTC. That isn’t harassment, that’s a relationship, and honestly, gross on both sides. Who relies on their married lover to get them professional positions?

As a lawyer, I can’t relate to her story at all. She made choices over years to stay in his orbit. It is all so odd.

So clearly it is right for him to sue her for defamation when she reports the facts of his affair with her as a student at the law school. Because these men need to be protected. And she deserved it, because the affair became consensual. And I guess she should never report it, and Wright would be teaching there still. Or there’s only a limited window in which her behavior allowed reporting it, and in any case the defamation claim was the price she pays. Again, she paid him.

Also enjoy the blame in her above for having her “married lover” get her employment. You know who helps employ law students? Teachers who students have worked for who then write them recommendations. That, and his powerful position as FTC commissioner and as lawyer to several huge companies like google and Amazon on work these students helped him perform, was how he roped these students in. Wright is the married guy with 3 kids who was supervising all 7 of these different women at different times, but yeah better blame the woman for sleeping with a married man.

This is why women don’t report.

This. What the people criticizing Dorsey don't seem to get us that she actually sacrificed her rep to come forward and talk about her experiences with Wright while in law school. She knew people would dig into her relationship with him after, that it would undermine her professional rep, and that Wright would likely release embarrassing texts/emails from her, which he did. But she came forward to support the case against Wright at GM, which helped get him fired, and expose him for what he is, which is a jerk who preys on female law students for sex while lording his power over their lives.

Dorsey could have stayed silent, and it would probably have been better for her professionally. She did the right thing and spoke up, told the TRUTH, and was rewarded with a huge defamation lawsuit (again, for simply telling the truth) and even now people like you are talking about the sordid details if her affair online and calling her a grifter.

You'd hope people would look at that and maybe a lightbulb would go off about how high dollar defamation lawsuits are being used to silence people who absolutely should come forward and tell the truth if their experience, but I'm sure instead you'll just spend 20 pages calling Dorsey names, accusing her of mental illness, digging into her other relationships (omg, is her husband gay for Hugh Jackman!?) etc.

No one is doing that. Someone commented on her ongoing relationship, which is fair.

I don’t know this story well, but Dorsey strikes me as a victim, albeit imperfect which is normal. The point is that BL is not. She wasn’t assaulted, or harassed, she wasn’t convinced to sleep with a man who had power over her. None of those things happened.

Which of course you know

This! The constant false equivalency is exactly why Blake needs to pay up. Justin is constantly being mentioned alongside actual predators and harassers. Blake has absolutely ruined him.

If Blake had a valid claim, she would’ve handled it more professionally. Take the current Kevin Costner situation, for instance. A stunt double is suing because she said policies weren’t followed during an intimate scene in a movie he was directing. She’s not smearing him personally. His name and brand aren’t inextricably linked to this situation. It’s more of a “there was malpractice on the set” versus he’s a “predator”. See the difference? And if true, this situation is worse than what happened to Blake.

If you have a real SH claim, you file a complaint and work through the proper channels. You don’t get your lawyers to write up a one sided non negotiable contract and then use it to bully the other party for infinity. You certainly don’t file a sham lawsuit to get someone’s personal text messages and smear them in the NYT. There’s so much malice here.

Blake’s a horrible person and it’s disgusting to watch her use the pain of real victims to advance her malicious agenda.

Seems reasonable to file a lawsuit to me when you find out that under the radar and without your knowledge, he had hatched a plan to smear you, that was similar to smear campaigns launched against other women who had complained about sexual harassment. Actually.

Except when you don't actually have proof of an alleged campaign or pervasive sexual harassment.

“We can bury anyone”. Same PR firm that repped Depp. Discovery is in progress. Freedman didn’t even try to dismiss.

Who can Blake and Ryan's "ride or die" Ari bury? I guess we can start with wildly success podcasts. He can make those disappear, after he goes on them boasting about sacking innocent men and de facto blackballing an innocent man in Hollywood.

Ari didn't bury Justin, nor did Ari have anything to do with Justin's podcast falling apart.

There's no evidence that Blake hired a PR team (or anyone) to bury Justin or ruin his reputation.

I also do not think he would have been "blackballed" for this if he'd just accepted the divided premiere, wrapped up press on this movie, and moved on. He has financial backing, lots of men with dodgy histories continue to work and are very successful in Hollywood.

I think Justin shot himself in the foot by freaking out so hard about this one movie, both Lively's allegations and her power moves on the set. It sounds like he did do some questionable things on this movie (proposing nudity last minute, misunderstanding what it meant to make sex scenes with the female gaze, etc.). I just think he was not the guy to direct this movie, and he got in over his head with also acting in it, and he didn't do a good job running the set. Is it SH? I don't know, some of this stuff is super sketchy and dumb and I think he should be held accountable. Other stuff it feels like just a misunderstanding. I think it's okay to hold him responsible for the stuff he did wrong. And maybe the proper consequence for it is that Blake took over the movie. Honestly, that seems okay to me. He was doing kind of a crappy job, multiple people on set were complaining, his behavior was not great. So the lead actress decided to use her leverage to take over. I don't know why this upsets people so much? It's just some dumb movie.

But had he left it there and moved on, I think he'd still have his career, even still have his podcast. The allegations would never have been public and it would just be kind of a behind the scenes thing that some people in Hollywood knew about and that some fans remembered for the weirdness with promotion.

Hiring TAG and going after not only Lively but also Reynolds was the mistake. That quote from Sarkowitz about destroying them? Unhinged. I think Wayfarer and Baldoni proved themselves to be a pretty crap organization here. The idea that Baldoni and Heath are totally blameless here is super weird -- obviously they made mistakes. Why not just admit it and move on? Casting themselves as the victims and going after Blake the way they have I think has done way more to destroy Baldoni's rep, especially this whole thing about him being a male feminist, than anything Blake has said or done.

Blake obviously messed up here too, but she's been dragged through the mud for it. Baldoni wants to come out totally clean as the "true victim" who was bullied by Blake Lively. Please. I mean really, that is ridiculous. This was his movie, he muffed it. Next time don't try to direct a movie about domestic violence, and don't try to star and direct at the same time. Like learn a lesson, dude.

This is such an abhorrent and dismissive analyzation of the events. I don't think you understand the far reaching consequences of what this trial means.

Anonymous wrote:Elyse Dorsey isn't an "imperfect victim." She's not a victim at all. That relationship was consensual.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what the big bombshell is supposed to be in that podcast.

Anonymous wrote:There are multiple posters defending Lively fwiw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are multiple posters defending Lively fwiw.

If by multiple, you mean two, yes, we know.