Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - Blake Justifies Filing Taylor's cooke recipe as EVIDENCE !!!

00:00:00.000 Why does Blake Lively's team want to exclude her supporters?

00:00:09.440 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk, I'm Sjæshti Flår, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and

00:00:13.600 your voice of reason in a town built on delusion. Okay, so now Blake Lively's attorneys have come

00:00:19.860 out and explained why Taylor Swift's cookie recipe is important for her case. You won't

00:00:26.440 believe this. Also, let's look at the real reason why Blake Lively does not want me to take the

00:00:32.660 stand. Reading through this argument that they made to the judge over many, many pages about

00:00:38.240 why I should not take the stand really makes one thing very clear. Also, why does Blake Lively's

00:00:44.760 team want to exclude her supporters over at Sony as well as her critics? And did one of the

00:00:52.880 executives over at Sony delete text messages? What are they hiding? Also is Blake Lively renovating

00:00:59.900 her Instagram? I wonder why. It seems like now she wants us to forget about that statement she made

00:01:07.240 publicly last week saying that she is a victim of digital violence and of course that community

00:01:13.800 note that is still there on her post that she doesn't want anyone to see and definitely not

00:01:19.600 the jury to see. I reported on a post she did yesterday, which made no sense, just a random

00:01:25.740 carousel of pictures of what she's been up to lately. And of course, a little sneaky ad there

00:01:30.560 for vodka and for her hair brand. But what's really happening on her Instagram now is that

00:01:35.220 she pinned two of her previous posts so that the statement keeps being pushed further back or

00:01:42.880 further down on her Instagram. This statement was the post that you first saw when you entered

00:01:48.120 at Instagram. And if you ask me if she really means what's in that statement, she should have

00:01:52.840 pinned that statement because that's the most important thing going on in Blake Lively's life

00:01:57.460 right now. It's not what her and Ryan Reynolds dressed up as for Halloween in 2025. And anyways,

00:02:04.800 as I said before, we can expect to see a lot of new posts on Blake Lively's Instagram in the future

00:02:09.820 weeks because of course she wants us to forget about that community note. Anyways, let's look

00:02:14.260 into this new filing where Blake Lively's attorneys are trying to explain why this cookie recipe from

00:02:21.220 Taylor Swift is so important that they had to add it into evidence. So as you know Blake dumped a

00:02:28.560 whole pile of new evidence last week and the Wayfair parties asked the judge to give them more

00:02:33.880 time to review all of this new evidence and they pointed out some absurd new stuff that she was

00:02:39.400 filing, amongst it was Taylor Swift's cookie recipe. And now Blake's team is defending that,

00:02:45.100 saying that this cookie recipe is not something they brought up. The Wayfair parties actually

00:02:50.100 brought this up themselves. Her attorney is saying defendant's assertion that Ms. Lively has

00:02:55.080 loaded up the exhibit list with irrelevant documents is yet another press stunt. Defendants

00:03:01.600 understand that any reference to Taylor Swift in their court filings leads to immediate headlines,

00:03:07.420 Hence, their claim that it is exceptionally unlikely that a jury would gain any insight

00:03:13.200 from, and then they're pointing out this evidence, which is an article about Taylor

00:03:18.780 Swift's cookie recipe.

00:03:20.820 Okay, so who brought it in in the first place?

00:03:22.660 You wanted it as evidence, and now you're pointing at Wayfair parties saying that this

00:03:28.200 is a PR stunt from them because they're pointing out that you brought it up in the first place.

00:03:33.000 I mean, try to find any logic in this.

00:03:35.040 And then they continue blaming it on them, saying defendants conveniently omits that Tagg emailed a link to the cookie recipe article to the Daily Mail, which Tagg did to encourage one of its friendlies to trash Ms. Lively in a way that would appear organic, as Ms. Lively has previously explained.

00:03:54.620 So they're saying that TAG, Justin's crisis PR team, emailed this cookie recipe to the Daily Mail to portray Blake Lyle in bad lights.

00:04:05.240 Here they explain further on August 15, 2024, to stop the Daily Mail from writing about HR complaints.

00:04:13.480 We know there weren't any HR complaints because Blake herself has said that there weren't any HR department that she could complain to.

00:04:22.180 And she tried to complain to Sony and they said you have to complain to Wayfair parties.

00:04:26.860 But then remember in her own letter to the producers Guild of America, she said that she was responsible for HR.

00:04:33.260 But anyway, side note there.

00:04:34.840 Anyways, they continue.

00:04:35.720 To stop the Daily Mail from writing about HR complaints, Tag provided a Daily Mail reporter with helpful links comparing Lively to Taylor Swift

00:04:45.640 and urged the reporter to cover how lively, quote,

00:04:49.280 is emulating her best friend Taylor with a charm bracelet and shit, end quote, 0.59

00:04:55.040 which Nathan said was the only thing she could think of

00:04:58.260 that looked organic and wouldn't seem like replaced.

00:05:03.240 I don't understand how on earth that is going to put Blake in a bad light

00:05:08.600 just saying that she's copying Taylor.

00:05:10.620 Blake kept bragging about her BFF Taylor Swift

00:05:13.920 throughout the entire promotion of this movie

00:05:15.720 and said she could never really have done this without her

00:05:18.140 and Taylor was with her the entire time.

00:05:20.300 She played such an important part in this

00:05:22.420 and now they're saying that comparing the two of them

00:05:25.420 would smear Blake.

00:05:27.320 And they continue.

00:05:28.240 The Daily Mail published a few days later

00:05:30.440 incorporating the provided link

00:05:32.380 and quoting an insider that Lively 0.91

00:05:34.780 laughed at the concept of making herself available

00:05:39.180 to DV survivors 0.99

00:05:40.860 is trying to get Taylor to help pull her out of this mess by using their friendship for interviews 0.95

00:05:46.980 and other promotional work directly related to the film amid the current backlash that she's

00:05:52.960 getting and that the entire situation showed how out of touch she is. Exactly that is what happened

00:06:00.780 and we know how much she used Taylor Swift in the promotion of this movie so all of this is true.

00:06:05.040 I don't know if Tag gave this information to the Daily Mail they probably did since they have it

00:06:10.100 here in writing that they shared this information. But why on earth would this be important information

00:06:16.800 to put in front of a jury? It's so, I mean, it's so far-fetched. And then there's a footnote here

00:06:22.980 saying that this tactic, using the mention of Taylor Swift to generate clickbait media stories,

00:06:28.680 was part of defendant's August 2024 scenario planning document and is exactly what followed

00:06:36.080 defendant's letter here. And now they're linking this to another TMC story where they wrote about

00:06:42.260 Baldoni claim Blake put Taylor Swift cookies recipe in discovery. So this is like a real-time

00:06:48.940 discussion. Now every time they file something the media picks it up and then they file something

00:06:54.180 new saying hey we filed this and now the media has picked it up. Well for sure this time it wasn't

00:07:00.700 the Wayfair parties who planted this story they just pointed out why this is ridiculous and TMZ

00:07:08.040 picked it up because it is ridiculous. Here comes another explanation. Those the cookie recipe

00:07:13.900 article that defendants mock is actually something they made relevant when Tag sent it to the Daily

00:07:19.420 Mail to influence that friendly publication to publish a hit piece about Miss Lively that would

00:07:25.260 appear to be organic a hit piece really do they know what a hit piece is a hit piece is what they

00:07:31.780 did in the new york times not referring to blake and taylor's friendship and that they share the

00:07:38.100 interest in cooking or baking and here is the article it says how blake lively copied best

00:07:44.860 friend taylor swift to promote it ends with us before turning to singer to help crisis manage

00:07:49.920 backlash and justin baldoni drama and it says here blake lively has been relying on her best

00:07:55.220 friend Taylor Swift to help get her through the recent media storm and is hoping to use their

00:07:59.760 friendship to distract from the drama while promoting her new flick It Ends With Us, a source

00:08:04.840 has revealed. Blake has been embroiled in controversy in recent weeks as rumors of an

00:08:10.100 ongoing feud between her and a co-star Justin Baldoni continue to make headlines. And the reason

00:08:14.760 for that is because Blake wanted those headlines because she asked all the cast members to unfollow

00:08:20.840 Justin Baldoni at the same time and also that he was not allowed to appear next to her on the red

00:08:26.180 carpet. Why did she do that? Because she wanted the media to pick up on the feud but when they did

00:08:31.680 and they didn't cover it the way she wanted them to cover it then it's like part of a smear campaign

00:08:38.080 and here an insider apparently told the Daily Mail at this time this was published on August 17th of

00:08:45.400 2024. Blake has been relying on Taylor to get her through this storm in the same way that she

00:08:50.680 relied on her every step of the way during the filming of It Ends With Us, the source told Daily

00:08:55.640 Mail. Taylor knows how to handle backlash better than anyone. So why is this a hit piece on Blake

00:09:02.060 that she's relying on Taylor Swift's support? Well, here they're saying something interesting.

00:09:07.140 It says, and it seems like Blake is taking a similar approach to the Justin drama,

00:09:11.080 subtly throwing shade towards the actor by unfollowing him and partaking in interviews

00:09:16.600 with every cast member but him but failing to actually disclose that allegedly what allegedly

00:09:22.600 went down exactly the source also said here that the actress is purposely bringing up her friendship

00:09:29.140 with taylor in interviews and other promotional work in the hope that it will help pull her out

00:09:33.740 of this mess exactly that's what she did i mean she's saying that taylor had nothing to do with

00:09:38.460 and then she's bringing her into every conversation on the red carpet and in press

00:09:42.900 junket interviews and then when the press picks up on it then it's a hit piece on blake anyways

00:09:47.900 the article continues here to say to mention all the times that blake brought up taylor in

00:09:52.180 promotion of the movie so yes back to this ridiculous filing here in another footnote

00:09:57.620 they're saying here in addition blake posted multiple videos of herself and castmates baking

00:10:02.040 while promoting the flick which is a hobby that taylor often uses when she promotes her own

00:10:06.640 projects. I mean, this is like high school drama at this point. And in this same filing, they're

00:10:13.640 saying this, this is the best part. Ms. Lively has carefully considered and identified evidence

00:10:19.460 she may present at trial, narrowing her exhibit list to 814 documents, less than 1% of the 89,000

00:10:31.300 documents produced in this litigation can you believe it 89 000 documents have been filed

00:10:39.200 produced in this litigation so blake narrowed it down to one percent and she really wants this

00:10:46.180 evidence in there that she took up baking because taylor swift did okay so let's talk about this

00:10:51.780 sony emails and text messages that blake lively wants out i saw this on reddit this morning

00:10:58.280 There's some amazing internet sleuths there pointing out that Josh Greenstein,

00:11:02.460 remember that Sony executive who was supporting Blake Lively throughout all of this?

00:11:06.960 He was the one who let her make her own version of the movie.

00:11:11.540 He was supporting that.

00:11:13.240 And we have seen some of his text messages.

00:11:15.680 But interestingly enough, we've only seen his side of text messages.

00:11:20.540 We've never seen how people responded to his texts.

00:11:24.380 On Reddit, there were speculating if he had deleted the answers or the replies that he

00:11:30.760 got from his text messages.

00:11:32.540 I don't know if that's true or not.

00:11:34.800 That could be, that's definitely just something that someone alleged.

00:11:38.400 But I just read up a little bit about how you retrieve this information from the phones.

00:11:43.380 And sometimes it is hard to get the entire conversation.

00:11:48.540 And especially with iPhones, some stuff is up in the cloud and some stuff is not.

00:11:52.800 And all these different things.

00:11:54.380 So I don't know if Josh Greenstein did any of this on purpose.

00:11:57.680 But what I found interesting here is that Blake Lively really wants this evidence tossed out.

00:12:02.100 She wants evidence tossed out from a person, a Sony executive, who supported her throughout this crisis. 0.98

00:12:09.960 Why does she want that? 0.99

00:12:11.980 Of course, because it proves how much power she had.

00:12:17.000 I don't remember exactly what these text messages or conversations from Greenstein were,

00:12:22.600 But we've seen in his deposition, there's a lot of black holes for Josh Greenstein.

00:12:28.060 It's a lot of stuff that he doesn't really recall.

00:12:30.880 As someone pointed out on Reddit, he also said he didn't recall things in his deposition that were likely impossible.

00:12:39.520 Even when he was asked if he asked her to lead Sony's cut, he said, I don't recall.

00:12:45.800 An actress with no movie editing experience being given leadership over the cuts of a huge IP and he can't recall?

00:12:53.840 BS. Yes, I totally agree. That is BS.

00:12:59.460 As you know, Blake wants basically all sonic communication tossed out of evidence because she believes it can harm her.

00:13:08.060 So this is a text between Josh Greenstein and Tara Grant.

00:13:10.980 And here we only see Tara Grant's responses.

00:13:13.480 Tara is saying all this would do is continue to reinforce what everyone is saying that Blake is

00:13:21.720 a bully this is an email Leslie got she's asking and then we don't as I said we don't see his

00:13:28.800 response here either and she says yes and then Tara continues she's not getting support even

00:13:36.780 with Daily Mail and New York Post and then she says she orchestrated all this drama in a totally

00:13:44.900 unsavvy and amateur way and basically threatened you and Sony telling Josh this and now is mad

00:13:53.160 and now she's mad it backfired on her better than alternative because she and her team are playing

00:13:59.040 with fire with all this borderline abusive language that's where shit can spiral and it

00:14:05.180 hasn't taken hold at all. So we don't know what Josh Greenstein responded here but as you know

00:14:12.520 Blake wants of course this tossed out obviously and all the other text messages where she's called

00:14:18.520 epic level stupid by another Sony executive and another one also calling her a terrorist. So of

00:14:24.980 course she doesn't want those text messages shown in front of a jury and at the same time she doesn't

00:14:28.940 want the jury to see the text messages that are supporting her either because as I said that proves 0.95

00:14:33.880 that she had so much power on this set and that she actually took over the movie and that is not

00:14:40.140 a good look for a victim so now her lawyer so now her lawyers are claiming that because we only see

00:14:47.380 one side of these texts they should be tossed out that's the reasoning they have saying that oh we

00:14:53.340 don't see the responses here we don't see the reply from the text messages so that means that

00:14:58.740 we can't really use them because then the jury can start speculating what's missing here in between

00:15:03.160 these texts and between these responses and that is really dangerous to go down that path. So again

00:15:08.940 let's see what the judge will allow to happen here if he's going to allow any of these Sony text

00:15:13.780 messages being used. I just learned that just showing texts and emails at a trial is considered

00:15:20.600 hearsay. For those texts and emails to actually be considered the person who wrote them has to be

00:15:26.860 there and say yes I wrote those statements, yes I wrote those texts, yes I wrote those emails.

00:15:32.180 Yeah, I don't know. We'll see if any Sony executives are going to come out and support Blake in any way,

00:15:38.460 although it seems like she doesn't want them to.

00:15:40.520 Let's look a bit more into what they're saying about my little bump interview.

00:15:45.300 One thing is that they're trying to exclude me from testifying,

00:15:48.660 but also that they're trying to exclude my video from actually being shown at trial.

00:15:54.460 So in this letter to the judge where they explained why I shouldn't be there,

00:15:59.140 First of all, they're calling me a self-described entertainment reporter and multimedia producer.

00:16:05.040 Self-described? I have like 500 interviews on my channel.

00:16:09.500 I worked as a journalist for over 20 years, so calling me a self-described entertainment reporter?

00:16:16.040 That's like me saying Blake Lively is a self-described actress.

00:16:20.040 Anyways, is she even an actress? She doesn't work that much? 1.00

00:16:22.640 something that the Wayfair parties also pointed out in one of their motions trying to get rid of 0.99

00:16:28.420 some of Blake's experts where an expert is saying that she worked so much and she would have made

00:16:32.100 so much money and they're like she made like four movies since 2017 that's not working a lot

00:16:38.720 so yes the self-described actress anyways they're explaining what happened in this interview here

00:16:45.060 saying that Blake was taken aback by the comment on her body Miss Lively responded congrats on 0.91

00:16:51.880 your little bump. So they're trying to justify that she was offended and taken aback. Like how

00:16:57.720 can you comment on my body like that? So they're trying to make this about me commenting on Blake's

00:17:03.860 body and not congratulating her on being pregnant. Something to be known to be the biggest miracle of

00:17:09.580 life. And she was offended by that and taken aback by it because she took it as me commenting

00:17:16.520 on her body. I mean, if I would have said congratulations on your boobs or on your butts, 0.88

00:17:22.460 the way they continue doing, hey, my boobs, my butt, pointing at all their lady lumps and all 0.87

00:17:28.280 their bumps, I didn't do that. I mean, you can really take any compliments you want and twist 0.91

00:17:34.120 it around to make it be offensive somehow if you really wanted to. And that is what Blake Wively

00:17:40.740 did. And I have to say, that wasn't the worst part of the interview for me. The worst part was being

00:17:46.100 ignored during the rest of the interview and being called basically a sexist by Blake Lively

00:17:51.840 because I asked about costumes and the fact that the two of them hijacked the rest of the interview

00:17:56.480 ignoring me sitting there. That was the worst part and they never mentioned that. They're just

00:18:00.840 saying that she was taken aback by me congratulating her on her baby bump. Also they forget to mention

00:18:07.060 that they're the ones who actually brought me into this litigation and now they just want me

00:18:11.640 out of it. They're the ones who actually created this conspiracy theory that they fed to the New

00:18:17.900 York Times saying that, hey, she must be involved in the smear campaign because look, she published

00:18:24.460 a video about Johnny Depp when he was at trial, hashtagging it justice for Johnny Depp when he

00:18:31.900 was working with Melissa Nathan, who also Justin Baldoni worked with. So they're the ones who

00:18:37.700 accused me of being a part of the smear campaign and now they're admitting without admitting it

00:18:42.580 obviously that they were wrong that I had nothing to do with the smear campaign but of course they

00:18:47.940 don't want but of course they don't want any of that stuff to come up at trial also the fact that

00:18:53.280 they subpoenaed me for my google account and all my personal information also the fact that they're

00:18:58.200 calling me biased is quite ridiculous especially since they have all these expert witnesses all

00:19:03.500 these experts who wrote all these really long reports supporting Blakely's narrative. An expert

00:19:10.320 is someone who's asked to create a report that supports the narrative of the person hiring them.

00:19:17.780 They're basically given the results before they actually start writing this report, saying like,

00:19:23.640 hey, we want this to look like a smear campaign. Can you please make a report so it looks like a

00:19:28.800 campaign that was not organic and they say yes. So how is that not biased and how should that

00:19:36.200 person be able to be on the stand and testify when I am not, when I was in the middle and

00:19:42.300 experiencing this viral video? Another thing they forgot to mention here is that you know a lot of

00:19:48.760 videos go viral all the time. There's viral videos on YouTube every single day, there's viral videos

00:19:54.440 on TikToks, there are hundreds, there are thousands of viral videos, but very few of

00:19:58.740 them get picked up by the press. And that's what happened to my video. So why did it get

00:20:03.800 picked up by the press if it wasn't that people reacted to it organically? The press wouldn't

00:20:09.480 be interested in writing a story based on a viral video if the content wasn't interesting

00:20:16.080 for the general public. You just can't take whatever video and just push it to make it

00:20:21.020 go viral. If Blake Lively's team had tried to push a video of Justin Baldoni to make it go viral,

00:20:27.760 to make him look bad, like, for example, the one I pointed at yesterday when he said that he went

00:20:33.360 up and hugged Britney Spears because he felt he knew her. And then he was like, did I harass her?

00:20:38.840 If you want to try and make that video viral, you can try. But the media is not going to pick up on

00:20:44.940 it because there's nothing there because it's such a far-fetched argument that Justin also

00:20:51.220 s-aged Britney and everyone sees that and that's why it didn't go viral. So the reason why my video

00:20:57.620 did is because people were appalled by her and Parker Posey's behavior in that video. They're

00:21:05.280 saying here that it should be excluded to rule 403, I don't know what that rule is, because its

00:21:11.200 minimal property value is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of

00:21:19.080 the issues and misleading the jury. So they're saying that if the jury sees this video of Blake

00:21:25.020 Lively, they will get misleaded into believing that she is a mean girl because that is what

00:21:30.120 they're observing watching the video. And they're also arguing here that Ms. Lively do not allege

00:21:35.200 and does not have to show that Ms. Floss publication of the little bump video in 2024

00:21:40.880 was coordinated with defendants or resulted from any relationship with defendants or their agents.

00:21:47.980 For purposes of trial, Ms. Lively need only prove, through percipient fact witnesses and expert testimony,

00:21:54.240 that defendants amplified and bolstered the video to make it go viral.

00:21:59.160 More specifically, that in hours after Tag forwarded the little bump video to Jed Wallace on August 14, 2024,

00:22:07.080 four days after Flo reposted it on YouTube, the comments on the video increased rapidly and at a

00:22:14.420 disappropriate rate, as did the volume and popularity of comments that included

00:22:22.080 bully-related terms. Here's the fact. No one knows if anyone tried to amplify my video or boost it

00:22:32.640 on YouTube and I remember at this point my video I don't think had more than like 30,000 views

00:22:39.200 which means that it wasn't viral when the when the press picked it up. I published a video on

00:22:45.720 August 10th which is four days before Jed Wallace received my video. August 15th the next day so he

00:22:54.180 must be really good at boasting and amplifying videos because the next day the Daily Mail did

00:22:59.160 a report on this. So it might as well have been that article in the Daily Mail. Remember, Daily

00:23:05.360 Mail is the biggest news site in the world. So the fact that they reported on it, could that have

00:23:11.920 maybe made it go more viral? These are things that Blake Leiby has to explain in front of this jury,

00:23:16.860 that it wasn't the Daily Mail reporting on it that made people talk about it. It was the fact

00:23:22.180 that Jed Wallace pushed it. Anyways, also on August 15th, I received an email from Daily Mail

00:23:29.120 saying, Hi Shashti, I'm a reporter from Daily Mail, currently writing a story about the Blake

00:23:35.080 Lively interview you re-shared online recently. Some people on Twitter have theorized that you

00:23:41.160 shared it to distract from the hate Justin Baldoni is getting after they noticed you previously

00:23:47.060 praised Johnny Depp during his trial and just hired Johnny's PR. I wanted to give you a chance

00:23:52.780 to respond and or shut down these claims. Please let me know if you have any comments. This is how

00:23:58.040 you do it. By the way, New York Times, you actually reach out to the person, ask for a comment. And

00:24:02.780 this happened on August 15th. So already at that point, people started, I don't know where that

00:24:09.400 came from, maybe like Lively's camp, started these speculations online that I was a part of a smear

00:24:16.900 campaign because these theories as she said here this reporter from the Daily Mail were already

00:24:24.060 out there yeah so none of this really adds up if you ask me this theory that Blake Lively has

00:24:30.280 that my video was amplified and pushed by his team it doesn't add up and it doesn't really

00:24:37.240 doesn't prove any smear campaign and also as I said before the fact that I received so many emails

00:24:43.080 and so many DMs from people, they weren't bots, they were real people and telling me that the

00:24:49.160 interview resonated with them in one way or another. So this whole argument here is so

00:24:55.200 ridiculous and the funny thing is they're trying to use their own expert here saying that he knows

00:25:00.540 more about why my video went viral than I do and in his report it says here on Instagram several

00:25:08.320 posts from this time period include the notion that Ms. Lively was a mean girl and dissected

00:25:14.980 content like the Little Bump interview. For example, in a reel posted on August 17, 2024, 1.00

00:25:21.980 one former reporter with over 13,000 followers said Ms. Lively had a mean girl vibe for the way 1.00

00:25:28.580 she acted during the Little Bump interview in a post that received 540,000 views. Another post 1.00

00:25:36.920 from august 15 2024 by an account typically highlighting the work of the prince and princess

00:25:43.480 of wales received 224 000 views on a video post with the caption blimey blake lively it's high

00:25:51.980 time people see you for the mean girl and unkind anti-women you've always been other posts on

00:25:58.580 instagram critique the marketing of it ends with us calling miss lively tone deaf so he's basically

00:26:04.020 explaining here what happens when a celebrity acts badly and the public reacts to it organically

00:26:10.140 he's saying here how many views and how many likes all these posts got so he's basically saying that

00:26:15.480 Jed Wallace amplified all these videos everywhere to make people believe that these videos were

00:26:22.320 popular and because they had so many views people organically started thinking oh she must be a mean 0.53

00:26:29.360 girl because all these people on the internet is saying so and it's just being part of the public 0.92

00:26:34.140 I don't have any critical thinking abilities so I just have to go with the flow here and also

00:26:40.280 believe that Blake Lively is a bully and a mean girl yes basically Blake Lively's team is terrified

00:26:46.800 of the jury seeing that video and I understand why it's because of course if they see her behavior

00:26:53.800 they start thinking oh is she like that what would she really like to work with for Justin 0.59

00:26:58.980 Baldoni if she behaves like that in a setting where she knows she's on camera. And also the

00:27:04.420 fact that this is video footage of herself. This is not hearsay. This is not twisted fake news or

00:27:11.860 whatever. This is not an article with some sources. This is actually Blake Lively behaving as herself

00:27:19.720 and that is why they're terrified. Anyways, that's it from you guys. I hope you enjoyed this episode.

00:27:25.240 So thank you so much for watching.

00:27:26.840 And if you haven't subscribed yet, please do hit the notification bell

00:27:29.880 so you never miss an episode of Flawsome Talk.

00:27:31.940 And I'll see you soon.

00:27:33.260 Bye.

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - April 16, 2026

Blake Justifies Filing Taylor's cooke recipe as EVIDENCE !!!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript