Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - You wont believe what just HAPPENED !!

00:00:00.000 I mean, a newspaper interviewing themselves to double down on the conspiracy theory that they came up with two years ago?

00:00:14.180 Hi and welcome to Flossom Talk, I'm Sjernstief Lohr, journalist, Hollywood truth teller and your voice of reason in a town built on delusion.

00:00:22.180 Okay, so now the Hollywood Reporter is calling out the New York Times for ripping off their reporting in the New York Post

00:00:33.880 Yes, the Hollywood Reporter is saying that we found the untraceable underground smear machine first

00:00:42.180 So the New York Times ripped off all of our sources and our findings and pretended it was their own

00:00:51.560 I spoke about this article last week and I have a lot of questions about it.

00:00:56.560 They called it how to destroy a reputation in Hollywood as told in five women's lawsuits.

00:01:03.260 And again, they repeated the allegations Blake Lively had against Justin Baldoni and his team.

00:01:09.980 And they added some more interesting stuff that I will talk about in this episode as well.

00:01:15.240 So when this happened, this is the funniest part.

00:01:18.020 The New York Times responded by interviewing themselves, patting themselves on their shoulder,

00:01:26.460 saying that they did such a deep dive into this subject.

00:01:30.240 And they spent six months researching this before they actually published the article.

00:01:36.540 I mean, a newspaper interviewing themselves to double down on the conspiracy theory that

00:01:43.740 they came up with two years ago.

00:01:45.700 Also, while all this arguing is going on about who came up with this conspiracy theory,

00:01:50.800 Ryan Reynolds is emphasizing anti-Baldoni content online that is designed to smear him.

00:01:59.000 Of course, it was a major drawback for Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their new publicist,

00:02:04.640 Kelly Bush, that just when they're about to remind everyone that Blake Lively is a real victim,

00:02:12.080 Ryan Reynolds' explosive angry text messages were revealed.

00:02:16.940 Let's look at how the media is handling Ryan Reynolds right now.

00:02:20.520 And also, since we're being the devil's advocate here,

00:02:23.840 a former South Park rioter just told Newsweek

00:02:27.200 that he has just purchased a domain to call out Megyn Kelly.

00:02:32.900 I spoke about Megyn Kelly on Friday.

00:02:35.800 I was just as appalled as everyone else 0.98

00:02:37.940 of how she was attacking the alleged victim in the Cornell 7 case.

00:02:43.280 And now this writer has said publicly that he has purchased a website

00:02:49.380 where he is going to call out Megyn Kelly and her sponsors.

00:02:54.280 So is that a smear website?

00:02:56.200 Will the New York Times cover that as well?

00:02:58.220 I'm just asking the questions.

00:03:00.300 Okay, so let's look into all of this. 0.97

00:03:02.080 So as I said, Ryan Reynolds' text messages has made it to the mainstream media and the Daily Mail did a story about this on Friday saying Ryan Reynolds' desperate attempt to save Blake Lively exposed in furious texts demanding Sony to do his bidding as studio bosses privately call his wife's behavior epic level stupid. 0.98

00:03:27.820 in. I love that they're putting out this story right when Blake Lively was about to become a 0.69

00:03:35.680 real victim again. And they're saying here that Ryan tried to bully Sony Pictures into taking

00:03:41.660 Blake Lively's side over the backlash to her promo campaign for It Ends With Us. Even as

00:03:47.920 executives slammed her as epic level stupid, Ryan tried to bully, they're using the word bully here, 0.99

00:03:54.180 Sony pictures into taking Blake Lively's side over the backlash to her promo campaign for It Ends With Us. 0.94

00:04:00.760 They go deeper here and say now the newly released redacted messages reveal how Ryan tried to pin the blame for the backlash on Sony's marketing efforts and hinted Baldoni was behind it.

00:04:12.160 The furious Deadpool star also accused the mega studio of bullshitting him

00:04:18.600 and demanded they kill a disobliging story about his actress wife.

00:04:25.020 And here they have the stores commenting on this, saying,

00:04:27.540 these recently unsealed messages show Reynolds pressing Sony

00:04:31.640 to not only publicly blame a newly hired crisis PR team for the backlash against Blake,

00:04:38.100 but also supplying the language he wanted the studio to use.

00:04:43.020 He wanted a major studio to endorse his accusations of a coordinated campaign.

00:04:48.500 And then they say the team had been on board for just six days.

00:04:53.840 So this is important to remember.

00:04:55.880 Ryan was claiming in the text message that Justin Baldoni and his team had spent $500,000 to smear Blake

00:05:04.000 and they had only been hired for six days at this point and as this source is pointing out here

00:05:11.040 how could it have orchestrated a backlash that predated its involvement even a movie star cannot

00:05:19.000 rewrite the timeline so true not even a movie star can do that and they also said demanding

00:05:25.300 that a studio repeat an accusation does not make it true no matter how famous you are and it also

00:05:32.400 says here that Ryan Reynolds was the person who fired Leslie Sloan, Blake Lively's publicist of

00:05:40.640 20 years. And I find it interesting that Leslie Sloan has not come out and commented on this at

00:05:47.600 all. And that makes me believe that they have something on her that she doesn't want out there.

00:05:53.860 I do not believe that that was a friendly divorce between them. And as it says here, Ryan Reynolds

00:05:59.840 was behind that firing. So I wonder what they have on Leslie Sloan, because we know that Leslie Sloan

00:06:05.860 has a lot on them. And the fact that the information came out that she had hired someone new, of course

00:06:12.140 it was all coming from her side. But anyways, let's talk about this feud now between The Hollywood

00:06:17.340 Reporter and The New York Times. From a journalistic perspective, I totally agree with The

00:06:23.420 Hollywood Reporter here. The New York Times portrayed all this information in this article

00:06:29.020 that it was something that they had discovered while the Hollywood Reporter did actually report

00:06:35.620 on this about five months ago in February of this year and for the New York Times not to acknowledge

00:06:41.740 that at all in their reporting just shows a lack of professional courtesy if you ask me.

00:06:48.640 But anyways, I don't agree with any of the things that they're reporting on, obviously, because both of them are claiming that they found the untraceable smear machine.

00:06:59.640 and of course as I've spoken about so many times they're alleging that because some of the same

00:07:06.380 people were involved or hired by some of the celebrities or professionals there had to be

00:07:14.020 a smear machine involved in all of these incidents. This feud also shows that there is some egos

00:07:21.920 involved here, egos in journalism. It says here that top editors at the Hollywood Reporter were

00:07:27.780 fuming this week after New York Times published an investigation by reporter Deborah Kamen into

00:07:32.700 proliferation of secret anonymous smear websites in Hollywood without crediting or mentioning the

00:07:38.520 nearly dozen stories that the industry trade publication had previously published on the

00:07:43.220 exact same topic. That is very true. And the Hollywood Reporter is saying their reporter

00:07:48.220 Gary Baum spent about nine months working on the story for them of this series of stories for them

00:07:54.160 where they're mentioning the same people as the New York Times is mentioning.

00:07:58.700 And instead of the New York Times saying,

00:08:00.500 hey, we actually did read these articles in the Hollywood Reporter

00:08:04.100 and that's how we came up with this story.

00:08:06.740 Instead, they're responding with a statement like this.

00:08:09.700 Deborah Kammin's article was an original piece of journalism

00:08:13.420 that she reported independently over months,

00:08:16.800 interviewing more than 60 people and reviewing court documents,

00:08:20.480 chat transcripts and hundreds of websites and social media profiles a time spokesperson said

00:08:26.440 in a statement here we go again I spoke about these 60 people they interviewed last week and

00:08:32.160 it's so interesting that you can just throw out a number like that we interviewed 60 people without

00:08:36.740 saying who these 60 people are are they Ryan Reynolds Blake Lively their moms their publicists

00:08:43.720 their lawyers are they amongst the 60 people they interviewed for this story well they're not saying

00:08:48.900 So I guess we just have to guess.

00:08:51.240 Also, the New York Times reporting is just suggesting that Justin Baldoni wanted to smear Blake Lively

00:08:59.540 because he wanted revenge on her for speaking out about a toxic set environment

00:09:08.400 or being S-aged on the set Evidence With Us.

00:09:11.200 And that itself doesn't hold up because, as we all know,

00:09:18.220 Justin Baldoni and the Wayfair parties invested millions of millions of dollars

00:09:23.260 into making this movie.

00:09:25.420 So why would it be in their interest to smear the main actress 0.95

00:09:31.060 before the premiere of the movie?

00:09:34.900 Try to make sense of that.

00:09:36.800 Is it because they didn't want to make money of their own movie?

00:09:41.200 And of course, the timing of when Justin Baldoni hired this crisis PR team.

00:09:46.760 Months before he hired them, it was discussed that Blake Lively did not want to promote the movie with him

00:09:53.680 and did not want to appear next to him on the red carpet.

00:09:57.440 And this information was starting to leak out and people started asking questions.

00:10:02.480 And there were a lot of speculations online about this.

00:10:05.640 So all of that backlash and the backlash that Blake received while she was photographed by paparazzis in some of the outfits that people thought were hideous that she was wearing as our character and it ends with us, that backlash happened way before he hired any crisis team to help him survive the attacks from Blake Lively because that was basically what he was doing.

00:10:29.760 He was just trying to defend himself in the public against all these rumors that came out that Blake Lively's publicist Leslie Sloan planted in the media.

00:10:39.960 I remember when the New York Times published the initial hit piece on Justin Baldoni.

00:10:44.980 They mentioned in that article that they could not really pinpoint what backlash was organic and what backlash was actually fabricated according to them.

00:10:55.900 They could not establish that, but in this article, they don't mention that at all.

00:11:01.640 They're just asking the reader to just accept the fact that all of this backlash against Blake Lively and Stephanie Jones

00:11:09.740 was fabricated and was planted by a crisis team.

00:11:14.620 So to respond to the Hollywood Reporter, I think that's why they did this, by the way.

00:11:19.160 It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

00:11:21.120 I've never seen an outlet interview themselves about their own reporting.

00:11:27.940 I mean, talk about biased article.

00:11:30.520 So here you have Megan DiTrollo, which is a New York Times reporter,

00:11:35.020 interviewing another New York Times reporter, Deborah Kamen,

00:11:39.120 who wrote the Smear Machine article asking her how she came up with this incredible investigative article.

00:11:47.400 And here's the headline.

00:11:48.440 how a reporter traced the digital breadcrumbs of Hollywood smear campaigns.

00:11:53.920 And here they say it again.

00:11:55.080 For an investigation of malicious public relations blitzes,

00:12:00.460 Deborah Kammin interviewed more than 60 people

00:12:03.160 and analyzed hundreds of websites and social media profiles.

00:12:08.540 Still no word of who these 60 people are that they claim that they interviewed. 0.99

00:12:13.640 Let's keep the other women in this article out of this conversation. 0.98

00:12:18.000 I only want to talk about Blake Lively and Stephanie Jones because I know those cases. 1.00

00:12:22.840 I don't know enough about the other cases to comment on that.

00:12:25.840 But what the New York Times created here is a conspiracy theory.

00:12:29.960 And here they are defending the conspiracy theory by interviewing themselves about it.

00:12:35.860 Here is an example of the interview question from themselves to themselves.

00:12:40.760 While some of these women had filed lawsuits in public courts, 1.00

00:12:43.720 talking to the new york times meant a new level of public of public scrutiny how do you even open 1.00

00:12:50.120 that kind of conversation i imagine they may not be all that eager to amplify misinformation or

00:12:56.320 unflattering things about them this reporter is asking the reporter who wrote the story 0.61

00:13:02.240 and deborah says it's a really tough conversation keep in mind all these women as they're saying 1.00

00:13:09.360 here already filed public lawsuits putting themselves out there. So why would they say no 1.00

00:13:15.180 when the New York Times calls them and say, hey, we want to do an article that supports your lawsuit

00:13:21.580 because that was the basic idea of this. Because as you know, the New York Times could not go

00:13:25.740 against what they said in their previous reporting when they were creating the hit piece

00:13:31.120 on Justin Baldoni, because if they actually agreed to question their own reporting that they did two

00:13:37.880 years ago that would make them liable and as you know they were sued for that article so of course

00:13:44.360 they can never admit that they were wrong and we have to keep that in mind here anyways so deborah 0.96

00:13:51.980 continues to say first i say i'm a reporter are you available to talk right now this is so dumb

00:13:59.760 like we of course understand that you're saying hi i am a reporter when you call someone anyways

00:14:05.700 i want to have a conversation that's not easy if it's not if it's not a good time you set a time

00:14:12.060 to talk okay this is really interesting then you explain i'm working on this story your name has

00:14:19.760 come up are you aware of these smear campaigns every one of them was aware yes because they

00:14:27.020 sued people for this smear website so that's why they were actually aware and because all of them

00:14:32.940 were interviewed in the Hollywood Reporter already. Anyways, then I said, said Debra, I'm trying to

00:14:40.080 piece it together. Can you tell me about your experience? Every one of them had fears about

00:14:45.040 coming forward without a doubt. They were already forward, by the way. And every one of them told me

00:14:51.240 they chose to come forward to make sure their story doesn't happen to other people, just like

00:14:57.240 Blake Lively said. And as they also mentioned in that article, all these women came forward

00:15:02.460 because they read about Blake Wively.

00:15:05.500 She also says here that this story took six months.

00:15:08.400 It was a long process.

00:15:10.060 There were a lot of phone calls.

00:15:11.500 It was showing them that I didn't have an angle,

00:15:14.040 that I just wanted to learn.

00:15:15.960 We understand that the scrutiny was going to be extraordinary.

00:15:18.760 This story involves several very high-profile, powerful people.

00:15:22.400 There is not a line that made it to print that was not scrutinized.

00:15:26.620 Really.

00:15:28.020 Every allegation was parsed for accuracy.

00:15:31.260 at one point we have a line in the story that the times talked to 60 people my editor nikita

00:15:38.400 stewart said i want to see your list of 60 people i do too want to see this list of 60 people and

00:15:44.960 then they just stopped talking about that in this interview with themselves they're just saying that

00:15:50.520 there is a list of 60 people when you choose to leave out information that makes your main

00:15:57.460 character's narrative collapse, that is called biased and that is extremely unethical. We know

00:16:05.700 that the reason why Blake Lively settled the lawsuit is because she had no evidence of what

00:16:11.700 she was accusing Justin Baldonio. And in the article, New York Times made it look like Blake

00:16:16.880 Lively received $400,000 in attorney's fees because some of her claims had any truth to it.

00:16:24.320 Also, interestingly enough, they reached out to The Rock here, who got a chance to respond.

00:16:30.560 They did not reach out to Boldoni, because in this article, they're basically claiming that there were smear websites against Blake Lively.

00:16:40.880 She is a part of this map with other women, amongst them Stephanie Jones.

00:16:46.500 And it says that these women became the subject of websites and posts with fabricated, disparaging narratives after their adversaries connected with at least one of the three.

00:17:00.440 They are stating here that these women, including Blake Lively and Stephanie Jones, were victims of smear websites and fabricated narratives.

00:17:11.920 without mentioning any of these fabricated narratives.

00:17:16.840 In this interview, Deborah keeps saying that every fact in the story,

00:17:20.500 every accusation, my editor would say, how do you know this?

00:17:24.280 When I would tell her how I knew it, she would go, okay, how do you know that?

00:17:29.140 I was pushed as a reporter in a way I don't think I've ever been pushed.

00:17:33.840 This investigation wasn't the hardest I've done, but it was definitely the heaviest.

00:17:39.060 It weighed on me, she says.

00:17:41.060 At the end of this interview, she brings up a victim of the Alexander brothers.

00:17:47.020 Just to wrap it up of how serious these smear websites can be,

00:17:52.200 and I'm not going to comment on if any of the Alexander brothers' victims

00:17:56.560 had smear websites or were smeared online,

00:18:00.100 but the fact that they're adding the Alexander brothers on top of this investigation

00:18:05.320 that is pointing out Justin Baldoni specifically as a villain,

00:18:11.780 that is horrific and that is just so unethical.

00:18:16.960 When you look at Debra Kamen's Instagram,

00:18:19.560 she's not bragging about this article for some reason.

00:18:22.200 She does post other things she's been writing about,

00:18:25.120 the Cornell 7 and all that stuff,

00:18:26.900 but she's not promoting this article for some reason.

00:18:30.480 And I believe if she believes in her own reporting,

00:18:33.200 why wouldn't she mention it on her instagram she's also interviewed about how incredible this

00:18:39.940 reporting is so why isn't she more proud of it then they also by the way mentioned that their

00:18:45.120 expert reports here they're using that as evidence to support their article you should disclose in

00:18:51.720 your article when you're using expert reports people that are paid hundreds of thousands of

00:18:58.500 dollars to have an opinion that aligned with the people who hired them. How can you claim that that

00:19:04.280 is balanced reporting? Yeah, articles like this just really upsets me. And it's so sad to see

00:19:10.960 this as a journalist myself. And I know what due diligence is supposed to look like. And this is

00:19:16.340 not it. Justin Baldoni was not asked to comment on these new allegations that he and his team was

00:19:22.640 behind a smear website. Should he not be asked to comment on this because you already decided on the

00:19:27.520 narrative beforehand? Anyways, let's put this in a broader perspective. I spoke about Megyn Kelly

00:19:33.780 on Friday and her horrific comments on the alleged victim in the Cornell 7 case. And now the former

00:19:43.640 writer of South Park has come out and said that he's created a website to call her out. But before

00:19:51.120 we get into that, I wanted to say thank you to the sponsor of this video, Honey Love. My biggest

00:19:56.560 issues with sports bras is i always feel that they're digging into my skin they're too tight

00:20:02.100 they don't give me enough support and i need to be both comfortable and feel the support especially

00:20:07.600 when i'm running around on the tennis court i want something that breathes and is comfortable

00:20:14.480 at the same time that makes me forget that i'm actually wearing a sports bra honey loves cross

00:20:19.760 flex activity bra is actually designed for all day wear. It has this wireless cloud fuse support

00:20:27.960 system that actually shapes and separates at the same time. And one of my favorite things is that

00:20:33.620 you have the hooks in the back so you don't have to wrestle it over your head to get it off after

00:20:38.400 a workout. I wear mine on the tennis court, in the gym and it's the first sports bra I've actually

00:20:44.980 own that I don't have the need to just rip off as soon as I get home. I also love their regular

00:20:50.740 bras that are so soft and I wash this so many times and it just looks exactly the same. No

00:20:57.260 poking, no digging, no pressure points. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shaper 0.94

00:21:03.300 on the market. Use my exclusive link to save 20% off Honey Love at honeylove.com slash

00:21:09.680 floor my last name that's honeylove.com slash floor after you check out their ask where you've

00:21:16.320 heard about them so please mention my name to support my channel experience the new standard

00:21:23.400 in comfort and support with honey love okay let's get back into it so let's play the devil's advocate

00:21:30.980 for a bit here i think we should have the same standards for everyone so what is really a smear

00:21:36.360 website. When I saw this article in Newsweek, I was like, this is quite interesting because the

00:21:42.320 former South Park writer, he's been doing a lot of these websites already, calling out politicians,

00:21:49.520 especially Trump, doing it using satire, but also sometimes being serious. So he came out in Newsweek

00:21:58.380 and said that he had bought a new domain.

00:22:01.940 meganmariekelly.com is yours.

00:22:04.860 He pasted on Instagram where he said,

00:22:07.760 Hello, Megan Marie Kelly.

00:22:09.200 I see you blocked me on social media.

00:22:11.860 How adorable.

00:22:13.020 I've been so busy doing things that matter.

00:22:15.060 I completely forgot to give you the attention you so desperately need.

00:22:18.780 But I wanted to take a moment out of my day to acknowledge

00:22:21.440 my little act of digital self-care to deal with this.

00:22:24.820 I hope blocking me has brought you the peace, healing,

00:22:27.480 an illusion of importance you were looking for. Anywho, go F yourself and see you soon.

00:22:32.880 So here it says the domain is in progress and almost ready for action. And he's quoted in

00:22:38.780 Newsweek here saying, I want to emphasize, especially given Megyn Kelly's comments about

00:22:42.940 the Cornell 7, is that accountability cannot begin and end with the people at the center of

00:22:48.780 these stories. We also need to examine the institutions, administrators, advertisers,

00:22:53.540 and powerful people who enable, excuse, or protect them.

00:22:58.660 So he said that this website will examine Kelly's public statements,

00:23:02.600 the contradictions I see in her commentary,

00:23:05.400 and the companies that choose to advertise alongside it.

00:23:10.220 I want the satire to be absurd, but the underlying questions to be serious, he said.

00:23:15.600 As for when it launches, I'm keeping that part as a surprise for now.

00:23:19.600 As I spoke about on Friday, I was appalled to see how Megyn Kelly described the victim of the Cornell 7. 0.97

00:23:28.680 I'm just going to be honest, she's not the most attractive gal. 1.00

00:23:32.280 She's extremely beefy in like her arms and her legs. 1.00

00:23:37.980 She has a whole video online talking about her cankles. 1.00

00:23:40.720 And basically saying that this must have been her first time because she was so unattractive.

00:23:46.980 I mean, it's hard to even repeat what she said, because I think it's just so sad and

00:23:50.920 heartbreaking, all of it.

00:23:52.120 But anyways, the reason why I wanted to mention this was because it made me think, you know,

00:23:57.300 what is really a smear website?

00:24:00.300 Isn't this, wouldn't this be considered a smear website in the New York Times' eyes?

00:24:06.200 And would they cover something like this when someone buys a domain to call someone out?

00:24:12.400 Isn't that exactly what they're claiming that these people did?

00:24:16.440 although the writer here Toby Morton is actually being open about it he's not creating an anonymous

00:24:22.460 site but that doesn't make it more or less a smear website even though the person behind it is

00:24:27.400 admitting that they created it and another question is if it's satire is it then not a

00:24:32.560 smear website because you can get away with basically anything if you're saying it's satire

00:24:37.520 and it's not illegal to buy a domain to talk about a person what is illegal is that when you

00:24:44.960 are spreading misinformation or lies about someone knowing that it's untrue. That's called malice.

00:24:52.320 And that's why I believe there is absolutely no difference from this website about Megyn Kelly and

00:25:00.500 the website created about Stephanie Jones, the publicist of Justin Baldoni, who's also mentioned

00:25:06.700 in the New York Times article as a victim of a smear machine. Here Morton is saying that he also

00:25:13.300 wants to examine who's advertising on the Megyn Kelly podcast. And in theory, if he's calling out

00:25:20.700 her and putting her in a bad light on this website, she could lose business over that.

00:25:26.060 So that means that even though it's disguised as comedy, it could have financial consequences.

00:25:32.740 So does that make it a smear website? I'm just asking the questions. Also, if you publish

00:25:39.280 embarrassing facts about a person that they don't like. Is that a smear website? So what really

00:25:45.920 separates a smear website and investigating journalism then? And here's what I find really

00:25:53.060 interesting. Because since New York Times is mentioning Stephanie Jones as being a victim

00:25:59.340 of a smear website here, she's claiming in her lawsuit that this smear website accused her of 0.70

00:26:06.460 workplace bullying interfering with former employees careers leaking client information

00:26:12.660 and pressuring clients so that's the smear website about stephanie jones then we have to look at the 0.97

00:26:21.780 business insider article that was written about her now stephanie jones is claiming that her

00:26:27.740 former employees organized for this article to happen so the business insider interviewed a lot

00:26:34.280 of people that used to work for her and people who were involved in her business. And Stephanie

00:26:40.080 Jones claims that to be a smear article because it's also based on all the things that was said 0.89

00:26:48.180 about her on the smear website. But that business insider article is basically doing exactly the

00:26:56.480 same thing as this New York Times article is doing right now. Because this New York Times article

00:27:02.080 is just based on interviewing people who are alleging that there is a smear website or a

00:27:09.220 smear campaign against them. And the Business Insider article was basing their reporting

00:27:15.780 on interviews with people who said that they had a bad experience working with Stephanie Jones.

00:27:22.180 What's the difference? So basically, by saying that Stephanie Jones is a victim of a smear

00:27:28.400 campaign, the New York Times is undermining the reporting of Business Insider. Then they must say

00:27:35.200 that what the Business Insider reported is just fabricated because they're basically just saying

00:27:41.180 everything that was on the Smare website, which the New York Times is saying in their article

00:27:45.460 that is just fabricated. The Business Insider article said that Stephanie Jones made loud

00:27:52.660 reprimands, an intimidating workplace atmosphere, and high employee turnover, former employees 0.94

00:27:59.740 receiving threatening legal letters after leaving, and there was a tension between Jones and major

00:28:05.240 clients, including Dwayne Johnson and his team, and there were concerns that Jones interfered too

00:28:10.760 much in clients' business affairs. They did not mention that she leaks confidential information

00:28:17.880 about her clients. But I think we can establish that fact by looking at what Stephanie Jones did 0.96

00:28:24.120 to Justin Baldoni when she took her employee's phone, read her private text messages, and then

00:28:31.400 tried to contact Blake Lively to give this information to her. If that's not leaking

00:28:36.680 confidential information about your client, I don't know what is. Yeah, I have a lot of questions for

00:28:42.340 the New York Times. I just posted it on my Instagram as well, all the questions that I have

00:28:46.220 for the New York Times if you want to go over there and comment on it or like it to see if the

00:28:50.800 New York Times will actually come forward and answer some of these questions that I also have

00:28:55.900 for the reporter who said that she worked for six months to uncover this smear machine. Anyways that's

00:29:04.080 it for me today you guys thank you so much for watching thanks for your support and all the tips

00:29:08.400 you're sending me I really really appreciate it and also if you haven't subscribed yet please do

00:29:13.840 and hit the notification bell

00:29:15.700 so you never miss an episode of Flossom Talk

00:29:17.780 and I'll see you soon.

00:29:18.780 Yeah, we've lost some talk.

Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa - October 13, 2026

You wont believe what just HAPPENED !!

Episode Stats

Transcript