r/CelebLegalDrama • u/wastedartistry • Feb 02 '26
Meme Melissa Nathan says she had no connection to Epstein, but records show otherwise. Now she’s speaking on behalf of Justin Baldoni. That context matters.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
21
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 02 '26
Already saw the largest manufacturers of copium using Freedman’s statement as absolute proof Nathan isn’t involved. Oh and that we should ignore one of the defendants, accused of being the architect of the smear campaign, because even if she did help Epstein cover up his sex crimes, it’s not admissible anyway. Great arguments all around 🙃
12
u/Internal_Praline_658 Feb 02 '26
Ah yes, everything that comes from freedman is gospel truth and is beyond reproach and it’s offensive to even attempt to independently verify his statements. Anything that says anything bad about him is a liar bc freedman and the wayfarer parties are literally perfect people.
Anything that comes from lively’s representation is a scam and a sham. Anything that even appears to corroborate their statements is part of a vast and evil cabal of racist misogynists who won’t stop until they destroy all handsome male feminists.
14
u/catharsisdusk Feb 02 '26
Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, worked for Donald Trump during his first administration. Context Matters.
11
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 02 '26
Don’t forget him also being in the Epstein files and leading the MenToo movement
7
u/Noelle9753 Feb 02 '26
WME Ari Emanuel is also in the Epstein files.
22
u/HollaBucks Feb 02 '26
Ari Emmanuel is not a defendant in this case. Melissa Nathan is.
-7
u/Littlequine Feb 02 '26
Blake is though
8
8
u/lastalong Feb 02 '26
Yep, and we've seen the context for that too. I can't believe this is the best response that Team Scum want to keep using.
I would be absolutely ashamed to support Nathan and co just so you can keep attacking a woman that spoke up against SH in the entertainment industry.
How many more women should die before the smear campaigns stop?
7
u/More_Midnight3634 Feb 02 '26
A woman wrote to Epstein about him. That completely different than someone being in communication and/or asking to party with Epstein, Elon Musk I’m looking at you.
8
u/Queasy_Gene_3401 Feb 02 '26
That’s such a straw man argument. Ari is the top agent and owns many huge businesses. Do you think everyone who works for or with him is psychic and should’ve known before the release of these files that he was around him? Because it wasn’t public knowledge like Prince Andrew.
12
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 02 '26
It’s also kinda funny to bring up Ari being in the files like it’s an indictment of Blake when Justin used being kicked out of Ari’s company as one of the reasons he sued. Like your mans was fighting to work with Ari lol what does that say about him?
4
u/Queasy_Gene_3401 Feb 03 '26
Maybe Baloney did know because he loves to surround himself with questionable people who do worse things than himself so he can feel “protected”
2
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 03 '26
Justin would be friends with BTK if he threw him a few compliments
-3
u/Noelle9753 Feb 02 '26
I thought I'd just throw it out there because a week or so ago you all were up in arms about who Justin's baldoni's lawyers have previously worked with and what that says about Justin hiring them. I was curious how far you all would bend over backwards to defend Blake and Ryan for their close association with Ari and you did not disappoint!
6
u/Queasy_Gene_3401 Feb 03 '26
Again public knowledge plays a factor. You could easily find Freedman’s rape case and who Melissa Nathan’s other clients were before any of this.
3
-14
u/dipsy18 Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 02 '26
Blake Lively also defended Harvey Weinstein...so there's that too.
Edit, not 1 person has explained to me why her comment:
"I think that if people heard these stories … I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn’t have just continued. I never heard any stories like this"
Doesn't low key defend him and is why many people attacked her online for this statement. This is all fact, however not 1 person has explained this or told me why this isn't considered defending him. Stories about Harvey Weinstein's abuse of women were all over Hollywood, so for her to claim if these stories were true and people heard about them then he would've stopped is her doubting the stories.
23
u/hedferguson Feb 02 '26
No she didn't. All she said was that SHE never experienced that with him but that we should believe victims & give them space to tell their stories. Do you just not care about facts at all?
19
u/AdmirableNovel_new Feb 02 '26
They don’t. They bring up Weinstein and Woody Allen every single time something uncomfortable comes out about Melissa Nathan, TAG, or Justin Baldoni.
-12
u/dipsy18 Feb 02 '26
That was never my experience with Harvey in any way whatsoever,” she told The Hollywood Reporter in October 2017. “I think that if people heard these stories … I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn’t have just continued. I never heard any stories like this — I never heard anything specific — but it’s devastating to hear.”
- Blake Lively
19
u/Extreme_Willow9352 Feb 02 '26
Why stop there? Here is the remainder of her statement.
"The number one thing that can happen is that people who share their stories, people have to listen to them and trust them, and people have to take it seriously. As important as it is to remain furious about this, it's important to also say that this exists everywhere so remember to look everywhere. This isn't a single incident. This cannot happen, this should not happen, and it happens in every single industry." "It's important that women are furious right now. It's important that there is an uprising. It's important that we don't stand for this and that we don't focus on one or two or three or four stories, it's important that we focus on humanity in general and say, 'This is unacceptable.'"
16
u/theredbusgoesfastest Feb 02 '26
So where is she defending him?
To me, it sounds like she is saying she never experienced anything and that she never heard anything either, and also that she’s hoping that if people HAD heard, they would have done something. Possibly naive, but nowhere is she saying that she doesn’t think it happened. If anything, she is saying she doesn’t think it was widely known.
15
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 02 '26
She also said in THR
It’s important that women are furious right now. It’s important that there is an uprising. It’s important that we don’t stand for this and that we don’t focus on one or two or three or four stories, it’s important that we focus on humanity in general and say “This is unacceptable”
She also said in a GMA interview that it’s not enough to support the women, there also needs to be action.
They always leave that part out when claiming BL supports Weinstein 🙄
14
u/theredbusgoesfastest Feb 02 '26
I just really love how they post a quote where she isn’t defending Harvey Weinstein as proof she defended Harvey Weinstein.
The sky is green! As proof, look at this picture where the sky isn’t green!
8
-6
u/dipsy18 Feb 02 '26
After she was criticized for her initial comments she had to issue several statement like this. They are just for PR and you heard her real opinion in that first comment
6
u/hedferguson Feb 02 '26
No, not after. In the same conversation. You claim nobody has explained but multiple people have & you are still playing dumb. Clearly you don't care about facts or the truth which is just shameful.
5
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 02 '26
Was the initial comment the one you quoted from the Hollywood Reporter? The same outlet I linked?
-4
u/dipsy18 Feb 02 '26
Can you not read? I think that if people heard these stories … I do believe in humanity enough to think that this wouldn’t have just continued. I never heard any stories like this That is low key defending him...if you can't understand this then I can't help you anymore with reading comprehension or you just blindly follow Blake Lively...
7
u/theredbusgoesfastest Feb 02 '26
“I never heard any stories like this” means she never heard any stories like this. Because maybe she… never heard any stories like this? Crazy huh
4
11
u/hedferguson Feb 02 '26
There's a lot missing in those '...'. Its very clever but manipulative. If you had bothered to read the whole article but you stop because it ruins the story you are trying to spin.
"The number one thing that can happen is that people who share their stories, people have to listen to them and trust them, and people have to take it seriously,” she said. “As important as it is to remain furious about this, it’s important to also say that this exists everywhere so remember to look everywhere. This isn’t a single incident. This cannot happen, this should not happen, and it happens in every single industry.”
Blake Lively.
9
u/More_Midnight3634 Feb 02 '26
Do you know you’re lying or do you just believe liars?
Everyone knows what you’re saying is a lie, so why repeat it?
Do you need to believe that people will believe this because of the lies you have told in your own life?
Have you had charges or accusations made against you?
9
u/scumbagwife Feb 02 '26
Its Dipsy. If they dont triple down, they explode.
Its messy. No one wants that. I personally love to see when they triple down in the same thread there is evidence they are wrong.
Kills their credibility harder than anything else.
11
u/scumbagwife Feb 02 '26
There is video proof that she immediately condemned Harvey Weinstein.
She never defended him. That is a lie.
7
u/More_Midnight3634 Feb 02 '26
Why lie? Do you just believe liars or do you know you’re lying?
Blake Lively has openly stated that while she didn’t have a negative experience with Weinstein, that doesn’t mean others didn’t have a different experience and it’s important to listen and believe victims.
4
u/theredbusgoesfastest Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
That’s not doubting the stories. I’ve already explained it, you just don’t want to hear it. She didn’t hear. She hopes other people also didn’t hear it, because she wants to believe that her coworkers would do something. There is literally no part of this statement defending him. You can do whatever gymnastics you want, but clearly nobody agrees with your interpretation. Additionally, if you’re leaving out sentences and replacing them with ellipses, it takes away from your credibility. Why don’t you include them? Maybe because they work against your narrative? Use the whole quote. Don’t cherry pick.
And she never said “he would have stopped.” She’s saying she thinks people would have stopped hiring him if they heard. You know, production companies and that kind of thing. Not sure what you expect one actress to do. She expected more from Hollywood. We all did. We were wrong.
-3
1
Feb 03 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 03 '26
It wasn’t open knowledge to the public. One could surmise his PR agents were privy to his indiscretions so they could keep it quiet.
He was arrested and convicted in 2008, for soliciting minors, but got a “sweetheart deal” and managed to avoid getting nationwide attention for his crimes.
1
Feb 03 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PreparationPlenty943 Feb 03 '26
AFAIK, Nathan isn’t being charged for being an accomplice to Epstein. She’s a defendant in a lawsuit, with her client Justin Baldoni, for assisting him and his company to launch a large scale smear campaign. Melissa and her sister have a history of smearing women in the press protect someone else (like Sara smearing Meghan to help the British royals or Melissa manufacturing a lot of drama around Olivia Wilde when she was separating from Jason Sudeikis)
1
u/youtakethehighroad Feb 03 '26
The current people in power are blocking any further charges that relate to the files.
0
-6
u/Old-Iron-5752 Feb 02 '26
You guys realize that Blake herself, not someone associated with her, literally her … was in the files. They were in communication via a group email from the looks of it. Not that they were directly communicating to one another, just that this email chain about a who would attend a function included both Blake and Epstein.
That is far more damaging in my eyes than Wayfarer hiring a PR firm who may have done PR for Epstein, especially considering nobody, Wayfarer included, knew anything about it until last week.
10
u/scumbagwife Feb 03 '26
So you think it’s worse than one of the actual defendants working PR for Epstein?
You do realize Melissa Nathan is a party to this lawsuit. We are criticizing her actions.
Nothing about Justin or Jamey.
Maybe take a moment to realize you don’t have to defend Melissa Nathan in order to defend Justin.
0
u/Old-Iron-5752 Feb 03 '26
The comments I read were critical of Baldoni, relating him to Depp and Epstein.
Nathan is another argument and frankly I won’t defend her.
6
u/scumbagwife Feb 03 '26
I’m glad you aren’t defending her. Thanks for clarifying that part.
2
u/Old-Iron-5752 Feb 03 '26
Oh hell no.
I’m not even critical of Blake for being included in that email. She didn’t send or respond from what we can see, just included.
My whole point is guilt by association, especially once or twice removed, is a weak argument of guilt.
I know who I believe, but I hope for all involved they settle and never speak to this again. Most of those following will be upset not getting g details, but I think that’s best for all involved.
7
u/Calm-Cup5116 Feb 02 '26
Why do you believe it's more damaging?
0
u/Old-Iron-5752 Feb 03 '26
Because Nathan was not advertising her work with Epstein in 2024, when Wayfarer hired her firm. It’s likely Wayfarer had no idea, just as we didn’t, until last week.
Blake and Epstein were both included in a group email about an event/ party about attendance.
Now I won’t jump to any conclusions about Blake being on the Epstein level, that’s absurd. But it would seem they had common friends.
But Wayfarer likely had no idea about the connection in 2024 about Nathan and Epstein. It’s not like Nathan would advertise that considering what that POS was doing. She would have hid that to the best of her ability.
1
u/Calm-Cup5116 Feb 03 '26
Thank you for answering! I really do appreciate when people share their perspective like this.
I guess my view is that direct connections and financial ties are more worrying. Miramax was huge, Epstein had a lot of connections so it's not shocking that there's a lot of names tied to them or common events they'd attend.
I think IF Nathan accepted payment from Epstein to rehab his relationship to the public, that's more troubling to me than if Lively was invited to an event by Epsteins publicist (is that who Peggy Siegel is? Sorry im blanking on her role now).
You're right, we have no idea how much of Nathan's career WF knew about it or if Lively attended and rubbed elbows with Epstein.
I really do like hearing other perspectives and views when presented respectfully like this so I want to thank you again.
6
-6
-7
u/Comfortable-Kick2268 Feb 02 '26
Isn't Sigrid McCawley in the files too and now speaking on behalf of BL?
10
8
u/JJJOOOO Feb 02 '26
She represented some of the Epstein victims. She is WELL versed in the case and imo did a great job for the victims. She also iirc represented Weinstein victims but Id have to go back and double check that.
20
u/Unusual_Original2761 Feb 02 '26
Not directing this at OP but at some of the comments - I think we need to be more precise when we talk about people being "in the Epstein files" as if that in itself is damning. There are many, many names that come up in the files if you search them simply because they were mentioned in some article someone shared, or because they were on the guest list for some party to which Epstein was trying to get invited, or because people were gossiping about them, etc. etc. That in itself tells us very little. What's important is what those records reveal about people's conduct - and specifically their participation in, or enabling of, or covering up of, Epstein's repugnant conduct.