Candace Owens has misrepresented key aspects of the Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively legal dispute, ignored crucial context, and relied on speculation rather than verified evidence. While she presents an enticing conspiracy narrative, it falls apart upon closer scrutiny.
Using the Blake Lively “dragon” text breakdown from Ex.Patriarch, the media timeline, and Kelsey Kernstine’s analysis, and an analysis of the Amended Complaint, let’s dismantle why Candace Owens’ take is fundamentally flawed and what the facts actually suggest.
1. Candace Owens Ignores That Baldoni’s Own Actions Undermine His Lawsuit
Owens portrays Baldoni as a victim of a Hollywood conspiracy, but his own leaked messages prove otherwise.
Fact: Baldoni sent a 6-minute voice note at 2 AM, where he:
- Gushed over working with Blake Lively in an unprofessional, boundary-crossing manner.
- Praised her contributions and acknowledged her history of being sidelined in Hollywood.
- Thanked her for advocating for herself and never framed her concerns as a threat.
Why This Matters:
- If Baldoni truly felt “intimidated” by Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and Taylor Swift, he did not say so at the time.
- Instead, he praised Lively’s advocacy for herself and framed his own lack of feedback as a failure on his part.
- This contradicts his own lawsuit, which now paints Lively as a bully rather than someone advocating for fair treatment.
Candace Owens’ Flaw: She frames Baldoni as a victim but ignores that his own leaked voice memo contradicts his lawsuit’s claims.
2. The “Dragon” Text Proves Lively Was Advocating for Herself—Not Threatening Baldoni
Owens misinterprets the significance of Lively’s “dragon” text, claiming it proves a Hollywood power grab. However, when read in context:
Fact: Lively:
- Explained how she has been overlooked and disrespected in Hollywood throughout her career.
- Expressed gratitude for Ryan Reynolds and Taylor Swift, who helped her feel confident enough to stand up for her creative contributions.
- Described how Baldoni’s vague feedback felt dismissive rather than constructive.
Why This Matters:
- Nowhere does she threaten Baldoni.
- Nowhere does she demand control of the film.
- Instead, she is advocating for recognition of her creative work, which is a legitimate concern in Hollywood.
Candace Owens’ Flaw:
- Owens twists this into a power move, ignoring the well-documented history of women’s creative labor being minimized in Hollywood.
Alternative Perspective:
- Lively’s frustration is not about control—it’s about respect for her contributions.
- Baldoni’s own response proves he recognized this issue at the time.
3. Owens Ignores That Baldoni Leaked the Story to TMZ First—Not Lively
The Timeline Debunks Owens’ Conspiracy Theory:
- Dec 20, 9:46 PM – The New York Times gives Baldoni a 14-hour deadline to respond to allegations.
- Dec 21, 2:10 AM – TMZ begins article preparation.
- Dec 21, 2:16 AM – Baldoni’s lawyer, Brian Friedman, sends a response to the NYT.
- Dec 21, 7:54 AM – TMZ breaks the story first, NOT the NYT.
- Dec 21, 10:11 AM – NYT publishes its full investigative piece.
Why This Matters:
- Baldoni’s team leaked the story to TMZ first, shaping the public narrative before NYT could.
- The initial wave of coverage came from TMZ, not from Lively or Sony.
- If anyone was trying to control the media first, it was Baldoni—not Lively, Reynolds, or Swift.
Candace Owens’ Flaw: She claims that Lively manipulated the media when Baldoni’s team preemptively shaped the story by leaking it to TMZ first.
4. Owens Baselessly Blames Ryan Reynolds’ “Jealousy” Without Evidence
Owens claims that:
- Ryan Reynolds was “jealous” of Baldoni.
- Reynolds used his power to destroy him.
Fact:
- No evidence exists that Reynolds had any personal vendetta against Baldoni.
- Lively’s lawsuit makes no mention of Reynolds playing a role.
- The real power players were Sony executives, not Reynolds.
Why This Matters:
- Owens turns a legal case about workplace boundaries into a Hollywood marriage drama with zero proof.
- This dangerous speculation falsely implies domestic abuse dynamics, despite Lively never alleging that Reynolds acted this way.
Candace Owens’ Flaw:
- She frames this as a power move by Reynolds instead of acknowledging Sony’s role in handling HR complaints.
- She recklessly implies marriage trouble, which is wildly inappropriate given there’s no evidence of it.
5. Owens Ignores That Sony’s HR Team Had Multiple Complaints Against Baldoni
Fact:
- Blake Lively’s lawsuit states that multiple people went to HR about Baldoni—not just her.
- If Sony chose to suspend Baldoni and sideline his production company, it was likely a legal risk decision, not a personal vendetta.
Why This Matters:
- Sony would not make a multimillion-dollar decision based solely on Lively’s word.
- If multiple complaints were filed, Sony was legally obligated to act.
- The real issue is corporate risk management—not Hollywood celebrity feuds.
Candace Owens’ Flaw:
- She ignores the role of Sony’s HR department in the decision-making process.
- Instead, she paints Lively as a villain without acknowledging that Sony may have been legally compelled to act.
Conclusion: Candace Owens’ Analysis is Misinformed and Misleading
What Owens Got Wrong:
- Baldoni’s own leaked voice memo contradicts his lawsuit’s claims.
- The “dragon” text shows Lively advocating for herself, not issuing threats.
- Baldoni leaked the story to TMZ first, meaning he tried to control the media—not Lively.
- Owens speculates about Ryan Reynolds’ jealousy with zero supporting evidence.
- Sony’s HR had multiple complaints, meaning this was likely a corporate decision—not a Hollywood takedown.
What the Real Focus Should Be:
Was Sony’s decision to remove Baldoni justified based on the HR complaints?
Was Baldoni given due process before being removed from his own project?
Why did Baldoni’s team leak the story to TMZ first?
Instead of pushing sensationalized conspiracy theories, the focus should be on corporate decision-making, legal liability, and workplace culture in Hollywood.
Final Verdict: Candace Owens’ take is factually weak, based on speculation, and ignores key evidence. This is not investigative journalism—it’s reckless gossip.
celebchai.com 
2 thoughts on “Debunking Candace Owens on the Baldoni-Lively Legal Battle”