Justin Baldoni's publicist Jennifer Abel speaks out: "The internet did the work for us"

Jennifer Abel defends explosive texts revealed in Blake Lively’s lawsuit and addresses allegations about her role.

Jennifer Abel, the publicist implicated in Blake Lively’s explosive lawsuit against It Ends with Us costar Justin Baldoni, has allegedly shared her side of the story. The lawsuit accuses Baldoni of sexual harassment and organizing a smear campaign to damage Lively’s reputation, with Abel’s private text messages playing a central role in the allegations.

In a statement shared within a PR and marketing Facebook group with over 21,000 members, Abel defended her actions, claiming, “We didn’t have to implement anything because the internet was doing the work for us.” Abel explained that while her team prepared for potential negative narratives, no proactive smear campaign was carried out.

The lawsuit reveals text messages between Abel, Baldoni, and crisis expert Melissa Nathan, showing discussions about “burying” and “destroying” Lively’s credibility. Abel, however, denies orchestrating any negative press, instead asserting her focus was on managing positive interviews for Baldoni.

Abel also detailed her reasons for standing by Baldoni, stating, “After reviewing the evidence, facts, [and] hard proof... I made a choice to stand by my client of almost five years.” She acknowledged that while Lively’s feelings were valid, her role as a publicist required her to act on verifiable evidence.

Below is Abel's full statement:

"Hi, I never thought the day would come when I needed to defend myself with my own peers, but this certainly has been an interesting, and devastating quite frankly, couple of days, so here we are. But here are the facts: No, I was never subpoenaed. I found out my private text messages and emails were included in the complaint after I received it on Friday night, and then NYT contacted me 1.5 hours after receipt. They had already reviewed the 80 page document and had questions prepared, and apparently also received "thousands of pages of documents" with our correspondence that we never saw. So it was clear this was a coordinated effort, but nothing we haven't seen before since I've been working in talent PR for over 15 years now. I had recently left my previous firm, at which I was still with during this campaign (with a team who all participated in the campaign and a boss who oversaw) and who had access to my work emails and work phone, so you can deduce from that what you will.

What the cherry picked messages don't include, although not shockingly as it doesn't fit the narrative, is that there was no "smear" implemented. No negative press was ever facilitated, no social combat plan, although we were prepared for it as it's our job to be ready for any scenario, but we didn't have to implement anything because the internet was doing the work for us. Sure we talked about it, contemplated if we needed certain things, flagged accounts that we needed to monitor, worked with a social team to help us stay on top of the narrative so we could act quickly if needed, and yes, we rejoiced and joked in the fact that fans were recognizing our clients heart and work without us having to do anything but keep our heads down and focus on positive interviews for our client... as the texts show, we sophomorically reveled and again, joked, privately to each other about the internets feedback to the woman whose team was making our lives incredibly difficult over the course of the campaign. I'm human. The long hours, months of preparation, on top of my day to day scope... it felt good to see that although we were prepared, we didn't have to do anything over the top to protect our client.

Incredibly difficult you say? In what way? Funny you should ask. I was notified at the start of the campaign that the opposing team had been planting horrible stories about my client as a "fail safe" if my client did not comply with the demands set forth for the campaign. Which is why we brought on crisis, as it's not something that I do. My sole job was to put together interviews, screening opportunities and speaking opportunities for my client in support of the film, a standard scope of work. I did my job. Now what kind of woman would work against another woman who was a victim of all the things being claimed? Thanks for asking. After reviewing the evidence, facts, hard proof that countered every single thing that was being claimed and demanded at the start of production, I made a choice to stand by my client of almost 5 years, who had dedicated his life to the equal treatment of others, especially women. Who had no incidents of negative treatment of others, and who had a wonderful community and team at wayfarer who all held the same moral fortitude and lived their life accordingly. As representatives, we all have to make that choice. So I did that to the best of my ability, and felt good about our efforts.

Is my client perfect? No. In fact he says that he's not perfect so constantly to the point I tell him he needs to be less self deprecating because it could be taken the wrong way. Are Blakes feelings valid? It's not my position to say or speculate what she was feeling in these moments that she claims, and I would never slam a woman for speaking her truth. But at the end of the day, if it's not the truth and there is evidence that proves otherwise, then as a representative I have to do what I feel is right as well."