Amal & George Clooney celebrated their first V-Day in LA & Cabo

FFN_KM_GoldenGlobes_Arr_011115_51623063

Alright, I’ll admit it. I was wrong! A few weeks ago, I believed a story about Amal and George Clooney and it looks like I was sort of wrong. The story was about Amal and George having some growing pains as a married couple, and Amal deciding to spend a month or so in London, or on the road for her job. While Amal has been traveling in Europe and the Middle East over the past month, it seems like she’s made LA her homebase, and she’s been flying back to see George whenever she can. And it seems like she “can” more than we think.

It looks like the honeymoon phase is far from over for Mr. and Mrs. Clooney! The actor, 53, and his barrister wife Amal spent their first Valentine’s Day as newlyweds at one of Clooney’s favorite dinner spots Saturday night, Asanebo in Studio City, California.

The couple looked happy and affectionate as they were spotted leaving the sushi restaurant, smiling and holding hands. Amal – whose style choices have already grabbed headlines – donned a tan, fringed cape, booties and an oversized blue clutch. George, who kept it casual in jeans and a short-sleeved grey button, had his arm around his wife’s waist at one point.

George and Amal’s first several months of marriage have been full of celebration. They toasted Amal’s 37th birthday Feb. 1 with a casual dinner with close friends at their home and made their first red carpet appearance at the 2015 Golden Globes on Jan. 11.

The couple also topped their newlywed glow with some sunshine on a trip to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, last week, where they were joined by Cindy Crawford and Rande Gerber, a source tells PEOPLE. They relaxed at the El Dorado Golf & Beach Club and “enjoyed a few days in the sun with friends,” the source says.

[From People]

They were in Cabo AGAIN last week with Cindy and Rande?! They were just in Cabo over the holidays! Amal might be tired of always vacationing with Rande and Cindy, right? Sure, none of George’s girls ever complained about it before, but I have a serious question: after their honeymoon, have George and Amal spent any quality downtime alone, just the two of them? Also: it’s worth noting that while Amal and George were on vacation in Cabo, George’s press machine was working overtime to remind everyone of all of Amal’s legal work. It’s sort of a Duchess Kate move – release new “work” information while on vacation. Interesting.

You can see the photos of George and Amal out on V-Day here.

FFN_Alamuddin_Amal_CHP_012814_51638672

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

65 Responses to “Amal & George Clooney celebrated their first V-Day in LA & Cabo”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kiddo says:

    Pssst, Amal leaked ‘the photo’.

  2. paola says:

    The real question is: How much time off work can she take to go to Cabo (on the other side of Amal’s world work-wise) if she is a top notch human rights lawyer?? It seems like she’s always on holiday.
    So there are 2 possibilities: she either doesn’t travel that much (and magazines make up stories about it) or she isn’t the pillar of her law firm as everyone involved in their life want us to think.
    I smell BS on this one.

    • Kiddo says:

      You sound bitter. LMAO. Sorry, couldn’t help it.

    • Anny says:

      Home office. She usually needs her phone and internet connection. You can work on cases in Cabo if you want.

      • SunnyD says:

        Yes. I wish people would familiarise themselve with the profession in which she practises before commenting on her supposed lack of work ethic. As a barrister she is self-employed. She is not employed by a law firm and does not have set annual leave. Just because we see a photo of her having lunch or whatever it does not mean she is lazing around all day.

      • Katherine says:

        “Home office. She usually needs her phone and internet connection. You can work on cases in Cabo if you want.”

        I keep reading variations on this theme but in reality that is a lot harder than it seems. Maybe the odd piece of work or conference but not any heavy duty tackling of a case or part of a case. It’s also difficult mentally to do when supposedly in vacation mode.

    • epiphany says:

      I’m not bitter – in fact I couldn’t care less – but just to clarify, Amal is merely an associate at her firm. When she began dating Clooney, she was touted as ‘Julian Assange’s lawyer’, when if fact she was simply one of a group of lawyers handling his case. As an associate, most of the grunt work would be sent her way – researching cases, filing motions, etc… while a more senior firm member, perhaps even a partner, would be in direct contact with the client, and arguing the case in court. Of course, now that Amal is so well known by virtue of her marriage, I’m sure her firm is putting that spotlight to good use by assigning her more high profile cases.
      In any case, I still think this relationship is a PR stunt, for both of them.

      • Kiddo says:

        SO bitter.

      • epiphany says:

        Kiddo, it’s -4 @#^&(*&%$# degrees Fahrenheit here – bitter? I’m hypothermic!

      • Kiddo says:

        Bitter cold.

      • SunnyD says:

        I don’t know if (epiphany) is bitter but the post is incorrect. Amal Clooney does not work for a firm and she is not an associate. It is correct terminology to refer to a lawyer as “lawyer for X” if they are one of X’s lawyers.

      • epiphany says:

        You might not care for my semantics, but the spirit if what I said was correct. Calling her ‘Julian Assange’s lawyer’ implies she was the attorney sitting down having confidential meetings them him, when it was actually one her seniors; if Amal was there at all, it was to carry papers and take notes. More likely, the senior firm member stopped back at the office, handed Amal a stack of legal briefs, and she sat in an office all day chasing paper. When she started dating Clooney, the media described her as Julian Assange’s lawyer knowing all the while it would make her seem more high profile than she really is.

      • SunnyD says:

        It’s not just semantics. You said she was “merely an associate at her firm”. That is not the case. These distinctions matter in the English legal system.

      • SuePerb says:

        “implies she was the attorney sitting down having confidential meetings them him, when it was actually one her seniors”

        That is not how barristers work at all. Most of the time the Queen’s Council may not even meet their client until they are in court. UK legal system is not like the American legal system. This kind of ground work is done by other people like solicitors, pupillage or sometimes the most junior council on the team. International law and even UK law there is never one person defending a client in court. Plus most barristers do not work from an office, most can and do work from home or where ever they want. It is a very flexible profession.

        Barristers also do not work for a firm. They are self employed. A chamber is merely the office staff who do the work for a group of self employed barristers who club together to pay for the wages and running of the office. Barristers in a chamber can (and often do) work on both sides (defence and prosecution) or with other chambers on either side. In other words, Amal can be on the prosecution side with members of another chamber and going against other Doughty Street barristers who are on the defence.

      • pl says:

        You can be a barrister in the US, you can be a solicitor. You can work for a law firm, self employ, prosecute, etc. There’s no separate licensing or distinctly separate spheres or whatever. As with many other professions, the more junior employees/associates do a lot of the grunt work.

        As for the number of vacations, I doubt it’s the norm. But if it works for her….

    • noway says:

      Okay, I am very familiar with the profession and I am calling BS on this. First of all yes you are technically correct in the UK barristers are self-employed, but belong to chambers with similar US law firm structures, in fact more stringent paths for advancement than major US law firms if you ask me, especially for women. It is extremely rare that a Junior Barristers takes unlimited vacations and doesn’t work 40-60 hours a week in an office, if they want to advance or work for that matter. Very political system the UK law chambers, and QC’s hire the ones they see put in the work. It is hard to advance via Cabo, LA and wherever. The only possible reason for this is she has a limited case load, by her choice, I believe. Please people stop making her out to be Clarence Darrow saving the legal world from her beachfront condo, not likely, and belittles the people who work hard to advance.

      I am still confused by the PR push on her and him, just don’t get it. If he runs for political office, I swear the man has totally lost it.

      • Amelie says:

        ” It is hard to advance via Cabo, LA and wherever.”
        I guess Amal’s current work would be documented as ‘really, really, part-time’ on her resume!

      • SuePerb says:

        What do you mean similar law firm structure? UK barristers and US lawyers have very little in common, even down to what their jobs actually fully entail. Doughty Street are not a law firm, nor do the chambers decide when a Junior Barrister becomes a silk. They also do not put anyone forward to the selection committee. If a junior barrister decides to try for a Queen’s Council (and many don’t even after practising law for 30 years) then that is solely up to them and does not reflect badly on them for not trying for a title. It is not decided by the firm because of commitment. And it isn’t rare that a Junior international law barrister is not tied to their chamber desk, they can and most often do (because of their job) work from all over the world quite easily.

      • SunnyD says:

        Quite SuePerb.

      • noway says:

        Please someone explain to me the upside of trying to make a hard working occupation such as barrister and the UK legal system seem like you can fit it in between Cosmos and glove fittings? My point is that politically it is very similar to the US system as in you need to be seen to be a hard working barrister to get good cases and to move up and yes a lot of them don’t become QC’s by choice, but not all junior barristers are at the same level either. Obviously, I didn’t mean the US system is exactly the same, but it is similar enough especially the politics of cases etc.

        Geez, me thinks you do protest too much. I protest because I have worked in International law and have many friend who do, it is very demanding and research pounding job, especially at her age. Some older lawyers and judges have more cushy hours, and perks, but even then not the majority. I still don’t understand why saying the most likely idea that she has decided on a part time workload is insulting to her, better to think she can do it between sushi runs? Seriously.

      • SuePerb says:

        If you really have worked in international law then you should know how she came to be part of a lot of her cases and where she was in the world when she joined/started has little to do with her geographical location.

      • Emmet says:

        OK, tabs are calling her aloof, so now the photo call has her smiling at the paps.
        She’s in LA to try to get a green card so in 2016 she can vote for GC. It’s all about politics.

      • cleo says:

        Thank you noway. Well said. I also think this kind of PR shenanigans does a disservice to the people who actually put in the work. It’s everywhere these days and should be pointed out. Celebrity and PR muscle does not mean you get to take credit for the hard work of others.

      • noway says:

        Sueperb you obviously do not work in law, and the reason I say that law is a very collaborative field and not as high tech as people would like to think. In addition, there are still a lot of research done with books and other documents, especially in others countries. You also do not understand you need to be SEEN to be committed to your career and offsite lounging in Cabo just doesn’t work.

        I do not know her or ever heard about her before, and I do not know her or her career path. However, that means little as I am sure you do not know every person in your profession either. I do know of QC Robertson though. Although you seem to know her career path quite well, I have to wonder your motive here and it seems strange to me.

        Again, I am only suggesting she has a limited case load, and probably a limited position in most of these cases. Thus she is able to work around her very busy social schedule. I see no upside to your comment making her career choice seem like it can be done between social engagements, and I personally find it insulting. if Amal Clooney is at all involved in her career, which she seems to be, I would think she would find it insulting too.

      • SuePerb says:

        If you really worked in international law you would know how sporadic work loads are. Please look at her cases http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/profile/amal-clooney the others are the high profile ones already mentioned in this site. She has about 7 cases tell me why she is needed in chambers? What case needs her? And you know she can’t be working now? You work in international law (or so you say) what are your holidays like? Relaxing? Doing nothing for a while? Or are you like every other international lawyer who work while on holiday, flitting to and fro frustrating your family and friends? Also, how do you find your next client? Do you rely on your firm to hand you all the cases? It doesn’t work like that in Europe.

        How have you never heard of her with all her high profile cases?

      • Katherine says:

        Thank you, noway, for your input. So much of what’s been printed about Amal seems designed to puff her resume. I will say this, Robertson, seems to be playing along with this either because he likes the role of mentor to her or her PR helps chambers.

    • HH says:

      I’ve seen plenty of posts (here and on previous threads) going back and forth about the differences between US and UK lawyers; and, that many lawyers can do their work from home. This all makes sense to me, but in my mind I wonder: How does this look for her? Is it OK to be seen taking so much vacation time? What do you think the sentiments are from the public perspective? From her colleagues’ perspectives? From her client’s perspective? I’m an outsider in terms of the legal profession and in terms of the fact that I’m US citizen. I don’t know how lawyers elsewhere conduct, so these are honest inquiries from me.

      • noway says:

        She’s a barrister and barristers for the US system would predominantly be lawyers who research, drafts legal opinions and argues to the court. UK has two distinct set of lawyers whereas US doesn’t. Although most US lawyers fall into one category or the other too. Technically barristers don’t deal with the client that much. That would be a solicitor. However, she is international law which is different too, and she may have more dealing with clients than others. The lawyer client problem you are implying probably not as important for barristers as it would be for a US lawyer. The political implications with other colleagues, scholars and judges could be enormous, even more so than the US as the UK system especially really is the definition of ole boys club and very politically tough. Most lawyers especially those who argue cases are not shy and probably enjoy the added publicity for their cases and themselves, but it could grow old very quickly and the large egos of those above could be hard to deal with. My theory is she is fine getting some interesting cases and really isn’t into progressing that high now, but who knows maybe I am wrong. Just think the Hollywood circus will not help in the long run.

      • Amelie says:

        Noway:

        You stated,” UK has two distinct set of lawyers whereas US doesn’t. Although most US lawyers fall into one category or the other too.”

        I wouldn’t agree with you. Although the U.S. legal system doesn’t have the roles lawyers play so regimented, in practice, attorneys in the U.S. also specialize. There are general lawyers who may do simple litigation (but stay with office oriented work) and there are also what are called trial lawyers. Trial lawyers have practices that involve a heavy amount of hearings or oral arguments in the courtroom. They work on an entirely different level. I have no issue in comparing a barrister with a U.S. trial lawyer because their activities are primarily in the courtroom with all of the drama and strategizing etc.

    • Zippi says:

      I read that the new Greek Government is giving her the boot on the marble controversy. Apparently she is too high maintenance for them.

  3. Susan says:

    Can someone explain why Rande Gerber and Cindy Crawford are always with George Clooney? They always vacation, multiple times a year, together. Lots of pictures I see of George have Rande (and I assume Cindy) somewhere in the background. Rande and Cindy have 2 children, don’t they have their own life made up of school and work commitments? It’s one thing to occasionally vacation with friends but these guys are always together. I don’t really understand it.

    • BengalCat2000 says:

      I was wondering the same thing. Rande and Cindy seem as dull as dishwater. What about Amal’s friends? No way I would ditch my girls for a dude.

    • jen2 says:

      George reminds me of Leo and Anniston. They may have partners but prefer being in the company of a group. They all seem to not be alone with their significant others very much. Don’t know why.

    • Yeah and if I had that much time to take off, and that much money–I would NOT be going to Cabo all the time. Or Italy. TRAVEL. Travel around Italy or Cabo. I honestly do not see the appeal in vacations like this–when all you see is them sitting around. Maybe it’s just because that’s when it’s easiest for the paps to get them on vacation–YEAR AFTER YEAR–but if I was in Cabo, I’d be out in some hole in the wall eating as much food as I could. My friend went to Hawaii and I told her that if I went, I’d gain like twenty pounds, because I’d want to go to one of those parties (a luau?) where they dig a hole, and slow roast a pig underground ALL DAY. It just falls apart and melts in your mouth. I’d never leave.

      • Granger says:

        I totally agree, because I’ve been to Cabo and you’d have to drag me back kicking and screaming. However, I can see how entitled, privileged people who travel for work and have “busy” schedules (or schedules they THINK are busy, but actually aren’t compared to your average person) would be happy to go there and be completely catered to for a week. Cabo is a rich person’s paradise. Everything there is designed for people who want to be cow-towed to by eager hoteliers and staff in 5+ star hotels that offer your own private butler and chef, and who want day trips on massive yachts or out “fishing” for marlin. I thought Cabo was the most boring place on earth, but that’s only because I get away MAYBE once every three years, and I’d rather go somewhere cultural. Clooney and Amal can get cultural whenever they want, so in that sense, I understand the appeal of a place like Cabo. (Edit to add that there is culture outside of Cabo and the places rich people stay — it’s just not, in my opinion, as interesting or lush as the Riviera Maya, for example.)

    • epiphany says:

      You’ve never heard the long standing rumor that Clooney and Rande are lovers, and Clooney’s people put out the story that George suffers from unrequited love for Cindy, to explain why he’s always having around with Gerber and Crawford?

      • Olenna says:

        *snickers*

      • Santolina says:

        +1 George is no longer box office and virtually in semi-retirement. What else does he have to do but pay his PR machine and contract with a new woman every few years to cover the fact that he’s into men.

    • Jaded says:

      I don’t think it’s at all unusual to have close friends that you spend a lot of time with. I have friends that I see at least once a week, we have a standing Friday night dinner at either my house or theirs and we’ve all vacationed together. No biggie.

  4. Me says:

    They were in Cabo? Really? Not according to Cindy’s instagram. Here’s another item to ponder…this obviously staged pap pic was from Valentines Day….and the paps held it until yesterday? BS. She wasn’t in the country for her birthday or V-day. The EGYPT case blew up in her face (as in it happened in spite of her). She’s wasn’t scheduled to be at the oscars. I’m thinking as usual…cover!

  5. Micki says:

    As long as Amal’s employer does not have problem with her “constant vacation trips” why should I care? I’d love to escape the cold wet winter right now.
    As for going to Cabo AGAIN- why not? She travels enough around the world job-wise so another travel may not have the same charm for her.

    • SuePerb says:

      She doesn’t have an employer, she is self employed just as every barrister in Doughty Street, so they couldn’t care less if she was working in London, Cabo or Mars, or even if she wasn’t working; just as long as she pays her office fees.

  6. Belle Epoch says:

    Darn it, ME – now you’ve got me searching the web for these two, whom I don’t even care about! There are no recent pictures from Cabo that I’ve seen – just old ones. I think you’re right.

    And she had never met the client she wrote that letter about in the Egypt case. Did someone just tell her to draft something?

  7. Jayna says:

    I saw her photos on DM out to dinner with George. I have never in my life seen anyone look over at the cameras the way she does, and not in some startled way. She’s actively looking over for the cameras and her shot every time. So odd. She wore softer makeup and looked so much prettier to me.

  8. scout says:

    Poor Rande! He expected to cover Clooneys’ collective a..es by making stupid remarks as only stupid does and then he had to defend his wife’s untouched body pic of 2013 with recent V day pic to cover her a.. too. But hey..new and improved Cindy looks good! Either lone trips to Brazil worked or strict regime of gym trips as I read.

    http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/rande-gerber-cindy-crawford-bikini-pic-unretouched-leak-2015162

    In Cabo for her Birthday? Not believable. if no pics of Tequila, no drunk grinning paunchy GC, no show of designer wraps of white gloves, NO Cabo.
    V day dinner for Pocahontas and John Smith, sure, ok. PR people must have told GC not to run from her this time, got to hold hands and let her have some camera time! He looks tortured as usual. Haha.

  9. boredblond says:

    This is People..whose photog was invited to travel with them, and be at a restaurant to photograph her ring..his people have long fed items to them so this is nothing new. The timing is suspect..Val’s day was Sat..a few days in cabo would mean..now? If they need to keep the story alive by releasing this stuff, fine..we get it.

  10. roxy750 says:

    This is such made up sh&t it’s pathetic. It’s a contract marriage, seriously, the guy is gayer than the gayest shade of pink–and pink is my favorite color but honey honestly, it’s well known and this whole thing is a sham.

    • Fa says:

      I think next we going to see her going to Egypt it is all plan, these photo was set up next headline going to be after she spent V-d with George, Amal is off to Egypt to release journalist, & is the Monday after the Oscar perfect timing. She is not even represent him in Egypt local lawyers represent him over there & by Monday if he free she want to take credit of his release, mark my word u going to see more of her this week

  11. Dari says:

    Did she or her mama have anything to do with Cyndi’s 2013 picture coming to light. Very suspicious. Is it one way to get C&R out?

  12. Catelina says:

    They are seriously always with the gerbers, it’s both weird and kind of cute. I wish them the best and don’t believe they’re neccesarily on the fast track to a divorce but I don’t buy that there’s a great love between them. Their body language is awkward.

  13. Nimbolicious says:

    Call me a bitterton too. ‘Cause if I had that kind of fat bank, I sure as hell wouldn’t spend it on cheesy Cabo vacays or crappy-ass white gloves. I tell you, it’s pure torture to have Veuve taste on a canned Coors budget.

    And yeah, I’m convinced that Georgie is (at least) fifty shades of gay.

  14. Catelina says:

    For real though, I’m no body language expert, but they never look comfortable together- is it just me? Not even a hint of pr0n, as Lainey would say. He seemed much happier and more at ease on red carpets with Keebler.

  15. Heathering says:

    I have so many thoughts re this coupling. More than I am comfortable admitting in as much it means I have to own having found myself sucked into the negative side of this Clooney Inc (/Baria) PR vortex. I’d most happily prefer to have done my usual *shrug* over a media couple’s column inch grab and then chortle and move on. BUT this one is both too conspicuous in its demand for attention, note, and credit (much like Amal) AND far too ‘incredible’ and downright sketchy re: method, approach, and underlying (but perceptible) serving of vested interest(s) to allow dismissal of it as a typical Hollywood/Celeb couple PR booster.

    There are far too many conflicts and contradictions between the realities of much that would be typical were Amal to be as she is being presented (family, education, career to date – & as being as being effected by her currently, and the asserted prior social/style/society cache) versus the accumulative of the ever building mythologising as promoted. Also too much care appears to have been taken to revise, sanitize or delete Pre-George (BC) Amal from all substantively citeable public source and reckoning.

    This alone is a red flag, in that, were we to accept Amal to have been all things *quite* unbelievably awe-inspiring (Mary Sue) BC, so much so that George was overwhelmed by all such greatness immediately (as per the fairytale/narrative), why would such a need to substantially alter/redefine/erase BC-Amal exist. Because, to be clear, there has been comprehensive ‘work’ done in this regard from the moment this ‘relationship’ was conceived of (prior to the public roll-out), and that process remains ongoing.

    If George had indeed found the ‘perfect’ woman, his understanding and appreciation of her perfection clearly required a lot of tweaking post her being deemed ‘perfect’. Sadly, this has been applied to all aspects of who we are now supposedly meant to believe her to have been/be now. From education and career inflation to her cosmetic and style makeover this ‘perfect’ woman he fell for has since been heavily remade into a much promoted template for perfection; yet, we are asked to believe she was all that (and a bag of chips) at the point of meeting.

    Knowing a bit about her past and the society and career aspects BC, I could dismantle much point by point. However, my interest (knowing the past whens, hows, and whatnots) is more now in the WHYs? That is a whole different game of joining of dots.

    The mechanics of how this continues to be done are still interesting (especially some of the now apparent mixed “source” rumour placement they are doing – Stan V Baria, perhaps – in briefing against each other) BUT the motivation(s), cause, and propelling (compelling?) forces behind the WHY of this relationship, from inception, I suspect to be far more fascinating. AND I think the basic usuals of “he was sick of the bachelor jokes”, “he wants to make a political run”, “he needed a beard” etc are just too obvious and lack the necessary ‘only option deal-maker’ factor. Too much effort, money, and calling in of favours is being expended (and certainly too many compromises being made by George, as we knew of him) for this to be THAT un-nuanced. Also, despite some appearances being promoted, I’m less and less sure he’s the one either driving or gaining in this. George “marrying up” and ‘acknowledging’ as such just seems more and more like another double blind (PR Bait N Switch).

    I tend to avoid anything much “tin-foil hat” BUT this one has got many talking, and not those usually of the conspiracy theory variety.

    • Sally says:

      @Heathering – this paragraph is exactly what bothers me about the George’s PR rollout of Amal – actually it is sad,

      “If George had indeed found the ‘perfect’ woman, his understanding and appreciation of her perfection clearly required a lot of tweaking post her being deemed ‘perfect’. Sadly, this has been applied to all aspects of who we are now supposedly meant to believe her to have been/be now. From education and career inflation to her cosmetic and style makeover this ‘perfect’ woman he fell for has since been heavily remade into a much promoted template for perfection; yet, we are asked to believe she was all that (and a bag of chips) at the point of meeting.”

    • Belle Epoch says:

      HEATHERING what dark reasons are the conspiracy theorists putting forth? My DH believes George was told what to do by Someone, probably because he was in some shady dealings or in trouble. But who? And why?

    • Samia says:

      @Heathering, you heard the story too. When/if made public. I don’t know validity of story, do you?

  16. Cherio says:

    She has either lost too much weight or had too much tweaking, she looks like Alan Cumming!

  17. Jean Miller says:

    Just a Joan Crawford looking person, who is cashing in on her husbands Hollywierd fame. Not pretty, not interesting, and not even particularly nice. Too much like Alec Baldwins wife… it’s all about the cameras.