Jennifer Lawrence on Ryan Seacrest: ‘He has not been to trial for anything’

London photocall for 'Red Sparrow'

Here’s something to keep in mind: of all the dumb sh-t Jennifer Lawrence has said and done in the past two weeks, the only time she issued any kind of clarification or defense was when she yelled at people for criticizing the fact that she was dressed in a slinky Versace dress while her male costars were wearing layers of clothing in the cold London air. She said that was “sexist” and not a “feminist” conversation to have. Everything else, all of the other headlines she’s made, all of the dumb sh-t she’s said… no clarifications, no excuses, no apologies, no “that’s not what I meant.” Keep that all in mind when you read her take on whether she would stop by the E! Red Carpet live show with Ryan Seacrest on the mic. Seacrest is still going to host the live red carpet show for E!, and many people are making noise about how they’ll skip E!’s show because Seacrest has been accused of harassing, abusing and assaulting a subordinate.

Jennifer Lawrence is not yet sure if she will stop and do a red carpet interview with Ryan Seacrest at Sunday’s Oscars. The Red Sparrow star, 27, was conflicted as Seacrest has been accused of sexual harassment by a former E! News stylist. When asked by Howard Stern about the allegations against the E! host on the Wednesday episode on The Howard Stern Show, Lawrence said she was not a judge or a jury, she also admitted not being up to speed on the allegations. After the radio host explained the accusations, which Seacrest has denied, the actress seemed in disbelief saying, “I can’t imagine him being sexual.”

But, Lawrence said, she had other reasons to take into account when considering whether to avoid talking to Seacrest, 43.

“Umm, I don’t know,” she said. “I mean, there is a lot to think about with E!, you know? I have always had a problem with the Fashion Police. I don’t have a problem with talking about what women are wearing. There was a time they were… they were just mean about people’s bodies, things you shouldn’t say.”

Lawrence also brought up former E! News host Catt Sadler, who left the network over issues of pay inequality. The actress and TV host are both working together on a #metoo docuseries.

“They aren’t bringing another costar up,” Lawrence said. “I have noticed that they keep cycling these women and I am going… is that so you don’t have to pay another woman equally to Jason [Kennedy]? Is this just a way to still maintain that you are not paying women equally?”

When Stern asked again if she would stop and do an interview with Seacrest, Lawrence said, “I don’t know about the Ryan Seacrest thing. I think it is scary, you know. He has not been to trial for anything. I am not a judge. I am not a jury, you know. I don’t know… that is where this stuff gets tricky.”

Despite not being sure if she would speak to him or not, Lawrence did say he would not be the only journalist she would consider not speaking to.

“There are already [news] outlets that I’m just like, ‘Nah,’” she added. “So it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.”

[From People]

“He has not been to trial for anything. I am not a judge. I am not a jury, you know.” Harvey Weinstein hasn’t been on trial for anything and Jennifer has been calling him a “boil on the ass of Hollywood” all week. I guess Jennifer only believes women when those women are famous actresses, and not under-the-line E! employees. The whole concept of “he has not been to trial for anything” is NOT the talking point in this current Me Too and Time’s Up conversation, but it’s truly amazing how many women parrot that talking point. Besides, it’s not like Howard Stern asked Jennifer to, like, personally throw Ryan Seacrest in JAIL. Ryan Seacrest doesn’t have to “go on trial” for celebrities to decide they want no part of his bullsh-t and avoid him on the red carpet. That’s not really a “punishment without due process” for the love of God.

London photocall for 'Red Sparrow'

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

114 Responses to “Jennifer Lawrence on Ryan Seacrest: ‘He has not been to trial for anything’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lindy says:

    Can we be done with whatever promotional tour she’s on now, I’m already exhausted by it. She can stop talking anytime.

    • ELX says:

      Hmmmm….perhaps this is the inevitable result of dropping out of school in 8th grade. In my experience, uneducated, ignorant people don’t have well reasoned opinions and do say a lot of dumb sh!t in public. She grew up in Kentucky, no? Not a place that values education on the best of days.

      • QueenB says:

        Tbf her opinion is very common among educated people too.

      • Jamie says:

        I honestly have no problem with her answer if she really didn’t know anything about the accusation.

        If she just heard about it from the host, i think thats too quick to make a decision based on just what stern said. I mean what if stern had said oh huge jackman was accused of sexually harassing his make up artist and instantly she believes him and goes to denounce him and then goes home and google it and realized it was all fake news? how can she ever face jackman again?

        Sure she could just said, i don’t know anything about these accusations, so i can’t really comment just base on what you said. To be fair to all parties, i’ll reserve my judgement until after i find out more.

        But it seemed like she tried that and stern kept pressing trying to get her to say something scandalous. Which judging by everyone here’s reaction, he succeeded.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        A little harsh about Kentucky, ELX. Every state has its issues.

      • Wiffie says:

        You’re reading the wrong words here. She’s telling you what news outlets are bullshit, and she’s on the inside of the industry, and hears, and is CLEARLY outspoken enough to not care to say it at the end of an inflammatory statement to ensure it gets published. Watch which outlets publish her feminism/sexism story and what way they spin it. Compare it to outlets and how they cover/spin her take on seacrest. She’s trying to show people in hints who is on what side, and using herself as a sacrifice for the greater good. Other people might just hear that she enables him, but you need to read between the lines, ala “Why does everyone thank Harvey first? Blackmail?” She’s smarter than you think.

      • Trixie says:

        Just being on Howard Stern’s
        show – Stern, the proverbial disgusting sexist pervert – tells me she doesn’t give a crap about women’s issues.

      • Sarah says:

        Let me say, as a resident of Jennifer’s hometown, that Louisville likely has more private schools in Jefferson County than many states have in total. Many areas in Kentucky are affluent, and its residents value education. We’re not all illiterate around here. 🙂
        As for Jennifer, I actually worked as a school psychologist at her middle school. Her mother was already taking her out of school frequently in 6-7th grade to attend auditions. Jennifer was not magically “discovered” out of the blue…her parents chose to roll the dice on her stardom, and her education was deemed less important than the earning potential she had as an actress.
        Her family always seemed nice, was upper middle class and certainly didn’t need Jennifer to support them (a la Dina Lohan)- I always thought it seemed strange that Hollywood was in their sights, but I guess they knew what they were doing…there are a million Jennifers out there who never get past a Doritos commercial.

        That said: I agree she needs to shut it 🙂

    • C says:


    • Sammy B says:

      I listened to the whole interview and she came off as such an a-hole when discussing certain things. I wish you had her quotes on that dress incident Kaiser. It’s clear she needs a break from the spotlight. Also it was weird how easy Stern was on her. This was the least interesting Stern interview ever.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Why? Dressgate is one of the few subjects she actually managed to be right about this past week. Actually admitting that she didn’t complete middle school (especially without adding in some kind of remorseful warning to kids about staying in school), this quote here about Ryan Seacrest, and her comment about Democrats needing to be sweeter to DEPLORABLES were her huge fails. Especially that last one.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Agreed Sammy B, I listened to the whole interview and Howard was soooo easy on her. I don’t recall even one good love life question about an ex. I guess he was wooed by her alleged beauty, again, I don’t get it.

      • PRISSA says:

        @Sammy B – Stern has gotten a lot of bad press because of how crass he used to be. I truly believe it’s all an act and he’s a good person at heart. Anyway all of his interviews are very soft ball as of late.

    • Ellie says:

      @Jamie But is Stern known for peddling fake news? He’s a veteran broadcaster. He’s many things but in all the years he’s been on air, I’ve never heard of him reporting erroneous stories.

  2. Neelyo says:

    She loves the Kardashians and they owe their fame to him so it stands to reason she wouldn’t say anything about him.

    I never felt one way or another about her but these last few days I’ve come to really dislike her. I was hoping today there wouldn’t be anything about her. Oh well.

  3. Kitty says:

    Weinstein is an obvious case though, he doesn’t need to go on trial for people to know. He was always an asshole and abuser. Secrest is known for being likeable and friendly.

    • trollontheloose says:

      so was Bill Cosby. So was Charlie Rose..

      • perplexed says:

        I think it’s easier to figure out someone like Bill Cosby is guilty because he’s had 60 or so accusers.

        In the case of someone like Ryan Seacrest, I do think the situation is harder to figure out. Partly because there’s only been one accuser (I think?), but also probably because all this time I thought he was gay. I guess the radar was off.

    • klc says:

      Do you really think that’s indicative of someone’s innocence? Oh he’s a nice guy of course he wouldn’t do that.

      Someone being an a-hole is subjective, everyone perceives people differently.

      • Kitty says:

        That’s not what I’m saying. I’m just saying its harder to believe someone does horrible things when they seem so nice. Weinstein was no surprise, I was surprised by the seacrest allegations.

      • Artemis says:

        People are easily fooled when it’s somebody charming, beautiful and liked by many. That’s how so many sociopaths get away with criminal offences because they’re not perceived as ‘evil’ like the ones who aren’t as skilled in hiding their evilness.

        And like Rachel Weisz said, Weinstein got taken down because his usefulness and relevance in Hollywood dried up so it was easy to throw him under the bus for something that was a collusion at the top of many different branches from the entertainment industry.

      • LadyMTL says:

        I understand what Kitty is saying and I agree with her. It’s often a bit more difficult to believe that so-called nice people are actually jerks and do horrible things. I remember when the Cosby allegations first surfaced about 10-12 years ago (sorry, can’t remember the exact date) so many people refused to believe it was true because it was Bill Cosby, Amercia’s favorite sitcom dad and so on.

        I’m not defending JLaw here, because her comments are kind of dumb, but I get the point that Kitty is trying to make.

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      Agree w Kitty. Also bear in mind this was the first she’d heard of it. She didn’t know the full story and an off the cuff reaction is tough. She handled the E! salary debacle well, she definitely defended Catt.

      • annabanana says:

        Maybe it’s also because as she said, she can’t think of him being sexual. It might not be easy for her to form an opinion right away when she couldn’t picture the guy being sexual anyway. It might be her way of saying I thought he was gay, which is what everyone was saying prior to this accusation coming out

  4. Nicole says:

    I honestly can’t with her anymore.
    You know who hasn’t been on trial? Weinstein. You know who else? Your best friend Russell who groped his niece.
    Maybe Times Up should give her some stats on rape trials, convictions and just how hard it is for ANYONE to come forward knowing the outcome will probably be terrible. See Brock Turner who was CAUGHT raping his victim and skated free after three months.
    She wants to lead Times Up? No thanks. Keep her away from the movement.

    • MellyMel says:

      Agreed. But I missed the story about Russel and his niece. That’s disgusting.

      • Ellie says:

        @MellyMel Russell not only groped his niece’s breasts but he admitted it and then victim blamed her and said she was acting provocative toward him.

      • stinky says:

        Russell who?? (nevermind.. i see downthread)

  5. lisa says:

    i cant wait to not see this movie so she stops talking

  6. Rapunzel says:

    WTF, Katniss First you lecture Dems, now you excuse harassment? When did you become GOP cool girl?

    • INeedANap says:

      She also thinks it’s cool to be abused by her directors (Dave O. Russell) and thinks being called “male” is a compliment.

      JLaw, girl, Seacrest doesn’t have to be tried in a court of law for folks to realize he abused his power, is a creep, and want nothing to do with him.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I think she is trying extra hard to appeal to them because the forecast for her movie isn’t that great. Or this is what she really thinks. Either way, it is repellant.

  7. trollontheloose says:

    Maybe she doesn’t want to spoil the gravy train for the Kardashians. Or like Kate Winslet nips and tucks when it suits her. We are talking about Jennifer who adores David Russel, who himself has been accused of misconducts as well but she never brought it up.

  8. sunnydeereynolds says:

    Girl, bye.

  9. Hh says:

    I didn’t know Howard Stern still had a show. Is it a different format? I think of Howard Stern from decades ago and just get disgusted. Anyways she says some great stuff here about E! and The Fashion Police and Cat Sadler. Then mucks it all up with the Seacrest trial comment and not seeing him as “sexual.” I don’t know if I’d say that out loud and publicly. Anyways, I hope some men will also be asked the same question.

    • anniefannie says:

      Stern is becoming renowned for having awesome interviews. The format is for at least an hour and he gets Alist people promoting something or huge fans of the show.
      He’s really toned down the mysogyny and has become a thoughtful even humble guy..
      You can google his interviews but be careful once you listen as Howard says ” He grows on you like a fungus!”

      • Una says:

        I love Stern. Maybe because I am fairly young so I don’t really know the extend of his misogyny but whenever I listen to his interviews I just want more. Sometimes we just gotta let people change. I mean Kimmel from “The Man Show” is now a progressive sweetheart. Meh.

      • Aren says:

        Wow, the Howard Stern I knew played gunshots along with Selena Quintanilla’s music, this after she got murdered.
        I’m surprised he could have changed so much.

    • QueenB says:

      He tried cleaning up his awful history but the internet does not forget. Specifically how he treated women of color. ugh.

      • Nicole says:

        Exactly. I don’t listen to stern because he’s an awful racist and misogynist. He didn’t get better he got smarter at hiding those facts.

      • Krill says:

        I wish The Root would dig those up. I used to work at a kitchen diner where they would play reruns of his crap in the back all day. As long as he had Robin next to him, he would say ANYTHING about women of color. And make no mistake, the man who delighted in this bigotry is still in there. He just became the consumate “white liberal”. And you know he never really changed because guess what, he has never acknowledged it much less apologised for it. Typical “white liberal”.

    • Krill says:

      Howard simply got to an age and level of wealth where he needed to start thinking legacy, so he toned down the misogyny and racism and fired most of his staff. He even takes publicists directions now on subjects not to address. So while he no longer asks white actresses if they have ever slept with a black man with the language and tone that suggests its an abomination, never forget how he got to where he is. A man who would regularly taunt 18 year olds into flashing him their boobs and then take calls from listeners to insault their bodies while they stood there has somehow evaded all consequences.

      And the reason there are so many gross clips of Trump and others saying borderline rapey things is because thats exactly the kind of content sort out and encouraged. They were home among their own on Howards show so they dropped the filter.

      Edited to add remember how they toyed with a clearly unstable Dana Plato on air? They subjected her to endless hate filled phone calls when it was obvious she was in a terrible space and not thinking about self preservation. She died the following day. Not the only case of his reckless exploitation of unstable people for amusement resulting in suicide/overdose but the most famous one because she was on Different Strokes.

      • QueenB says:

        And Lena Dunham calling him a feminist really expains Lena Dunham.

        Vile man.

      • Plaidsheets says:

        Gosh. I’m old enough to remember his television show. Or at least remember running from even the commercials for it. The show was also broadcast of E! It was absolutely vile.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Todd Bridges said there was rampant sexual abuse behind the scenes. I saw the show in reruns on TV Land a long time and thought it was a typical sitcom from its time, but now I can’t think of it without knowing what was really happening. It makes sense when you think of how the kids all ended up as adults.
        I don’t like Stern because all I recall of him is how repulsive he was. I know he was supposed to be different away from the show but what does it matter if that is the concept of HIS show.
        It was beyond crass. It was mean.
        I guess he has changed but it left a bad taste.

      • Aren says:

        I didn’t know that about Dana Plato, now I’m completely horrified.

  10. the better bella says:

    Love the pictures in the article.

    She is special at this point. Bless her heart.

  11. Mindy_dopple says:

    This isn’t a popular opinion but it is a valid one. These claims can and have shown to damage the lives of people and there is a reason we have due process is that people can’t just claim things were done by or to them. If the system is horrible and doesn’t treat the victims properly than we must engage the system in order to change it. We cannot continue to just tell the public something in order to hope some form of public justic will be had. That’s what this is, hoping Seacrest loses his job, loses some of his popularity is a form of public justice at work. When did we stop engaging or trying to fix the justice system?!

    • BaronSamedi says:

      I’m actually with you on this one.

      I also think this issue is more compiclated than just believing the woman. Ryan Seacrest still has a job after E!News did a full investigation. We shouldn’t be asking Jennifer Lawrence whether she will answer questions by a reporter who’s employer has decided to keep him in this job.

      Why wouldn’t she if it is also part of HER job to show up on red carpets and answer questions.

      The question should be going to E!News and what are the details of their investigation.

      • Jamie42 says:

        Agree with both of you: I think E! should be more forthcoming on why they made their decision.
        In my opinion, social media “trials” are simply not enough to throw someone away.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        E’s investigation isn’t enough evidence to me that he’s innocent, considering how much power Ryan Seacrest has at E. Plus she has witnesses.

      • BaronSamedi says:

        @otaku fairy

        That’s what we’re saying though! There are no details about this investigation and how they came to their conclusion. But what does Jennifer Lawrence have to do with this in the end. It’s not HER decision whether to fire him or not and she was asked if she would talk to him on a red carpet.

    • magnoliarose says:

      You are confusing what believe her/him really means.
      I don’t think anyone should be a vigilante and I think there were some mistakes at the beginning with the messaging and clearly stating what it means. It was new to think victims had a voice it was confusing.

      When women and men have been victims in the past their stories were discounted immediately and no adequate and thorough investigation ever happened. They weren’t believed and authorities behaved like vigilantes. Right on the spot they would make a decision based on a hunch or whatever biases they might have used to make their conclusions.
      Believing this woman means she should be allowed a thorough and FAIR investigation into her claims. If the investigation proves she was lying, then she should be charged accordingly. He will be vindicated, and the matter will have been objectively resolved.
      If he did do it then he should pay the price and be exposed for being a predator.
      Some predators have so many victims, and their reputations established that it wasn’t difficult to use common sense and critical thinking skills to understand what happened.

      Ryan’s case because of his unclear (but seemingly known to some) sexual orientation adds a new dimension to the allegations but it doesn’t mean he is innocent either. I learned a lot about it here and from others yesterday to know it happens more than I thought. I assume others got an education yesterday too.

      So it warrants an investigation, and until then he should be suspended from his duty. Just like anyone else would be in a similar situation.
      This is E, and they have been shown to be unfair to women and untrustworthy to investigate anything fairly. He’s powerful, and they are shady.

      Believing the victim MEANS giving THEM due process and not dismissing their claims. Why is everyone so worried about the perps and not enough about the victims? Why isn’t it framed with concern about the justice THEY deserve. Statistics are on the side of the victims, so it makes no rational sense.

    • Lady Medusa says:

      “Due process” has nothing to do with whether or not a person can claim that something was done to them. Due process means that the U.S. Government or State can’t arbitrarily deny a citizen life, liberty, or other civil rights. It is strictly a legal term and has nothing to do with how people interact with each other. We do not live inside the judicial system.

      People absolutely can claim whatever they want. If they don’t mind being charged with libel or slander, they can even claim lies against other people or institutions. (And when they’re indicted, they will be afforded due process.)

      In a country where 3% of rapes lead to criminal convictions, is it surprising that victims of rape, abuse, and harassment might not trust the judicial system to have their best interests at heart? Especially since these crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute and “prove” because they’re often one person’s word against another’s. No, it isn’t pleasant for anyone to have these nasty matters discussed in an open, global forum. But sometimes that’s the only way to actually effect the type of change that’s needed in the system.

  12. Talie says:

    I find myself skeptical of the Ryan story only because several other networks did the independent investigation thing and it did yield results. Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Roger Ailes…all of these men were far more powerful and important than Ryan, and were brought down by these internal reviews. So there’s no reason to believe they are sham in any way.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Ryan Seacrest makes a TON of money for E!. He’s a cash cow, they would be stupid as hell to not pamper him in every way. Roger Ailes may have had more powerful friends and was in a more powerful position but money-wise, Seacrest is as important to E! as they come.

      As for Jennifer, the woman has a product to sell and she needs the media. She’s not the one in charge of everything, there’s a studio behind her that wants her to sell this. So once she starts with not talking to certain people, it could quickly get out of hand because as we’ve seen, it could be anyone else next.

    • Bridget says:

      Considering that both NBC and Fox participated in the cover-ups, can you really point to them when discussing the efficacy of internal investigations?

    • lucy2 says:

      He’s got too many irons in the fire at E. They’ll protect him until he becomes too much of a liability – just like NBC/Matt Lauer. The news about him was not surprising to them, but it reached a point where it was going to hurt them, so they kicked him to the curb.
      If more people come forward or things start to take a financial/liability turn for E, they’ll dump him, but not until then. Their treatment of Catt is telling of their corporate culture.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Multiple WITNESSES saw Ryan Seacrest abuse this woman. One male co-worker saw Ryan throw his female employee on his bed, jump on top of her, and rub his genitals on her.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Oh my. I didn’t know that. Poor woman. That is humiliating.
        It makes me doubt the internal investigation even more.

      • Ksenia says:

        Oh, I had no idea! Then, it sounds like he is guilty as sin: I hope the investigation results in firing him from E, at the VERY LEAST.

  13. B says:

    She’s seriously becoming overexposed.

  14. Jussie says:

    She’d heard none of the details of the allegations and Stern only gave her a brief and mild recap. She didn’t seem to be aware it had become a story again in the last couple of days, so she was totally out of the loop.

    She hedged because she didn’t know enough, and she’s aware that her stating she won’t talk to him is a big, big deal. It would have been a massive headline, been a loud and powerful call for him to be fired, and she barely knew anything about the situation. He should be fired, but she didn’t have anywhere near enough information at the time to put her voice to that. With Weinstein she had the information.

    She could have chosen her words better, but she was in a really uncomfortable position here.

    • BaronSamedi says:

      Yes, I said the same in a previous comment that got eaten.

      Seriously, we need to stop going after women. She didn’t DO anything.

      • Lady Medusa says:

        “Seriously, we need to stop going after women. She didn’t DO anything.” -baronsamedi


        I don’t dig her response (I hate that tired old “I’m not a judge/jury” BS), but it wasn’t horrible given the circumstances. She was put on the spot about a complex situation she didn’t have any foreknowledge of and had very little time to process. (It’s not like she implied that women ask to be harassed by dressing attractively, a la Mayim Bialik.)

        Lawrence is not the person who was accused of harassment – but she gets jumped all over almost as much as Seacrest does. Constantly attacking women for not saying the “right” things is counterintuitive to a movement devoted to giving voice to women.

    • Anon33 says:

      GMAFB. It’s Howard stern. He’s going to ask uncomfortable questions. If she didn’t know that she shouldn’t have gone on the show.
      Please stop making excuses for this twit.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      “I can’t imagine him being sexual” is a pretty clueless response, but not that far off from “Wait, but I thought he was gay” responses either.

      As for what the actors or actresses do when it comes to talking to Seacrest on Sunday, I don’t see speaking to someone as an endorsement of someone’s behavior and am pretty sure actresses will be the only ones questioned or judged on it anyway. BUT, as a show of solidarity, I think it’s best if they all either don’t talk to him, or talk to him in a way that calls him and those like him out for their behavior.
      But Kaiser makes a good point about stars seeming to only believe it when other stars say they were abused. It seems like they hesitate more when one of their own who seems nice to them is accused by a non-celebrity. I’m not thrilled by her response, but she did seem to processing it as she was hearing about it for the first time (publicly) instead of giving a knee-jerk: “She’s lying, Ryan is a nice man! He never did anything to me” response.

      • Jamie says:

        I agree. If anything I would side eyed her if she made a judgement so quickly based on only word of mouth from someone. There is too much misinformation around the internet. If someone tells you something, google it and confirm before believing it. Your friend or in this case stern may think he has all the facts (maybe he does), but they would be mistaken and you don’t want to be misled .

    • lucy2 says:

      If she isn’t up to date on the info, then I don’t have an issue with her being vague. I do wish she’d have followed it up with some general words about believing and supporting victims, but I get why she was hesitant to make a declaration one way or the other on a situation she doesn’t know much about.

      I’m so tired of this “man does something wrong, everyone yells at women for it” thing. This situation doesn’t involve her in any way, but she’ll probably get just as many negative comments for it as Ryan himself did.

  15. Alix says:

    She speaks like the middle-school dropout she is.

  16. Una says:

    Where is her PR?? I am not going to get into why her statement is just tasteless and wrong, I am sure many other commenter will point it out. I am sure there are many actors, male and female, that think the same way. But they won’t tell that in an interview nor they should for their careers. Does she think she is infallible in Hollywood now? Because that is an illusion. Many movie stars dissappeared from limelight. I don’t get it. I really don’t get this woman.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I wonder where her handlers are on this tour or if she is stubborn as a goat. She is seriously saying things I don’t think any publicist would want her saying. Dismissing DDL’s film publicly wasn’t great. Her answer here wasn’t fantastic but the problematic things she said previously make it seem worse than it is.
      She just doesn’t come off all that well or appealing.
      I find it hard to believe she didn’t know ahead of time what they were going to talk about, so it’s a strange answer that is left unclarified.

      She really needs to call it a day and get some rest. The movie will do whatever it will at this point. I think she has managed to make more people avoid it than go to see it.

  17. CommentingBunny says:

    “The whole concept of “he has not been to trial for anything” is NOT the talking point in this current Me Too and Time’s Up conversation, but it’s truly amazing how many women parrot that talking point.”

    This talking point drives me NUTS. No, we are not judge or jury. That’s why we don’t have to weigh all the evidence before coming to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt and pitting someone in jail. That’s why we are allowed to just listen to both sides and decide who we believe.

    It’s not about “presumption of innocence.” If it were, J.Law and her ilk would be out there protesting the fact that the criminal justice system incarcerates people before trial all the time. There are thousands of people (a disproportionate number of whom are men of colour) sitting in jail right now who “have not been on trial for anything.” That’s a bit more of a consequence than “a movie star won’t talk to me.”

    If you aren’t up in arms over that, then don’t clutch your pearls about the deterioration of the presumption of innocence. The only presumption in danger is the presumption that, in a she-said, he-said scenario, the man is telling the truth.

    • Sadezilla says:

      Well-said. I’m very unsurprised that Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t understand the difference between boycotting Seacrest and a proper trial for those accused of crimes.

    • naomipaige says:

      Nicely said!!!

    • lucy2 says:

      That comment bugs me too, and I see it so often.
      I have no issue with Jennifer saying she doesn’t know details and declining to offer an opinion, but the whole “no trial” thing is annoying.

  18. Marzia says:

    Howard really didn’t explain the allegations well. I had to read it multiple times to get it. Can people be allowed to work through thoughts? Why not be angry at his employer rather than an actor who knows very little about a subject that was barely explained to her. Also, aren’t we tired of fake apologies? I doubt anyone listening to her interview instead of reading a transcript would actually be angry with her.

  19. QueenB says:

    After her joking about defiling a holy site, her rape scream joke etc etc. Im cool with her career tanking.

  20. Bridget says:

    She can’t say the first thought that likely popped into her head – “I thought he was gay” (which is what a LOT of people have said). The allegations against Seacrest paint a picture of a really cruel man, but it’s hard to wrap your head around if you have preconceived notions of his sexuality.

    • Alice says:

      But she didn’t know about the allegations. She said this in the podcast.

      • Bridget says:

        Huh? She was told about the allegations in the interview. So she at least had the basic knowledge that Seacrest was accused of sexual harassment. I’m surprised her first question wasn’t “of a woman?”

    • Ellie says:

      What does cruelty have to do with someone’s sexual orientation? Anyone can be cruel.

  21. Chef Grace says:

    Hush child. Just hush.

  22. Darla says:

    I’m really tired of jumping on women if they aren’t perfect in their words about perverts.

    It’s obvious she didn’t have the whole story. What she should have answered was; I really have to look into all of the details before I can speak knowledgeably on this.

    But she answered clumsily. She was on the spot. She’s not perfect. Just leave her alone already.

    • Bridget says:

      Jennifer Lawrence isn’t responsible for Ryan Seacrest’s actions.

    • jenna says:

      Yes to this. It reminds me of something in the Gary Oldman story here (maybe a commenter or Kaiser’s actual post), but if Jennifer Lawrence came out with anything remotely as offensive as Oldman’s “everyone says the n-word” diatribe, it would completely destroy her career. Yet this sort of garbled, filter-less word salad, a lot of which I can admit has been pretty dumb on her part of late, is endlessly dissected and used to criticise her, and will be used against her moving forward, I guarantee it. “JLaw the sexual harasser defender!!”

      Like ugh, it’s dumb, but people reporting on it are completely ignoring any actual context.

    • S says:

      I think she’s not very bright and much of what she says is eye-roll inducing, and, in this case, more than a touch infuriating (the odds of ANY sex crime being charged, let alone successfully prosecuted, is disgustingly low, so to set that as the so-called standard …) but I agree with this perspective, as well. Women’s comments on harassers are frequently more closely scrutinized and roundly criticized than the harassment himself which is … not cool, to say the least.

  23. JennyJazzhands says:

    Girl, what? I can’t tell if she’s immature or just trifling.

  24. naomipaige says:

    Blah, b;ah, blah! Is it just me, or has she become really annoying lately.

  25. S says:

    Another day, another dumb, uneducated opinion from the world’s wealthiest middle school drop out. Bonus: this one is also a grammar nightmare.

  26. SM says:

    Are we seriously still expect her to say the right things? I mean, this is the girl who works with abusive directors and ends up falling in love with them or keeps coming back for more work with them. She cleary is not someone who can identify and oppose abuse.

  27. Arianna says:

    honestly, she sounds like she couldn’t believe the accusations, because she thinks he’s gay, or knows it for a fact, but didn’t want to say it outright

  28. SMDH says:

    Here’s the thing though. I actually kind of see her point. Sometimes People lie. Sometimes Men lie. Sometimes Women lie.

    There are cases where there is a preponderance of information and evidence. Harvey Weinstein.

    And there are singular cases of he said, she said. I’m talking singular and I’m talking no evidence which proves or disproves.

    I wince at how all allegations now result in immediate conviction in the court of public opinion where we believe it is our right and our duty to crush the alleged perpetrator.

    I’ll wait til I’m Jesus …..or at least on a jury.

  29. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    At this point, the only thing that comes to mind when reading about her is cotton balls.

  30. Hmm says:

    Everyone is protecting Ryan Seacrust. yuck.

  31. Bella says:

    Was she drunk during this interview as well?

    Keep digging that hole, honey!

  32. trh says:

    “I can’t imagine him being sexual.”

    Can she imagine him being powerful?

  33. Ozogirl says:

    In other words, she’s on his side…along with E!.

  34. Beezers says:

    She “can’t imagine him being sexual” so she’s not sure. So that means if she hears about a man who she can imagine being sexual, she’ll be sure. More shit spewing out of her mouth every time she opens it.

  35. matt says:

    The author of this article has completely missed the point. Wienstein had dozens of accusers, Seacrest has only one. Weinstein has also made a partial admission of guilt. So Seacrest deserves the benefit of the doubt at this stage, where as Weinstein clearly does not.

    • Lady Medusa says:

      And what, pray tell, is the minimum number of accusers one must have before one can be considered a sexual harasser beyond a reasonable doubt?

      There were eyewitnesses to the harassment. How many eyewitnesses equal one accuser? I’m sure you have a conversion formula of some sort.

  36. matt says:

    The author of this article has completely missed the point. Weinstein has dozens of accusers, Seacrest has only one. Weinstein has also made a partial admission of guilt. So Seacrest deserves the benefit of the doubt at this stage, where as Weinstein clearly does not.

  37. Bee says:

    She’s joined Sarah-Jessica Parker in the “Are you STILL talking? Please STOP” club. This is not how you sell a movie.

  38. Crash says:

    Wait. I thought I saw a story, not too far back, that said Seacrest had been cleared of the accusations or no basis was found or something?

    And OF COURSE she can’t decide if she will speak to RS or not. She has hired help to make those oh so difficult decisions for her. And think for her. now if only they would speak for her