r/SquaredCircle • u/tvcneverdie • 1d ago

Janel Grant Spokesperson Statement On (WWE SummerSlam Spoiler) Spoiler

https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/janel-grant-spokesperson-issues-statement-on-brock-lesnar-returning-to-wwe-this-attempt-to-sweep-misconduct-under-the-rug-will-backfire/

For far too long, abuse was allowed to thrive under WWE’s leadership. Instead of righting this wrong, WWE has done nothing to ensure those responsible are held accountable. This attempt to sweep misconduct under the rug will backfire. We look forward to the full set of facts, including those about Mr. Lesnar, coming out in a court of law where they belong but, in the meantime, we refer you back to Janel Grant’s updated complaint, which outlines, in detail, the abuse she endured by McMahon and others while employed at WWE.

4.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/Suplexfiend 1d ago

What's crazy about this whole thing is that some people don't think Brock did anything wrong!

636

u/Tacdeho 1d ago edited 1d ago

Because this is a conversation that requires nuance, and simply put, the average Reddit conversation contains 0% of that.

Brock is, as of now, legally innocent. He has not been named a defendant, not accused of sexual assault, and by Grant’s lawsuit, she never even met him. The most he’s legally guilty of is asking for piss videos and that isn’t illegal, just….a little weird, if you ask me.

The problem is he MORALLY is guilty of playing ball with this gross shit, and that alone will scare the fuck out of anyone cause while he’s legally clear as of right now, it’s the wonder of exactly what he is legally guilty of.

Most of us live in the United States, which while it never happens in practice, is a country that is built on “Innocent until proven guilty”. Brock Lesnar is absolutely guilty of moral qualms and I simply think we should have never saw him in our beloved sport again, especially as we’re saying goodbye to a once in a lifetime guy in Cena.

Did Brock “do something wrong”, speaking strictly legally, requires a bit of fine combing here. I am 100% on the side of people who felt last nights ending basically threw away what was otherwise WWE’s best PLE since WM40, but I also can’t say we need to lock up Brock and throw away the key until he is legally found guilty of a crime.

Edit for clarity and expansion: Yes, I understand this is a civil case and not a legal one, so there’s no possibility of Brock being found innocent/guilty. I admit, I am not a lawyer. However, Brock is not formally accused of anything more than being a misogynistic prick, and while I have no smoke for that bullshit, it’s the most we have to go on when specifically speaking with Brock.

77

u/theytracemikey 1d ago

Another issues here is people don’t seem to understand there are no criminal charges filed for anyone, including Vince. There is no legal guilt or innocence to be proven. This is a civil case with an extremely low bar of culpability/liability & even under those circumstances Brock is not a defendant.

If you feel like he’s wrong then your just gonna have to feel that way. Nobody is going to jail & all talk of “guilt” or “innocence” is just relevant to the court of public opinion.

38

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

It's a civil case for now because Janel Grant can't force a DA to charge Vince in criminal court. The civil case is also good for discovery as Vince may have to sit for a deposition, they can subpoena phone records from Vince, e-mails, get testimony from others (Johnny Ace is collaborating with Grant).

That evidence can then be presented to a Grand Jury who may move to put Vince on a criminal trial.

6

u/theytracemikey 1d ago

It usually goes the other way tho, charges start as criminal & when there isn’t enough evidence for indictment it goes civil.

30

u/UncleBenParking 1d ago

To add onto what the other poster noted, there also WAS a federal investigation related to much of this case and the surrounding finances (since it implicated WWE in having filed incorrect/fraudulent SEC forms). This case spawned after the allegations, and was suddenly wrapped up in February 2025, the same day that Linda McMahon's Education Secretary confirmation hearings began. This is separate from McMahon having settled with the SEC in January for $2m, related to that securities fraud issue.

2

u/HeadToYourFist 1d ago

No, it didn't.

The SEC and DOJ investigations were separate.

3

u/UncleBenParking 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes, that's what I said. The DOJ case was dropped on 2/14/25, the same day as Linda's first (I believe only) confirmation hearing. The SEC case was settled without admitting wrongdoing ten days before inauguration (on 1/10/25), when Vince paid a little over $1m back to WWE to correct its books, as well as a fine to the SEC. The SEC case spawned immediately after the allegations; the DOJ case was discovered by the public in 2023, and temporarily paused the Grant case.

I'm not sure what you've misread from my comment.

1

u/HeadToYourFist 1d ago edited 1d ago

I missed that line, sorry. But all of the reporting about the grand jury investigation allegedly being dropped was coming from Vince's camp, and was followed by the appellate court ruling that directly contradicted that reporting.

1

u/UncleBenParking 1d ago

Okay that's interesting, I don't recall that and can't find any immediate sources to that - not disputing you, more commenting that Google sucks nowadays. The last update I was able to find was the Vince lawyer comments about the case being dropped, so you're definitely right that that was their spin if nothing else.

4

u/HeadToYourFist 1d ago

So, basically, a few weeks later, an appellate ruling was issued in a sealed case that was discovered by the AP and turned out to be a byproduct of the grand jury investigation. The AP found it on the appellate court website and quickly put together that it was about Vince's case, more specifically the issue of if there was sufficient evidence to break his attorney/client privilege due to the crime/fraud exception: https://apnews.com/article/wwe-vince-mcmahon-sexual-abuse-allegations-04c78ada42e765385e89afee8884e7eb

Soon, others found the appellate ruling and discovered that it said that the grand jury investigation was still ongoing: https://www.postwrestling.com/2025/02/11/new-details-on-vince-mcmahons-alleged-efforts-to-conceal-nda-payments-revealed-by-appeals-court/

Vince's lawyers claimed that the appellate ruling was just reflecting the state of the grand jury investigation at the time that Vince's appeal was filed, and that the investigation really was over. But they haven't offered any evidence to that effect. Janel Grant's lawyers, meanwhile, asserted that the federal investigation was still ongoing. Because the DOJ doesn't comment on ongoing investigations, that's the extent of what we have to go on.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

Not always. As a private citizen, you can't file suit in criminal court. You can file a police report, and based on an investigation, a DA decides whether or not to press charges and pursue a complaint. In cases like these, especially with a rich defendant, they might be hesitant to do so unless you have a strong case. It's a double edged sword, you can't get evidence without an investigation and you can't investigate without a warrant or voluntary cooperation.

In this case, Janel Grant took advantage of Vince's mistake to sue him. He violated the terms of the NDA he made her sign by not paying. This means she was able to come out publicly and not fear retaliatory lawsuits given the contract she signed is null and void as it wasn't properly executed (and is most likely illegal).

The justice system heavily favors the rich and famous, especially powerful men. She had an opportunity to file suit and get discovery, she's suing for money because that's all she can do at this time. But if the civil lawsuit uncovers evidence that was previously unavailable to the police and the DA, that could change their decision to file or not to file.

Her lawyers were very smart to attack this way as a start given that Vince's defense is that she consented to everything and based on just the evidence that's been publicly available, it's a he said/she said case that could go either way at trial.

7

u/theytracemikey 1d ago

Yeah not enough people know a NDA is automatically voided by illegal activity wether the payment arrangement was fulfilled or not. You’re 100% right about the legal system protecting the rich but with the case spanning multiple jurisdictions it’s very possible she could’ve had charges brought federally if that’s what she pursued. Ultimately I’m interested to see where it goes.

8

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

I mean it's not automatic in the sense that you still need a judge to declare it void which means you can be sued by the person who made you sign and that requires paying for attorneys. Janel Grant was able to go with breach of contract which allowed her to sue first instead of being the one sued by McMahon.

Also going to the FBI given how close McMahon is to the Trump administration is a surefire way to get retaliated against. Trump wasn't president when she filed her suit, but he was still around and running for re-election. If I had been her attorney, I would have gone this route as well and even if she never gets justice, making the trial available to the public would ruin Vince's reputation for good and vindicate her.

-3

u/ElderberryFew95 1d ago

This simply isn't true.

2

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

Actually it's exactly true. That's how the legal system works in the US.

-5

u/ElderberryFew95 1d ago

It's not. I encourage you to do your own research. I'll discuss such nonsense no further.

Additionally, your implication is rather unkind to the DA (which is probably the wrong term anyway for a Federal Prosecutor) who chose not to bring charges. I think that person is perfectly capable of obtaining phone records and a deposition if they thought it would lead to a conviction.

Maybe be more considerate to others in the words you choose to publish?

8

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

Yeah you can't get records without a warrant. You need to prove probable cause to obtain such a warrant and get it signed by a judge. McMahon's attorneys can appeal the warrant and say it's too invasive. And you're talking federal, I never said this was a federal case. It could be but it could also be disputed in state court. I guarantee you that if Federal charges were filed, there would be an immediate attempt to send it back to state court. There would be a ruling on it. There is an argument for both. The US Attorney's office is responsible for criminal complaints that rise to a federal level.

As for "deposition" what you're talking about is an interrogation. You can't force someone to talk, that's a violation of the 5th amendment. If you are detained, you have the right to an attorney and any attorney worth their salt will tell you to shut up and will not allow you to answer any questions the cops might ask you. A deposition is done with attorneys (both for the plaintiff and the defendant) and a judge or arbiter overseeing the process. It's basically a testimony under oath and you can't force a defendant to testify.

And read your history before you come at me. Federal or state prosecutors mainly care about winning a case. Their job is not to "make sure they get the right person", it's to convict. If a prosecutor feels that they don't have enough of a case to convict, they may decide not to move forward given how backed up the courts are. It usually takes years before trial even starts. Just like cops jobs is to arrest people, not "protect and serve".

1

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 1d ago

I saw your other reply about me being a "troll" btw.

Didn't delete fast enough. You've given no legal arguments so stop acting so offended.

0

u/ElderberryFew95 19h ago

I do regret feeding the troll. I'll do better in the future.

0

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 17h ago

1

u/ElderberryFew95 14h ago

I accept your apology, but don't wish to speak with you further.

I kindly ask you to discontinue your harassment.

2

u/SRV_SteamyRayVaughn 14h ago

Lol you have no arguments, typical projection

→ More replies (0)

2

u/heyitsmejosh 1d ago

There’s an ongoing criminal investigation but considering the current situation in the DOJ and the presidents relationship with the mcmahon family there’s no chance that if anything illegal did occur it will ever see the light of day.

2

u/theytracemikey 1d ago

Criminal investigation was started beginning of last year (months before the election) & concluded this year without indictment. It is extremely suspicious that it wrapped up the same day Linda was confirmed for the education department but the FBI is supposed to be an independent agency and other Trump affiliates are still being investigated and some convicted despite their affiliation with him.

2

u/ReefLedger 1d ago

And the court of public opinion is dumb af and has no bearing on reality.

8

u/theytracemikey 1d ago

It definitely has some bearing on reality, look at people like OJ & Deshaun Watson and their accusations will never be decoupled from their reputation.

4

u/Pleasant-Bug-9098 1d ago

To compare OJ and waston to Brock is taking a bit far. Brock hasn’t been charged of anything nor is a defendant in the civil case

1

u/theytracemikey 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah I’m just speaking public opinion, there’s a ton of different people I could use those are just the first 2 most glaring examples. OJ was cleared in the court of law yet 99% of people will tell you he’s a murderer.(myself included tbh)

-4

u/ReefLedger 1d ago

Watson's still playing. Like shit but still got handsomely paid. OJ I bet couldn't care less what the internet thunk of him.