Harvey Weinstein has been sentenced to 23 years in prison for sex crimes in a landmark #MeToo case that ended with six of his accusers sobbing and hugging each other in court and his fiery defense attorney slamming the trial as 'obscene'.Read more here.
HARVEY Weinstein has no testicles and 'appears to have a vagina' a rape accuser sensationally claimed in court today.Read more here.
Jessica Mann made the bombshell allegations as she accused the disgraced film producer of forcing her into oral sex and raping her in 2013
...So Moore and Weinstein had reunited to do an anti-Trump film and because of Harvey’s situation the project is now in trouble, along with other Weinstein projects. But there’s something else, a big something else. Actress Rose McGowan says that “they all knew” in Hollywood about Harvey’s attitude about sex, and others say indeed it was an “open secret.”Read much more here, including YouTube links.
Question. Where did Harvey ever get the idea he could do these things and it was no big deal?
Answer: From a ’60s culture of a sexual revolution that produced exactly the same behavior in fellow Boomer Bill Clinton. Recall in 1999 that by then Bill Clinton had been accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, indecent exposure by Paula Jones and groping — in the room adjacent to the Oval Office — by Kathleen Willey. And, of course, he had been investigated by Independent Counsel Ken Starr in the Monica Lewinsky matter, she a White House intern of the ripe old age of 22. The last was detailed in the Independent Counsel’s official report to the House of Representatives, known as “The Starr Report.” It was, to say the least, graphic in terms of what it described of Clinton’s behavior.
...Got that? The New York Times — even as Bill Clinton was awash in allegations of rape, groping, pants dropping, and an affair with an employee his daughter’s age — finds Moore’s take labeling Clinton critics as Puritans and prudes “funny” and “satisfying.”
No wonder Harvey Weinstein — a friend of both Bill Clinton and Michael Moore — thought he had carte blanche to do what he has been doing.
...Harvey Weinstein deserves all that’s coming. But the interesting question here is what about the 1960s sexual revolution itself that launched, in fairness to Harvey, all manner of Baby Boomers into a sexual culture where everything and anything goes? A sexual culture that was glorified countless times in Hollywood films, sending the repeated message that not only does everything and anything go but that anything and everything are OK.
...The real problem here? It isn’t Harvey or anybody else — it’s the 1960’s sexual revolution and the sexual culture it produced that is so vividly illustrated in those clips from Michael Moore’s mocking of Ken Starr, the loving New York Times review of that episode, and all those cheering Hollywood stars standing to give a rousing round of applause to a child rapist. Not to mention those countless films that glorified all kinds of sexual revolution practices.
Maybe at long last aging Baby Boomers will take some time to reflect on what their — my — generation has wrought. And begin to ask whether what began all those decades ago with the sexual revolution of the 1960s is now taking its long overdue curtain call courtesy of Hollywood’s ultimate Boomer showman — Harvey Weinstein.
This is not just a very starry class-action suit-in-waiting, but also a revealing glimpse of the depravity of a very ugly industry, whose self-congratulation on its own moral superiority is in inverse proportion to the grubby reality. Usually in these kinds of cases, the victims are low-level female employees, poorly paid and with zero clout within the business - see, for example, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc. But Weinstein abused some of the most famous women on the planet - Ashley Judd, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rose McGowan, Asia Argento, Angelina Jolie, Heather Graham, Rosanna Arquette... These ladies are not just award-winning actresses but businesswomen with their own companies, UN special envoys, directors and producers - and, in a couple of cases, global brands. Miss Jolie, for example, was a prominent participant at the UN Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. And yet the genius of liberal, progressive, Democrat Hollywood is that, under Harvey Weinstein and his pals, it can reduce powerful, successful women to the level of the poorest, most vulnerable, minimum-wage entry-level worker in Slick Willie's Arkansas state bureaucracy. Congratulations, feminists. The lies you told yourselves during the Clinton era really paid off.Read more here.
...A sex addict is someone who is so obsessed with sex that he or she ceases to function in all other ways. The person’s marriage or other close relationships collapse, the person is unable to earn a living, and the person starts getting some very nasty physical consequences. In other words, sex addiction is like drug or alcohol addiction. Anthony Weiner illustrates this principle well. He could not stop himself, long after his problem destroyed every aspect of his life. That’s an addiction.Read more here.
Weinstein’s power plays against women did not cause him to suffer from any of the downsides associated with addiction. He could have kept his predatory behavior going indefinitely but for the fact that (a) his movies are no longer making money, (b) his protectors, the Clintons and the Obamas, are gone from power, and possibly (c) he came down too strongly on the side of Jews defending themselves when he announced that he was making a movie about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.
New York City DA Scrambles to Blame NYPD for Not Prosecuting Harvey Weinstein; NYPD Says They're LyingRead more here.
—Ace
A hot enough fire soon starts sparking off dry and rotten wood all around it.
There's a lot of corruption in government and big institutions like Hollywood. Everyone knows that. There are fixers who donate to key people to keep their clients out of jail, or who threaten witnesses to make them quiet.
It's practically begging to be exposed.
But it takes a major event to disturb the status quo and get people to start talking about it.
I think -- or at least hope -- that the Harvey Weinstein bombshell is going to have enormous collateral damage and be the size of scandal that actually gets written up in future high school history books, like Teapot Dome.
...The DA's office claimed that the Special Victims Unit hadn't coordinated with the DA to learn what needed to be proven in the case -- like that you needed to establish "criminal intent" in a case about a guy grabbing a woman's tits.
Apparently the DA is claiming that you need Harvey Weinstein admitting on tape, "When I groped your breasts without permission, I had criminal intent to do so." Apparently it's not the sort of thing that can be inferred from circumstances or the common sense dictate that you do not grope a woman's breasts without permission.
Nope: The DA is claiming you need to get Weinstein on tape announcing his criminal intent, and also, that the SVU doesn't understand what it takes to prove a sex crime case. Because apparently this is their first rodeo.
A fair number of people are arrested for rubbing up against women on subway rides. Sexually. Is the DA claiming you need a confession of criminal intent to prosecute those cases? I would imagine they don't have that most of the time -- I would imagine that the facts alone, that a guy with an erection kept pushing up against a woman's butt, would prove the criminal intent behind them.
But not for Harvey Weinstein.
...Cyrus Vance Jr. received $10,000 from Harvey Weinstein's lawyer David Boies shortly after his office declined to prosecute Weinstein. FYI.
...When a flasher exposes himself to a woman, you don't need a tape recording of him saying "When I showed this woman who I do not know my penis, I did so with the criminal intent to expose myself to an unwilling woman." The facts and circumstances prove the intent themselves.
Via Hot Air, reported by the New York Daily News, an anonymous NYPD source comes pretty close to alleging criminal intent on the part of the DA:
"Ask the DA if they would have made the arrest if the guy's name was Harvey Schmuck," one police official said.
Why do Mitt's binders full of women outrage liberal sensibilities but not Harvey's pot plants full of semen?Read more here.
Well, in the old days, the bourgeoisie expected bourgeois values throughout society. The wealthy and powerful disdained them, but discreetly. Now they disdain them openly. Indeed, they wage war on them, relentlessly. Instead, they enforce "progressive" values. Institutions fundamental to the nation-state, such as citizenship, have to be rendered meaningless - so that what matters in any immigration debate is not the citizens but the invaders, to the point where Nancy Pelosi thanks the parents of "Dreamers" for breaking American law and bringing them here, as a precious gift to a nation crying out for even more low-skilled immigrants. As for institutions that pre-date the nation-state - institutions almost as old as humanity - they're as easy to redefine, so that marriage can no longer be confined to those of opposite sexes. Speaking of the sexes, human biology can be vaporized, so that two sexes become 57 genders, and grade-school boys more interested in Barbie than GI Joe get to be pumped full of puberty blockers and directed to the girls' bathroom. And after all that, religion has to be put on the back foot, so that any recalcitrant mom'n'pop bakery for whom two men atop a wedding cake is an abomination, must be hunted down, dragged into court and financially ruined pour encourager les autres. And in a revolutionary present it is necessary ultimately to throttle the past - eliminating Robert E Lee, Christopher Columbus, Dr Seuss, Stephen Foster, the national anthem, to dam up the stream of history, the flow of past to present to future, and thus sever the citizenry from their entire inheritance, so that we are mere flotsam and jetsam on the frothing surface of the moment - a world where, in a certain sense, Harvey Weinstein is God.
...Once upon a time, the elites chafed under middle-class morality, and found sly workarounds for their darker appetites. Then came liberation. And in the ruins of bourgeois society a new moral hierarchy arose: Dreamers trump citizens, sexual identity trumps religious faith, female empowerment trumps the manly virtues...
And yet, as the case of Harvey Weinstein suggests, in the end nothing much has changed: As the old elite declined to be constrained by middle-class morality, the new elite decline to be constrained by their own purported morality. In the end, it's still about who has power, and who is disposable. As Lee Smith points out, the truth about Weinstein is only in the papers because Hillary lost. Were President Rodham in the Oval Office, this story could not run - because the First Gentleman has done everything and more that their longtime donor has done.
As a female-empowerment story, the Clinton candidacy was a joke. All Harvey Weinstein has done is provide an ugly but apt punchline. Rim shot - straight into the pot plant.
