Share

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that Harvey Weinstein paid off sexual harassment accusers for decades. The extensive report named several of the accusers, from the famous Ashley Judd, to the relatively unknown Emily Nestor. Mr. Weinstein of course has filed a lawsuit against the paper, although he has semi-admitted to the allegations stating; “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go.” which isn’t exactly a denial of the accusations made in the New York Times report.

A Look At Harvey Weinstein

As reported in the above-cited piece of Mr. Weinstein; “He has collected six best-picture Oscars and turned out a number of touchstones, from the films “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Good Will Hunting” to the television show “Project Runway.” In public, he presents himself as a liberal lion, a champion of women and a winner of not just artistic but humanitarian awards.” (New York Times) The above description of Mr. Weinstein demonstrates that not only is he a film producer, but a highly successful and admired one.

In the same piece Mr. Weinstein is also accused of having “…reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements.” (New York Times)

So this highly celebrated man has allegedly had to settle at least 8 sexual harassment cases over an almost thirty year span, while everyone close to the situation has turned a blind eye? What kind of society promotes such double standards?

The Double Standards Of The Weinstein Attorney

As reported in Breitbart News, Lisa Bloom’s representation of Mr. Weinstein in this case bears more than a little hint of hypocrisy. That’s because although she has no problem defending the liberal Weinstein against these sexual harassment allegations, she represented one of President Trump’s sexual harassment accusers. I suppose the politics of the male involved in sexual harassment cases, determines whether or nor Ms. Bloom defends him or prosecutes him.

In her statement released Thursday, Ms. Bloom claimed that she and Mr. Weinstein “have had many wide-ranging conversations over the last year about rumors and allegations against him. He denies many of the accusations as patently false…He is an old dinosaur learning new ways.” (Breitbart)

Note that she said that “he denies many of them” not all of them. I guess it’s okay to be a sexual predator (old dinosaur) as long as you have the correct worldview according to Lisa Bloom.

The Difference Between Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Ailes and Mr. Weinstein

All of the above have been the subject of multiple sexual harassment lawsuits over the past year. However, as is usually the case, the difference between these three men is of a financial nature. Yes, they were all accused and yes they all settled. But the real question is, for how much? As reported in the original New York Times piece about Mr. Weinstein’s lawsuits; “At Fox News, where the conservative icons Roger E. Ailes and Bill O’Reilly were accused of harassment, women have received payouts well into the millions of dollars.” (New York Times) What about Mr. Weinstein? “But most of the women involved in the Weinstein agreements collected between roughly $80,000 and $150,000, according to people familiar with the negotiations” (New York Times).

It seems like the lawyers really enjoyed going after Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Ailes, milking them for as much as they could; but that fervour to serve their “victimized” clients dissipated a bit, in the case of Mr. Weinstein. I wonder if Weinstein’s political views, have anything to do with it?

President Trump And His Foil

The hypocrisy and double standards, don’t just hover over lawyers, but extends to politicians as well. Remember when then Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, was almost universally urged to disavow David Duke because he had been endorsed by him? Hillary Clinton was one of the leading voices urging then Candidate Trump to do so; intimating that Mr. Trump’s initial hesitancy, was a sign of his racist sentiment.

Of course, Mr. Duke himself has openly denounced racism. But nevertheless, even if one were to assume that the accusations against Mr. Duke were true, and that he is an avowed racist; while he did endorse then Candidate Trump’s candidacy, he didn’t donate to it; at least not with a sum large enough to gain mainstream media coverage.

But what about the relationship between Mrs Clinton’s Campaign and Mr. Weinstein? Well, not only did he endorse her candidacy but as reported in the New York Times; “A longtime Democratic donor, he (Harvey Weinstein) hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in his Manhattan home last year.” (Raising $17,000 according to Breitbart) With the reports of all of these sexual harassment allegations coming out, where are the cries from the media calling for Mrs. Clinton to disavow Mr. Weinstein? Why isn’t Mrs. Clinton applying to herself, the same standards she applied to President Trump last year? Doesn’t her lack of a disavowal, demonstrate that she in some way endorses what Mr. Weinstein is accused of?

Barack Obama And The DNC

Harvey Weinstein, a supporter of the Democratic Party has not only been a supporter but a donor of more than “$769,000 to Democratic politicians and political action organizations, including $246,290 to the Democratic National Committee” (Breitbart) The DNC in a statement did say that those donations made by Mr. Weinstein, will be given to charity. “The DNC will donate over $30,000 in contributions from Weinstein to EMILY’s List, Emerge America and Higher Heights,… Because what we need is more women in power, not men like Trump who continue to show us that they lack respect for more than half of America.” (Breitbart)

Note that the D.N.C.’s vitriol is reserved for President Trump, not for Mr. Weinstein. Also, even though they’ve reportedly received over $200,000 from Harvey Weinstein, since ‘what we need is more women in power…’ the DNC saw it fit to give $30, 000 from that money to charity. I suppose the D.N.C.’s belief in ” more women in power” only stretches $30,000. The remaining $200,000 of Mr. Weinstein’s money, will be put to better use I’m sure, like towards the overthrow of the tyrannical misogynist, Donald Trump.

Also interesting from a Democratic Party perspective is Mr. Weinstein’s relationship with the Obamas. As reported in Breitbart, “Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein had a close relationship with President Barack Obama, visiting the White House complex on 13 occasions during the Obama presidency, according to visitor records.” The former President once said about the now accused Weinstein; “I have to thank Harvey and Georgina for once again extending incredible hospitality to us,…We are so grateful for their friendship and support, and for the amazing movies that they’ve made.”

Once again Mr. Weinstein is praised for ‘the amazing movies” that he produced; the Obamas as well as everyone within his social circle, willing to overlook his darker tendencies. Of course, didn’t the ‘former First Lady’ say something about the women who voted for President Trump in the last U.S. General Elections? But once again the double standard applied in this situation is glaring; as neither Mr. Obama, nor the rest of his family, have been asked to disavow Mr. Weinstein, since news of the allegations broke earlier this week. And, given the nature of those allegations, the reported internship of Malia Obama with Mr. Weinstein is more than a bit disconcerting.

None Of This Should Surprise Us

Of course given Hollywood’s defense of film Director Roman Polanski in the past, none of this should shock us. Ideology dictates how the mainstream reacts to your transgressions. If you are more or less aligned with this society’s liberal agenda, then you get a pass for the very things they say they’re fighting to destroy. If women are so valuable to these people, why didn’t they condemn the actions of Mr. Polanski? Why, for the most part, haven’t they condemned Mr. Weinstein? A curious case indeed.


Share
13 thoughts on “The Curious Case of Harvey Weinstein”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: