Harvey Weinstein: That Time When We Decided To Smash Cultural Marxism Once and for All

[Okeefenokee]

This is about principle and truth in the media.

My mistake, I thought we were talking about your double standards.

He's giving the benefit of the doubt to a hollywood liberal who hates trump, because he's being tried in the court of public opinion and not in court, and you call that a double standard.

You are a fucking idiot.

[Fife]

Late Night Hosts So Disgusted By Harvey Weinstein Scandal They Refuse To Even Mention His Name

“Some of them tried to practice pieces on this scandal in their show rehearsals, and it was just too much for them. They ended up either too physically ill to continue, or in a puddle of tears out of grief for the many victims of this monster,” he also revealed.

[C-Mag]

Late Night Hosts So Disgusted By Harvey Weinstein Scandal They Refuse To Even Mention His Name

“Some of them tried to practice pieces on this scandal in their show rehearsals, and it was just too much for them. They ended up either too physically ill to continue, or in a puddle of tears out of grief for the many victims of this monster,” he also revealed.

From the Article

Even though they lampooned people like Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly after similar allegations, what Weinstein has done is so grotesque and at odds with their values that they won’t so much as utter his name on their shows,” the source with direct access to Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Myers, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, and James Corden said, adding that it is “utterly detestable” to them that one of the most powerful men in Hollywood used his immense wealth and influence to shame and silence his victims for three decades.

This type of strategy they have used to push the Liberals and Democrat party is so old, most of us are numb to it. We fully expect they will do this, they will leave the (D) off the names of elected officials convicted of crimes or even sometimes put in an (R), then when they are caught, do a one line retraction on page 35, a week later. Notice how in all the articles on this they compare Weinstein to Ailes and O'Reilly, but they somehow omit Weinsteins good buddy, BJ Clinton. So damn predictable.

I think in this case, the Lefty insiders knew Weinstein was a really bad pervert, and proabably a rapist. Because as soon as it got out he was fired. That never happens with Lefties. Much more is going to come out.

[DBTrek]

You're reading pretty deeply into a satire article.

[C-Mag]

You're reading pretty deeply into a satire article.

Not much about the article............... my opinions on the subject.

[BjornP]

How is one supposed to prove or disprove that someone groped a woman on the tits, outside of the witness testimony of the implied parties?

Good question. Related question: If you cannot prove an allegation one way or another, why in the world would you assume guilt instead of innocence, especially given the relentless wave of false allegation stories published by the MSM?

Another related question: Since it turns out that the police already determined one of the accusers was full of shit, and it turns out she has a history of making baseless allegations against successful men for settlement money, would that not further cast doubt on the story, especially when the NYT deliberately left out this damning information to make the allegation seem more legitimate than it really is?

Ideally, justice should never give even one shit about what the media writes.

The answer to your related question is that witness testimony is considered evidence. Naturally, it's more difficult to determine the truth if there are only two people with claims of either innocense or guilt. In such a case, one needs proof that the accused has a past behavior of sexual misconduct, i.e. wether or not the accusation is credible.

Aside from that, you'd obviously also (ought to) need witness testimonies that at least place the two people at the scene of the suspected crime.

And if she has a history of failed settlement attempts for sexual crimes, that could indeed indicate it's all just a money grab based on lies.

OR... it could be a money grab based on fact, in the sense that she may have been the victim of sexual crime by powerful people, but she did not report or speak about it, because she believed speaking out would lessen her shot at future success in the entertainment industry.

[TheReal_ND]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/917771319361536000

[Speaker to Animals]

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/917771319361536000

That's damning. Why did Vance not prosecute?

[TheReal_ND]

Reverse honeypot methinks

[C-Mag]

Did any A-Listers trade a little Weinstein casting couch time for stardom ?

Just wondering if any starlets have come out and accused Harvey.