The number of people who were harmed by this man is horrifying. The number of people who KNEW about this man is even more horrifying!
Listen, Hollywood is filled with loose morals and men and woman doing what they think they have to do to get a break. None of that makes it right. But outside the damage to the people, which is profound and unforgivable, there is the fact that this person (and I’m sure many others- like Bryan Singer) has given America a “STFU” card they can use on Hollywood every time one of those moralistic idiots runs their mouth about woman’s rights, how conservatives are abusive to women, or whatever clap trap that comes along.
One of them gets going just look dead at them and say “Weinstein” and walk away.
How bad is this guy? There are dozens of women coming forward now, stretching back to the nineties? Worse, the men in Hollywood knew. They had to. It was their co-stars and girlfriends who were subject to the abuse. Even Brad Pitt told Weinstein if he kept it up with his girlfriend at the time he was going to give Weinstein a “Missouri whooping”. Yet everyone kept right on working with him, making him richer and more powerful and more dangerous. PJ Media talks about what a real man is like, hint- not these guys.
It seems that Weinstein’s behavior was an open secret in Hollywood; it’s highly likely that many of those saying they knew nothing about his proclivities were actually well aware of them. Through it all, we’ve seen only a handful of cases of anyone doing or saying anything.
Brad Pitt is reported to have threatened Weinstein with a “Missouri whooping” after the producer pulled his act with Pitt’s then-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow. Seth MacFarlane admits a joke he made at Weinstein’s expense while hosting the Oscars was made out of malice.
That’s about it.
Pitt did nothing else about Weinstein — he even worked with him on projects later. I’d be willing to give MacFarlane a pass because he only admits to knowing one of the victims, one who asked him not to retaliate in any way.
In all of Hollywood, those are about the only cases we see of any man being willing to stand up to Weinstein in any way, and they did nothing particularly meaningful.
Ronan Farrow , on the other hand, did something meaningful. He put the piece together. NBC tanked it because they felt it didn’t have enough “there there”, which of course is crap. This is a good article and very accurate to what people like Weinstein do. Here is a piece of the article dealing with the NYPD and DA aftermath. The DA decided not to prosecute, even though it was a decent case. Power provides privilege. The DA, Cyrus Vance Jr, said there wasn’t enough evidence. Then after he refusal, the lawyer for Weinstein gave Vance Jr a large campaign contribution. Nice work if you can find it I guess…
It also highlights what TMZ found out. Weinstein was so bad at this the company WROTE it in his contract!
Two sources close to the police investigation of Weinstein said that they had no reason to doubt Gutierrez’s account of the incident. One of them, a police source, said that the department had collected more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. But the other said that Gutierrez’s statements about her past complicated the case for the office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. After two weeks of investigation, the D.A.’s office decided not to file charges. The office declined to comment on this story but pointed me to its statement at the time: “This case was taken seriously from the outset, with a thorough investigation conducted by our Sex Crimes Unit. After analyzing the available evidence, including multiple interviews with both parties, a criminal charge is not supported.”
“We had the evidence,” the police source involved in the operation told me. “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”
Gutierrez, when contacted for this story, said that she was unable to discuss the incident. Someone close to the matter told me that, after the D.A.’s office decided not to press charges, Gutierrez, facing Weinstein’s legal team, and in return for a payment, signed a highly restrictive nondisclosure agreement with Weinstein, including an affidavit stating that the acts he admits to in the recording never happened.
Weinstein’s use of such settlements was reported by the Times and confirmed to me by numerous people. A former employee with firsthand knowledge of two settlement negotiations that took place in London in the nineteen-nineties recalled, “It felt like David versus Goliath . . . the guy with all the money and the power flexing his muscle and quashing the allegations and getting rid of them.”
Here is the TMZ link.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein’s 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other “misconduct” that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company’s out, along with a fine, and he’s in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein “treated someone improperly in violation of the company’s Code of Conduct,” he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, “You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance.”
The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a “cure” for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation — Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.
The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein — if he’s indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn’t apply here.
There’s another provision … he can be fired for “the perpetuation by you [Weinstein] of a material fraud against the company.” The question … where’s the fraud? Lance Maerov, the board member who negotiated Weinstein’s 2015 contract, said in an interview — and we’ve confirmed — the Board knew Weinstein had settled prior lawsuits brought by various women, but they “assumed” it was to cover up consensual affairs. The Board’s assumption does not constitute fraud on Weinstein’s part.
NBC is going to have to let the head guy go that tanked the article. Sooner or later it will come out he was complicit in the denial and somehow the girls who were in this article were identified by Weinstein’s lawyers. Which means somebody probably told on them….?
All of this boils down to the fact Hollywood loves to lecture you on your morality and “Toxic masculinity” when in fact the greatest offenders ARE the Hollywood elite.
So next time someone on the Left says something just look at them and reply “Weinstein.”
Then walk away.