Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘harvey weinstein’

Ann Coulter OPED: Harpooning the Toxic Whale


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 26, 2020 3:10 PM

Harpooning the Toxic Whale

Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew

You might not have heard — because Trump is still president, so MSNBC and CNN were required to give hair-on-fire coverage of some mundane action he’s taken this week — but on Monday, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act. I have some random thoughts on the case and the whole #MeToo movement. Apologies in advance that this has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Dictator.

1) Every time I hear about Weinstein’s predations, I wonder how many waitresses, real estate agents and housewives in Los Angeles might be celebrated actresses today, except that when Weinstein barged out of the bathroom stark naked and lunged at them, they fled the room and didn’t look back.

Our media are so infantile. Can’t we agree that Weinstein is a psychopathic scumbag without calling the witnesses against him “heroes”? The true heroes are the girls whose names we don’t know — not the ones who were grossed out by the pig, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be “stars.”

True, we know there are some, like Gwyneth Paltrow, who turned him down flat, so kudos to her and to Brad Pitt, who accosted Weinstein afterward and told him, “If you ever make her feel uncomfortable again, I’ll kill you.”

Not to take away from that magnificent episode, but Paltrow is Hollywood royalty (the daughter of director-producer Bruce Paltrow and actress Blythe Danner), and her boyfriend at the time was an A-list actor. Still: heroes.

But how many actresses — whom we’re supposed to envy and read about their skin care regimes and Hollywood Hills homes and how they were ugly ducklings as children (they all say that) — are really no different from the average L.A. waitress, except they were willing to have sex with Harvey Weinstein or some similarly hideous beast?

Definitely keep getting your political opinions from them, America.

2) After the verdict, I looked at the list of movies Weinstein produced. There are nearly 200, maybe more. I have zero interest in seeing any of them, and the ones I’ve so much as started were terrible — except the three or four by Quentin Tarantino and one called “Benefit of the Doubt,” which sounds good.

Weinstein’s talent wasn’t in producing movies; it was in staging aggressive campaigns with the Oscars judges.

But let’s be generous and say 10 of Weinstein’s movies were great.

That’s worse than the music industry’s practice — pre-iTunes — of selling $20 albums or CDs that had one, maybe two good songs. One good to 12 bad, versus 10 good to 200 bad. My main takeaway from the Weinstein trial is that I’m so glad there’s Amazon Prime and Netflix now, so pushy freaks can’t get rich producing schlock that the public hates.

3) There was fleeting coverage of the Weinstein case on Monday immediately after the verdict came in, with a bank of microphones set up outside the courthouse in anticipation of the defense lawyers making a statement.

They’re the interesting ones here. Will they appeal? What do they expect from the upcoming trial against Weinstein in Los Angeles? Also, considering who the defendant was, they did pretty well. News cameras were focused on the empty microphones, as TV anchors chit-chatted with guests, one eye on the courthouse door. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell interrupted her guest when she thought she caught a glimpse of defense attorney Donna Rotunno. False alarm! — back to the guest. Finally, Rotunno emerged, headed toward the microphones — and guess who leapt in front of her and got there first? GUESS!

No, not Michael Avenatti.

Gloria Allred, who proceeded to recite a lot of boilerplate about the accusers being “heroes” and speaking “their truth.” (She did not say: “We know Weinstein was horrible because he hired my daughter to attack his accusers.”)

Hilariously, Rotunno just kept walking, while TV viewers everywhere wishes a lightning bolt would strike Allred.

4) In light of the plague of white men, it’s notable that the majority demographic on the Weinstein jury was this hated group. The jury was composed of two white women, two black women, one black/Hispanic woman; one black man; and seven white men.

Despite Weinstein’s repulsiveness, the case was far from a slam-dunk. Luckily, white men have not yet adopted the modern propensity to view the world as an Identity Group cage match. I would wager that it never occurred to a single white man on the jury to think: We can’t send a white man to prison!

5) Also relevant to the white male pestilence infecting America: If we’d cut off immigration around 1880, certainly by 1850, there would be hardly any #MeToo cases at all. (I can’t think of a single #MeToo perpetrator of founding American stock — i.e., the group that gets blamed for everything.) We need way better assimilation programs.

6) There was one notable exception to the media’s refusal to budge off their 24-7 Trump Is an Authoritarian Monster coverage on the day of the Weinstein verdict: the Kobe Bryant memorial! All news was interrupted for hours and hours of live coverage of the Kobe event. No mention of Kobe’s rape case.

Weinstein Had A “Hit List” To Suppress Harassment Claims


Reported by 

screenshot from video

Just in case anything ever came about from his misdeeds, Hollywood mogul and swamp leader Harvey Weinstein, allegedly kept a “hit list” of 91 women he gave his private investigators, among others, to sort of keep them “in check” should they decide to ever come forward.

So if true and you probably already realized this, it’s not a “sex addiction” problem — he knew exactly wth he was doing to these women.

As reported by Mark Townsend for The Guardian:

The Observer has gained access to a secret hitlist of almost 100 prominent individuals targeted by Harvey Weinstein in an extraordinary attempt to discover what they knew about sexual misconduct claims against him and whether they were intending to go public.

The previously undisclosed list contains a total of 91 actors, publicists, producers, financiers and others working in the film industry, all of whom Weinstein allegedly identified as part of a strategy to prevent accusers from going public with sexual misconduct claims against him. 

The names, apparently drawn up by Weinstein himself, were distributed to a team hired by the film producer to suppress claims that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women.

The document was compiled in early 2017, around nine months before the storm that blew up on 5 October when the New York Times published a series of sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.

Individuals named on the list were to be targeted by investigators who would covertly extract and accumulate information from those who might know of claims or who might come forward with allegations against the film producer. Feedback was then to be relayed to Weinstein and his lawyers.

The size of the list – 85 names appear on one document, with an addendum identifying another six individuals – appears to corroborate claims that sexual misconduct allegations against the 65-year-old were an open secret throughout Hollywood.

Prominent stars were among the first tranche of individuals on the list to testify publicly against Weinstein. Among those named were the actress Rose McGowan, who days after speaking out accused the producer of raping her. Another was Laura Madden, who told how Weinstein pestered her for massages at hotels in Dublin and London, beginning in 1991. McGowan and Madden were among the first to speak out against Weinstein last month.

A typed note on the document appears to suggest that by February 2016, Madden had already been targeted by one of Weinstein’s hired investigators. Her view of the producer is, says the note, “very bitter”.

Another name is Zelda Perkins, a London-based production assistant for Weinstein’s Miramax film company, who left the firm’s London offices on Brewer Street in Soho in 1998 after, she says, enduring years of sexual harassment by her boss. Last month Perkins revealed that she had broken a confidentiality agreement to describe alleged sexual harassment by the Hollywood producer.

Also on the list is the English actress Sophie Dix, who has described how her career trajectory was “massively cut down” after an alleged sexual assault by Weinstein in a London hotel and who was among the first to come forward.

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Weinstein’s Pimps: Revenge Of The Ugly Girls


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

Liberalism is a sexual assault protection racket. Judging by the last week’s news coverage, EVERYONE in the liberal universe — Hollywood, the fashion industry, the media and Democratic politics — knew about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predations and nearly all of them were covering it up.

Liberals circle the wagons to protect fellow liberals. All those sacrosanct laws about rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment are the fire ax behind a glass door: “Break in case of conservative.” Weinstein admitted as much by immediately responding to the accusations against him by offering to donate money to fight the National Rifle Association. (That’s not the thing we’re worried about being cocked and loaded, Harvey.)

According to Ronan Farrow’s comprehensive article in The New Yorker, “(m)ultiple sources” told him how Weinstein bragged that he could use his allies in the press to crush anyone who crossed him.

Longtime editor Tina Brown — ironically, one of Weinstein’s erstwhile clean-up gals — told Charlie Rose: “What I found really unsettling was how many journalists, frankly, were on his payroll. I mean, you know, Harvey would have everyone on his payroll. All the people at the (New York) Post and people in all the tabloids, people writing stuff, entertainment writers, gossip writers.”

I knew the gossip pages were written by PR agents, but I didn’t realize they were written by sexual predators, too. I was curious about exactly who was protecting Harvey and, luckily, I have a Nexis account. The full list would take me well over my word limit, so this column will focus on the tabloid most slavishly devoted to protecting Weinstein’s good name: the New York Post.

Farrow’s sources cited as their proof of how Weinstein could dirty up an accuser the coordinated tabloid attacks on Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez after she reported Weinstein’s assault on her to the police in 2015. According to the detailed, heavily sourced and, apparently, 100 percent accurate account given by Farrow, 22-year-old Gutierrez met Weinstein at a Radio City Music Hall reception. The next day, Weinstein requested that Gutierrez come to his Tribeca office, “as soon as possible,” according to her agent. The moment she walked into his office, Farrow reports, Weinstein “began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real … then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested.”

Several things happened next.

No. 1:

As she was leaving, Weinstein offered Gutierrez tickets to his show “Finding Neverland” that night, saying he’d be there. But instead of using the tickets, Gutierrez went straight to “the nearest police station.” We know she didn’t attend the show because, when Weinstein called her later to complain that she hadn’t come, she happened to be sitting with Special Victims detectives, who recorded his call.

This is how the New York Post headlined Gutierrez’s non-attendance at “Finding Neverland”:

HARVEY ‘GROPE’ GAL’S BIG SHOW

Attended Weinstein’s Broadway play the day after accusing him (EXCLUSIVE)

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

The U.K.’s Daily Mail repeated the claim in its headline — citing the Post as its source: Harvey Weinstein model used the $227 ticket he gave her to see his Broadway show the day AFTER she alleged he groped her … ‘despite knowing he would be at the theater’

No. 2:

The next day, Gutierrez wore a police wire to a meeting with Weinstein at the Tribeca Grand Hotel. As she stood intransigently outside his hotel room, Weinstein implored her to come in, promising, “I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children.” Thanks to Farrow’s reporting, the taped conversation is now available everywhere.

Key exchange:

Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?

Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.

Gutierrez: You’re used to that?

Weinstein: Yes, come in.

Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.

Weinstein: I won’t do it again.

Here’s the New York Post’s description of the meeting where Weinstein — according to his admission — grabbed Gutierrez’s breast:

SHE TRIED TO REEL & DEAL (EXCLUSIVE)

Squeezed Harvey for movie role

Stalled grope claim during talks

— Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 3, 2015

No. 3:

The police working the case believed they had more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. Farrow quotes a detective who was actually “involved in the operation,” saying: “We had the evidence.” The source added, “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Another police source recently told The Daily Beast’s Michael Daly that they’ve convicted subway gropers on far less evidence.

Here is how the New York Post reported the police’s attitude toward the case at the time, quoting not officers “involved in the operation,” but random “law-enforcement sources”:

“Some law-enforcement sources say her allegations will be difficult to prove, since there were no cameras in Weinstein’s office. …

“‘There’s no physical evidence. In a nutshell, there’s no corroboration of her story.’”

— Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Emily Smith and Danika Fears, New York Post, April 1, 2015

No. 4:

The police sting capturing Weinstein’s admission was soon leaked to the press.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail came clean, announcing in its headline: “‘There’s no question he did it’: Harvey Weinstein ‘did not deny groping Italian model in phone sting set up by police’”

Even a radio station in Columbus, Indiana, reported on the police sting.

Not the New York Post! For the first time that week — the day newspapers around the world were bristling with news about Weinstein’s taped, incriminating comments — the Post had zero Harvey Weinstein news.

The Post did briefly mention the operation a few days later at the end of a Jamie Schram article, full of sneering about Gutierrez’s alleged attendance at Weinstein’s play after she was groped (she did not attend), and referring to the model’s “ties to disgraced former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”

Gutierrez’s “ties” to Berlusconi consisted of her immediately reporting a Berlusconi orgy to the police. She was there, but had not participated.

No. 5:

About a week later, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. decided not to prosecute. The International Business Times reports that, soon thereafter, David Boies, an attorney for the Weinstein Company, contributed $10,000 to Vance’s political campaign. Boies and other Weinstein lawyers, including defense attorney Elkan Abramowitz, have donated a total of about $200,000 to Vance’s political campaigns.

As a police source recently told Daly, “When you say no after a week, it’s not usually over the facts.”

The New York Post’s headline on D.A. Vance’s decision not to prosecute:

It’s ‘grope’ fiction:

DA: No paw rap on Harv as doubts dog model

— Rebecca Rosenberg and Jamie Schram, New York Post, April 11, 2015

This story again repeated the false claim that Gutierrez “wasn’t upset enough by the alleged groping to surrender a primo seat for Weinstein’s new Broadway show — which she attended less than a day after the incident.”

In her interview, Tina Brown explained exactly how Weinstein controlled reporters: “If there was any stirring of a negative story, Harvey would offer them a book contract, a development deal, a consultancy, and they used to succumb. Journalists are often short of money, and they were also very star-struck with the world that Harvey offered, which was movies and Hollywood.”

So what DID the bitter gossip girls get? Did Mara Siegler, Jamie Schram, Danika Fears or Maria Wiesner end up with phony “consultancies,” “book contracts” or “movie options” with Weinstein’s companies? (Paging the IRS!)

The only other explanation is that the Weinstein-compliant scandal sheets illustrate the oldest primal urge, one even more basic than the compulsion that drove Weinstein: Ugly girls taking their revenge on pretty girls.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday October 18, 2017


MorePolitically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday October 17, 2017


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday October 16, 2017


More Politically INCORRECT Cartoon for Thursday October 12, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


That’s All Folks

Accused Sexual Predator Harvey Weinstein is now the poster boy for liberal Hollywood hypocrisy.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday October 11, 2017


Additional Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and More for Tuesday October 10, 2017


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: